CRIMINAL LAW

By

Irene Resurreccion-Medrano
Crimes Against Persons
PARRICIDE
DEATH OR PHYSICAL INJURIES UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
MURDER
HOMICIDE
DEATH CAUSED IN A TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY
PHYSICAL INJURIES
GIVING ASSISTANCE TO SUICIDE
DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS
INFANTICIDE
ABORTION
DUEL
MUTILATION
RAPE
 PARRICIDE
The crime committed by a person who kills his:

a) Father or mother

b) Child whether legitimate or illegitimate

c) Legitimate ascendant

d) Legitimate descendant

e) Lawful spouse
The basis of the classification is the blood relationship in the direct
ascending and descending lines

1). Killing of siblings (brother/sister) and other collateral relatives is not parricide

2) Non-relatives or strangers who participate in the killing will be liable for homicide or
murder as the case may be

The killing maybe through negligence as when a father plays with his gun which went off
and killed the wife
If the accused is not aware that the victim is his relative, he will be charged for the actual
crime committed but Article 49 will be applied to determine his penalty
The crime may be aggravated by the circumstances which qualify murder but they will be
considered as ordinary aggravating circumstances. For example: The husband may poison
the wife or kill her by means of fire, or resort to treachery. Said circumstances will be
appreciated as generic aggravating circumstances.
Death or PI under Exceptional Circumstances (A. 247)

Requisites
1. A legally married person or a parent surprises his spouse or
daughter, the latter under 18 years of age and living with him, in the
act of committing sexual intercourse;
2. He or she kills any or both of them or inflicts upon any or both of
them any serious physical injury in the act or immediately
thereafter; and
3. He has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his wife or
daughter, or that he or she has not consented to the infidelity of
the other spouse.
Murder (Art. 248)
Elements of murder
1. That a person was killed;
2. That the accused killed him;
3. That the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances
mentioned in Art. 248; and
4. That the killing is not parricide or infanticide.
Notes on Murder
A frontal attack does not necessarily rule out treachery. The qualifying
circumstance may still be appreciated if the attack was so sudden and
so unexpected that the deceased had no time to prepare for his or
her defense. (People v. Perez, G.R. No. 134756, February 13, 2001)

The rule is well-settled in this jurisdiction that treachery may still be

appreciated even though the victim was forewarned of the danger to
his person. What is decisive is that the attack was executed in a
manner that the victim was rendered defenseless and unable to ret
aliate. (People v. Glino, G.R. No. 173793, December 4, 2007)
 Treachery is present when the offender commits any of the crimes
against persons, employing means, methods or forms in its execution
which tend directly and especially to ensure its execution, without risk
to himself or herself arising from any defense which the offended
party might make. (People v. Torres, Sr., G.R. No. 190317, August 22,
2011)
When treachery exists in the crime of murder
1. The malefactor employed such means, method or manner of
execution to ensure his or her safety from the defensive or retaliatory
acts of the victim;
2. At the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend
himself; and
3. The accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular
means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him. (People v.
Lagman, G.R. No. 197807, April 16, 2012)
Requisites of evident premeditation
• Time when the accused decided to commit the crime;
• Overt act manifestly indicating that he clung to the determination;
and
• A sufficient lapse of time between the decision and execution,
allowing the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his act.
(People v. Grabador, G.R. No. 227504, June 13, 2018)
Homicide (Art. 249)
Elements
1. That a person was killed;
2. That the accused killed him without any justifying circumstance;
3. The accused had intention to kill which is
presumed; and
4. The killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances
of murder, or by that of parricide or infanticide.
Proving intent to kill
Evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against persons may consist of:
• The means used by the malefactors;
• The nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim;
• The conduct of the malefactors before, at the time of, or immediately after
the killing of the victim;
• The circumstances under which the crime was committed;
• The motive of the accused; (People v. Lanuza y Bagaoisan, G.R. No. 188562,
August 17, 2011) and
• Words uttered at the time of inflicting the injuries on the victim may also
be considered. (De Guzman v. People, 742 SCRA 501, November 26, 2014)
Use of unlicensed firearms in committing murder or homicide

In view of the amendments introduced by R.A. 8294 and R.A. 10591,

separate prosecutions for homicide and illegal possession of firearms
are no longer in order. Instead, illegal possession of firearms is merely
taken as an aggravating circumstance in the crime of murder. (People v.
Gaborne, G.R. No. 210710, July 27, 2016)
Infanticide (A. 255)
• It is the killing of any child less than 3 days old or 72 hours of age,
whether the killer is the parent or grandparent, any relative of the
child, or a stranger.
• NOTE: Art. 255 does not provide a penalty for infanticide. If the killer
is the mother, or father, or a legitimate grandparent, although the
crime is still infanticide, the penalty, is that of parricide.
• If the offender is not so related to the child, although the crime is still
infanticide, the penalty corresponding to murder shall be imposed.
• Regardless, the penalty for murder and parricide is the same.
Intentional Abortion (A. 256)
The crime of intentional abortion is committed in three ways
1. By using any violence upon the person of the pregnant woman;
2. By administering drugs or beverages upon such pregnant woman
without her consent; or
3. By administering drugs or beverages with the consent of the
pregnant woman.
Elements
1. There is a pregnant woman;
2. Violence is exerted, or drugs or beverages administered, or that the
accused otherwise acts upon such pregnant woman;
3. As a result of the use of violence or drugs or beverages upon her, or any
other act of the accused, the fetus dies, either in the womb or after having
been expelled therefrom; and
• Abortion is intended.
• NOTE: In intentional abortion, the offender should know that the woman is
pregnant because the very intention is to cause an abortion.
Persons liable for intentional abortion

1.. The person who actually caused the abortion under Art. 256; and
2. The pregnant woman if she consented under Art. 258.

Note:Abortion is not a crime against the woman but against the fetus.
The offender must know of the pregnancy because the particular
criminal intention is to cause an abortion. As long as the fetus dies as a
result of the violence used or drugs administered, the crime of abortion
exists, even if the fetus is over or less is in full term. (Viada as cited in
Reyes, 2008)
Unintentional Abortion (A.257)
Elements
1. There is a pregnant woman;
2. Violence is used upon such pregnant woman without intending an
abortion; Violence is intentionally exerted; and
3. As a result of the violence exerted, the fetus dies either in the
womb or after having been expelled therefrom.
• Q: Can unintentional abortion be committed through negligence?
• A: YES. Unintentional abortion is a felony committed by dolo or
deliberate intent. But it can be committed by means of culpa.
However, the culpa lies not in the aspect of abortion but on the
violence inflicted on the pregnant woman. Thus, there can be a crime
of Reckless Imprudence resulting in Unintentional Abortion.
Abortion practiced by the woman herself or by
her parents (A. 258)

Abortion is caused by:

1. The pregnant woman herself;

2. Any other person, with her consent
3. Any of her parents with her consent, for the purpose of concealing
her dishonor
Mitigation of liability when the purpose of abortion
is to conceal dishonor

The liability of the pregnant woman is mitigated if the purpose for

abortion is to conceal her dishonor. However, if it is the parents who
caused the abortion for the purpose of concealing their daughter’s
dishonor, there is no mitigation, unlike in infanticide.
 Infanticide and Abortion
Art. 255
Art. 257 Art. 258
Infanticide Art. 256
Unintentional Abortion by the woman or
child Intentional Abortion
Abortion her parents
< 3 years old

Mitigating circumstance 1. Violence upon the pregnant 1. Violence is Mitigating circumstance

woman
Mother or maternal 2. Without violence, without
grandparents to conceal her consent of the woman (such
dishonor as use of drugs/beverages)
intentionally caused
without intending
an abortion. To conceal dishonor
(woman)

3. Woman should have

consented
 A. 259. Abortion practiced by the
physician/midwife/pharmacist dispensing abortives.

Elements of this crime as to the physician or midwife

• 1. There is a pregnant woman who has suffered abortion;
• 2. Abortion is intended;
• NOTE: If abortion was not intended or was a result of a mistake, no crime is
committed. If the woman is not really pregnant, an impossible crime is
committed.
• 3. The offender must be a physician or midwife who causes or assists in
causing the abortion; and
• 4. Said physician or midwife takes advantage of his or her scientific
knowledge or skill.
Elements of this crime as to the pharmacists
• Offender is a pharmacist;
• There is no proper prescription from a
• physician; and
• Offender dispenses an abortive.
• As to the pharmacist, the crime is consummated by dispensing an abortive
without proper prescription from a physician. It is not necessary that the
abortive is actually used.
• If the pharmacist knew that the abortive would be used to cause an
abortion and abortion resulted from the use thereof, the pharmacist would
be an accomplice in the crime of abortion. (Reyes, 2017)
What is the criminal liability of the offender if the fetus did not
die in Intentional Abortion?
If the fetus survives in spite of the attempt to kill it or the use of
violence, abortion is not consummated. If abortion is intended and the
fetus does not die, it is frustrated intentional abortion.
Even if the child was expelled prematurely and was deliberately alive at birth,
the offense is abortion due to the fact that a fetus with an intrauterine life of
6 months is not viable. (People v. Paycana, 551 SCRA 657, citing U.S. v. Vedra,
12 Phil 96 [1909])

Q: What is the criminal liability, if any, of a pregnant woman who tried to

commit suicide by poison, but she did not die and the fetus in her womb
was expelled instead? (2012 BAR)
A: The woman who tried to commit suicide incurs no criminal liability. The
woman will also not incur criminal liability for “expulsion of the fetus” from
her womb since committing a suicide is not a felony. Unintentional abortion
is also not committed since it is punishable only when caused by violence
and not by poison. There is also no intentional abortion since the intention
of the woman was to commit suicide and not to abort the fetus.
Q. Live in partners killed their newly born child to conceal dishonor.
What is their criminal liability?

A. If victim is non viable, abortion

If victim is viable but less than 3 yrs old, infanticide
if victim 3 days or more, parricide.
Q. A mauled his pregnant wife without intent to kill her or abort the
unborn fetus. The wife and unborn fetus dies.
A is liable for the complex crime of parricide with unintentional
abortion

Q. A mauled his wife (6 months pregnant), without intent to kill or

abort. Wife dies and fetus is expelled prematurely. Fetus dies after
a few minutes.
A is liable for the complex crime of parricide with unintentional
abortion
Q. A mauled his wife (pregnant for six and a half months) without
intent to kill her or abort the fetus. Wife died and fetus was expelled
prematurely. After 36 hours, the infant dies
A is liable for the complex crime of parricide and infanticide.

Q. A mauled his wife (pregnant for six and a half months) without
intent to kill or abort. Wife died, fetus was expelled prematurely, after
3 days the child died.
Complex crime of double parricide
Duel (A. 260)
It is a formal or regular combat previously consented between two
parties in the presence of two or more seconds of lawful age on each
side, who make the selection of arms and fix all the other conditions of
the fight to settle some antecedent quarrels.

Punishable acts
• Killing one’s adversary in a duel;
• Inflicting upon such adversary physical injuries; and
• Making a combat although no physical injuries have been inflicted.
A mere fight as a result of an agreement is not necessarily a duel
because a duel implies an agreement to fight under determined
conditions and with the participation and intervention of seconds who
fixed the conditions.
Q. How is the crime of serious physical injuries committed?
A. It is committed by Wounding; Beating; Assaulting; or Administering
injurious substance to another person without intent to kill.

Note of the Qualifying circumstances of serious physical injuries

• If it is committed by any of the persons referred to in the crime of
parricide; or
• If any of the circumstances qualifying murder attended its
commission.

SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES
Insane, Imbecile, Impotent, blind
Lost speech, power to hear or
smell, lost an eye, a hand, foot,
ear, leg, lost the use of any such
member, incapacitated to work
(habitual engaged)
Deformed, lost any part of his
body or use thereof, ill or
incapacitated to work (habitually
engaged) for more than 90 days
Illness or incapacity for labor for
more than 30 days
Medical attendance is not
necessary
LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL
SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES
INJURIES
Incapacity for labor 10 days or • Incapacitated from labor for
more OR shall require medical 1 to 9 days or shall require
assistance for the same period medical attendance for the
same period
• Injuries which did not
prevent the offended from
engaging in habitual work or
did not require medical
attendance
• Ill treatment of another by
deed without injury
 Serious, Less Serious and Slight
Physical Injuries
GRAVITY INJURY DAYS
Incapacity from habitual work Permanent
Illness/incapacity from habitual Over 90 days
SERIOUS
work (91 or over)
(Art. 263)
Illness/incapacity from labor
31-90 days

Incapacity from labor/medical

LESS SERIOUS
attendance required 10-30 days
(Art. 265)

SLIGHT Incapacity from labor/medical

1-9 days
(Art. 266) attendance required
Tumultuous affray

It means a commotion in a tumultuous and confused manner, to such

an extent that it would not be possible to identify who the killer is if
death results, or who inflicted the serious physical injuries, but the
person or persons who used violence are known.
Elements
There be several or at least 4 persons;
• That they did not compose groups organized for the common purpose of assaulting and
attacking each other reciprocally, otherwise, they may be held liable as co- conspirators;
• That these several persons quarreled and assaulted one another in a confused and
tumultuous manner;
• Someone was killed in the course of the affray;
NOTE: The person killed in the course of the affray need not be one of the
participants in the affray. He could be a mere passerby.
• It cannot be ascertained who actually killed the deceased.
NOTE: if the one who inflicted the fatal wound is known, the crime is not
tumultuous affray. It is a case of homicide.
• The person or persons who inflicted serious physical injuries or who used violence can be
identified.

This article does not apply if there is concerted fight between two organized groups.
What brings about the crime of tumultuous affray?
• The crime of tumultuous affray is brought about by the inability to
ascertain the actual perpetrator, not the tumultuous affray itself that
brings about the crime. It is necessary that the very person who
caused the death cannot be ascertained or identified.

(It does not apply when if the person who caused the death is known
but cannot be identified )
Q: Mario left his house together with Raul, to attend a public dance.
Two hours later, they decided to have a drink. Not long after, Mario
left to look for a place to relieve himself. According to Raul, he was
only about three meters from Mario who was relieving himself when
a short man walked past him, approached Mario and stabbed him at
the side. Mario retaliated by striking his assailant with a half-filled
bottle of beer. Almost simultaneously, a group of seven men, ganged
up on Mario and hit him with assorted weapons, i.e., bamboo poles,
stones and pieces of wood. Raul, who was petrified, could only watch
helplessly as Mario was being mauled and overpowered by his
assailants. Mario fell to the ground and died before he could be given
any medical assistance. What crime is committed?
A: The crime committed is Murder and not Death Caused in
Tumultuous Affray. A tumultuous affray takes place when a quarrel
occurs between several persons who engage in a confused and
tumultuous manner, in the course of which a person is killed or
wounded and the author thereof cannot be ascertained. The quarrel in
the instant case is between a distinct group of individuals, one of
whom was sufficiently identified as the principal author of the killing,
as against a common, particular victim.(People v. Unlagada, G.R. No.
141080, September 17, 2002)
Giving assistance to Suicide
Punishable acts
1. Assisting another to commit suicide, whether the suicide is
consummated or not
2. Lending assistance to another to commit suicide to the extent of
doing the killing himself.

(Art. 253 does not distinguish and does not make any reference to the
relation of the offender with the person committing suicide. Hence, the
penalty would be the same even if the offender is the father, mother or
the child of the one committing suicide)
Discharge of Firearm (A. 254)

Elements
1. Offender discharges a firearm against another person; and
2. Offender has no intention to kill the person.

(Purpose of the offender is only to intimidate or to frighten the

offended party)
The Court sustains the finding of the trial court that petitioner fired his
.45 caliber pistol towards the victim. From the attendant
circumstances, it appears that there is no evidence tending to prove
that petitioner had animus interficendi or intent to kill the victim. Note
that the prosecution witnesses did not see whether petitioner aimed to
kill the victim. Intent to kill cannot be automatically drawn from the
mere fact that the use of firearms is dangerous to life. Animus
interficendi must be established with the same degree of certainty as
is required of the other elements of the crime. The inference of intent
to kill should not be drawn in the absence of circumstances sufficient
to prove such intent beyond reasonable doubt.
Absent an intent to kill in firing the gun towards the victim, petitioner
should be held liable for the crime of illegal discharge of firearm under
Article 254 of the Revised Penal Code. The elements of this crime are:
(1) that the offender discharges a firearm against or at another person;
and (2) that the offender has no intention to kill that person. Though
the information charged the petitioner with murder, he could be
validly convicted of illegal discharge of firearm, an offense which is
necessarily included in the crime of unlawful killing of a person.
Under Rule 120, Section 4, of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure,
when there is a variance between the offense charged in the complaint
or information and that proved, and the offense as charged is included
in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be
convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense
charged, or the offense charged which is included in the offense proved
(Dado vs. people, G.R. No. 131421 November 18, 2002)
 RAPE (A. 266)

By sexual intercourse

Rape Inserting penis to mouth

or anal orifice
Sexual assault
Any instrument / object into the genital
or anal orifice of another person
 AS AMENDED BY RA 11648
RAPE, QUALIFIED SEDUCTION, SIMPLE SEDUCTION, RA 7610 Sec. 5, 7, 9
and 10
 OLD LAW NEW LAW
“Article 266-A. Rape; When And How Article 266-A. Rape; When and How
Committed. – Committed. - Rape is committed:
Rape Is Committed –

“1) By a man who shall have carnal "1) By a person who shall have carnal
knowledge of a woman knowledge of another person under any
under any of the following of the following circumstances:
circumstances:

“a) Through force, threat, or

intimidation; "x x x"
“b) When the offended party is
deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious;
“c) By means of fraudulent machination
or grave abuse
of authority; and
“d) When the offended party is under twelve
(12) years of age or is demented, even
though none of the circumstances
mentioned above be present.
d) When the offended party is under sixteen (16)
years of age or is demented, even though none of
the circumstances mentioned above be present:
Provided, That there shall be no criminal liability
on the part of a person having carnal knowledge
of another person sixteen (16) years of age when
the age difference between the parties is not
more than three (3) years, and the sexual act in
question is proven to be consensual, non-abusive,
and non-exploitative: Provided, further, That if the
victim is under thirteen (13) years of age, this
exception shall not apply.
"As used in this Act, non-abusive shall mean the
absence of undue influence, intimidation,
fraudulent machinations, coercion, threat, physical,
sexual, psychological, or mental injury or
maltreatment, either with intention or through
neglect, during the conduct of sexual activities with
the child victim. On the other hand, non-
exploitative shall mean there is no actual or
attempted act or acts of unfairly taking advantage
of the child's position of vulnerability, differential
power, or trust during the conduct of sexual
activities."
Sexual Intercourse is accomplished through:

a. Through Force, threat or intimidation

b. Deprived of Reason or otherwise unconscious
c. Fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority
d. Under 12 years of age or demented, even though none of the above
circumstances are present. (As amended)
Rape
Rape by sexual assault is not necessarily included in rape through
sexual intercourse unlike acts of lasciviousness. (People v. Bon, G.R. No.
166401, October 30, 2006)

Jurisprudence firmly holds that the force or violence required in rape

cases is relative; it does not need to be overpowering or irresistible; it is
present when it allows the offender to consummate his purpose.
(People v. Funesto, G.R. No. 182237, August 3, 2011)
• The term statutory rape should only be confined to situations where
the victim of rape is a person less than 12 years old. If the victim is a
person with mental abnormality, deficiency or retardation, the crime
committed is simple rape under par 1 (b) as she is considered
“deprived of reason” notwithstanding that her mental age is
equivalent to that of a person under 12 years old (People vs. Baay,
People vs. Dalan) . Note now 16 years old

• But in P vs. Deniega, the SC affirmed the conviction of the accused of

statutory rape for the rape of a 16 yr old child with mental capacity of
6 yr old.
• Rape of a person suffering from mental retardation falls under Art.
266 (A) 1 (b) when the offended party is deprived of reason. It does
not fall under 1 (d) which is statutory rape of a person below 12 yrs
old or demented (P vs xxxx, GR. No. 253236) LATEST JURISPRUDENCE
Amount of force necessary to consummate the
crime of rape

Jurisprudence firmly holds that the force or violence required in rape

cases is relative; it does not need to be overpowering or irresistible; it is
present when it allows the offender to consummate his purpose.
(People v. Funesto, G.R. No. 182237, August 3, 2011)
 “Touching” in rape
In People v. Campuhan, it was held that touching when applied to rape cases
does not simply mean mere epidermal contact, stroking or grazing of organs,
a slight brush or a scrape of the penis on the external layer of the victim’s
vagina, or the mons pubis. There must be sufficient and convincing proof
that the penis indeed touched the labias or slid into the female organ, and
not merely stroked the external surface thereof, for an accused to be
convicted of consummated rape. Thus, a grazing of the surface of the female
organ or touching the mons pubisof the pudendum is not sufficient to
constitute consummated rape. Absent any showing of the slightest
penetration of the female organ, i.e., touching of either labia of the
pudendum by the penis, there can be no consummated rape; at most, it can
only be attempted rape, if not acts of lasciviousness. (People v. Butiong, G.R.
No. 168932, October 19, 2011)
Take note of the 10 scenarios in Art. 266 (B) which QUALIFIES RAPE

NOTE: A step-brother or step-sister relationship between the offender

and the offended party cannot elevate the crime to qualified rape
because they are not related either by blood or affinity. The
enumeration is exclusive.
Qualified Rape
1. When by reason or on occasion of the rape, a homicide is
committed.

2. When the victim is under 18 years of age and the offender is a

parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity
or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common law spouse
of the victim.

2. When the victim is under the custody of the police or military

authorities or any law enforcement or penal institution.
4. When rape is committed in full view of the husband, parent, any of
the children or other relatives within the third civil degree of
consanguinity.

5. When the victim is engaged in a legitimate religious vocation or

calling and is personally known to be such by the offender before or
after the commission of the crime.

6. When the victim is a child below 7 years old.

7. When the offender knows that he is inflicted with HIV/AIDS or any other
sexually transmissible disease and the virus or disease is transferred to the
victim.

8. When committed by any member of the AFP or paramilitary units thereof

or the PNP or any law enforcement agency or penal institution, when the
offender took advantage of his position to facilitate the commission of the
crime.

9. When by reason or on occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered

permanent physical mutilation or disability.
10. When the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended party at
the time of the commission of the rape.

11. When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional

disorder, and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time of
the commission of the crime. (Art. 266-B, RPC)
Note:
A step-brother or step-sister relationship between the offender and the
offended party cannot elevate the crime to qualified rape because they
are not related either by blood or affinity. The enumeration is exclusive.
Hence, the common law husband of the victim’s grandmother is not
included.
Q. What is the effect as to the liability when the offender lack
awareness as to the mental condition of the victim?

A. RPC punishes rape of a mentally disabled person regardless of the

perpetrator’s awareness of his victim’s mental condition, proof
that the accused knew of the victim’s mental disability is important
only for qualifying the charge of rape which imposes death penalty
if the offender knew of the victim’s mental disability ( People vs.
Martinez, GR No. 226394)
Rape is qualified when the offender knew of the mental disability,
emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended party at
the time of the commission of the crime. This qualifying circumstance
should be particularly alleged in the Information. A mere assertion of
the victim's mental deficiency is not enough. Allan can only be
convicted of four (4) counts of rape under Article 266-A 1(d) of the
Revised Penal Code because the prosecution failed to allege the
qualifying circumstance in the Information. (People v. Corpuz, G.R. No.
208013, July 3, 2017)
The force, violence, or intimidation in rape is a relative term,
depending not only on the age, size, and strength of the parties but
also on their relationship with each other. AAA was already 67 years of
age when she was raped in the dark by Bill who was armed with a
knife. A woman of such advanced age could only recoil in fear and
succumb into submission. In any case, with such shocking and
horrifying experience, it would not be reasonable to impose upon AAA
any standard form of reaction. Different people react differently to a
given situation involving a startling occurrence. (People v. Jastiva, G.R.
No. 199268, February 12, 2014)
In statutory rape, force, intimidation and physical evidence of injury are
not relevant considerations; the only subject of inquiry is the age of the
woman and whether carnal knowledge took place. The child's consent is
immaterial because of her presumed incapacity to discern good from evil.
In this case, the defense did not dispute the fact that AAA was 10 years old at
the time of the incident. AAA was able to narrate in a clear and categorical
manner the ordeal that was done to her. It is well-settled that when a
woman, more so when she is a minor, says she has been raped, she says in
effect all that is required to prove the ravishment. The accused may thus be
convicted solely on her testimony-provided it is credible, natural, convincing
and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. (People
v. Gutierez, G.R. No. 208007, April 2, 2014, as penned by J. Leonen)
The sweetheart theory applies in acts of lasciviousness and rape,
felonies committed against or without the consent of the victim. It
operates on the theory that the sexual act was consensual. It requires
proof that the accused and the victim were lovers and that she
consented to the sexual relations. For purposes of sexual intercourse
and lascivious conduct in child abuse cases under R.A. 7610, the
sweetheart defense is unacceptable. A child exploited in prostitution or
subjected to other sexual abuse cannot validly give consent to sexual
intercourse with another person. (People v. Udang, G.R. No. 210161,
January 10, 2018, as penned by J. Leonen)
• Take note of the Special Complex Crime under Art. 266 (B)

• Attempted Rape with Homicide

• Rape with Homicide
• It is immaterial that the person killed is someone other than the woman
victim of rape. It is also immaterial that death would supervene by mere
accident, that 2 or more persons are killed (P vs. Laog)

• Pardon principle is not applicable to accomplices, accessories and

multiple rape

• Marriage should be valid, legal and contracted in good faith

Crimes against Property
ROBBERY
BRIGANDAGE
THEFT, QUALIFIED THEFT
ESTAFA
OTHER FORMS OF SWINDLING
OTHER DECEITS
ARSON
MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
Elements of Estafa in General
1. Accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit
This covers the three different ways of committing estafa under Art. 315,
thus:
• With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence;
• By means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts; or
• Through fraudulent means
2. Damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the
offended party or third person.
• The failure of the entrustee to turn over the proceeds of the sale of the
goods, documents, or instruments covered by a trust receipt, to the extent
of the amount owing to the entruster, or as appearing in the trust receipt;
or
• The failure to return said goods, documents, or instruments if they were
not sold or disposed of in accordance with the terms of the trust receipt.
 Art. 315 (ESTAFA)
1 (a) 1(b)
1(c)
With unfaithfulness Abuse of confidence

Misappropriating or converting money, goods or other personal

property received in trust, or on commission, or for administration
or under obligation to make delivery of or to return the same or by
denying having received such money, goods or other property.
Taking undue
Altering the Deceit is not an essential requisite of Estafa with abuse of
advantage of the
substance, quantity confidence since the breach of confidence takes the place of fraud/
signature of the
or quality of deceit which is the usual element in other crimes of Estafa
offended party in
anything of value
Note: blank
• Demand is not necessary when there is evidence of
misappropriation.
• Received to be sold but was pledged -> Estafa
• Received to be pledged but sold -> Theft
 Art. 315 (2) False Pretenses/Fraudulent Acts
Executed prior to a simultaneously with commission of fraud

(a) (b) (c) (d)

• Using fictitious name • Altering the • Pretending to • Postdating a check

quality finess, or have bribed any or issuing in
• Falsely pretending to possess weight of government payment of an
power, influence, qualification, anything employee obligation
property, audit, agency, business pertaining to his
or imaginary transactions or by art or business • (Check is drawn to
means of similar deceits enter into an
obligation)

• (Obligation is not
pre-existing)
 Art. 315 (3)
Estafa through Fraudulent means

(a) (b) (c)

• By inducing another, by • By resorting to some • By removing, concealing or

means of deceit to sign any fraudulent practice to insure destroying, in whole or in
document success in a gambling game part, any court record,
office files, or any other
papers
US vs. Yap Tian Jong, GR No. 10675, February 28, 1916.

By mistake a box of sinamay, consigned to a merchant at Manila, was

put off a coasting steamer at an intermediate port and turned over to
the accused, together with a shipment of goods duly consigned to him.
The accused took possession of the box thus delivered to him by
mistake, converted it to his own use, and upon demand being made
some days later by the captain of the ship for its return, denied that he
had received it and declared that he knew nothing whatever about it.
Held: That the accused is guilty of the crime of estafa .
Q. Gringo was the managing director of Full Systems Exhaust Co. The
company gave Gringo a number of machineries and equipment vital to
the operations of the company for his management, care and custody.
For months, Gringo did not receive his salary from Full Systems Exhaust
Co. This prompted him not to return the machineries and equipment
despite the repeated demands of the company president. He claims
that he has a lien over the subject properties. May Gringo be held
criminally liable? Explain.
ANS:Yes. Gringo may be held criminally liable for the crime of estafa
under Art. 315 (1) of the Revised Penal Code. A person is guilty of
estafa if he is under the obligation or duty to return the property but
failed to return the same. It is immaterial even if a person merely
retained the properties for the purpose of preserving his right of lien
over them. Failure to return upon demand the properties which one
has the duty to return is equivalent to appropriating the same for his
own personal use. (D’Aigle v. People, G.R. No. 174181, June 27, 2012).
Reimbursement or Payment

The reimbursement or restitution to the offended party of the money

or property swindled does not extinguish criminal liability. It only
extinguishes civil liability (Sajot vs. CA, GR NO. 109721, March 11,
1999)

“The fact that, subsequent to the filing of the cases in the Court of First
Instance (now Regional Trial Court), petitioner (accused) made partial
payments on account does not alter the situation. Payment does not
extinguish criminal liability for Estafa.” (Samo v. People)
Non Payment of a Loan

In the case of BETTY GABIONZA and ISABELITA TAN, COURT OF

APPEALS, LUKE ROXAS and EVELYN NOLASCO, G.R. No. 161057,
September 12, 2008, the Supreme Court held that nonpayment of a
LOAN does not give rise to criminal liability for estafa through
misappropriation or conversion.
• “To the benefit of private respondents, the Court of Appeals ruled,
citing Sesbreno v. Court of Appeals, 310 Phil. 671 (1995), that the subject
transactions are akin to money market placements which partake the
nature of a loan, the non-payment of which does not give rise to criminal
liability for estafa. X x x. Sesbreno affirmed that a money market
transaction partakes the nature of a loan and therefore nonpayment
thereof would not give rise to criminal liability for estafa through
misappropriation or conversion. X x

• Indeed, Sesbreno explains: In money market placement, the investor is a

lender who loans his money to a borrower through a middleman or
dealer. Petitioner here loaned his money to a borrower through
Philfinance. When the latter failed to deliver back petitioner's placement
with the corresponding interest earned at the maturity date, the liability
incurred by Philfinance was a civil one. X x x.”
The transaction between appellant and the Abagat spouses, in our view, was one
for a loan of money to be used by appellant in her business and she issued checks
to guarantee the payment of the loan. As such, she has the obligation to make good
the payment of the money borrowed by her. But such obligation is civil in
character and in the absence of fraud, no criminal liability under the Revised
Penal Code arises from the mere issuance of postdated checks as a guarantee of
repayment. We find appellants allegation, that the Abagat spouses entered into
a joint venture agreement with her for the supply of materials with the AFP, is self-
serving. But we also note that the trial court convicted appellant on a general
allegation that all the elements of estafa under Article 315, 2 (d) of the Revised
Penal Code had been proved by the prosecution without making any reference to
or giving any proof of the actual fraud that appellant allegedly committed to
make her liable for estafa. It is elementary that where an allegation in the
information is an essential element of the crime, the same must be proved beyond
reasonable doubt to sustain a conviction. In this case, the prosecution did not
establish specifically and conclusively the fraud alleged as an element of the
offenses charged (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RICA G. CUYUGAN, G.R. Nos.
146641-43, November 18, 2002)
Compromise or Novation under Estafa
Criminal Liability for estafa already committed is not affected by compromise
or novation of contract, for it is a public offense which must be prosecuted
and punished by the state. (People vs. Moreno, GR. No. 130067)

Novation is not a ground under the law to extinguish criminal liability.

Article 89 (on total extinguishment) and Article 94 (on partial
extinguishrnent) of the Revised Penal Code list down the various grounds for
the extinguishment of criminal liability. Not being included in the list,
novation is limited in its effect only to the civil aspect of the liability, and, for
that reason, is not an efficient defense in estafa. This is because only the
State may validly waive the criminal action against an accused. The role of
novation may only be either to prevent the rise of criminal liability, or to
cast doubt on the true nature of the original basic transaction, whether or
not it was such that the breach of the obligation would not give rise to penal
responsibility, as when money loaned is made to appear as a deposit, or
other similar disguise is resorted to (Deganos vs. People, GR NO. 162826)
Degaños claims that his partial payments to the complainants novated his
contract with them from agency to loan, thereby converting his liability from
criminal to civil. He insists that his failure to complete his payments prior to
the filing of the complaint-affidavit by the complainants notwithstanding,
the fact that the complainants later required him to make a formal proposal
before the barangay authorities on the payment of the balance of his
outstanding obligations confirmed that novation had occurred.

Although the novation of a contract of agency to make it one of sale may

relieve an offender from an incipient criminal liability, that did not happen
here, for the partial payments and the proposal to pay the balance the
accused made during the barangay proceedings were not at all incompatible
with Degafios liability under the agency that had already attached. Rather
than converting the agency to sale, therefore, he even thereby confirmed his
liability as the sales agent of the complainants.
Q. Accused fraudulently offered to sell to private complainant a share
over Subic Island Club, while concealing from the former the material
fact that accused has yet to secure the requisite licenses and
registration with the SEC to sell shares of the project and from the
DENR and HLURB to develop and construct the same. Relying on the
accused’s misrepresentations, private complainant paid him the total
amount of Php835,999.94, as consideration but he was never able to
gain possession of a Certificate of Membership given accused’s
continued failure to proceed with the project. Nonetheless, private
complainant did not present evidence that accused misappropriated
the amount he has given to him, can accused be held liable for estafa
under Art. 315 2 (a)?
Proof of Misappropriation is not an element of estafa
under 2(a)
Yes, accused is liable under Art. 315 2 (a). Unlike estafa under
paragraph 1 (b) of Article 315 of the Code, estafa under paragraph 2( a)
of that provision does not require as an element of the crime proof
that the accused misappropriated or converted the swindled money or
property. All that is required is proof of pecuniary damage sustained by
the complainant arising from his reliance on the fraudulent
representation. The prosecution in this case discharged its evidentiary
burden by presenting the receipts of the installment payments made
by Sy on the purchase price for the Club share (Lopez vs. People, G.R.
No. 199294, July 31, 2013)
Fraud, in its general sense, 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 device, and which are resorted to by one individual to
secure an advantage over another by false suggestions or by suppression of
truth; and includes all forms of surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling and any
other unfair way by which another is cheated. Deceit is a species of
fraud. And 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. The false
pretense or fraudulent act must be committed prior to or simultaneously
with the commission of the fraud, it being essential that such false statement
or representation constitutes the very cause or the only motive which
induces the offended party to part with his money. In the absence of such
requisite, any subsequent act of the accused, however fraudulent and
suspicious it might appear, cannot serve as basis for prosecution for estafa
under the said provision (Aricheta vs. People, 533 SCRA 695)
In Aricheta vs. People, accused was acquitted because the prosecution failed to
prove that the property was indeed earlier sold to a third person before it was sold
to private complainant.
“As can be gleaned from the allegations in the information, petitioner was charged
with Estafa for allegedly selling to private complainant the subject property
knowing fully well that she had already sold the same to a third party. From this, it
is therefore clear that the supposed false representation or false pretense made
by petitioner to private complainant was that she was still the owner of the
property when she sold it to private complainant. Xxxx As above explained, the
alleged false representation or false pretense made by petitioner to private
complainant was that she was still the owner of the property when she sold it to
private complainant. To prove such allegation, the prosecution should first establish
that the property was previously sold to a third party before it was sold to private
complainant. The prosecution utterly failed to do this. The fundamental rule is that
upon him who alleges rests the burden of proof. It made this allegation but it failed
to support it with competent evidence. Except for private complainant’s bare
allegation that petitioner told her that she (petitioner) sold the property to another
person, the records are bereft of evidence showing that the property was indeed
previously sold to a third person before it was sold again to private complainant. “
Estafa under Art. 315, paragraph 2(d)

(1) the offender has postdated or issued a check in payment of an

obligation contracted at the time of the postdating or issuance;
(2) at the time of postdating or issuance of said check, the offender has
no funds in the bank or the funds deposited are not sufficient to cover
the amount of the check; and
(3) the payee has been defrauded.
Can a person charged with Qualified theft be convicted
for Estafa?

As a rule, a person charged with qualified theft cannot be convicted for

Estafa. As provided by Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, qualified theft
is defined as the taking of one’s property without the owner’s consent, and
must be done by a domestic servant, with grave abuse of confidence, if the
property stolen is a motor vehicle, mail matter, or cattle, consists of coconuts
from premises of plantation, fish from fishpond, and taken during a calamity.
Also, in theft, he only took material possession of the thing. Estafa or
swindling is defined in the Revised Penal Code as defrauding another
through abuse of confidence or through means of deceit, where the owner
consented to the voluntary giving of a thing to the offender and was
entrusted to take care of it for administration, trust or commission. Thus, in
Qualified Theft, the owner did not consent to the taking of the property,
while in Estafa, there is a voluntary entrustment of the property.
However, by applying the variance doctrine and by analogy with the
recent case of Tan vs. People, it may well be possible to convict an
offender with the crime of Estafa even if he is charged in the
information for the crime of Qualified Theft. (Tan vs. People, G.R. No.
210318, July 28, 2020)
Liability of issuer of the REPLACEMENT under Art. 315
(2) (d) of the Revised Penal Code due to the dishonor

What is obvious to us is that NATY borrowed money from ROBERT through

the intercession of the latter's sister-in-law, Teresita Lim. In payment therefor
she issued postdated checks. When such checks became due she notified
ROBERT not to deposit them, since these were not yet funded. ROBERT
agreed that NATY replace the checks with another set of six postdated
checks, four of which were her personal checks and the other two were
issued by another which NATY indorsed to ROBERT. Ineluctably, the
replacement checks were issued in payment of an obligation long
contracted and incurred. It cannot therefore be said that NATY committed
fraudulent acts in the issuance and the indorsement of the replacement
checks. In short, the replacement checks were by no means the device
used by NATY to induce ROBERT to lend her money without which the
transaction would not have been consummated (P vs. Chua, G.R. No.
130632 September 28, 1999)
Liability of issuer of the REPLACEMENT under Art. 315 (2) (d) of
the Revised Penal Code due to the dishonor

Appellant maintains that her actions thereafter also belied any intention to
defraud. After she was notified of the dishonor of the first check, she did not
hide or abscond, but she offered to replace the first check with two checks.
Appellant also contends that when JCT accepted the replacement checks in
place of PCIB Check No. 142254, she was relieved of her obligation of
funding said check. Hence, she alleges that she is not covered by the prima
facie presumption of fraud under Article 315, paragraph 2(d), of the Revised
Penal Code. She claims that since deceit is absent in this case, she is not
liable for Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d), of the Revised Penal Code.
•
In accepting the two replacement checks and surrendering the first
check to appellant instead of demanding payment under the first check
(PCIB Check No. 142254) on the same day that JCT’s Acting Manager
informed appellant of the dishonor of the first check, JCT led appellant
to believe that she no longer had to deposit the necessary amount to
cover the first check within three days from the verbal notice of
dishonor. On July 31, 1991, appellant’s balance in her account with
PCIB Isulan Branch was ₱78,400. It is possible that appellant could have
deposited ₱11,400 to make good the first check worth ₱89,800 if JCT
made it clear that it was demanding payment under the first check.
• It would have been different if JCT accepted the replacement checks
three days after appellant’s receipt of the verbal notice of dishonor of the
first check, because by then the prima facie evidence of deceit against
appellant for failure to deposit the amount necessary to cover the first
check within three days from receipt of the notice of dishonor, under
Article 315, paragraph 2(d), of the Revised Penal Code, would have been
established.

• Under the circumstances of this case, the fact that appellant no longer
deposited the amount necessary to cover the first check, PCIB Check No.
142254, within the required period cannot be considered prima
facie evidence of deceit against appellant. For it was due to complainant
JCT’s own act of accepting the replacement checks and surrendering the
first check to appellant that appellant was no longer obliged to deposit the
amount necessary to cover the first check within three days from receipt of
the verbal notice of dishonor as JCT was no longer holding her liable for
payment under the said check.
Other Forms of Swindling (Art. 316)
• Conveying, selling, encumbering, or mortgaging any real property,
pretending to be the owner of the same.
• Disposing real property knowing it to be encumbered even if the
encumbrance be not recorded.
• Wrongful taking of personal property from its lawful possessor to the
prejudice of the latter or a third person;
• Executing any fictitious contract to the prejudice of another;
• Accepting any compensation given to him under the belief it was in
payment of services or labor when he did not actually perform such
services or labor; and
• Selling, mortgaging, or in any manner encumbering real property while
being a surety in bond without express authority from the court or before
being relieved from the obligation.
Nery owns a parcel of land known with an area of 1,452 square
meters. Nery agreed to sell 295 sq m of her land to Mario in installment
basis. Nery obliged herself to deliver to the said spouses the title to
this portion of land free from all liens and encumbrances upon full
payment by the said vendee of the purchase price. Nery later on
mortgaged to a bank the entire lot, including the portion subject of
their agreement. When Mario completed their payment of the
installments, he demanded from Nery the delivery of the title for the
portion he bought and the execution of the corresponding absolute
Deed of Sale for said property. Nery executed a deed of absolute sale
for the lot in question with a statement in his Deed of Conveyance that
the subject land sold is “free from all liens and encumbrances” despite
the fact that there was still an existing mortgage thereon in favor of the
bank. Did Nery commit any crime?
Yes, Nery committed other forms of swindling under Art. 316 (2). She
placed an express warranty in the Deed of Absolute Sale that the lot in
question is free from all liens and encumbrances, when it was not so in
fact. It would be at this second stage of the transaction when deceit
was exercised. As fraud involves acts or spoken or written words by a
party to mislead another into believing a fact-to be true when it is not
in fact that express warranty in the Deed of Absolute Sale covering the
lot in question that said land is "free from all liens and encumbrances"
constitutes the false representation or deceit and one of the elements
giving rise to the crime of estafa. (People vs. Galsim 107 Phil.
303). Nery cannot rightfully claim that no damages on Complainant
was brought about by the false warranty made in the Deed of Absolute
Sale. Mario's damage inherently consists in his inability to receive a
property free from encumbrances. As the rightful vendee, he would
acquire title to the property but subject to the restrictions of the
existing liens. (Antazo vs People of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-45278
Aug. 28, 1985
Other Deceits A. 318

• Defrauding or damaging another by any other deceit not mentioned

in the preceding articles; and
• Interpreting dreams, making forecasts, telling fortunes, or taking
advantage of the credulity of the public in any other similar manner,
for profit or gain.
Removal, Sale or Pledge of Mortgaged Property (Art. 319)

Punishable acts
• Knowingly removing any personal property mortgaged under the
Chattel Mortgage Law to any province or city other than the one in
which it was located at the time of execution of the mortgage,
without the written consent of the mortgagee or his executors,
administrators, or assigns.
• Selling or pledging personal property already pledged, or any part
thereof, under the terms of the Chattel Mortgage Law, without the
consent of the mortgagee written on the back of the mortgage and
noted on the record thereof in the office of the register of deeds of
the province where such property is located.
Arson
Two Kinds of Arson
1. Simple (PD 1613 as amended)
2. Destructive Arson (A. 320)

Destructive arson is characterized as heinous crime; while simple arson

under PD No. 1613 is a crime manifesting a lesser degree of perversity.
Simple arson contemplates the malicious burning of property not included in
Article 320 of the RPC (People vs. Macabando, GR No. 188708, July 31,
2013). Burning of inhabited house or dwelling or personal property is simple
arson under Section 3 of P.D. No. 1613 because it is not included in Article
320 of RPC.
Commission of Destructive Arson
1. Any person who shall burn One or more buildings or edifices, consequent
to one single act of burning, or as a result of simultaneous burnings, or
committed on several or different occasions;
2. Any building of public or private ownership, devoted to the public in
general, or where people usually gather or congregate for a definite purpose
such as, but not limited to official governmental function or business, private
transaction, commerce, trade workshop, meetings and conferences, or
merely incidental to a definite purpose such as but not limited to hotels,
motels, transient dwellings, public conveyance or stops or terminals,
regardless of whether the offender had knowledge that there are persons in
said building or edifice at the time it is set on fire and regardless also of
whether the building is actually inhabited or not;
3. Any train or locomotive, ship or vessel, airship or airplane, devoted
to transportation or conveyance, or for public use, entertainment or
leisure;
4. Any building, factory, warehouse installation and any appurtenances
thereto, which are devoted to the service of public utilities; or
5. Any building the burning of which is for the purpose of concealing
or destroying evidence of another violation of law, or for the purpose
of concealing bankruptcy or defrauding creditors or to collect from
insurance.
The elements of simple arson under Section 3(2) of P.D. No. 1613 are:
(a) there is intentional burning; and (b) what is intentionally burned is
an inhabited house or dwelling. Both these elements have been
proven in the present case. The Information alleged that the appellant
set fire to his own house, and that the fire spread to other inhabited
houses. xxxThe appellant likewise testified that his burnt two-story
house was used as a residence. That the appellant’s act affected many
families will not convert the crime to destructive arson, since the
appellant’s act does not appear to be heinous or represents a greater
degree of perversity and viciousness when compared to those acts
punished under Article 320 of the RPC. The established evidence only
showed that the appellant intended to burn his own house, but the
conflagration spread to the neighboring houses (People vs.
Macabando, G.R. No. 188708, July 31, 2013)
Note:
• If the main objective is to kill the victim in a building, and fire is
resorted to as the means to accomplish such goal, the crime
committed is murder only. Murder qualified by means of fire absorbs
arson since the latter is an inherent means to commit the former
(People vs. Cedenio, G.R. No. 93485, June 27, 1994).

• If the main objective is to burn the building, but death results by

reason or on the occasion of arson, the crime is arson with qualifying
circumstance of resulting death (People vs. Enriquez, G.R. No.
248372, August 27, 2020)
• If the objective is to kill, and in fact the offender has already done so,
and arson is resorted to as a means to cover up the killing, the
offender may be convicted of two separate crimes of either homicide
or murder, and arson (People vs. Cedenio, G.R. No. 93485, June 27,
1994).
Malicious mischief
1. Offender deliberately caused damage to the property of another;
2. Such act does not constitute arson or other crimes involving
destruction; and
3. Act of damaging another’s property be committed merely for the
sake of damaging it.
Special cases of Malicious Mischief
Punishable acts
• Causing damage to obstruct the performance of public functions;
• Using any poisonous or corrosive substance;
• Spreading any infections among cattle; and
• 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.
Elements of robbery in general

1. There is personal property belonging to another; (BAR 1992, 1996)

2. There is unlawful taking of that property;
3. Taking must be with intent to gain; and
4. There is violence against or intimidation of any person or force upon
things. (BAR 1992, 2002, 2005)
 Robbery
Violence / Intimidation of persons Force upon things (Art 299)
(unlawful taking is complete if offender has already Things must be brought outside the building to
in his possession even if no opportunity to dispose it) consummate robbery
1. By reason or occasion of robbery homicide is
committed, or when accompanied by Rape, In an inhabited house public In an uninhabited place /
intentional mutilation or arson. building / house of worship Private building

(penalty is based on value of (penalty is based on value of

2. Serious Physical Injuries par 1
property or on whether offender property)
carry arms)
3. SPI par 2

4. Degree unnecessary for the commission of the

(A)
crime, SPI 3 and 4
1. Opening not intended for entrance or 1. Opening not intended for entrance or
egress egress
5. Simple Robbery
2. Breaking wall/roof/floor/door or window 2. Breaking wall/roof/floor/door or
3. False keys/picklocks window
QUALIFIED IF: 4. Fictitious name/pretending the exercise 3. False keys/picklocks
of public authority 4. doors, wardrobes, chests or any sealed
or closed furniture or receptacle has
- uninhabited place (B) been broken
- Band 5. Closed/sealed receptacle, has been
1. Breaking doors,wardrobes, chests or any removed even if the same to be broken
- Attacking a moving train locked/sealed receptacle open elsewhere
- Or on a street or airship and the intimidation 2. By taking such furniture or objects to be
is with the use of unlicensed firearms broken or forced upon outside the place
of robbery
Unlawful taking is completed

Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons, UT is

completed from the moment the offender gains possession of the
thing, even if the culprit had no opportunity to dispose of the same.

Robbery with Force Upon Things, UT is completed when the culprit

had taken the thing out of the building to consummate the crime.
The property taken must be personal property, for if real property is
occupied by means of violence against or intimidation of person, the
crime is usurpation. (Art. 312, RPC)
 ATTEMPTED /
FRUSTRATED
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE ROBBERY WITH RAPE NOTE
ROBBERY WITH
HOMICIDE

• Homicide may precede • Intent to take (Exception, already • Robbery A/F Art. 48 or
robbery or may occur after personal property provided by law • Killing A/F Separate crime
robbery
must precede rape under Art. 297)
• Collective responsibility
• Rape may occur
• Causal connection bet before, during or
robbery and homicide after robbery • Robbery
Art. 48 or
- consummated Separate crime
• Proper crime regardless of • Covers cases of • Killing A/F
the number or injuries multiple rapes
committed

• Victim may be a bystander, • Robbery

policeman, or even one of accompanied by
the robbers. Rape
• The killing may be
intentional, or accidental.
The following will constitute robbery with
homicide:
1. The robber fired his gun upwards to frighten the victim but the bullet
killed a person who was hiding in the ceiling

2. The victim drew a gun to defend but his aim was deflected and
instead hit his companion

3. It was a responding policeman who was killed by a robber.

4. The responding policeman fired a shot but missed and killed the
victim of robbery
5. The several robbers fought over the loot and one killed another, even
if this took place after the taking had taken place and the robbers had
fled the scene of robbery

6. One of the victims suffered a stroke due to the tension and dies

7. The gun of a robber accidentally fell and killed a person outside the
house

8. The killing may be before, during, or immediately after the taking

provided that the original intent of the robbers must have been to rob
and not to kill, which need not be the sole motive either.
There is no crime of robbery with multiple homicide under the RPC.

The crime is robbery with homicide notwithstanding the number of

homicides committed on the occasion of the robbery and even if
murder, physical injuries, and rape were also committed on the same
occasion. (People v. Hijada, G.R. No. 123696, March 11, 2004)
Q: Is there such a crime as robbery with murder?

A: NONE. Treachery cannot be considered as qualifying circumstance of

murder, because the crime charged is the special crime of robbery with
homicide. The treachery which attended the commission of the crime
must be considered not as qualifying but merely as a generic
aggravating circumstance. (People v. Mantawar, 80 Phil. 817; People v.
Abang, G.R. No. L-14623, December 29, 1960)
Q: In case there is conspiracy, are all conspirators liable for the crime
of robbery with rape?

A: YES. In People v. Suyu, it was ruled that once conspiracy is

established between several accused in the commission of the crime of
robbery, they would all be equally culpable for the rape committed by
anyone of them on the occasion of the robbery, unless anyone of them
proves that he endeavored to prevent the others from committing
rape. (People v. Gallo)
Q: Can there be such a crime as robbery with attempted rape?

A: NO. The crime cannot be a complex crime of robbery with

attempted rape under Article 48, because a robbery cannot be a
necessary means to commit attempted rape; nor attempted rape, to
commit robbery. (People v. Cariaga, C.A., 54 O.G. 4307)
The Court finds, at the outset, that the trial judge erred in designating the offense
committed by the appellants as rape with homicide aggravated by robbery in band.
For one, neither in law nor in jurisprudence is there an aggravating circumstance as
robbery in band. More importantly, the evidence shows that what was committed
is the special complex crime of robbery with homicide aggravated by rape. The
overwhelming evidence reveals that the original design of the malefactors was to
commit robbery in order to facilitate their escape from the penal colony. Their
original intent did not comprehend the commission of rape. Hence, the crime of
rape cannot be regarded as the principal offense. In this case, since it attended
the commission of robbery with homicide, the rape is deemed to aggravate the
crime but damages or indemnification for the victim may be awarded. (See People
v. Bacsa, 104 Phil. 136 [1958]; People v. Tapales, 93 SCRA 134 [1979]). Instead of
ignominy, it is the rape itself that aggravates the crime (People v. Mongado, 28
SCRA 642 [1969]). With respect to the deaths of Daisy Gonzales and Yolanda Arque,
the appellants are clearly liable therefor since, as held by this Court in People v.
Mangulabnan, (99 Phil. 992 [1956]) it is immaterial that the death of a person
supervened by mere accident, provided that the homicide is produced by reason or
on occasion of the robbery. Since rape and homicide co-exist in the commission of
robbery, the offense committed by the appellants is the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide, aggravated by rape, punishable under Paragraph 1 of
Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) (People vs. Aspili, G.R. Nos. 89418-19.
November 21, 1990.)
Take Note :

1. Robbery with Homicide

2. Robbery with Rape

3. Robbery with Intentional Mutilations

4. Robbery with Arson

5. Robbery with Physical Injuries

Is there robbery with rape when the rape is committed
prior to robbery?
Yes. If the intention of the culprits from the beginning was to take
personal property. Even if the rape was committed before the taking of
personal properties, if rape was not the primary objective, robbery
with rape is committed (People vs. Canastre, GR No. L-2055, Dec. 24,
1948).

Additional rapes committed on the same occasion of robbery will not

increase the penalty ( People vs. Regala, GR No. 130508, April 5, 2000)
Robbery with Physical Injuries
• Physical injuries must be serious
• To be considered as such, the physical injuries must always be serious.
If the physical injuries are only less serious or slight, they are
absorbed in the robbery. The crime becomes merely robbery. But if
the less serious physical injuries were committed after the robbery
was already consummated, there would be a separate charge for the
less serious physical injuries. It will only be absorbed in the robbery if
it was inflicted in the course of the execution of the robbery. The
same is true in the case of slight physical injuries.
Other cases of simple robbery
• Any kind of robbery with less serious physical injuries or slight
physical injuries falls under this specie of robbery.

• NOTE: But where there is no violence exerted to accomplish the

snatching, the crime committed is not robbery but simple theft.
Robbery with Arson
Commission of composite crime
• The composite crime would only be committed if the primordial intent of the
offender is to commit robbery and there is no killing, rape, or intentional
mutilation committed by the offender during the robbery. Otherwise, the crime
would be robbery with homicide, or robbery with rape, or robbery with
intentional mutilation, in that order and the arson would only be an aggravating
circumstance.
Robbery must precede arson
• It is essential that robbery precede the arson, as in the case of rape and
intentional mutilation, because the amendment included arson among the rape
and intentional mutilation which have accompanied the robbery.

• NOTE: Arson has been made a component only of robbery with violence against
or intimidation of persons but not of robbery by the use of force upon things.
Hence, if the robbery was by the use of force upon things and therewith arson
was committed, two distinct crimes are committed.
Execution of Deeds by means of violence or intimidation
(A. 298)
• Offender has intent to defraud another;
• Offender compels him to sign, execute, or deliver any public
instrument or document; and
• Compulsion is by means of violence or intimidation.
NOTE: Arson has been made a component only of robbery with
violence against or intimidation of persons but not of robbery by the
use of force upon things. Hence, if the robbery was by the use of force
upon things and therewith arson was committed, two distinct crimes
are committed.
1. If the girl is robbed, raped and then killed, the crime is Robbery with
Homicide aggravated by rape

2. If the girl is raped, then robbed and then killed the crimes are (i)
Rape with Homicide and (ii) Robbery

3. If the girl is raped and then a personal property is taken the crimes
are (i) Rape and (ii) Theft
Robbery by a band

Robbery is committed by a band when at least 4 armed malefactors

take part in the commission of a robbery.

If any unlicensed firearm is used, the penalty imposed upon all the
malefactors shall be the maximum of the corresponding penalty
provided by law, without prejudice to the criminal liability for illegal
possession of such firearms.
(This is a special aggravating circumstance applicable only in a case of
robbery in band. )
Liability for the acts of the other members of the band
A member of the band is liable for any of the assaults committed by the
other members thereof, when the following requisites concur:
• That he was a member of the band;
• That he was present at the commission of a robbery by that band;
• That the other members of the band committed an assault; and
• That he did not attempt to prevent the assault.
Possession of Picklocks or Similar Tools
Elements
• Offender has in his possession picklocks or similar tools;
• Such picklocks or similar tools are specially adopted to the
commission of robbery; and
• Offender does not have lawful cause for such possession.
(Possession of picklocks is a crime by itself)

False keys
• Picklocks or similar tools;
• Genuine keys stolen from the owner;
• Any key other than those intended by the owner for use in the lock
forcibly opened by the offender.
Q. May a person who unlawfully took the postdated check belonging
to another, but the same was apparently without value, as it was
subsequently dishonored be held liable for theft?

A. No. The personal property subject of the theft must have some
value, as the intention of the accused is to gain from the thing stolen.
This is further bolstered by Article 309, where the law provides that the
penalty to be imposed on the accused is dependent on the value of the
thing stolen. There can be no question that as of the time that
petitioner took possession of the check meant for Mega Foam, she had
performed all the acts to consummate the crime of theft, had it not
been impossible of accomplishment in this case. Thus, the offender is
liable for Impossible Crime of Theft ( Gemma Jacinto vs. People, G.R.
No. 162540 July 13, 2009)
Q. When the victim says, the offender “suddenly grabbed my necklace
and I was shocked”, can the offender be liable for Simple
Robbery?
A. The offender cannot be liable for simple robbery. The elements of
robbery are: (1) there is taking of personal property; (2) the personal
property belongs to another; (3) the taking is with animus lucrandi; and
(4) the taking is with violence against or intimidation of persons or
with force upon things. Clearly, for the requisite of violence to obtain
in cases of simple robbery, the victim must have sustained less serious
physical injuries or slight physical injuries in the occasion of the robbery
or there should be some kind of violence exerted to accomplish the
robbery. The crime is only Theft.
 Theft
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; and
5. Taking is accomplished without the use of violence against or
intimidation of persons of force upon things.
Theft is likewise committed by:
1. Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to deliver the same
to the local authorities or to its owner;
2. Any person who, after having maliciously damaged the property of
another, shall remove or make use of the fruits or objects of the damage
caused by him; and
3. Any person who shall enter an enclosed estate or a field where trespass is
forbidden or which belongs to another and without the consent of its owner,
shall hunt or fish upon the same or shall gather cereals, or other forest or
farm products.
Ownership is immaterial in theft. The subject of the crime of theft is
any personal property belonging to another. Hence, as long as the
property taken does not belong to the accused who has a valid claim
thereover, it is immaterial whether said offender stole it from the
owner, a mere possessor, or even a thief of the property. (Miranda v.
People, G.R. No. 176298, January 25, 2012)

Unlawful taking is deemed complete from the moment the offender

gains possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to
dispose of the same.
Thus, the Court has been consistent in holding that "intent to gain or
animus lucrandi is an internal act that is presumed from the unlawful
taking by the offender of the thing subject of asportation. Thus, actual
gain is irrelevant as the important consideration is the intent to gain."
In this case, it is clear from the established facts that it was Mejares
who opened the drawer in the masters' bedroom and took away the
cash and valuables it contained. (People v. Mejares, G.R. No. 2255735,
January 10, 2018, as penned by J. Leonen)
We noted that the crime of theft implies an invasion of possession;
therefore, there can be no theft when the owner voluntarily parted
with the possession of the thing. The Court agreed with the
observation of the Solicitor General that a thief does not ask for
permission to steal. Indeed, a taking which is done with the consent or
acquiescence of the owner of the property is not felonious (Medina vs.
People, G.R. No. 182648, June 17, 2015)
The intent to steal is presumed from the taking of personal property
without the consent of the owner or its lawful possessor. As in all
presumptions, this may be rebutted by evidence showing that the
accused took the personal property under a bona fide belief that he
owns the property. xxx In all cases where one in good faith takes
another's property under claim of title in himself, he is exempt from
the charge of larceny, however puerile or mistaken the claim may in
fact be. And the same is true where the taking is on behalf of another,
believed to be the true owner. Still, if the claim is dishonest, a mere
pretense, it will not protect the taker. xxxThe gist of the offense is the
intent to deprive another of his property in a chattel, either for gain
or out of wantonness or malice to deprive another of his right in the
thing taken. This cannot be where the taker honestly believes the
property is his own or that of another, and that he has a right to take
possession of it for himself or for another, for the protection of the
latter (Igdalino vs. People, G.R. No. 233033, July 23, 2018 )
Immateriality of carrying away of the thing taken

• In theft, it is not required for the thief to be able to carry away the
thing taken from the owner. The consummation of this crime takes
place upon the voluntary and malicious taking of the property which
is realized upon the material occupation of the taking, that is, when
he had full possession thereof even if he did not have the opportunity
to dispose of the same.
• Proof that the accused is in possession of a recently stolen property
gives rise to a valid presumption that he stole the property.
 Qualified Theft
1. If theft is committed by a domestic servant;
2. If the theft is committed with grave abuse of confidence;
3. If the property stolen is a motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle;
4. If the property stolen consist of coconuts taken from the premises of
a plantation;
5. If the property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond or fishery; or
6. If property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon,
volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil
disturbance.
That [on] or about the period from January 1996 up to March 1997 in
the [M]unicipality of Obando, [P]rovince of Bulacan, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, being employed as accountant, cashier and teller of Obando
Fisherman's Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. (OFMPCI) and as such had
access to the books, cash vaults and bank deposits of the Cooperative
and with grave abuse of confidence, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to gain and without the
knowledge and consent of Obando Fisherman's Multi-Purpose
Cooperative, Inc., take, steal and carry away with her cash amounting
to Php6,016,084.26, to [the] damage and prejudice of the said Obando
Fisherman's Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc., in the said amount of
Php6,016,084.26.
Petitioner then insists that the proof adduced plausibly indicates commission
of estafa and not qualified theft. Petitioner argued that if the thing is not
taken away, but received and then appropriated or converted without the
consent of the owner, the crime committed is estafa.

Juridical possession means a possession which gives the transferee a right

over the thing transferred and this he may set up even against the owner.26 It
was established in the trial that petitioner never received the sum of money
in trust, or on commission or for administration. Correa outlined the
procedure followed by the cooperative in the deposit of its funds with the
cooperative's depository banks
Clearly, the above testimonies show that petitioner did not have
juridical possession of the sum of money. She did not have the right
over the sum of money she may have received in the course of her
functions as accountant, teller and cashier of the cooperative. The CA
was correct when it described the possession of the petitioner was akin
to that of a receiving teller of funds received from third persons paid to
the bank. Payment by third persons to the teller is payment to the bank
itself; the teller is a mere custodian or keeper of the funds received,
and has no independent, autonomous right to retain the money or
goods received in consequence of the agency, as when the principal
fails to reimburse him for advances he has made, and indemnify him
for damages suffered without his fault (G.R. No. 176114, April 08, 2015
- GRACE SAN DIEGO Y TRINIDAD, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE COURT
OF APPEALS, Respondent.)
 Brigandage (A. 306)
There is brigandage when the following requisites are present:
• There be at least 4 armed malefactors;
• They formed a band of robbers; and
• The purpose is any of the following:
• To commit robbery in the highway;
• To kidnap persons for the purpose of
• extortion or to obtain ransom;
• To attain by means of force and
• violence any other purpose.

Essence of brigandage
Brigandage is a crime of depredation wherein the unlawful acts are directed not
only against specific, intended or preconceived victims, but against any and all
prospective victims anywhere on the highway and whoever they may potentially
be.
 Persons exempt from criminal liability in crimes against
property
Crimes involved in this Article
• Theft;
• Swindling (estafa); and
• Malicious mischief
Exempted
1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same
line;
2. Widowed Spouse with respect to the property wc belonged to the
deceased spouse;
3. Brothers and sisters and brothers in law and sisters in law, if living
together
Crime Against Personal Liberty
KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION
SLIGHT ILLEGAL DETENTION
UNLAWFUL ARREST
KIDNAPPING AND FAILURE TO RETURN A MINOR
INDUCING A MINOR TO ABANDON HIS HOME
SLAVERY
EXPLOITATION OF CHILD LABOR
SERVICES RENDERED UNDER COMPULSION IN PAYMENT OF DEBT
Crimes Against Security
ABANDONMENT OF PERSONS IN DANGER AND ABANDONMENT OF
ONE’S OWN VICTIM
ABANDONING A MINOR
EXPLOITATION OF MINORS
QUALIFIED TRESPASS TO DWELLING
OTHER FORMS OF TRESPASS
GRAVE/LIGHT THREATS/OTHER LIGHT THREATS
GRAVE/LIGHT COERCION/OTHER SIMILAR COERCION
 Art. 124
Arbitrary Detention
• Public officer with authority
to detain
• Without legal ground
• No intention to bring the
victim to the authorities but
merely to detain him
Note: Detention is illegal from the
beginning
Art. 125 Art. 269 Art. 267
Delay in the Delivery of Detained Unlawful Arrest Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Persons to the Proper Judicial Detention
Authorities
• Offender is a public officer • Offender public • Private Individual
officers (not vested
• Detention is for some legal with authority to • Detention is illegal
ground arrest or detain) or • more than 3 days
a private person • simulating public authority
• Failed to deliver to the proper • Serious Physical Injuries are
judicial authorities within certain • Arrests a person made, threats to kill him
period without are made
reasonable ground • Minor, female or public
and purpose is to official
deliver to the
proper authorities
Note: No period of Special Complex Crime
Note: Illegality stands for expiration detention is fixed by
of the periods. law but motive is • Kidnapping with Rape
controlling • Kidnapping with Homicide
 Art. 267
Art. 268
Slight Illegal Detention
Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention

• Private Individual • Private Individual

• Kidnaps or detains another
• Detention is illegal • Illegal
• more than 3 days • Without the circumstances of A. 267
• simulating public authority
• Serious Physical Injuries are made, threats to kill
him are made
• Minor, female or public official

Special Complex Crime Mitigating:

Release within 3 days
• Kidnapping with Rape Without having attained purpose
• Kidnapping with Homicide Before criminal proceedings are instituted
Note:
The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was for
the purpose of extorting ransom even if none of the circumstances
above are present
The taking is always without the consent of the victim. Kidnapping need not
be followed by detention as where the talking was only to briefly restrain
the victim. It is usually for ransom.

To “detain” is to deprive a person of his liberty or restrict his freedom of

locomotion or movement, and may not involve a kidnapping. This includes
the following situations:
a). Lock up or actual physical deprivation of the personal liberty by
confinement in an enclosure
b). immobilizing the victim though he has not been placed in an enclosure
c). by placing physical, moral or psychological restraint on his freedom of
locomotion or movement
The curtailment of the victim’s liberty need not involve any physical
restraint upon the victim’s persons. If the acts and actuations of the
accused produced such fear in the mind of the victim sufficient to
paralyze the latter, to the extent that the victim is compelled to limit
his own actions and movements in accordance with the wishes of the
accused, then the victim is detained against his will (Aslega vs. People,
Oct. 01, 2003)
• Regardless of whether the killing was purposely sought or merely an
after thought, the kidnapping and murder or homicide can no longer
be complexed under A. 48 nor be treated as separate crimes, but shall
be punished as a special complex crime (P vs. Montanir, GR No.
187534)

• If the primary and ultimate purpose of the accused is to kill the

victim, the incidental deprivation of the victim’s liberty does not
constitute kidnapping but is merely preparatory to the act of killing
( People vs. Delim, GR No. 142773)
• Kidnapping with Rape----Taking of the victim was without lewd
designs
• Forcible Abduction with Rape—At the outset, there is already lewd
design
Kidnapping/Serious Illegal Detention with Homicide

The person killed is the victim of the kidnapping or illegal detention. If

the person killed is a third person, it is article 48 which applies and the
crime is an ordinary complex crime.
 Kidnapping/Serious Illegal Detention with Rape
The victim of rape is the victim of kidnapping and not a third
person
Notably, however, no matter how many rapes had been committed in
the special complex crime of kidnapping with rape, the resultant crime
is only one kidnapping with rape. This is because these composite acts
are regarded as a single indivisible offense as in fact R.A. No. 7659
punishes these acts with only one single penalty. In a way, R.A. 7659
depreciated the seriousness of rape because no matter how many
times the victim was raped, there is only one crime committed—the
special complex crime of kidnapping with rape (People vs. Mirandilla,
Jr., 654 SCRA 761).
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 (People v. Elizalde, G.R. No.
210434, December 5, 2016).
• Although the victim initially consented to go to a place with the
accused, but was thereafter prevented through force from leaving
the place, there is kidnapping and serious illegal detention (P vs.
Pickrell, GR No. 120409)

• Voluntary Release is only mitigating in Slight Illegal Detention

Question: Maria was kidnapped, ransom was demanded, and then
later she was killed. What crime was committed?
(Answer): Kidnapping for Ransom with Murder. ( PP. vs. Ramos: Oct. 12,
1998),

Question: Suppose Maria was also raped before being killed?

(Answer). It is still Kidnapping for ransom with Murder. The rape will be
considered as an aggravating circumstance
Q. Jaime, Andy and Jimmy, laborers in the noodles factory of Luke Tan,
agreed to kill him due to his arrogance and miserliness. One afternoon, they
seized him and loaded him in a taxi driven by Mario. They told Mario they
will only teach Luke a lesson in Christian humility. Mario drove them to a
fishpond in Navotas where Luke was entrusted to Emil and Louie, the
fishpond caretakers, asking them to hide Luke in their shack because he was
running from the NBI. The trio then left in Mario's car for Manila where they
called up Luke's family and threatened them to kill Luke unless they give a
ransom within 24 hours. Unknown to them, because of a leak, the
kidnapping was announced over the radio and TV. Emil and Louie heard the
broadcast and panicked, especially when the announcer stated that there is
a shoot-to-kill order for the kidnappers. Emil and Louie took Luke to the
seashore of Dagat-dagatan where they smashed his head with a shovel and
buried him in the sand. However, they were seen by a barangay kagawad
who arrested them and brought them to the police station. Upon
interrogation, they confessed and pointed to Jaime, Andy, Jimmy and Mario
as those responsible for the kidnapping. Later, the 4 were arrested and
charged. What crime or crimes did the 6 suspects commit?
• Jaime, Andy and Jimmy committed kidnapping with homicide. The original
intention was to demand ransom from the family with the threat of killing.
As a consequence of the kidnapping, however, Luke was killed. Thus, the
victim was deprived of his freedom and the subsequent killing, though
committed by another person, was a consequence of the detention. Hence,
this properly qualified the crime as the special complex crime of
kidnapping for ransom with homicide (People v. Mamarion, G.R. No.
137554, October 1, 2003; Art. 267, Revised Penal Code).

• Emil and Louie who smashed the head of the victim and buried the latter
in the sand committed murder qualified by treachery or abuse of superior
strength. They are not liable for kidnapping because they did not conspire,
nor are they aware of the intention to detain Luke whom they were
informed was hiding from the NBI (Art. 248, Revised Penal Code).

• Mario has no liability since he was not aware of the criminal intent and
design of Jaime, Andy and Jimmy. His act of bringing Luke to Navotas for "a
lesson in Christian humility" does not constitute a crime.
Alternative Answer
• Jaime, Andy and Jimmy committed kidnapping with ransom. After kidnapping
Luke, they demanded ransom with the threat of killing him. However, the killing
of Luke is separate from the kidnapping having been committed by other persons,
who had nothing to do with the kidnapping, and who will be liable for a different
crime (Penultimate par. of Art. 267, Revised Penal Code).
• Emil and Louie who smashed the head of the victim and buried the latter in the
sand committed murder qualified by treachery or abuse of superior strength.
They are not liable for kidnapping because they did not conspire, nor are they
aware of the intention to detain Luke whom they were informed was hiding from
the NBI (Art. 248, Revised Penal Code).
• Mario has no liability since he was not aware of the criminal intent and design of
Jaime, Andy and Jimmy. His act of bringing Luke to Navotas for "a lesson in
Christian humility" does not constitute a crime.
The rule now is where the person kidnapped is killed in the course of
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
par. of Art. 267, as amended by RA 7650 (People vs. Ramos, GR No.
118570, Oct. 12, 1998)
 Can a parent be guilty of kidnapping?
• Article 270. Kidnapping and failure to return a minor. – The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall
be imposed upon any person who, being entrusted with the custody of a minor person, shall
deliberately fail to restore the latter to his parents or guardians.
• Article 271. Inducing a minor to abandon his home. – The penalty of prision correccional and a
fine not exceeding seven hundred pesos shall be imposed upon anyone who shall induce a
minor to abandon the home of his parent or guardians or the persons entrusted with his
custody.
• If the person committing any of the crimes covered by the two preceding articles shall be the
father or the mother of the minor, the penalty shall be arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding
three hundred pesos, or both.

• These provisions have been employed to prosecute a parent in a specific case where the
father and the mother were living separately and the custody of the child had been given to
one of them by the court.
• The parent who took the minor from the parent who had been granted custody by the court
will be charged with the crime of kidnapping and failure to return a minor under Article 270.
 Slavery (A. 272)

• Offender purchases, sells, kidnaps or detains a human being

• Purpose is to enslave

Qualified if the purpose of the offender is to assign the offended party

to some immoral traffic
 Exploitation of Child Labor (A. 273)

1. Offender retains a minor in his service

2. Against the will of the minor
3. Under the pretext of reimbursing himself of a debt incurred by an
ascendant, guardian or a person entrusted with the custody of such
minor
Services rendered under compulsion in payment of debts
(A. 274)

Any person who, in order to require or enforce the payment of debt,

shall compel the debtor to work for him, against his will, as household
servant or farm laborer.
Abandonment of Persons in Danger and
Abandonment of One’s Own Victim (A.275)
1. 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:
• The place is not inhabited;
• Accused found there a person wounded
• or in danger of dying;
• Accused can render assistance without
• detriment to himself; and
• Accused fails to render assistance.
2. Failing to help or render assistance to another whom the offender
has accidentally wounded or injured.
• NOTE: The character of the place is immaterial.
3. Failing to deliver a child under 7 years of age whom the offender has
found abandoned, to the authorities or to his family, or failing to take
him to a safe place.
• NOTE: It is immaterial that the offender did not know that the child is
under 7 years.
Abandoning a Minor (A. 276)
1. That the offender has the custody of a child.
2. Child is under 7 years of age
3. That he abandons such child
4. That he has no intent to kill the child when the latter is abandoned
A. 277 Abandonment of Minor By a Person
Entrusted with his Custody; Indifference of Parents
Punishable Acts
1. Delivering a minor to a public institution or other persons without
the consent of the one who entrusted such minor to the care of the
offender or, in the absence of that one, without the consent of the
proper authorities.
2. Neglecting his (offender’s) children by not giving them the
education which their station in life requires and financial condition
permits
Qualified Trespass to Dwelling (A. 280)
Elements
1.Offender is a private person;
2. He enters the dwelling of another; and
3. Such entrance is against the latter’s will.

• If the offender is a public officer or employee, the entrance into the

dwelling against the will of the occupant is violation of domicile
punishable under Art. 128.
Qualifying circumstance of the offense
• If the offense is committed by means of violence or intimidation, the
penalty is higher (prision correctional in medium and maximum
periods; fine not exceeding ₱200,000).
• If violence or intimidation is employed, there is no need for
prohibition. In fact, even if violence or intimidation took place
immediately after the offender has entered the dwelling, there is
Qualified Trespass to Dwelling. (U.S. v. Abanto, G.R. No. 5266,
February 16, 1910; U.S. v. Arceo, G.R. No. 1491, March 5, 1904)
Circumstances when the crime of trespass to dwelling is not committed
--
1. When the purpose of the entrance is to prevent serious harm to
himself, the occupant or third persons.
2. When the purpose of the offender in entering is to render some
service to humanity or justice.
3. Anyone who shall enter cafes, taverns, inns and other public houses
while they are open.
Q: At about 11:00 in the evening, Dante forced his way inside the house of
Mamerto. Dante pulled a knife and stabbed Jay on his abdomen. Mamerto
heard the commotion and went out of his room. Dante, who was about to
escape, assaulted Mamerto. Jay suffered injuries which, were it not for the
timely medical attendance, would have caused his death. Mamerto
sustained injuries that incapacitated him for 25 days. What crime/s did Dante
commit?

A: Dante committed qualified trespass to dwelling, frustrated homicide for

the stabbing of Jay, and less serious physical injuries for the assault on
Mamerto. The crime of qualified trespass to dwelling should not be
complexed with frustrated homicide because when the trespass is
committed as a means to commit a more serious crime, trespass to dwelling
is absorbed by the greater crime and the former constitutes an aggravating
circumstance of dwelling. (People v. Abedoza, 53 Phil 788)
Other Forms of Trespass to Dwelling (A. 281)
Elements
1. Offenders enter the closed premises or the fenced estate of another;
• NOTE: The term premises signifies distinct and definite locality. It may
mean a room, shop, building or definite area, but in either case, locality is
fixed.
2. Entrance is made while either of them is uninhabited;
• NOTE: A place is said to be uninhabited if there is no one living on such
place.
3. Prohibition to enter is manifest; and
4. Trespasser has not secured the permission of the owner or the caretaker
thereof.
 Simple Trespass to Dwelling and
Qualified Trespass to Dwelling
Simple Trespass to Dwelling Qualified Trespass to Dwelling
(Art. 280, Par. 1) (Art. 280, Par. 2)
Offender enters the dwelling of Offender enters the dwelling of
another and the entrance is another against the latter’s will
against the latter’s will and the offense is committed by
means of violence or intimidation
 Qualified Trespass to Dwelling and
Other Forms of Trespass
Qualified Trespass to Dwelling Other Forms of Trespass
(Art. 280) (Art. 281)
(As to Offender)
Offender is a private person The offender is any person
(As to Enclosure Entered)
Offender enters a dwelling house Offender enters closed premises or
fenced estate
 Qualified Trespass to Dwelling and other
forms of Trespass, Distinguished
Qualified Trespass to Dwelling Other forms of Trespass
(Art. 280) (Art. 281)
(As to Nature of Place)
The place entered is inhabited The place entered is uninhabited
(As to Act Punished)
The act constituting the crime is It is the entering the closed
entering the dwelling against the premises or the fenced estate
will of the owner without securing the permission of
the owner or caretaker thereof
 Qualified Trespass to Dwelling and other
forms of Trespass, Distinguished
Qualified Trespass to Dwelling Other forms of Trespass
(Art. 280) (Art. 281)
(As to Prohibition to Enter)
The prohibition to enter is express The prohibition to enter must be
or implied manifest
Grave Threats (A. 282)
1. Threatening another with the infliction upon his person, honor, or
property, or that of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime and
demanding money or imposing any other condition even though not
unlawful, and the offender attained his purpose;
2. By making such threat without the offender attaining his purpose;
and
3. By threatening another with the infliction upon his person, honor or
property or that of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime, the
threat, not being subject to a condition.
Qualifying circumstance of the offense

If the threat is made in writing or through a middleman, the penalty is

to be imposed in its maximum period.
Light Threats (A. 283)
1. Offender makes a threat to commit a wrong;
2. The wrong does not constitute a crime;
3. There is a demand for money or that other condition is imposed,
even though lawful; and
4. Offender has attained or has not attained his purpose.
Other Light Threats (A. 285)
Punishable acts
1. Threatening another with a weapon, or by drawing such weapon in
a quarrel, unless it be in lawful self-defense. (Here, the weapon must
not be discharged; )
2. Orally threatening another, in the heat of anger, with some harm
constituting a crime, without persisting in the idea involved in his
threat; and
3. Orally threatening to do another any harm not constituting a felony.
NOTE: In other light threats, there is no demand for money nor any
condition imposed when the offender threatens the offended party. His
acts are limited to verbal threat during the incident involving him and
the offended party.
 Grave Threats and Light Threats
Grave Threats Light Threats
(Art. 282) (Art. 283)
(As to Act Threatened to be Comitted)
Act threatened amount to a crime Act threatened does not amount
to a crime
(As to Act Threatened to be Comitted)
The demand for money or The demand for money or
imposition of any other condition imposition of any condition is an
is not an essential element essential element, whether the
condition is attained or not
Grave Coercion (A. 286)
1. Preventing another, by means of violence, threat or intimidation,
from doing something not prohibited by law; and
2. Compelling another, by means of violence, threat or intimidation, to
do something against his will, whether it be right or wrong.

NOTE: Coercion is consummated even if the offended party did not

accede to the purpose of the coercion. The essence of coercion is an
attack on individual liberty.
NOTE: Coercion is consummated even if the offended party did not
accede to the purpose of the coercion. The essence of coercion is an
attack on individual liberty.

No grave coercion when a person prohibits another to do an act

because the act done is a crime, and violence and intimidation is
employed
Light Coercion (A. 287)
1. Offender must be a creditor;
2. He seizes anything belonging to his debtor;
3. Seizure of the thing be accomplished by means of violence or a
display of material force producing intimidation; and
4. Purpose of the offender is to apply the same to the payment of the
debt.
 Grave Coercion and Unjust Vexation

Grave Coercion Unjust Vexation

There is violence or intimidation There is no violence or
intimidation
 Grave Coercion and Illegal Detention

Grave Coercion Illegal Detention

Intent to deprive the offended Intent to deprive is present
party of his liberty is not clear (i.e.
may freely leave the house but is
compelled to return)
 Grave Coercion and
Maltreatment of Prisoners
Grave Coercion
(Art. 286)
Intent to deprive the offended
party of his liberty is not clear (i.e.
may freely leave the house but is
compelled to return)
Maltreatment of Prisoners
(Art. 235)
If the offended party is a prisoner,
extracting information using force
or intimidation is maltreatment
CRIMES AGAINTS
CHASTITY
What are crimes against chastity?
1. Adultery ( ÀRT. 333)
2. Concubinage (Art. 334)
3. Acts of Lasciviousness (ART. 336)
4. Qualified Seduction (ART. 337)
5. Simple Seduction (ART. 338)
6. Acts of lasciviousness with the consent of the offended
party (ART. 339)
7. Corruption of minors (ART. 340)
8. White slave trade (ART. 341)
9. Forcible Abduction (ART. 342)
10. Consented Abduction (ART. 343)
What are crimes against chastity which CANNOT be
prosecuted de officio?
1. Concubinage (Art. 334)
2. Adultery (ART. 333)
3. Seduction whether qualified or simple (ART. 337, 338)
4. Abduction which may be forcible or consented (ART. 342,
343)
5. Acts of Lasciviousness with or without consent (ART. 336,
339)

*These crimes are considered private crimes and they cannot be

prosecuted except upon the complaint initiated by the offended
party.
 ADULTERY
Who are the persons liable?

1. The married woman who engages in sexual intercourse with a man

not her husband

2. The man who, knowing of the marriage of the woman, has sexual
intercourse with her.
 What are the elements of Adultery?

1. That the woman is married

2. That she has sexual intercourse with a man NOT her husband
3. That as regards the man with whom she has sexual intercourse, he
must know her to be married
ADULTERY
(People vs. Zapata, G.R. No. L-3047, May 16, 1951)

Each occasion of sexual intercourse constitutes a crime of adultery

(People vs. Zapata, G.R. No. L-3047, May 16, 1951)
ADULTERY
Why is the filing of a subsequent complaint for adultery
while the first complaint is pending do not violate the
constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy?

➢The crime of adultery is an instantaneous crime which

is consummated and completed at the moment of the
carnal union.
➢Each sexual intercourse constitutes a crime of adultery
ADULTERY
What is the effect of abandonment of the offended
spouse?

If the person guilty of adultery committed the offense

while being abandoned without justification by the
offended spouse, the penalty next lower in degree shall
be imposed (ART. 333, last par)
ADULTERY
Effect of death
PARAMOUR OFFENDED PARTY
➢ The death of the paramour ➢ The death of the
will not bar prosecution offended party will
against the unfaithful wife,
not terminate the
because the requirement
that both offenders be proceedings
included in the complaint is
absolute only when the
offenders are alive (ART.
344, par 2)
ADULTERY
(US vs. Mata, G.R. No. L-6300, March 2, 1911)

The gist of the crime of adultery is the danger of introducing spurious

heirs into the family, whereby the rights of the real heirs may be
impaired and a man may be charged with the maintenance of a family
not his own.
ADULTERY
Effect of divorce obtained prior to the
commencement of the case
(Pilapil vs. Ibay-Somera, G.R. No. 80116, June 30,
1989)

The person who initiates the adultery case must be an

offended spouse, and by this, it is meant that he is still
married to the accused spouse, at the time of the filing of the
complaint. Thus, where the offended party (a foreigner) in an
adultery case already obtained a divorce in his country before
the adultery proceedings are commenced, he no longer has
the right to institute proceedings against the offenders.
ADULTERY
Effect of intercourse subsequent to adulterous
conduct

The act of having intercourse with the offending spouse subsequent to

adulterous conduct, is at best, an implied pardon of said adulterous
conduct. But it does not follow that, in order to operate as such, an
express pardon must also be accompanied by intercourse between the
spouses thereafter. Where the pardon given is express – not merely
implied- the act of pardon by itself operates as such whether sexual
intercourse accompanies the same or not.
ADULTERY
Effect of a prior agreement to separate
People vs. Guinucud, et. al. GR. No. L-38672, October
27, 1933

While the agreement is void in law, it is nevertheless,

competent evidence to explain the husband’s inaction
after he knew of his wife’s living with her co-accused,
He may be considered as having consented to the
infidelity of his wife, which bars him from instituting
criminal complaint.
ADULTERY
Adultery is not a continuous crime

Fernandez vs. Lantin, G.R. No. 44759, December 17, 1976

Adultery is not a continuous crime. Adultery is consummated upon

each sexual intercourse.
ADULTERY

Mitigating Circumstance

The criminal liability is mitigated when adultery is

committed while being abandoned by her husband
without justification (ART. 333 par. 3)
ADULTERY

IMPORTANT NOTE:

There is NO crime of frustrated

adultery
ADULTERY
What is the effect of acquittal of one of the
defendants?

It will NOT automatically acquit the other.

➢There may be a joint criminal intent, although there is a joint physical

act
➢One of the parities may be insane and the other is sane
➢The man may not know that the woman is married.
ADULTERY
What are the requirements for pardon?

1. Pardon must come BEFORE the institution of the criminal

prosecution.
2. BOTH offenders must be pardoned.
ADULTERY

Condonation
Bugayong vs. Ginez, G.R. No. L-10033, December 28, 1956)

Condonation is implied from sexual intercourse after knowledge of the other

infidelity. Such acts necessarily implied forgiveness. It is entirely consonant
with reason and justice that if the wife freely consents to sexual intercourse
after she has full knowledge of the husband’s guilt, her consent should
operate as a pardon of his wrong.
ADULTERY
What is the effect of consent?

When there is consent, whether implied or expressed, the husband

CANNOT institute a criminal complaint for adultery.
ADULTERY
People vs. Schneckenburger, G.R. No. L-48183,
November 10, 1941)
Consent applies to future acts while pardon refers to past acts.

Arroyo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 96602, November

19, 1991
For either consent or pardon to benefit the accused, it must be given
PRIOR to the filing of a criminal complaint.
ADULTERY
Under the law, there can be NO accomplice in the crime of adultery,
although in fact there can be such an accomplice.
ADULTERY
What is recrimination?

People vs. Florez, C.A.G.R.No. 26089-CR, April 6, 1964

Husband’s illicit relationship does NOT absolve but may mitigate wife’s
liability for adultery.
ADULTERY
ADULTERY PROSTITUTION
As to the nature of the crime
Crime against chastity Crime against public morals
As to persons liable
Married woman Woman, whether married or
not
As to manner of commission
Having sexual intercourse with Habitual indulgence in sexual
a man NOT her husband intercourse or lascivious
conduct for money or profit
CONCUBINAGE
Who are the person’s liable?

1. The married man

2. The woman who knew that the man was married.
CONCUBINAGE
ELEMENTS
1. That the man must be married
2. That he committed any of the following acts:
a. Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling
b. Having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances
with a woman who is not his wife; or
c. Cohabiting with her in any other place; and
3. That as regards the woman, she must know him to be married
CONCUBINAGE

NOTE:
A married man who has sexual relations with a woman not his wife will
NOT make him liable for concubinage unless he does any of the acts
aforementioned.
CONCUBINAGE
Mistress
To be considered a mistress, she must be taken and
sheltered in a conjugal dwelling as a concubine.

Conjugal Dwelling
It is the home of the husband and wife, even if the wife
happens to be temporarily absent on any account.
CONCUBINAGE
Scandal

It consists of any reprehensible word or deed that offends public

conscience, redounds to the detriment of the feelings of honest
persons, and gives occasion to the neighbor’s spiritual damage or ruin.
CONCUBINAGE
Cohabit

People vs. Pitoc, G.R. No. 18513, September 18, 1922

It means to dwell together, in the manner of husband and wife, for

some of time, as distinguished from occasional transient interviews for
unlawful intercourse.
CONCUBINAGE
Beltran vs. People

The pendency of the case for declaration of nullity of a husband’s

marriage is NOT a prejudicial question to a concubinage case.
CONCUBINAGE
NOTE:

Adultery is more severely punished than concubinage because adultery

makes possible the introduction of another man’s blood into the family
so that the offended husband may have another man’s son bearing his
(husband’s) name and receiving support from him.
CONCUBINAGE
Scandalous circumstances

Scandal produced by the concubinage of a married man occurs not only

when
1. He and his mistress live in the same room of a house, but also when
2. They appear together in public
3. Perform acts in sight of the community which gives rise to criticism
and general protest among the neighbors. (ART. 334)
CONCUBINAGE
Who can initiate the action for adultery or concubinage?

Pilapil vs. Ibay-Somera, G.R. No. 80116, June 30, 1989

The law specifically provides that in prosecutions for adultery and

concubinage the person who can legally file the complaint should be
the offended spouse, and nobody else. Unlike the offenses of
seduction, abduction, rape and acts of lasciviousness, no provision is
made for the prosecution of the crimes of adultery and concubinage by
the parents, grandparents or guardian of the offended party.
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
ELEMENTS
1. That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or
lewdness
2. That the act of lasciviousness is committed against a person
of either sex; and
3. That it is done under any of the following circumstances:
a. by using force or intimidation
b. when the offended party is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious
c. by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of
authority; or
d. when the offended party is under 12 years of age or is
demented.
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
Lewd

Lutap vs. People, G.R. No. 204601, February 5, 2018

It is defined as obscene, lustful, indecent, lecherous, signifying that

form of immorality which has relation to moral impurity; or that which
is carried on a wanton manner.
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
Quimvel v. People
force and intimidation
however, the Court clarified that "force and intimidation" is subsumed under
"coercion and influence,“ and that "x x x lascivious conduct under the
coercion or influence of any adult exists when there is some form of
compulsion equivalent to intimidation which subdues the free exercise of the
offended party's free will. x x x

influence
The term 'influence' means the 'improper use of power or trust in any way
that deprives a person of free will and substitutes another's

coercion
objective.' Meanwhile, 'coercion' is the 'improper use of x x x power to
compel another to submit to the wishes of one who wields it.
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
What constitutes lewd or lascivious conduct?

It must be determined from the circumstances of each case. The

presence or absence of the lewd designs is inferred from the nature of
the acts themselves and the environmental circumstances.
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
ATTEMPTED RAPE ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
Manner of commission is the SAME
The performance of lascivious character is common to both
As to intent
When the acts performed by the There is no intent to have sexual
offender clearly indicate that his intercourse and purpose is only to
purpose was to lie with the offended commit acts of lewdness
woman.
As to the nature of Lascivious Acts
The lascivious acts are but the The lascivious acts are the final
preparatory acts to the commission objective sought by the offender.
of rape.
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
"Lascivious conduct" is defined under Article XIII, Section
32 of the Implementing Rules and Regulation of R.A. 7610,
as follows:

The intentional touching, either directly or through

clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or
buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the
genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the
same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate,
harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of
any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of
the genitals or pubic area of a person.
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
People vs. Collado, G.R. No. 135667-70, March 1, 2011

Thus, when the touching of the vagina by the penis is coupled with the
intent to penetrate, attempted rape is committed. Otherwise, it is
merely acts of lasciviousness.
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS

There can be NO attempted and frustrated

acts of lasciviousness
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
People vs. Tabarangao, G.R. No. 116535-36, February 25, 1999

The crime of consummated rape necessarily absorbs acts of

lasciviousness, the essence of which is the commission of acts of
lewdness without any intention to lie with the woman.
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
People vs. Rellota, G.R. No. 168103, August 3, 2010

In cases of acts of lasciviousness, it is not necessary that intimidation

be irresistible. It is sufficient that some compulsion equivalent to
intimidation annuls or subdues
QUALIFIED SEDUCTION
Seduction

It means enticing a woman to unlawful sexual intercourse by promise

of marriage or other means of persuasion without use of force
 OLD LAW
Article 337. Qualified seduction. –
The seduction of a virgin over twelve
years and under eighteen years of age,
committed by any person in public
authority, priest, home-servant,
domestic, guardian, teacher, or any
person who, in any capacity, shall be
entrusted with the education or custody
of the woman seduced, shall be
punished by prision correccional in its
minimum and medium periods.
NEW LAW
Article 337. Qualified seduction. –
The seduction of a minor, sixteen and
over but under eighteen years of age,
committed by any person in public
authority, priest, home-servant,
domestic, guardian, teacher, or any
person who, in any capacity, shall be
entrusted with the education or custody
of the minor seduced, shall be punished
by prision correccional in its minimum
and medium periods.
The penalty next higher in degree shall
be imposed upon any person who shall
seduce his sister or descendant,
whether or not she be a virgin or over
eighteen years of age.
Under the provisions of this Chapter,
seduction is committed when the
offender has carnal knowledge of any
of the persons and under the
circumstances described herein.
"The penalty next higher in degree shall
be imposed upon any person who shall
seduce his sister or descendant,
whether or not she be a virgin or over
eighteen years of age.
"Under the provisions of this Chapter,
seduction is committed when the
offender have carnal knowledge of any
of the persons and under the
circumstances described therein."
QUALIFIED SEDUCTION
TWO CLASSES:

1. Seduction of a virgin OVER twelve (12) years and under eighteen (18)
years of age by persons who abuse their authority or the confidence
reposed in them.
2. Seduction of a sister by her brother or descendants by her
ascendant, REGARDLESS of her age and reputation
QUALIFIED SEDUCTION

Elements
1. That the offended party is a virgin
2. She must be OVER twelve (12) and under eighteen (18) years of age
3. That the offender had sexual intercourse with her; and
4. That there is abuse of authority, confidence or relationship on the
part of the offender.
QUALIFIED SEDUCTION
What are the acts that constitute qualified seduction?

1. Seduction of a virgin over 12 years and under 18 year of age by

certain persons, such as, a person in authority, priest, teacher, etc.
and
2. Seduction of a sister by her brother, or descendant by her
ascendant regardless of her age or reputation
QUALIFIED SEDUCTION
Virgin

People vs. Yap, G.R. No. L-25176. February 27, 1968

It refers to a woman of chaste character or a woman of good

reputation. Virginity in this sense does not mean physical virginity.
QUALIFIED SEDUCTION
Babanto vs. Zosa, G.R. No. L-32895, February 28, 1983

Virginity is presumed if the girl is over 12 and under 18 years of age, is

unmarried and of good reputation.
QUALIFIED SEDUCTION
NOTE:

If there is no sexual intercourse and only acts of lewdness are

performed, the crime is acts of lasciviousness under Art. 339.

Virginity of the sister or descendant is not required and she may be

over 18 years of age. Relationship must be by consanguinity. The
relationship need not be legitimate.
QUALIFIED SEDUCTION
Who are the persons who could be offenders in qualified
seduction?
1. Those who abused their authority:
a. Persons in public authority
b. Guardian
c. Teacher; and
d. Person who, in any capacity, is entrusted with the education or custody of the woman
seduced.
2. Those who abused confidence reposed in them:
a. Priest
b. House servant; and
c. Domestic helper
3. Those who abused their relationship:
a. brother who seduced his sister
b. ascendant who seduced his descendant
QUALIFIED SEDUCTION

NOTE:
The fact that the girl gave her consent to the sexual intercourse is no
defense. In the same way, lack of consent of the girl is not an element
of the offense.
QUALIFIED SEDUCTION
Rape Qualified Seduction
As to elements
1. That the offender has had carnal 1. That the offended party is a virgin, which is
knowledge of a woman; presumed if she Is unmarried and of good
2. That such act is accomplished: reputation;
(a)by using force or intimidation 2. That she must be over twelve (12) and
(b)when the woman is deprived of reason under eighteen (18) years of age
or otherwise unconscious, or 3. That the offender has sexual intercourse
(c)when the woman is under twelve with her
(12) years of age 4. That there is abuse of authority, confidence
or relationship on the part of the offender

As to age of offended party

The age can be less than 12 which is always The girl must be more than 12 but less than 18
rape, if 12 but less than 18, there should be and the crime is by means of cajolery
force or intimidation
As to materiality of virginity
Virginity is not material Virginity is an element
SIMPLE SEDUCTION
ART. 338
 OLD LAW
Article 338. Simple seduction. –
The seduction of a woman who is
single or a widow of good
reputation, over twelve but
under eighteen years of age,
committed by means of deceit,
shall be punished by arresto
mayor.
NEW LAW
Article 338. Simple seduction. –
The seduction of a minor, sixteen
and over but under eighteen
years of age, committed by
means of deceit, shall be
punished by arresto mayor."
SIMPLE SEDUCTION
Elements:
1. That the offended party is over 12 and under 18
years if age
2. That she must be of good reputation, single or
widow
3. That the offender has sexual intercourse with her
4. That it is committed by means of deceit.
SIMPLE SEDUCTION

People vs. Iman, G.R. No. 42660, September 12, 1935

Deceit generally takes the form of unfulfilled promise of marriage.

SIMPLE SEDUCTION

People vs. Yap, G.R. No. L-25176, February 27, 1968

It is not required in simple seduction that the victim be a virgin, as all

that is necessary is that she is of good reputation
SIMPLE SEDUCTION
Barba vs. People, G.R. No. L-32267-70, March 26, 1979

Deceit must be alleged in the information for it to be appreciated by

the courts.
SIMPLE SEDUCTION
The gist of qualified seduction is the abuse of authority, confidence, or
relationship as the means of committing the crime.

In simple seduction, it is the use of deceit. But in both kinds of

seduction, there must be sexual intercourse.
 Qualified Seduction and Simple Seduction
Qualified Seduction Simple Seduction
(Art. 337) (Art. 338)
(As to Virginity)
Virginity is an essential element of Virginity is not an essential
the crime element of the crime, but it is
enough that the woman is single
or a widow of good reputation and
has a chaste life
 Qualified Seduction and Simple Seduction
Qualified Seduction Simple Seduction
(Art. 337) (Art. 338)
(As to Deceit)
Deceit is not an essential element Deceit is an essential element of
of the crime the crime
 Qualified Seduction and Simple Seduction
Qualified Seduction Simple Seduction
(Art. 337) (Art. 338)
(As to Commission of the Crime)
Qualified seduction can be Simple seduction can be
committed only with abuse of committed even without abuse of
authority, abuse of confidence, or authority, abuse of confidence, or
abuse of relationship abuse of relationship
 Qualified Seduction and Simple Seduction
Qualified Seduction Simple Seduction
(Art. 337) (Art. 338)
(As to Offender)
This can be committed by specific This may be committed by any
offenders such as a person in public person so long as there is deceit
authority, priest, house servant,
domestic, guardian, teacher, or any
person entrusted with the education or
keeping of the offended woman
seduced, a brother seducing his sister, or
ascendant seducing a descendant
 Qualified Seduction Simple Seduction
As to virginity Virginity is an essential element Virginity is NOT an essential
of the crime. element of the crime, but it is
enough that the woman is single
or a widow of a good reputation
and has a chaste life.

As to deceit Deceit is not an essential Deceit is an essential element of

As to commission of the crime
element of the crime. the crime
Qualified seduction can be Simple seduction can be
committed only with abuse of committed EVEN WITHOUT
authority, abuse of confidence, abuse of authority, abuse of
or abuse of relationship confidence or abuse of
relationship

As to offender This can be committed by This may be committed by any

specific offenders such as a person so long as there is deceit.
person in public authority, priest,
house servant, domestic,
guardian, teacher, or any person
entrusted with the education or
keeping of the offended woman
seduced, a brother seducing his
sister, or ascendant seducing a
descendant
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS WITH THE CONSENT
OF THE OFFENDED PARTY
Elements:
1. That the offender commits acts of lasciviousness or
lewdness.
2. That the acts are committed upon a woman who is a virgin
or single or a widow of good reputation. Under eighteen (18)
years of age but over twelve (12) years, or a sister or
descendant regardless of her reputation or age
3. That the offender accomplishes the acts by:
-abuse of authority,
-confidence,
-relationship or
-deceit.
 ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
WITH CONSENT OF THE
OFFENDED PARTY
As to the offended party
Male or female Only female
As to how committed
The acts are committed under The acts of lasciviousness are
circumstances which, had there committed under the
been carnal knowledge, would circumstances which, had there
amount to rape been carnal knowledge, would
amount to either qualified
seduction or simple seduction
SIMPLE SEDUCTION
There is an oversight in the law where the victim is exactly twelve (12)
years of age. If the victim is below 12, the crime will be rape, or
unconsented acts of lasciviousness or forcible abduction. Hence, Art.
339 stating “over 12 years of age” should be construed as twelve years
of age and over, thus construing the doubt in favor of the accused.
CORRUPTION OF MINORS (as amended by BP
BLG. 92)

Who are the persons liable under ART. 340, as amended by B.P. No.
92?

Any person who shall promote or facilitate the prostitution or

corruption of persons underage to satisfy the lust of another.
CORRUPTION OF MINORS (as amended by BP
BLG. 92)
NOTE:
Persons under age means under 18 years of age

The victim must be of good reputation and not a prostitute or

corrupted person

It is not necessary that the unchaste acts shall have been done since
what is being punished is mere act of promotion or facilitation
CORRUPTION OF MINORS (as amended by BP
BLG. 92)

What are the punishable acts under Article 341 as amended by B.P.
No. 186?

1. Engaging in the business of prostitution

2. Profiting by prostitution; and
3. Enlisting the service of any other for the purpose of prostitution
ABDUCTION
What is abduction?

People vs. Crisostomo, G.R. No. 19034, February 17, 1923

It is the taking away of a woman from her house of the place where she
may be for the purpose of carrying her to another place with intent to
marry or to corrupt her.
ABDUCTION
ELEMENTS:

1. That the person abducted is a woman regardless of her age, civil

status, or reputation
2. That the abduction is against her will;
3. That the abduction as with lewd designs (People vs. Villanueva, G.R.
No. 230723, February 13, 2019
ABDUCTION
FORCIBLE ABDUCTION GRAVECOERCION/
(ART. 342) KIDNAPPING
As to existence of lewd design
With lewd design No lewd design
As to deprivation of liberty
There is no deprivation of Generally committed habitually
liberty
ABDUCTION
NOTE:

Conviction of acts of lasciviousness is not a bar to

conviction of forcible abduction

People vs. Egan, G.R. No. 139338, May 28, 2002

Attempted rape is absorbed by forcible abduction as
the former constitutes the element of lewd design
ABDUCTION
People vs. Pineda, G.R. No. L-44205, February 16, 1993

Forcible abduction is a continuing crime. As such, the criminal action

may be instituted in the proper court of any province in which the
offense is continued
ABDUCTION
If the female is abducted is under twelve (12) years of age – crime is
always forcible abduction even if she voluntarily goes with her abductor
ABDUCTION
US vs. Ramirez, G.R. No. 13997, March 8, 1919

Sexual intercourse is not necessary in forcible abduction. The intent to

seduce the girl is sufficient.

People vs. Torres, G.R. No. L-43406, January 30, 1936

The virginity of the offended woman is not an essential element of the

crime of forcible abduction.
ABDUCTION
People vs. Espiritu, G.R. No. 128870, October 27, 1999

When the accused forcibly took away the victim, for the purpose of
raping her, as in fact he did rape her, lewd and unchaste designs existed
since the commencement of the crime. As a result, the accused
committed the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape
FORCIBLE ABDUCTION
1. The abductor has Carnal knowledge of the abducted woman.
2. By using force or intimidation
3. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious
or when the woman is under 12 years of age or is demented.
(People vs. Domingo, G.R. No. 225743, June 7, 2017)
FORCIBLE ABDUCTION
People vs. Garcia, G.R. No. 141125, February 28, 2002

There can only be one complex crime of forcible abduction with rape.
Thus, the subsequent acts of rape can no longer be considered as
separate complex crimes of forcible abduction with rape.
FORCIBLE ABDUCTION
People vs. Domingo, G.R. No. 225743, June 7, 2017

There is no complex crime of forcible abduction with rape if the

primary objective of the accused is to commit rape.
CONSENTED ABDUCTION
ELEMENTS:

1. That the offended party must be a virgin

2. That she must be over 12 and under 18 years of age
3. That the taking away of the offended party must be with her
consent, after solicitation or cajolery from the offender.
4. That the taking away of the offended party must be with lewd
designs.
CONSENTED ABDUCTION
Valdepenas vs. People, G.R. No. L-20687, April 30, 1996

Virginity is an essential element. The virginity mentioned, as an

essential ingredient in the crime of abduction with consent, should not
be understood in its material sense and does not exclude the idea of
abduction of a virtuous woman of good reputation, because the
essence of the offense is not the wrong done to the woman, but the
outrage to the family and the alarm produce in it by the disappearance
of one of its members.
CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY WHERE AGE AND
REPUTATION OF THE VICTIM ARE IMMATERIAL

1. Acts of lasciviousness against the will of the

offended party or against a sister or descendant.
2. Qualified seduction of sister or descendant and;
3. Forcible abduction
CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY WHERE AGE AND REPUTATION OF
THE VICTIM ARE IMMATERIAL
People vs. Amante, G.R. No. L-25604, December 6, 1929

When a 15-year old girl was induced by the accused to leave her home
and later was forcibly violated by him, the accused is guilty of the
complex crime of consented abduction with rape.
PROSECUTION OF THE CRIMES OF ADULTERY,
CONCUBINAGE, SEDUCTION, ABDUCTION, RAPE AND
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
HOW PROSECUTED:

1. Adultery and concubinage must be prosecuted upon the

complaint signed by the offended spouse (and in the
absence of an express or implied pardon)
2. Seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness must be
prosecuted upon the complaint signed by (and in the
absence of an express pardon) the offended party –
a. Even if a minor; or
b. If of legal age and not incapacitated, only she can file complaint
If a minor or incapacitated and refuses to file either of
the next succeeding persons may file:
1. Either of the parents
2. Either of the grandparents whether paternal or
maternal side
3. Legal or judicial guardians
4. The State, as parens patriae when the offended
party dies or becomes incapacitated before she
could file the complaint and she has no known
parents, grandparents or guardians
NOTE:
Rape is now a crime against persons, which may be
prosecuted de oficio (R.A. No. 8353, Sec. 2)

People vs. Yu, G.R. No. L-13780. January 28, 1961

In case of complex crimes, where one of the

component offenses is a public crime the criminal
prosecution may be instituted by the public prosecutor
RATIONALE:
People vs. Yu, G.R. No. L-13780, January 28, 1961

Since one of the component offenses is a public crime, the latter should
prevail because public interest is always paramount to private interest.
In adultery and concubinage, the offended party must
institute the criminal prosecution against both the
guilty parties, if both of them are alive (RPC, Art. 344,
par. 2)

The right to file the action granted to the parents,

grandparent or guardian shall be exclusive of all other
persons and shall be exercised successively in the order
provided by law.
PARDON IN CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY
People vs. Infante, G.R. No. L-36270, August 31, 1932

Pardon in adultery and concubinage must come BEFORE the institution

of the criminal action and both offenders must be pardoned by the
offended party if said pardon is to be effective.
People vs. Miranda, G.R. No. 38171, October 6, 1932

Pardon in seduction must also come before the institution of the

criminal action.
NOTE:

Since condonation is forgiveness based upon the belief that the guilty
party has repented, any subsequent act of the offender showing that
there was no repentance will not bar the prosecution of the offense
People vs. Makilang, G.R. No. 139329, October 23, 2001

Pardon by the offended party who is a minor must have the

concurrence of both parents.
EXCEPT: when the offended party has no parents or the
offender is her own father and mother is dead.
Marriage of the offender with the offended part in seduction,
abduction and acts of lasciviousness extinguishes criminal action or
remits the penalty already imposed, and it benefits the co-principals,
accomplices and accessories.

In rape, it extends only as to the principal.

CRIMES AGAINST CIVIL STATUS
OF PERSONS
PUNISHABLE ACTS:

1. Simulation of births
2. Substitution of one child for another; and
3. Concealing or abandoning any legitimate child with intent to cause
such child to lose its civil status.

*object of the crime under ART. 347 is the creation of false, or the
causing of the loss of, civil status.
SIMULATION OF BIRTHS
When the woman pretends to be pregnant when in fact she is not, and
on the day of the supposed delivery, takes the child of another as her
own.

The operative act in the simulation is the registration of the child in the
registry of births as the pretending parent’s own. The simulation is a
crime is which alters the civil status of person.

The woman who stimulates birth and the one who furnishes the child
are both liable as principals.
The unlawful sale of the child by his father was held to be not
punishable under the RPC (U.S. vs. Capillo, G.R. No. 9279, March 25,
1915) Now, it is punishable under P.D. No. 603, under ART. 59(3).
Furthermore, if the accused shall engage in trading and dealing with
children, including the act of buying and selling of children, this type of
child trafficking is punished with reclusion temporal to reclusion
perpetua (R.A. No. 7610, Section 7)
CONCEALING OR ABANDONING A LEGITIMATE
CHILD
ELEMENTS:

1. The child must be legitimate

2. The offender conceals or abandons such child.
3. The offender has the intent to cause such child to lose its civil
status.
U.S. vs. Capillo, G.R. No. 9279, March 25, 1915

The child must be legitimate and a fully developed and living being.
Abandon

It means to leave a child in a public place where other people may find
the child.
ABANDONING A MINOR SIMULATION OF BIRTHS,
(ART. 276) SUBSTITUTION OF ONE CHILD
FOR ANOTHER, AND
CONCEALMENT OF A
LEGITIMATE CHOLD (ART.
347)
As to classification
Crime against security Crime against the civil status
of a person
As to offender
The one who has custody of Any person
the child
As to purpose of the offender
To avoid the obligation of To cause the child to lose its
rearing and caring for the civil status
child
USURPATION OF CIVIL STATUS
Usurping the civil status of another is committed by assuming the
filiation of the parental or conjugal rights of another, with intent to
enjoy the rights arising from the civil status of the latter
NOTE: the crime is qualified if the purpose is to defraud
the offended party or his heirs

The term “civil status” includes one’s public station, or

the rights, duties, capacities and incapacities which
determine a person to a given class. It seems that the
term “civil status” includes one’s profession.
Intent to enjoy rights

It is absolutely necessary in order to constitute this crime that the

intent of the offender is to enjoy the rights arising from the civil status
of the person impersonated. Otherwise, the case will only be a
violation of ART. 178 for using a fictitious name, or as estafa under ART.
315
BIGAMY
ELEMENTS:

1. That the offender is legally married

2. That the marriage has not been dissolved or, in
case the spouse is absent, the absent spouse could
not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil
Code.
3. That he contracts a second or subsequent marriage
4. That the second or subsequent marriage has all the
essential requisites for validity.
Mercado vs. Tan, G.R. No. 137110, August 1, 2000

The first marriage must be valid. If it is void or voidable, bigamy

may still be committed if there is no judicial declaration of
nullity or annulment of the first marriage. Although marriages
that are void ab initio do not create any marital vinculum,
Article 40 of the Family Code now requires that there must first
be a judicial declaration of the nullity of the marriage before
contracting a second marriage. A marriage is presumed valid
until declared as void ab initio.
Mercado vs. Tan, G.R. No. 137110, August 1,
2000

A petition for declaration of nullity of the first

marriage is not a prejudicial civil question that
will operate to suspend the criminal action for
bigamy.
Abunado vs. People

Under the law, a marriage, even one which is void or voidable,

shall be deemed valid until declared otherwise in a judicial
proceeding. Even if petitioner eventually obtained a declaration
that his first marriage was void ab initio, the point is, both the
first and the second marriage were subsisting before the first
marriage was annulled.
Manuel vs. People, G. R. No. 165842, November 29,
2005

It is essential in the prosecution for bigamy that the

alleged second marriage, having all the essential
requirements, would be valid were it not for the
subsistence of the first marriage. It does not matter
whether the first marriage is void or voidable because
such marriages have juridical effects until lawfully
dissolved by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Capili vs. People, G.R. No. 183805, July 3, 2015

The subsequent judicial declaration of the nullity of the

first marriage is immaterial if the crime of bigamy has
been consummated prior to said declaration

Bigamy is a public crime, thus, its prosecution may be

initiated by anyone
Pulido vs. People (GR No. 220149, July 27 2021)

In criminal prosecutions for bigamy, the accused can now validly interpose the
defense of a void ab initio marriage even without obtaining a judicial decree of
absolute nullity; a judicial decree of absolute nullity of a first marriage in a separate
proceeding, irrespective of when it was secured, is a valid defense in a criminal
prosecution for bigamy.
Santiago vs. People
Only if the second spouse had knowledge of the previous
undissolved marriage of the accused could she be included in
the information as a co-accused.

A person convicted of bigamy may still be prosecuted for

concubinage

The death of the first spouse during the pendency of the bigamy
case does not extinguish the crime, because when the accused
married the second spouse, the first marriage was still subsisting
 Bigamy Adultery/Concubinage
As to the nature of the offense
Public offense; crime against status Private offense; crime against chastity

As to effect of pardon
Has no effect Bars the prosecution of the case

As to manner of commission
Celebration of the second marriage Mere cohabitation by the husband
with the first still existing with a woman who is not a wife

As to who may prosecute

At the instance of the state Only at the instance of the offended
party
ILLEGAL MARRIAGE (ART. 350)
ELEMENTS:

1. That the offender contracted marriage

2. That he knew at the time that:
a. The requirements of the law were not
complied with;
b. The marriage was in disregard of a legal
impediment; and
3. The offender must not be guilty of bigamy
Qualifying circumstance:

If either of the contracting parties obtains the

consent of the other by means of violence,
intimidation of fraud.

Conviction of a violation of Art. 350 involves

moral turpitude.
PREMATURE MARRIAGES (ART. 351)
ART. 351 ALREADY DECRIMINALIZED
R.A. No. 10655, approved on March 13, 2015, decriminalized the contracting
of a premature marriage by a woman without prejudice to the provisions of
the Family Code on paternity and filiation.

ART. 352 presupposes that the pries or minister or civil authority is

authorized to solemnize marriages. If the accused is not authorized to
solemnize marriage and he performs an illegal marriage ceremony, he is
liable under Art. 177 (i.e. usurpation of authority or public function)

The solemnizing officer of illegal marriages who performs or authorizes the

same, despite his knowledge of the illegality, shall be punished under Sec. 39
of Act 3613
CRIMES AGAINST HONOR
LIBEL
ELEMENTS

1. That there must be an imputation of a crime, or a vice

or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission,
condition, status or circumstance
2. That the imputation must be made publicly
3. That it must be malicious
4. That the imputation must be directed at a natural
person or a juridical person, or one who is dead; and
5. That the imputation must tend to cause the dishonor,
discredit, or contempt of the person defamed.
Dishonor
- disgrace, shame or ignomity

Discredit
-means loss of credit or reputation, disesteem

Contempt
-means state of being despised

Publication
-it is the communication of the defamatory matter to some third person or persons. Thus, sending a
letter containing defamatory words against another to a third person is sufficient publication
TEST OF DEFAMATORY CHARACTER OF THE
WORDS USED
A charge is sufficient if the words are calculated to induce the hearers
to suppose and understand that the person against whom they were
uttered was guilty of certain offenses, or are sufficient to impeach the
honesty, virtue or reputation, or to hold him up to public ridicule
Manila Bulletin Publishing Corp vs. Domingo, G.R. No. 170341, July 5,
2017

In determining whether a statement is defamatory, the words used are

construed in their entirety and taken in their plain, natural and ordinary
meaning as they would naturally be understood by persons reading
them, unless it appears that they were used and understood in another
sense.
MVRS Publications, Inc. vs. Islamic Da’wah Council of the Philippines,
Inc. G.R. No. 135306, January 28, 2003

The meaning of the writer is immaterial. The question is, not what the
writer meant, but what he conveyed to those who heard or read.
If criminal intention is imputed against another, it is not considered
libelous because intent to commit a crime is not a violation of the law.
Manila Bulletin Publishing Corp vs. Domingo, G.R. No. 170341, July 5,
2017

Where the words imputed are not defamatory in character, a libel

charge will not prosper regardless if there is malice or not.
Imputation may cover:

1. Crime allegedly committed by the offended party.

2. Vice or defect, real or imaginary of the offended party
3. Any act, omission, condition, status of, or circumstances relating to
the offended party.
TWO TYPES OF MALICE
1. Malice in fact
Is a positive desire and an intention to annoy and injure

2. Malice in law
- Is a presumption of law. It dispenses with the proof of
malice when words that raise the presumption are
shown to have been uttered. It is also known as
constructive malice, legal malice or implied malice.
(Yuchengco vs. The Manila Chronicle Publishing Corp,
G.R. No. 184315, November 25, 2009)
When the communication is privileged, malice is not presumed from
the defamatory words. Malice (in fact) must be proved.
GUIDELINES WHEN SEVERAL PERSONS ARE
DEFAMED
1. If the defamation is made on different occasions or by independent
acts, there are as many crimes of libel as there are persons directly
addressed with such statements or directly referred to (Soriano vs.
IAC, G.R. No. 72383, November 9, 1988)
2. If the defamation is made on a single occasion:

a. If defamatory words are used broadly in respect in respect to a large class

or group of persons, and there is nothing that points, or by proper
colloquium or innuendo can be made to apply, to a particular
member of the class or group, no member has a right of action
for libel or slander. Where the defamatory matter had no special, personal
application and was so general that no individual damages could be
presumed, and where the class referred to was so numerous that great
vexation and oppression might grow out of the multiplicity of suits, no
private action could be maintained. (MVRS Publications Inc. vs. Islamic
Da’wah Council of the Philippines, Inc.)
b. If the statement is so sweeping or all embracing as to apply to every
individual in that group or class so that each individual therein can
prove that the defamatory statements specifically pointed to him, he
can bring his action separately. (Newsweek Inc. vs. IAC, G.R. No. L-
63559, May 30, 1986)
c. If several identifiable victims are libeled in a single article, there are
as many crimes of libel as there are persons defamed. (Soriano vs. IAC,
G.R. No. 72383, November 9, 1988)
REQUIREMENT OF PUBLICITY
Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be
true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown.
(RPC Art. 354)
THE PRESUMPTION OF MALICE IS REBUTTED IF IT IS SHOWN BY THE
ACCUSED THAT:

1. The defamatory imputation is true, in case the law allows proof of

the truth of the imputation (see. Art. 361)
2. It is published with good intention
3. There is justifiable motive for making it
 Malice is not presumed in the following cases
involving qualifiedly privileged communication
1. Private communication
made by any person to
another in the
performance of any legal,
moral or social duty (RPC.
Art. 354, Par 1)
2. A fair and true report, made in
good faith, without any comments or
remarks, of any judicial, legislative, or
other official proceedings which are
not of confidential nature or of any
statement, report or speech delivered
in said proceeding, or of any other act
performed by public officers in the
exercise of their functions
• That the person who made the communication had a
legal, moral or social duty to make the communication,
or, at least, he had an interest to be upheld.
• That the communication is addressed to an officer or a
board, or superior, having some interest or duty in the
matter; and
• That the statements in the communication are made in
good faith without malice (in fact)
• That it is fair and true report of a judicial, legislative, or
other official proceedings which are not of a confidential
nature, or of a statement, report or speech delivered in
said proceedings, or of any other act performed by a
public officer in the exercise of his functions
• That it is made in good faith
• That it is without any comments or remarks.
NOTE:

Therefore, qualified privileged communications must be made with

malice and bad faith in order to be actionable

An absolute privileged communication is not actionable even if made in

bad faith, specifically in the Constitution as absolutely privileged are
statements made in official proceedings of Congress by members
thereof, as an implementation of their parliamentary immunity
Armovit vs. Purisima, G.R. No. L-39258, November 15, 1982

Statements made in judicial proceedings are privileged but only if

pertinent or relevant to the case involved
Borjal vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126466, January 14, 1999

The enumeration under Art. 354 is not an exclusive list of qualified

privileged communication.
TWO KINDS OF PRIVILEGED
COMMUNICATIONS

QUALIFIEDLY OR CONDITIONALLY
ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGED
PRIVILEGED
STATEMENTS (APS)
STATEMENTS (QPS)
• Totally not actionable, regardless • Actionable, provided the
of the existence of malice in fact presence of malice in fact or
actual malice is established
DOCTRINE OF FAIR COMMENT
Borjal vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126466, January 14, 1999

While in general, every discreditable imputation publicly made is

deemed false, because every man is presumed innocent until his guilt is
judicially proved, and every false imputation is directed against a public
person in his public capacity, it is not necessarily actionable.
CRITICISM
Deals only with such things as shall invite public attention or call public
comment. It does not follow a public man into his private life nor pry
into his domestic concerns. If one’s good name is assailed in the
newspaper, he may reply by defending himself, and if his reply is made
in good faith, without malice and is not unnecessarily defamatory of his
assailant, it is privileged.
NOTE:

Retaliation or vindicativeness cannot be a basis of self-defense in

defamation.
WAYS OF COMMITTING LIBEL BY MEANS OF WRITINGS
OR SIMILAR MEANS
1. Printing
2. Phonograph
3. Painting
4. Writing
5. Engraving
6. Theatrical exhibition
7. Lithography
8. Any similar means
9. Cinematographic radio; or
10. Exhibition
People vs. Santiago, G.R. No. L-17663, May 30, 1962

Defamation through an amplifier system is slander and not libel

If defamatory remarks are made in the heat of passion which
culminated in a threat, the derogatory statements will not constitute an
independent crime of libel but a part of the more serious crime of
threats.
THREATENING TO PUBLISH AND OFFER TO PREVENT SUCH
PUBLICATION FOR A COMPENSATION

Punishable acts:

1. Threatening another to publish a libel concerning him, or his

parents, spouse, child or other members of the family; and
2. Offering to prevent the publication of such libel for compensation
or money consideration.
BLACKMAIL
U.S. vs. Eguia, G.R. No. 13540, October 24, 1918

It is any unlawful extortion of money by threats of accusation or

exposure.
It is essential that the threat to publish, or to offer to prevent the
publication of libel must be for a compensation or monetary
consideration in order that it may be penalized under this article.
PROHIBITED PUBLICATION OF ACTS REFERRED TO IN THE
COURSE OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS
ELEMENTS:

1. That the offender is a Reporter, Editor or Manager of a newspaper

daily or magazine
2. He publishes facts connected with the private life of another; and
3. Such facts are Offensive to the honor, virtue and reputation of said
person
Article 357 is referred to as the “Gag Law” because while a report of an
official proceeding is allowed, it gags those who would publish therein
facts which this article prohibits, and punishes any violation thereof.

The Gag law prohibits the publication of cases relating to adultery,

divorce, legitimacy of children, etc.
Under R.A. No. 1477 ("An Act to Exempt the Publisher, Editor,
Columnist or Reporter of Any Publication from Revealing the Source of
Published News or Information Obtained in Confidence“), a
newspaper reporter cannot be compelled to reveal the source of the
news report he made, unless the court or a House or committee of
Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the
state.
2 KINDS OF SLANDER
(ORAL DEFAMATION)

SIMPLE SLANDER

GRAVE SLANDER
when it is of a serious and insulting nature
FACTORS THAT DETERMINE THE GRAVITY OF
THE ORAL DEFAMATION
1. Expressions used
2. Personal relations of the accused and the offended
party
3. Circumstances surrounding the case
4. Social standing and position of the offended
NOTE:

The slander need not be heard by the offended party.

Gossiping is considered as oral defamation if a defamatory fact is

imputed or intriguing against honor if there is no imputation.
Reyes vs. People, G.R. Nos. L-21528 & L-21529, March 28, 1969

The charge of oral defamation stemmed from the utterance of the

words, “Agustin, putang ina mo” this is a common enough expression
in the dialect that is often employed, not really to slander but rather to
express anger or displeasure. It is seldom, if ever, taken in its literal
sense by the hearer, that is, as a reflection on the virtues of a mother.
REQUISITES OF DEFENSE IN DEFAMATION

1. If it appears that the matter charged as libelous is

true.
2. It was published with good motives; and
3. It was made for justifiable ends.
Fieldman’s Insurance Co. Inc. vs. Ku Nung, CA-G.R. Np. 31559-R, May
26, 1964

To justify one’s hitting back, there must be a showing that he has been
libeled.
SLANDER BY DEED
A crime committed by performing any act which casts dishonor,
discredit or contempt upon another person.
SLANDER BY DEED
ELEMENTS:

1. That the offender performs any act not included in any other crimes
against honor;
2. That such act is performed in the presence of other persons; and
3. That such act casts dishonor, discredit, or contempt upon the
offended party
NOTE:

If there is no intent to dishonor the offended party, the crime is

maltreatment by deed under Art. 266
TWO KINDS OF SLANDER BY DEED

SIMPLE SLANDER BY DEED

GRAVE SLANDER BY DEED

which is of a serious nature
2 KINDS OF SLANDER
(ORAL DEFAMATION)

SIMPLE SLANDER

GRAVE SLANDER
when it is of a serious and insulting nature
 2 KINDS OF 2 KINDS OF SLANDER
SLANDER BY DEED (ORAL DEFAMATION)

SIMPLE SLANDER
SIMPLE SLANDER
BY DEED

GRAVE SLANDER GRAVE SLANDER

BY DEED (which is of a
(which is of a serious and
serious nature) insulting nature)
STANDARD OF SERIOUSNESS OF SLANDER
There is no fixed standard in determining whether a
slander is serious or not; hence, the courts have
sufficient discretion to determine the same, basing the
finding on the attendant circumstances and matters
relevant thereto.
SLANDER vs. UNJUST VEXATION
the common denominator present in unjust vexation and slander by
deed is irritation or annoyance. Without any other concurring factor, it
is only unjust vexation; if the purpose is to shame or humiliate, the
offense is slander by deed.
SLANDER vs. ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS

Kissing a girl in public and touching her breast without

lewd designs, committed by a rejected suitor to cast
dishonor on the girl was held to be slander by deed and
not acts of lasciviousness.
SLANDER vs. MALTREATMENT
If the offended party suffered from shame or
humiliation caused by the maltreatment, it is slander
by deed.
Villanueva vs. People, G.R. No. 160351, April 10, 2006

Slapping the face of another is slander by deed if the intention of the

accused is to cause shame and humiliation

Pointing a dirty finger constitutes simple slander by deed.

PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR LIBEL
PERSONS LIABLE:

1. The person who publishes, exhibits or causes the

publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing
or similar means;
2. The author or editor of a book or pamphlet;
3. The editor or business manager of a daily newspaper
magazine or serial publication; and
4. The owner of the printing plant which publishes a
libelous article with his consent and all other persons
who in any way participate in or have connection with
its publication.
NOTE:

An independent civil action may be filed simultaneously or separately

in the same RTC where the criminal action was filed and vice versa
(ART. 360, Par. 3, as amended by R.A. No. 4363)
WHEN PROOF OF TRUTH IS ADMISSIBLE IN A
CHARGE FOR LIBEL
1. When the act or omission imputed constitutes a
crime regardless of whether the offended party is a
private individual or a public officer.
2. When the offended party is a government
employee, even if the imputation does not
constitute a crime, provided it is related to the
discharge of his official duties.
NOTE:

In such cases, if the defendant proves the truth of the imputation made
by him, he shall be acquitted (RPC. Art. 361, Par. 3)
U.S. vs. Sotto, G.R. No. 13990, September 24, 1918

The proof of truth of the accusation cannot be based upon mere

hearsay, rumors of suspicion. It must be positive, direct evidence upon
which a definite finding may be made by the court.
Lopez vs. People, G.R. No. 172203, February 14, 2011

If the statement is made against a public official with respect to the

discharge of his official duties and functions and the truth of the
allegations is shown, the accused will be entitled to an acquittal even
though he does not prove that the imputation was published in good
motives and for justifiable end.
LIBELOUS REMARKS
Libelous remarks or comments connected with the matter privileged
under the provisions of Art. 354, if made with malice, shall not exempt
the author thereof nor the editor or managing editor of a newspaper
from criminal liability. (RPC, Art. 354)
ART. 362 does not punish the publication of privileged matters but the
libelous comments or remarks about such privileged matters. Thus, the
author and editor of a newspaper who distorts, mutilates, or discolors
the official proceedings reported by him or add comments thereon to
cast aspersion on the character of the parties concerned, is guilty of
libel, notwithstanding the fact that the defamatory matter, published in
connection with a privileged matter.
INCRIMINATING INNOCENT PERSONS
ELEMENTS:

1. That the offender performs an act

2. That by such act he directly incriminates or imputes to an innocent
person the commission of a crime; and
3. That such act does not constitute perjury.
INCRIMINATING INNOCENT PERSONS vs.
PERJURY BY MAKING FALSE ACCUSATION
INCRIMINATING INNOCENT PERJURY BY MAKING FALSE
PERSONS (ART. 363) ACCUSATION (ART. 183)
As to acts involved
Limited to the act of planting Giving of false statement under
evidence and the like in order oath or making a false affidavit,
to incriminate an innocent imputing to the person the
person. commission of a crime.
As to manner of commission
It is committed by performing It is committed when the
an act by which the offender imputation was falsely made
directly incriminates or imputes before an officer.
to an innocent person the
commission of a crime.
INCRIMINATING INNOCENT PERSONS
vs.
DEFAMATION

INCRIMINATING
INNOCENT DEFAMATION
PERSONS (ART. 363)

Offender does not avail Imputation is public and

himself of written or malicious calculated to
spoken word in cause dishonor,
besmirching the victim’s discredit, or contempt
reputation upon the offended party.
INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR
It is committed by any person who shall make any
intrigue which has for its principal purpose blemishing
the honor or reputation of another.

This refers to such intrigues against a person’s honor or

reputation which are not otherwise punished under
other articles of the RPC. It differs from defamation in
that it consists of tricky or secret plots and may be
committed without using written or spoken words
which are defamatory.
INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR vs. DEFAMATION
INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR DEFAMATION (ART. 353)
(ART. 364)
As to source of derogatory remarks
Source cannot be determined Source is known
As to manner of commission
Committed through some Committed in a public and
tricky and secret plot malicious manner
As to nature of remarks
Remarks may be true or not Remarks made are claimed to
be true
QUASI-OFFENSES
CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE (ART. 365)
What are the punishable acts?
Committing through Committing through Causing damage to the Causing through simple
reckless imprudence simple imprudence or property of another imprudence or
any act which,, had it negligence an act which through reckless negligence some wrong
been intentional, would would otherwise imprudence or simple which, if done
constitute a grave or constitute a grave or imprudence or maliciously, would have
less grave felony or light less grave felony negligence. constituted a light
felony felony

(par. 1) (par. 2) (par. 3) (par. 4)

CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE
IMPRUDENCE NEGLIGENCE
As to effect
Both are not crimes and merely determine a lower degree of criminal liability –
they are means of committing crime.

As to nature
Deficiency of action Deficiency of perception
Failure in precaution Failure in advertence
As to Exemption from liability
To avoid wrongful acts; one must take To avoid wrongful acts; paying proper
the necessary precaution once they are attention and using due diligence in
foreseen foreseeing them
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE
It consists in voluntarily but without malice,
doing or failing to do an act from which material
damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of
precaution on the part of the person performing
or failing to perform such act, taking into
consideration his enjoyment or occupation,
degree of intelligence, physical condition and
other circumstances regarding persons, time and
place
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE
ELEMENTS:

1. The offender does or fails to do an act

2. The doing of or the failure to do that act is voluntary
3. It be without malice
4. Material damage results; and
5. There is inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of
the person performing or failing to perform such act
taking into consideration;
a. Employment or occupation
b. Degree of intelligence, physical condition; and
c. Other circumstances regarding persons, time and place
TEST OF NEGLIGENCE
Sps. Ermino vs. Golden Village Homeowner’s Assoc. Inc, G.R. No.
180808, August 15, 2018

Would a prudent man, in the position of the person to whom

negligence is attributed, foresee harm to the person injured as a
reasonable consequence of the course about to be pursued? If so, the
law imposes a duty on the action to refrain from that course or to take
precaution against its mischievous results, and the failure to do so
constitutes negligence.
TEST OF NEGLIGENCE
Tabao vs. People, G. R. No. 187246, July 20, 2011

In order for conviction to be decreed for reckless

imprudence, the material damage suffered by the
victim, the failure in precaution on the part of the
accused, and the direct link between material damage
and failure in precaution must be established beyond
reasonable doubt.
SIMPLE IMPRUDENCE
It consists in the lack of precaution displayed in those
cases in which the damage impending to be caused is
not immediate nor the danger clearly manifest.
SIMPLE IMPRUDENCE

ELEMENTS:

1. There is lack of precaution on the part of the

offender
2. The damage impending to be caused is not
immediate nor the danger clearly manifest
SIMPLE IMPRUDENCE
NOTE:

Art. 64 relative to mitigating and aggravating

circumstances is not applicable to crimes committed
through negligence.

The defense of contributory negligence does not apply

in criminal cases through reckless imprudence since
one cannot allege negligence of another to evade the
effects of one’s own negligence. It only mitigates
criminal liability
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE:
Failing to lend on-the-spot help to the victims of his act of
negligence raises the penalty one degree higher.

EXCEPTION: the driver can leave his vehicle without

aiding the victims if:
1. He is in imminent danger of being harmed
2. He wants to report to the nearest officer of the law
3. He desires to summon a physician or a nurse for
medical assistance to the injured (Sec. 55, R.A. No. 4136)
DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE
Bustamante vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 89880,
February 6, 1991

The doctrine of last clear chance states that a person

who has the last clear chance or opportunity of
avoiding an accident, notwithstanding the negligent
acts of his opponent, is considered in law solely
responsible for the consequences of the accident.
The contributory negligence of the party injured will
not defeat the action if it be shown that the accused
might, by the exercise of reasonable care and
prudence, have avoided the consequences of the
negligence of the injured party. The antecedent
negligence of a person will not preclude recovery for
damages for, or bar a defense against liability sought by
the other negligent party.
EMERGENCY RULE
Valenzuela vs. CA, G.R. No. 115024, February 7, 1996

An individual who suddenly finds himself in a situation

of danger and is required to act without much time to
consider the best means that they may be adopted to
avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence
if he fails to undertake what subsequently and upon
reflection may appear to be a better solution, unless
the emergency was brought by his own negligence.
EMERGENCY RULE
The emergency situation must be:

1. Sudden and unexpected

2. Deprives the actor of all opportunity for
deliberation; and
3. Must be such that the actor must have no
knowledge that unusual consequences may result
from his act.
PRIOR CONVICTION OR ACQUITTAL OF RECKLESS
IMPRUDENCE BARS SUBSEQUENT PROSECUTION
FOR THE SAME QUASI-OFFENSE

Ivler vs. Hon. Modesto-San Pedro G.R. No. 172716,

November 17, 2010

The SC held that reckless imprudence or negligence is a

crime in itself. Hence, once convicted or acquitted of a
specific act of reckless imprudence, the accused may
not be prosecuted again for that same act.
REASON:

For the essence of the quasi-offense of criminal negligence under ART.

365 of the RPC lies in the execution of an imprudent or negligent act
that, if intentionally done, would be punishable as a felony. Thus, the
law penalizes the negligent or careless act, and not the result thereof.
Quizon vs. Justice of the Peace, G.R. NO. L-6641, July 28, 1955

Culpa is either a crime (ART 365) or merely a modality of committing a

crime (ART 3).
ART. 365 is culpa that is itself punished. Thus, reckless imprudence is
not a mere modality of committing a crime.
The gravity of the consequence is only taken into account to determine
the penalty; it does not qualify the substance of the offense.

As the careless act is single, whether the injurious result should affect
one person or several persons, the offense (criminal negligence)
remains one and the same, and cannot be split into different crimes
and prosecution.
ART. 48 DOES NOT APPLY TO ACTS PENALIZED
UNDER ART. 365
ART. 48 ART. 365
Is a procedural device allowing single Substantive rule penalizing not an act
prosecution of multiple felonies defined as a felony but the mental
attitude behind the act, the
dangerous recklessness, lack of care
or foresight.
Congruent to the notion of quasi-
crimes under Art. 365. The
application of Art. 48 in the
prosecution and sentencing of quasi-
crimes is prohibited maintaining the
distinct concept of quasi-crimes as
crafted under Art. 365
IVLER VS. MODESTO-SAN PEDRO G.R.
No. 172716, November 17, 2010

Prosecutions under Art. 365 should proceed from a

single charge regardless of the number or severity of
the consequences. In imposing penalties, the judge will
do no more than apply the penalties under Art. 365 for
each consequence alleged and proven. In short, there
shall be no splitting of charges under Art. 365, and only
one information shall be filed in the same first level
court.
VIOLATION Of ART. 365 CANNOT ABSORB
VIOLATIONS OF SPECIAL LAWS

Loney vs. People, G. R. No. 152644, February 10, 2006

A mala in se felony (such as Reckless Imprudence

Resulting in Damage to Property) cannot absorb mala
prohibita crimes (such as those violating P.D. No. 1067,
P.D. No. 984, and R.A. No. 7942) What makes a former
a felony is criminal intent (dolo) or negligence (culpa);
what makes the latter crimes are the special laws
enacting them.
Lamera vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 93475, June 5,
1991

An offender previously charged with reckless

imprudence resulting in damage to property with
multiple physical injuries under ART. 365 may also be
held liable for his failure to help or render assistance to
another whom one he has accidentally wounded or
injured under par. 2 of ART 275 which both crimes arise
from the same act.
Ms. Kas Kasero was driving his car when the accelerator stuck. She drove her car
into Metrokol bank, causing slight physical injuries to several of the tellers and
substantial property damage. Ms. Kas Kasero surrendered to responding police
officers. The police, assisted by the Metroko bank, filed a case for Reckless
Imprudence resulting in Damage to Property with Physical Injuries before the
inquest prosecutor. The inquest prosecutor filed an Information in court for
Reckless Imprudence resulting in Multiple Slight Physical Injuries but dismissed the
case for Reckless Imprudence resulting in Damage to Property due to insufficiency
of evidence. The inquest prosecutor was dissatisfied with the supporting
documentation submitted by Metrokol bank.

Dissatisfied, the bank filed a Motion for Reconsideration and submitted additional
proof of the value of the damage incurred as a result of the collision. While the
motion for reconsideration was pending, Ms. Kas Kasero was arraigned in Court,
she pleaded guilty to the crime of Reckless Imprudence resulting in Multiple Slight
Physical Injuries and was sentenced to arresto menor. Ms. Kas Kasero
immediately applied for probation.

In the meantime, the prosecutor granted the Metrokol’s Motion for

Reconsideration on account of the additional evidence presented and indicted Ms.
Kas Kasero for Reckless Imprudence resulting in Damage to Property.
Question:

Upon learning of the new indictment, Ms. Kas Kasero, through legal
counsel, filed a Motion to Quash, in court. She cited double jeopardy as
her ground for quashal of the Information. If you were the Judge, how
would you resolve the Motion to Quash? Explain.
Answer:

I would grant the Motion to Quash Information. Reason and precedent both
coincide in that once convicted or acquitted of a specific act of reckless
imprudence, the accused may not be prosecuted again for that same act. For the
essence of the quasi offense of criminal negligence under article 365 of the Revised
Penal Code lies in the execution of an imprudent or negligent act that, if
intentionally done, would be punishable as a felony. The law penalizes thus the
negligent or careless act, not the result thereof. The gravity of the consequence is
only taken into account to determine the penalty, it does not qualify the substance
of the offense. And, as the careless act is single, whether the injurious result should
affect one person or several persons, the offense (criminal negligence) remains one
and the same, and can not be split into different crimes and prosecutions. Hence,
we hold that prosecutions under Article 365 should proceed from a single charge
regardless of the number or severity of the consequences. In imposing penalties,
the judge will do no more than apply the penalties under Article 365 for each
consequence alleged and proven. In short, there shall be no splitting of charges
under Article 365, and only one information shall be filed in the same first level
court. (Ivler vs. San Pedro, G.R. No. 172716, November 17, 2010)
Question:

If during the trial of the first case for Reckless Imprudence resulting in
Multiple Slight Physical Injuries, Ms. Kas Kasero was acquitted, can the
subsequent charge for Reckless Imprudence resulting in Damage to
Property prosper in Court without violating double jeopardy?
Answer :

No, filing another case will violate the rule on double jeopardy. It has been settled
in this jurisdiction that prior conviction or acquittal of reckless imprudence bars
subsequent prosecution for the same quasi-offense, regardless of the
consequences alleged for both charges. The Court unfailingly and consistently
answered in the affirmative in People v. Belga (promulgated in 1957 by the Court
en banc, per Reyes, J.), Yap v. Lutero (promulgated in 1959, unreported, per
Concepcion, J.), People v. Narvas (promulgated in 1960 by the Court en banc, per
Bengzon J.), People v. Silva (promulgated in 1962 by the Court en banc, per
Paredes, J.), People v. Macabuhay (promulgated in 1966 by the Court en banc, per
Makalintal, J.), People v. Buan (promulgated in 1968 by the Court en banc, per
Reyes, J.B.L., acting C. J.), Buerano v. Court of Appeals (promulgated in 1982 by the
Court en banc, per Relova, J.), and People v. City Court of Manila (promulgated in
1983 by the First Division, per Relova, J.). These cases uniformly barred the second
prosecutions as constitutionally impermissible under the Double Jeopardy Clause.
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE/MEDICAL
NEGLIGENCE
Dr. Li vs. Spouses Soliman. G.R. No. 165279, June 7, 2011

A wrong committed by a medical professional which has caused bodily

harm to the offended party.
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE/MEDICAL
NEGLIGENCE
Dr. Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122445,
November 18, 1997

Such claims are most often brought as a civil action for

damages under Art. 2176 of the Civil Code or as a
criminal case under Art. 365 of the RPC with which the
civil action for damages is impliedly instituted.
Dr. Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122445, November 18, 1997

Whether or not a physician has committed an “inexcusable lack of

precaution” in the treatment of his patient is to be determined
according to the standard of care observed by other members of the
profession in good standing under similar circumstances bearing in
mind the advanced state of the profession at the time of treatment or
the present state of medical science
GOOD LUCK AND GOD BLESS