CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
TITLE ONE:
CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY
AND THE LAW OF NATIONS
CHAPTER ONE:
CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY
ARTICLE 114. TREASON
Article 114. Treason. — Any person who, owing
allegiance to the United States or the Government of the
Philippine Islands, not even a foreigner, levies war against
them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid or
comfort within the Philippine Islands or elsewhere, shall be
punished by reclusion perpetua to death and shall pay a
fine not to exceed Four million pesos (P4,000,000).
No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the
testimony of two witnesses at least to the same overt act
or on confession of the accused in open court.
Likewise, an alien, residing in the Philippines, who commits
acts of treason as defined in paragraph 1 of this article shall
be punished by reclusion temporal to death and shall pay
a fine not to exceed Four million pesos (P4,000,000). (As
amended by R.A. No. 10951, August 29, 2017)
Treason is committed by any Filipino citizen or a foreigner
residing in the Philippines who, in times of war in which the
Philippines is involved, either levies war against the
Philippine Government or adheres to the enemies by
giving them aid or comfort.
Elements of Treason
1. There is a war in which the Philippines is involved;
2. The offender is either –
a. A Filipino citizen or
b. A foreigner who is residing in the
Philippines; and
3. The said offender either –
a. Levies war against the Philippine
Government; or
b. Adheres to the enemies by giving them aid
or comfort.
First element: There is a war in which the Philippines
in involved
Based on the first element, it is necessary that there is a
war in which the Philippines is involved. Treason is a
wartime offense.
LAUREL v. MISA
G.R. No. L-409 | 30 January 1947
1 of 188
The Supreme Court said that in times of peace, treason
does not exist because in times of peace, treason remains
to be dormant.
However, the moment war erupts, the moment emergency
arises, treason is immediately put into effect as an act of
self-defense, an act of self-preservation on the part of the
State.
Second element: The offender is either a Filipino
citizen or a foreigner who is residing in the Philippines.
Q: Who may be the offender in the crime of treason?
A: The second element provides for the offender – the
offender in the crime of treason can either be a Filipino
citizen or a foreigner residing in the Philippines.
A Filipino citizen, because he owes permanent allegiance
to the Philippine government.
A foreigner residing in the Philippines, because, while he
is here in the Philippines, he also owes temporary
allegiance to the Philippine government. Therefore, he too
can commit the crime of treason the moment he sides with
the enemy in times of war in which the Philippines is
involved.
Last element: The said offender either levies war
against the Philippine government or adheres to the
enemies by giving them aid or comfort.
The last element of treason provides for the modes of
committing treason. There are two ways of committing
treason, that is, either – by levying war against the
Philippine government or adhering to the enemies, giving
them aid or comfort.
First mode: Levying war against the Philippine government
Levying war against the Philippine government requires
the concurrence of two elements –
1. It is necessary that there must be an actual
assembly of men; and
2. It is for the purpose of executing or effecting a
treasonable design by force.
Otherwise stated, the said traitors connived and conspired
with the enemy troops to hand over the Philippine
government.
Second mode: Adhering to the enemies, giving them aid or
comfort
The second mode of committing treason is by adhering to
the enemies, giving them aid or comfort.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
The offender is said to have adhered to the enemies when
he intellectually and emotionally favors the enemies. It is
an internal state of the mind and cannot be seen.
Q: How should it be established?
A: It can be established by the offender’s act of giving aid
or comfort to the enemy. Performing acts which show that
he gives aid or comfort to the enemy, like giving the
enemies supplies, giving them arms, giving them means of
transportation, or giving them classified information which
will weaken the defense of the Philippines and will
strengthen the defense of the enemies.
All of these are modes of showing that he intellectually and
emotionally favors the enemy against the Philippine
government.
These are the two ways of committing treason.
TWO WAYS OF PROVING TREASON
If there are two ways of committing treason, there are also
two ways of proving treason:
1. First, by the testimony of two (2) witnesses at least
to the same overt act; and
2. Second, by open court confession of guilt.
By the testimony of two (2) witnesses at least to the same
overt act
In the first way of proving treason, the two witnesses must
corroborate each other as to the act performed by the said
offender. They must testify in open court as to that
particular act done by the offender which shows that he
favors the enemy as against the Philippine government.
Therefore, the law requires direct evidence. Treason
cannot be proven by mere circumstantial evidence, no
matter how many. The law requires there must be direct
evidence because the law requires that there must be at
least two witnesses who must corroborate each other as to
the said treasonable act done by the offender.
By open court confession of guilt
The admission of guilt, the confession of guilt must be done
in open court. Therefore, extrajudicial confession of guilt –
like confession of guilt made before police officers; or
confession of guilt made before media – will not bring
about a confession of guilt.
The law requires that the confession of guilt must be done
in open court during the trial of the case. Extrajudicial
confession will not suffice.
Q: There is a war in which the Philippines is involved.
X sided with the enemy. In doing so, X, together with
2 of 188
the enemy troops, burned houses, killed Filipinos and
injured families.
Because of that, when he was arrested, he was
charged with the crime of treason; he was charged
with different counts of murder; he was charged with
different counts of arson; and he was charged with
different counts of physical injuries. Are the charges
correct?
A: The charges are wrong. If these common crimes were
committed by the offender as a way of committing treason,
in furtherance of committing treason, they are simply
absorbed. They are considered as atrocities of war which
are merely absorbed by the crime of treason. Hence, there
is only one charge, and it is violation of Art. 114 of the RPC,
or treason.
ARTICLE 115. CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO
COMMIT TREASON; PENALTY
Article 115. Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit
Treason; Penalty. — The conspiracy or proposal to
commit the crime of treason shall be punished
respectively, by prision mayor and a fine not exceeding
Two million pesos (P2,000,000), and prision correccional
and a fine not exceeding One million pesos (P1,000,000).
(As amended by R.A. No. 10951, August 29, 2017)
ARTICLE 116. MISPRISION OF TREASON
Article 116. Misprision of Treason. — Every person
owing allegiance to (the United States) the Government of
the Philippine Islands, without being a foreigner, and
having knowledge of any conspiracy against them, who
conceals or does not disclose and make known the same,
as soon as possible to the governor or fiscal of the
province, or the mayor or fiscal of the city in which he
resides, as the case may be, shall be punished as an
accessory to the crime of treason.
Q: There is a war in which the Philippines is involved.
A, B, C, D and E decided to conspire with the enemy
troops to hand over the Philippine government out of
money. They needed money, and so they became
traitors to the Philippine government.
On the date set for the commission of the crime of
treason, A, B, C, D and E dropped by the house of W,
their common friend and they told W:
“W, you are a good man, please be informed that all of
us (A, B, C, D and E), your friends, have decided to
conspire with the enemy. We needed money for our
family. Here is the money that had been given to us in
order to do these treasonable acts. We are handing
you this money. Whatever happens to us, please use
this money for our respective families.”
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
And so, A, B, C, D and E left the money to their friend
W. Thereafter, A, B, C, D and E went to the enemy
troops. W remained silent. He did not inform the
authorities of the said conspiracy to commit treason
done by A, B, C, D and E which has come to his
knowledge. What is the criminal liability of W?
A: W is liable for misprision of treason under Art. 116.
Misprision of treason is committed by any Filipino citizen
who, in times of war in which the Philippines is involved,
failed to disclose or to divulge to the local authorities a
conspiracy to commit treason that will come to his
knowledge.
While treason under Art. 114 can be committed both by a
Filipino citizen and a foreigner, misprision of treason can
be committed only by a Filipino citizen – one who owes
permanent allegiance to the Philippine government. It
cannot be committed by a foreigner, even if the said
foreigner is in the Philippines.
Misprision of treason can be committed only by a Filipino
citizen. In times of war in which the Philippines is involve,
only Filipinos are mandated, are obligated by law to divulge
to the local authorities as soon as possible, a conspiracy
to commit treason that will come to their knowledge. It is
an obligation that they have to do, failure to do so, will
make them liable of misprision of treason wherein the
penalty is that of an accessory in the crime of treason.
Therefore, two degrees lower – it will be prision mayor
because the penalty for treason is reclusion perpetua to
death.
ARTICLE 117. ESPIONAGE
Article 117. Espionage. – The penalty of prision
correccional shall be inflicted upon any person who:
1. Without authority therefor, enters a warship, fort, or
naval or military establishment or reservation to obtain any
information, plans, photographs, or other data of a
confidential nature relative to the defense of the Philippine
Archipelago; or
2. Being in possession, by reason of the public office he
holds, of the articles, data, or information referred to in the
preceding paragraph, discloses their contents to a
representative of a foreign nation.
The penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed if the
offender be a public officer or employee.
Espionage is a crime which may be committed both in
times of war and in times of peace.
TWO WAYS OF COMMITTING ESPIONAGE
1. By entering any warship, fort, or naval or
military establishment or reservation, without
3 of 188
authority therefor, for the purpose of obtaining
any information, plans, photographs, or other
data of a confidential nature, relative to the
defense of the Philippines.
Under the first mode of committing espionage, the offender
can be any person. He can be a public officer or employee,
or a private individual.
He becomes liable the moment he enters these prohibited
places, warship, fort, or naval or military establishment or
reservation, and his intention is to obtain these classified
information relative to the defense of the Philippines.
Q: How would you know that was his intent?
A: The fact that he entered this place, without asking
permission, without asking authority, it means, that was his
intention. Therefore, he has the burden of proving
otherwise. The burden is on him because the law
presumes that the fact that he entered these prohibited
places without authority, his intention is to gather these
classified information relative to the defense of the
Philippines.
2. By disclosing to a representative of a foreign
nation the contents of the articles, data or
other information referred to in paragraph No.
1 of art. 117, which he had in his possession by
reason of the public office that he holds.
The second mode of committing espionage may be
committed only by a public officer. But not any public officer
can commit the crime. Only a public officer who, by reason
of the duties of his office, has in his possession these
classified information and data relative to the defense of
the Philippines.
He becomes liable the moment he discloses, he reveals,
these classified information to a representative of a foreign
nation. He becomes liable for espionage.
Q: The Ms. Universe pageant was held in the
Philippines. During the said Ms. Universe pageant, one
of the judges was the Philippine DND Secretary.
Looking at the stage, the DND Secretary has a special
liking to Ms. China. He was so attracted to Ms. China.
After the pageant, the winners were declared. There
was post-pageant party. The DND Secretary attended
because he wants to meet Ms. China personally. They
were introduced. They danced, ate, talked. The party
was not yet over but the DND Secretary and Ms. China
decided to leave the said party. They checked-in in a
hotel. Inside the room, they ate and drink hard liquor.
While they were drinking, they were conversing. Ms.
China was asking the DND Secretary, “What will you
do? Our country is more powerful than your country.
What will you do if our soldiers will take over the
Spratly Island? I’m sure you will be asking help, but
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
you will never win against my country.” Because of
that, the DND Secretary bragged to Ms. China, “No!
These are our plans.” The DND Secretary narrated one
by one, in details, the plans of the Philippine
Government on how to protect the Spratly Islands in
case there will be an invasion coming from China. He
divulged everything because he was already drunk.
Thereafter, they had sexual intercourse and fell asleep.
The following morning, the DND Secretary reached out
for Ms. China on the other side of the bed, but the latter
was not there. He looked for Ms. China and found her
in the garden of the hotel talking over the phone. He
was so afraid. The DND Secretary grabbed the phone,
threw it on the ground, and stepped on it. Then he
pulled her hair, asking the latter “Whom are you
talking to? You are talking to your Defense Secretary,
right? You are divulging what I told you last night,
right?” When Ms. China denied it, he slapped her a
number of times, thereafter, pulling her hair. He
dragged her back inside the hotel. There, he was
forcing Ms. China to admit that she talked to the
Chinese Defense Secretary. But Ms. China denied.
According to her, she was only talking to her mother.
She was telling her mother her good experience in the
Philippines. The DND Secretary would not believe. He
punched and slapped her. Thereafter, he left her
wounded inside the hotel.
Is the DND Secretary liable for Espionage?
A: The DND Secretary is not liable for Espionage.
Under the second mode of committing espionage – by
disclosing to a representative of a foreign nation the
contents of the articles, data or other information relevant
to the defense of the Philippines which he had in his
possession, the representative being referred to here of a
foreign country refers to a political representative. Ms.
China was not here in the Philippines for political purposes.
She was here to represent China in the said Ms. Universe
Pageant. Therefore, the said DND Secretary is not liable
for espionage.
Q: What crime may be filed against the DND
Secretary?
A: The DND Secretary can be charged by Ms. China
with violation of RA 9262. By just one sexual act, unlike
dating relationship which is continues, in case of sexual
relationship under RA 9262, even one sexual intercourse
for one night, there is already a relationship. And if the said
man inflicted physical injuries on the said woman on whom
he has or had a sexual or dating relationship, it will bring
about violation of RA 9262. The proper charge to be filed
against the DND Secretary is RA 9262 or Violence Against
Women and their Children Act.
ARTICLE 118. INCITING TO WAR OR GIVING
MOTIVES FOR REPRISALS
4 of 188
Article 118. Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals.
- The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed upon
any public officer or employee, and that of prision mayor
upon any private individual, who, by unlawful or
unauthorized acts provokes or gives occasion for a war
involving or liable to involve the Philippine Islands or
exposes Filipino citizens to reprisals on their persons or
property.
Elements of Inciting to War
1. That the offender performs unlawful or
unauthorized acts by the Philippine government.
2. That the said act provokes or gives occasion for a
war involving or liable to involve the Philippines or
exposes Filipino citizens to reprisals on their
persons and property while they are in a foreign
country.
3. He is not legally authorized to do so.
This is committed when the offender performs unlawful or
unauthorized acts, and said acts provoke or give occasion
for a war involving, or liable to involve the Philippines, or
expose Filipino citizens to reprisals on their persons and
property.
In case of inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals, the
offender performs acts which are not authorized by the
Philippine government. Because of the acts committed by
the offender, the Philippine government was forced to
enter into war. Or, because of the acts done by the
offender, the other foreign country became hostile to
Filipino citizens. They have exposed Filipino citizens to
reprisals on their persons and property.
Q: There was a protest in front of the Chinese
Embassy. Some members of non-governmental
organizations were supporting the Filipino fisherman
who were driven away by the Chinese soldiers. They
were protesting the acts done by China.
In their protest, they burned real flags of China. This
angered the Chinese government—they became
hostile upon Filipino citizens living in China. Without
any reasons at all, they would raid the houses of
Filipino citizens. They would hurt Filipino citizens in
their houses. Because they were hostile, there were
reprisals.
What case may be filed against these protesters?
A: They can be charged with Inciting to War and Giving
Motives for Reprisals under Art. 118.
As the name/title of the crime states, war has not yet
happened, but because of acts done by the offender, war
may happen. The Philippines may enter into war.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
ARTICLE 119 – VIOLATION OF NEUTRALITY
Article 119. Violation of neutrality. - The penalty of prision
correccional shall be inflicted upon anyone who, on the
occasion of a war in which the Government is not involved,
violates any regulation issued by competent authority for
the purpose of enforcing neutrality.
Elements of Neutrality
1. There is a war but the Philippines is not involved
in the said war and;
2. The competent authority issued a regulation for
the purpose of enforcing neutrality among Filipino
citizens;
3. The offender violates such regulation imposed and
sided with one of the warring countries.
Violation of neutrality is committed when there is a war but
the Philippines is not a party to the said war, and there is a
regulation issued by competent authority that enforces
neutrality, but the said offender violated the regulation and
sided with one of the warring countries.
For one to be held liable for violation of neutrality, it is
necessary that there is a regulation issued by competent
authority enforcing neutrality – that we should stay neutral
in the war between two countries. If there is no regulation
issued by competent authority, violation of neutrality will
not arise.
Note:
There must be a regulation that enforces neutrality
which has been violated by the said offender.
Q: The AFP General was interviewed by CNN
Philippines. After the interview, there were other media
people outside the offices of CNN and they were trying
to have an ambush interview with the AFP General,
one of the questions raised was— “Sir, sir, what can
you say about the war between Ukraine and Russia?
What should be the stand of the Philippines in this war
between Ukraine and Russia?” The AFP General said,
“Insofar as the war between Ukraine and Russia is
concerned, the Philippines should stay neutral. We
should not side with any of the warring countries.”
Pedro is a supporter of Ukraine. In his Facebook
account and other social media accounts, he would
post support for Ukraine. He is so against Russia. He
would be out there supporting, stating his favoring of
Ukraine. This continued despite the statement coming
from the AFP General.
Is Pedro liable for violation of neutrality?
A: NO. Pedro is NOT LIABLE for violation of neutrality.
5 of 188
The statement from the AFP General that the Philippines
should stay neutral is a personal opinion. It cannot be
considered as a regulation coming from competent
authority. It is not a regulation issued by the Office of the
President or Malacañang. It is a personal opinion coming
from the AFP General.
Therefore, since it cannot be considered a regulation that
enforces neutrality, even if Pedro continuously sided with
Ukraine, he cannot be held liable for violation of neutrality.
ARTICLE 120. CORRESPONDENCE WITH HOSTILE
COUNTRY
Article 120. Correspondence with hostile country. - Any
person who in time of war, shall have correspondence with
an enemy country or territory occupied by enemy troops
shall be punished:
1. By prision correccional, if the correspondence has been
prohibited by the Government;
2. By prision mayor, if such correspondence be carried on
in ciphers or conventional signs; and
3. By reclusion temporal, if notice or information be given
thereby which might be useful to the enemy. If the offender
intended to aid the enemy by giving such notice or
information, he shall suffer the penalty of reclusion
temporal to death.
Elements of Correspondence with Hostile Country
1. That it is in time of war in which the Philippines is
involved.
2. That the offender makes correspondence with an
enemy country or any territory occupied by enemy
troops.
3. That the correspondence is either —
a. Prohibited by the Philippine Government; or
b. Carried out in ciphers or conventional signs; or
c. Containing notice or information which might
be useful to the enemy.
Correspondence with hostile country is committed when
there is a war and the Philippines is a party to the said war.
The offender makes correspondence with an enemy
country or any territory occupied by enemy troops. The
said correspondence is either prohibited by the
government, carried out in ciphers or conventional signs
or, containing notice or information which may be useful to
the enemy.
In case of correspondence with hostile country, we are a
party to the said war. If there is a prohibition coming from
the Philippine government to make correspondence with
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
the enemy country, any kind of correspondence will make
the offender already liable.
This is even if it is an innocent correspondence because
there is a prohibition coming from the Philippine
government to make any correspondence.
Note:
If there is no prohibition, no regulation coming from the
Philippine government that prohibits the making of a
correspondence, the making of the correspondence
will only make the offender liable if the correspondence
is:
1. Carried out in ciphers or conventional signs; or
2. Containing notice or information which might
be useful to the enemy.
Only then will the offender become liable for
correspondence with hostile country.
ARTICLE 121. FLIGHT TO ENEMY’S COUNTRY
Article 121. Flight to enemy country. - The penalty of
arresto mayor shall be inflicted upon any person who,
owing allegiance to the Government, attempts to flee or go
to an enemy country when prohibited by competent
authority.
Elements of Flight to Enemy’s Country
1. That there is a war in which the Philippines is
involved.
2. That the offender must be owing allegiance to the
Philippine Government.
3. That the offender attempts to flee or go to enemy's
country.
4. That going or fleeing to the enemy country is
prohibited by a competent authority.
Based on the elements, it is necessary that there is a
regulation coming from the Philippine government saying
that no one should go to the enemy territory.
If there is a regulation, a mere attempt to go, a mere
attempt to flee, to the enemy territory will already make the
offender criminally liable.
But if there is no such regulation that prohibits going or
fleeing to the enemy country, going to the enemy country
will not make the offender criminally liable.
Note:
It is the violation of a regulation issued by competent
authority that will make the offender criminally liable.
6 of 188
The law says the offender owes allegiance to the
Philippines therefore it can be committed by a Filipino
citizen or a foreigner. The law does not require that he
owes permanent allegiance to the Government.
CRIMES AGAINST LAW OF NATIONS
1. Piracy;
2. Qualified Piracy;
3. Mutiny; and
4. Qualified Mutiny
ART. 122 PIRACY
Article 122. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas.
- The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be inflicted upon
any person who, on the high seas, shall attack or seize a
vessel or, not being a member of its complement nor a
passenger, shall seize the whole or part of the cargo of
said vessel, its equipment, or personal belongings of its
complement or passengers.
The same penalty shall be inflicted in case of mutiny on the
high seas or in Philippine waters.
Elements of Simple Piracy
1. That a vessel is on the high seas or in Philippine
waters;
2. That the offenders are not members of its
complement or passengers of the vessel;
3. That the offenders either (a) attack or seize that
vessel; or (b) seize the whole or part of the cargo of
said vessel, its equipment or personal belongings of
its complement or passengers.
Q: Where is the vessel?
A: The vessel is either in the high seas or Philippine
waters.
Piracy under Article 122 can now be committed even if the
vessel is in Philippine waters because of the amendment
brought about by RA 7659. Originally, Art. 122 will only
apply if the vessel is in high seas because PD 532 will
apply if the vessel is on Philippine waters but because of
the amendment brought upon by RA 7659, piracy under
Art 122 will now apply even if the vessel is either on
Philippine waters or on the high seas.
The second element, who may be the offender? The
offender in piracy under Art. 122 must come from the
outside. They must not be members of the complement,
they must not be passengers of the vessel, they must be
third persons, strangers to the vessel
The third element, what are the modes of committing
piracy? The offenders may either attack or seize the vessel
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
or seize in whole or in part, the cargo, the equipment, or
the persons belongings inside the said vessel.
Based on the manner of committing piracy, it is akin to
robbery. There is an act of taking in case of robbery, the
thing taken is the persons property belonging to another,
in case of piracy the thing taken can either be the vessel
itself or the things the cargo inside the said vessel. Hence,
piracy requires intent to gain on the part of the said
offenders or pirates.
ART. 122 MUTINY
Elements of Mutiny under Art. 122
1. That the vessel is on the high seas or on Philippine
waters;
2. That the offenders are members of the
complement or passengers of the vessel;
3. That the offenders raise a commotion or
disturbance on board the ship against the lawful
command of a superior authority.
In case of mutiny, just like in case of piracy, the vessel can
be either on the high seas or Philippine waters.
Who are the offenders? The offenders this time must come
from the inside.
In mutiny, the offenders would either be the members of
the crew or the passengers of the vessel. They must be
coming from the inside because of the manner committing
mutiny, that is by creating a disturbance, by creating a
commotion. Why? Because they wanted to go against the
lawful command of a superior authority and in case of a
vessel, the superior authority is the captain of the said
vessel. They wanted to go against the lawful order of the
captain and so a commotion or disturbance was done
inside the said vessel.
Based on the manner of committing mutiny, it is akin to
sedition, it is a protest against lawful authority done outside
lawful means.
ART. 123 QUALIFIED PIRACY
Article 123. Qualified piracy. - The penalty of reclusion
temporal to death shall be imposed upon those who
commit any of the crimes referred to in the preceding
article, under any of the following circumstances:
1. Whenever they have seized a vessel by boarding or
firing upon the same;
2. Whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims
without means of saving themselves; or
7 of 188
3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder,
homicide, physical injuries or rape.
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
1. Whenever the offenders have seized a vessel by
boarding or firing upon the same;
2. Whenever the pirates have abandoned their
victims without means of saving themselves; or
3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder,
homicide, physical injuries, or rape.
These are the circumstances that will qualify piracy and will
make the crime qualified piracy under Art. 123.
The first qualifying circumstance, whenever the
offenders have seized a vessel by boarding or firing upon
the same, so for piracy to be qualified under the first
qualified circumstance, it is necessary that the vessel itself
must be seized by the offenders. Even if they boarded,
even if they fired, if they did not seize the vessel itself, then
they do not qualify the circumstances.
Under the second qualifying circumstance, after
committing the acts of piracy, they left the victims, they left
the passengers, the members of the group, without means
of surviving, without means of saving their lives, therefore,
from simple piracy, now becomes qualified piracy, they
abandoned the victims without means of saving
themselves.
The last circumstance, whenever the act of piracy is
accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries, or
rape. Whenever in committing the act of piracy, the
offender would commit other common crimes such as
murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape, it will not
constitute a separate and distinct charge because in this
case, these common crimes are not considered crimes by
themselves. They are merely qualifying circumstances that
will make the crime qualified piracy, hence it will not give
rise to a separate and distinct charge, neither will it give
rise to a complex crime because the murder, homicide,
physical injuries, and rape are merely qualifying
circumstances, they are not crimes by themselves. The
crime will only be qualified piracy even if there was a killing,
even if there was a rape, even if there was an infliction of
physical injuries at the time of the commission of piracy
What about the circumstances that will qualify mutiny?
However under the first paragraph of Article 123, the law
provides that the circumstances therein would apply to the
crimes in the preceding article and since in the preceding
article we have both piracy and mutiny then the
circumstances, the qualifying circumstances under Art.
123 will apply even to mutiny.
According to legal luminaries, the circumstances that will
qualify mutiny would be the second and third qualifying
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
circumstances. Whenever the mutineers will abandon their
victims without means of saving themselves and whenever
the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical
injuries, or rape. These circumstances will qualify mutiny.
Q: The vessel was sailing towards Cebu, suddenly
here comes two motorboats, the first one and the
second one. On board the motorboat, we have two
men on the first and two men on the second aside from
the one driving. These two men fired shots and then
thereafter, they boarded the vessel, they went directly
to the captain of the said vessel and ordered him to
stop at gunpoint, of course, he was afraid and stopped
the vessel. Thereafter, the said four armed men told
the people therein to place all their valuables, their
cash, their jewelry to give it to them. After giving
everything to them, the said four men left, the two on
board the first boat, the two on board the second boat.
What crime is committed by these men?
A: They are liable of piracy under Art. 122. All the
elements are present.
First, the vessel is on Philippine waters, it is sailing towards
Cebu. Second, the offenders are not members of the
complement.
Second, the offender are not members of the complement
or passengers of the vessel. The offenders came from the
outside.
Third, the offenders seized, in part, the personal
belongings inside the said vessel.
Therefore, all the elements of Simple Piracy under Article
122 are present.
Even if the four men fired and boarded the vessel, since
they did not seize the vessel itself, what they did is only to
take part of the personal belongings such as cash and
valuables of the passengers and members of the crew, it
is only Simple Piracy and NOT Qualified Piracy.
Q: What if in the same problem with exactly the same
facts, one of the men by the name of A saw that Pedro,
one of the passengers, immediately placed his hand
inside the pocket of his jacket and tried to hide
valuable wedding ring on his finger which was the only
memory left by his deceased wife. Pedro did not want
to give the said ring. But too late, A already saw it. A
ordered Pedro to hand to him the said ring but Pedro
refused. Thus, A immediately hit the head of Pedro
with the back of his armalite. Pedro fell to the ground
and the other men B, C, and D succeeded in hitting him
with the back of their armalites on the different parts
of Pedro’s body. Thereafter, while Pedro was down,
wounded, and bleeding A forcibly took the wedding
ring from his finger. Thereafter, they left. What crime
was committed by the four men?
8 of 188
A: The four men are liable of Qualified Piracy under
Article 123, RPC because the act of piracy is now
accompanied by the infliction of physical injuries. Under
Article 123, physical injuries is used in its generic sense,
the law did not state what kind of physical injuries will
qualify piracy. Therefore, whether it is serious physical
injuries, less serious physical injuries, or slight physical
injuries for as long as any physical injuries would
accompany the act of piracy, it now becomes qualified
piracy.
In this case, the four men would be charged with Qualified
Piracy because of the presence of the 3rd Qualifying
Circumstance – the act of piracy was accompanied by
infliction of physical injuries on one of the passengers.
Q: The vessel was sailing towards Cebu. In 20 minutes,
it would already reach the shores of Cebu. When the
vessel was already nearing Cebu, five members of the
complement, five members of the crew, and five
passengers of the vessel connived and conspired to
take part of the cargo of the said vessel the moment
the vessel reach the shores of Cebu. When the vessel
reached the seashores of Cebu, these 5 members of
the crew and five passengers, at knifepoint, took part
of the cargo of the said vessel and they were bringing
the cargo outside. But the police arrived, and they
were arrested by the police. They were charged with
violation of Article 122 or Piracy. Are they liable under
Article 122?
A: NO. The first element is present, the vessel is on
Philippine waters, particularly Cebu. The third element is
present, they took, in part, the cargo of the said vessel.
However, the second element of Article 122 is absent. The
second element requires that the offenders must NOT be
members of the complement or passengers of the vessel.
In the problem given, the offenders are members of the
complement and passengers of the vessel conniving and
conspiring with one another. Therefore, since, the second
element of Article 122 does not apply, they cannot be
charged with violation of Article 122 for Piracy.
Q: If not Piracy under Article 122, what is the proper
charge?
A: The proper charge is Piracy under PD 532 or the
Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law. Under PD
532, piracy is any attack or seizure of the vessel, or the
taking in whole or in part of the cargo, equipment, or
personal belongings inside the said vessel, regardless of
the value therefore, committed by any person, including
members of the complement and passengers of the
vessel, while the vessel is on Philippine waters.
In case of Piracy under PD 532, the offenders can be
anyone, he can be an outside, insider, passenger, or a
member of the complement. Provided that the vessel is on
Philippine waters.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
In this case, the vessel was on Philippine waters (Cebu)
and the offenders were members of the complement and
passengers of the vessel. Therefore, the crime committed
is violation of PD 532.
P.D. NO. 532
ANTI-PIRACY AND ANTI-HIGHWAY ROBBERY LAW
OF 1974
Section 2. (d) Piracy. Any attack upon or seizure of any
vessel, or the taking away of the whole or part thereof or
its cargo, equipment, or the personal belongings of its
complement or passengers, irrespective of the value
thereof, by means of violence against or intimidation of
persons or force upon things, committed by any person,
including a passenger or member of the complement of
said vessel, in Philippine waters, shall be considered as
piracy. The offenders shall be considered as pirates and
punished as hereinafter provided.
Section 4. Aiding pirates or highway robbers/brigands or
abetting piracy or highway robbery/brigandage. Any
person who knowingly and in any manner aids or protects
pirates or highway robbers/brigands, such as giving them
information about the movement of police or other peace
officers of the government, or acquires or receives property
taken by such pirates or brigands or in any manner derives
any benefit therefrom; or any person who directly or
indirectly abets the commission of piracy or highway
robbery or brigandage, shall be considered as an
accomplice of the principal offenders and be punished in
accordance with the Rules prescribed by the Revised
Penal Code.
It shall be presumed that any person who does any of the
acts provided in this Section has performed knowingly
unless the contrary is proven.
The Supreme Court said, despite the amendment done by
R.A. No. 7659 on Article 122, making piracy under Article
122 applicable even if the vessel is in Philippine waters,
PD 532 or the Anti-Piracy Law of 1974 remains to be a
good law. PD 532 applies when the offenders or when the
pirates are members of the crew or passengers of the
vessel.
R.A. NO. 6235
ANTI-HIJACKING LAW
Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person to compel a
change in the course or destination of an aircraft of
Philippine registry, or to seize or usurp the control thereof,
while it is in flight. An aircraft is in flight from the moment
all its external doors are closed following embarkation until
any of such doors is opened for disembarkation.
It shall likewise be unlawful for any person to compel an
aircraft of foreign registry to land in Philippine territory or to
9 of 188
seize or usurp the control thereof while it is within the said
territory.
Section 2. Any person violating any provision of the
foregoing section shall be punished by an imprisonment of
not less than twelve years but not more than twenty years,
or by a fine of not less than twenty thousand pesos but not
more than forty thousand pesos.
The penalty of imprisonment of fifteen years to death, or a
fine of not less than twenty-five thousand pesos but not
more than fifty thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any
person committing such violation under any of the following
circumstances:
1. Whenever he has fired upon the pilot, member
of the crew or passenger of the aircraft;
2. Whenever he has exploded or attempted to
explode any bomb or explosive to destroy the aircraft; or
3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder,
homicide, serious physical injuries or rape.
Section 3. It shall be unlawful for any person, natural or
juridical, to ship, load or carry in any passenger aircraft
operating as a public utility within the Philippines, and
explosive, flammable, corrosive or poisonous substance or
material.
Section 4. The shipping, loading, or carrying of any
substance or material mentioned in the preceding section
in any cargo aircraft operating as a public utility within the
Philippines shall be in accordance with regulations issued
by the Civil Aeronautics Administration.
ACTS PUNISHED
I. By compelling a pilot of an aircraft of Philippine
registry to change its course or destination, or by
seizing or usurping the control thereof, while it is in
flight.
Under the first act, for the crime to arise, it is necessary
that the said aircraft is inflight, that is if the aircraft is of
Philippine registry.
An aircraft is said to be inflight the moment all its cabin
doors have been closed following embarkation until any of
its doors have been opened for purposes of
disembarkation.
II. By compelling the pilot of an aircraft of foreign
registry to land in Philippine territory or by seizing
or usurping the control thereof, while it is within
Philippine territory.
Under the second act, if the aircraft is of foreign registry,
there is no requisite that it be in flight. It suffices that it is
within Philippine territory.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
III. By carrying or loading on board a passenger
aircraft operating as a public utility within the
Philippines, explosive, flammable, corrosive or
poisonous substance or material.
IV. By carrying or loading on board a cargo aircraft
operating as a public utility within the Philippines
explosive, flammable, corrosive or poisonous
substance or material in any manner NOT in
accordance with the rules and regulations of the
Civil Aeronautics Administration.
Under the third and fourth act, if these explosives,
flammable, corrosive, and poisonous substances are
carried and boarded on a passenger aircraft, immediately,
the crime arises.
But, if these explosives, flammable, corrosive, and
poisonous substances are boarded on a cargo aircraft, the
crime will not immediately arise. It is a cargo aircraft;
therefore, its function is to bring these cargoes from one
place to another even if they are flammable, explosive, or
corrosive. The crime will only arise if in carrying or boarding
these explosive, flammable, poisonous, and corrosive
substances, they failed to comply with the rules and
regulations of the Civil Aeronautic Act.
These are the four acts punished as inimical to civil
aviation under R.A. 6235 otherwise known as the Anti-
Hijacking Law.
Q: A Cebu Pacific plane coming from Davao landed in
NAIA Terminal 3, it is a turnaround aircraft, so the
passengers disembarked, and another set of
passengers boarded the aircraft bound to Davao. The
first who boarded the aircraft was X. X immediately
found his seat. While he was on his seat and while
passengers were boarding, he was trying to assemble
something. When he assembled it, it happened to be a
long knife, which he placed inside his jacket. As
passengers were boarding, he stood up and pretended
to go to the bathroom. However, he went to the cabin
of the aircraft, and he ordered the pilot to immediately
close all cabin doors and to fly the said aircraft to
Cebu, not to Davao. The said pilot did not agree, there
was struggle between the both of them. In the course
thereof, X stabbed the said pilot and killed him.
Commotion ensued. X was thereafter arrested, and the
pilot was brought to the nearest hospital, but he was
dead on arrival. Is X liable under R.A. 6235?
A: NO, X is not liable under R.A. 6235. Under the law, it
is a requirement that if the aircraft is a passenger aircraft
and if it is of Philippine registry, it is necessary that at the
time it was usurped and at the time the pilot was
commanded to change its course/ destination, the aircraft
is already in flight. An aircraft is considered to be in flight
the moment all its external doors had been closed,
following embarkation until any of its external doors had
10 of 188
been opened for purposes of disembarkation. In this case,
the said aircraft is an aircraft of Philippine registry, it is at
NAIA Terminal 3 and the passengers were still boarding,
therefore all cabin doors were still open. Hence, the aircraft
is not yet in flight. Therefore, R.A. 6235 will not yet apply.
Q: In the same problem, Cebu Pacific flight landed at
NAIA Terminal 3. After assembling the knife, all
passengers have already boarded and all the cabin
doors are already closed, even the cargo doors were
already closed. The aircraft is already prepared to fly.
Suddenly, the captain of the said aircraft said, “This is
your captain speaking, were are already ready to fly
but we are sorry to inform you that we are number 4 in
line, so we have to wait for 30-40 minutes. Meanwhile,
sit back and relax”. The passengers unfastened their
seatbelts. X took that opportunity, so he stood up, and
with the said long knife on the side of his jacket, he
went inside the restroom. The moment he came out,
he went to the cabin and ordered the pilot to
immediately fly the plane, not to Davao, but to Cebu.
The pilot refused. Since there were two pilots, they
both tried to struggle against X, but X was just too
strong for the both of them. X stabbed both of them. Is
X liable under R.A. 6235?
A: YES, X is liable under R.A. 6235. The Cebu Pacific
aircraft is already in flight even if it is not yet in the air
because all the cabin doors are already closed, and all the
passengers have already boarded. Since all the cabin
doors are already closed, the law deems that the aircraft is
already in flight. Therefore, the act committed by X, forcing
the said pilot to change the destination/course of the
aircraft, it is already considered as a violation of R.A. 6235.
Q: In the same problem, the aircraft is Cathay Pacific,
registered in Hong Kong, it came to the Philippines.
The aircraft is at NAIA Terminal 3. It is a turnaround
aircraft, so the passengers disembarked, and another
set of passengers boarded the aircraft bound to
Davao. While the new set of passengers were
boarding, X was able to assemble his knife. Thereafter,
he went to the captain of the said aircraft, and he
ordered him to order the closure of all cabin doors, and
to direct the flight not to Hong Kong, but to mainland
China. When the pilot refused, X stabbed him. Is X
liable under R.A. 6235?
A: YES, X is liable under R.A. 6235 even if the aircraft is
not yet in flight. Since Cathay Pacific is an aircraft of foreign
registry, and not of Philippine registry, there is no requisite
that it be in flight before an act inimical to civil aviation may
be committed. For as long as the aircraft of foreign registry
is within Philippine territory at the time X usurped the said
aircraft, it is already considered as an act inimical to civil
aviation under R.A. 6235.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
TITLE TWO:
CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL
LAWS OF THE STATE
BAR Q: Three kinds of Arbitrary Detention:
1. Arbitrary Detention by detaining a person without
legal grounds under Article 124.
2. Arbitrary Detention by failing to deliver the
detained person to the proper judicial authorities
within 12, 18, or 36 hours under Article 125.
3. Arbitrary Detention by delaying the release of
prisoners despite the judicial or executive order to
do so under Article 126.
BAR TIP:
In case this question is asked, short answer only. Do not
explain, it is an objective question. If you are asked to
enumerate, just enumerate and do not explain. You
have to know how to answer what is being asked; what
is the question; what is the bar examiner asking; if he is
asking for definition, enumeration, you are not required
to explain.
ARTICLE 124 - ARBITRARY DETENTION BY
DETAINING A PERSON WITHOUT LEGAL GROUND
Article 124. Arbitrary detention. - Any public officer or
employee who, without legal grounds, detains a person,
shall suffer;
1. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prision correccional in its minimum period, if the detention
has not exceeded three days;
2. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods, if the detention has continued more
than three but not more than fifteen days;
3. The penalty of prision mayor, if the detention has
continued for more than fifteen days but not more than six
months; and
4. That of reclusion temporal, if the detention shall have
exceeded six months.
The commission of a crime, or violent insanity or any other
ailment requiring the compulsory confinement of the
patient in a hospital, shall be considered legal grounds for
the detention of any person.
Elements of Arbitrary Detention under Article 124
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee;
2. That he arrests or detains another; and
11 of 188
3. That the said arrest or detention is without legal
grounds.
First element. The offender, if it is arbitrary detention, is a
public officer who is vested by authority to effect arrest and
detain a person. What did he do? He detained another.
Why is he liable? Because the said arrest or detention is
without legal grounds.
Second element. The Supreme Court said, there is
detention when a person is placed in confinement, when
there is deprivation of his liberty. It is not necessary that he
was placed behind a prison cell, that he is placed behind
prison cell or behind bars, for as long as there is
deprivation of his personal liberty – there is already
detention.
Third element. Arrest and detention are said to be without
legal grounds when:
1. The person was arrested without any warrant of
arrest issued by the court;
2. When the said person was arrested and detained
without any of the circumstances for a valid
warrantless arrest; or
3. When a person is NOT suffering from violent
insanity or any disease that would require his
compulsory confinement.
These are said to be NOT VALID grounds, illegal grounds
for arrest and detention.
ARTICLE 125. DELAY IN THE DELIVERY OF
DETAINED PERSONS TO THE PROPER JUDICIAL
AUTHORITIES
Article 125. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to
the proper judicial authorities. - The penalties provided in
the next preceding article shall be imposed upon the public
officer or employee who shall detain any person for some
legal ground and shall fail to deliver such person to the
proper judicial authorities within the period of; twelve (12)
hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by light penalties,
or their equivalent; eighteen (18) hours, for crimes or
offenses punishable by correctional penalties, or their
equivalent and thirty-six (36) hours, for crimes, or offenses
punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or their
equivalent. In every case, the person detained shall be
informed of the cause of his detention and shall be allowed
upon his request, to communicate and confer at any time
with his attorney or counsel.
Elements of Arbitrary Detention under Article 125
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee;
2. That he arrests and detains another;
3. That the said arrest and detention is based on
legal grounds; and
4. That he failed to deliver the said person detained
to the proper judicial authorities
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
a. Within 12 hours for crimes punishable by
light penalties or their equivalent
b. Within 18 hours for crimes punishable by
corrective penalties or their equivalent;
and
c. Within 36 hours for crimes punishable by
death or afflictive penalties or their
equivalent.
If you will look at the elements, same offenders – a public
officer who is vested by authority to effect arrest and detain
a person.
In the case of arbitrary detention under Article 124, at the
outset, the crime is committed because at the outset, the
arrest and detention is without legal grounds.
In Article 125, at the outset, the arrest and detention is legal
because based on the third and last elements of Article
125, the arrest and detention is based on some legal
grounds. In this case, at the outset, the arrest and
detention was valid and legal.
The said offender only commits the crime if they failed to
deliver the person arrested to the proper judicial authorities
within the period prescribed.
The legal ground being referred to in Article 125 does not
apply when the said arrest and detention is based on a
warrant of arrest issued by the court. If a person is arrested
based on a warrant of arrest issued by the court, there is
no need for the arresting authority to deliver him to the
proper judicial authority because the warrant of arrest
came from the proper judicial authority.
The circumstances for a valid arrest under Article 125
are the circumstances for a valid warrantless arrest
under the Rules of Court.
Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace
officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has
probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge
of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested
has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is
serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his
case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred
from one confinement to another.
In cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b) above, the
person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith
12 of 188
delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be
proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule
112.
Fourth element. This is the time the crime will arise. If the
peace officer failed to deliver him to the proper judicial
authority because police officers are mandated to
immediately file the case against the person arrested
within 12, 18, or 36 hours depending on the penalty
prescribed.
Deliver does NOT mean physical or actual delivery. It
does not mean that the peace officer must bring the person
arrested to the court/to the judge. This refers to legal
delivery or constructive delivery. This refers to the filing
of the case against the said person arrested before the
proper judicial authorities (i.e., courts, judges).
a. Within 12 hours for crimes punishable with
light penalties or their equivalent
b. Within 18 hours for crimes punishable with
corrective penalties or their equivalent;
and
c. Within 36 hours for crimes punishable by
death or afflictive penalties or their
equivalent.
ARTICLE 126. DELAYING RELEASE
The last kind of arbitrary detention is under Article 126
Arbitrary Detention by Failing to Release a Prisoner
despite Official or Executive Order to do so.
Article 126. Delaying release. - The penalties provided for
in Article 124 shall be imposed upon any public officer or
employee who delays for the period of time specified
therein the performance of any judicial or executive order
for the release of a prisoner or detention prisoner, or
unduly delays the service of the notice of such order to said
prisoner or the proceedings upon any petition for the
liberation of such person.
Elements of Delaying Release
1. The offender is a public officer or employee;
2. There is an order, either a judicial order or an
executive order for the release of a prisoner;
3. The said offender unduly delays either
a. the release of the said prisoner;
b. the service of notice of such order to the
prisoner; or
c. any proceedings upon a petition for the
release of such person.
Second element. When you say judicial order, an example
of that is when the judge after trial on the merits acquitted
the accused. Based on the evidence, the prosecution failed
to prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable
doubt. Hence, the accused is hereby acquitted of the
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
charge against him. With the said acquittal order, will come
a release order.
If the BJMP warden failed to release him despite the
release order coming from the court then, he becomes
liable under Article 126. However, if he has a valid reason
for not releasing the said prisoner (e.g., the said prisoner
is facing another case), then, since he has a valid reason,
he has all the power not to release the said prisoner.
Q: X was charged with two crimes: 1) illegal sale of
dangerous drugs, non-bailable; and 2) illegal
possession of dangerous drugs. He was caught in the
act of selling. He was arrested and brought to the PNP
station. When he was frisked, inside his socks, the
police officers found the police officers found the
sachets. And so, there were two charges: 1) illegal
sale; and 2) illegal possession. The cases were raffled
to different courts. The fiscal failed to move for its
consolidation. The illegal sale was raffled to RTC
Branch 12, while the illegal possession was raffled to
RTC Branch 6. Both cases proceeded. Meanwhile, X
was behind bars because among the charges filed
against him was illegal sale, and such is a non-bailable
offense since the penalty is life imprisonment to death.
In the case for illegal possession heard by RTC Branch
6, two months lapsed, the public prosecutor failed to
present any witness for five hearings, even if there was
a subpoena, no one would attend. Consequently, the
judge dismissed the case. There was a provisional
dismissal of the case, and with that comes an order of
release.
The BJMP warden received the order of release
coming from the judge of RTC Branch 6. He read it.
However, he just placed it inside his pocket, and he did
not release X. Is the BJMP warden liable under Article
126 for arbitrary detention?
A: The BJMP warden is NOT liable. Although there is a
judicial order coming from the RTC Branch 6 that X be
released, the said BJMP warden has a valid ground, a
legal ground, for not releasing X.
At that time, X was still being detained for illegal sale of
dangerous drugs, a non-bailable offense, being heard
under the RTC Branch 12. Therefore, since he is a reason
for not complying with the said judicial order, he cannot be
held liable under Article 126.
Q: X was arrested and was found in possession of a
low caliber pistol. He was brought to the PNP station
and was investigated. A complaint was prepared but it
was a Saturday evening, and so he was placed behind
bars. The following day, Sunday, they still could not
file a case even if they wanted to since the courts are
closed, the fiscal’s office is closed. On Monday, it was
closed because it was a special non-working holiday.
On Tuesday, the signal no. 3 storm on Monday became
13 of 188
signal no. 4. The order came not only from the court,
but from the Supreme Court itself that courts would be
closed. On Wednesday, PAGASA lowered the signal
no. to 3, and there was office again. The first thing that
the arresting officer of X did was to bring the latter to
the fiscal’s office for inquest purposes. After the
inquest, X was charged against the Information for
violation of R.A. 10591 before the proper court. Upon
the filing of the case, the counsel of X immediately filed
a countercharge before the Office of the Public
Prosecutor against the said arresting police officers
for violation of Article 125 for failing to deliver the
detained person to the proper judicial officers within
36 hours. In their counter-affidavit, the said police
officer moved for the dismissal of the case on two
grounds: 1) Article 215 does not apply to violations of
Special Penal Laws (SPL) like R.A. 10591; and 2) in
case Article 125 applies to violations of SPL, they
complied as they were able to deliver X to the proper
authorities within 36 hours. Hence, they moved for
dismissal. If you were the assigned public prosecutor,
how would you rule?
A: If you were the assigned public prosecutor, you
have to DISMISS the case.
The first argument raised by the respondent police
officers has no merit. Article 125 applies even to
violations of SPL. Under said article, 12 hours for crimes
punishable by light penalties or their equivalent; 18 hours
for crimes punishable by correctional penalties or their
equivalent; or 36 hours for crimes punishable by capital
punishment or afflictive penalties or their equivalent. The
phrase “or their equivalent” means their equivalent period
of time in case of violations of SPL.
However, the second argument raised by the
respondent police officers has merit. During the period
of time — Saturday night, Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday
— when the courts were closed and the Office of the Public
Prosecutor was closed, the 12, 18, and 36 hours did not
run. The said prescriptive periods would not run during
those time that the courts were closed to receive the
complaint, the Information, against the respondent, the
accused. Since the said courts were open only on
Wednesday, the said arresting officers filed the complaint
within the proper period of time because that time did not
run during Saturday, Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday.
Therefore, the case should be dismissed.
ASTORGA v. PEOPLE
412 SCRA 512 | 01 October 2003
In the case of Astorga v. People, when you say “detention”,
it is necessary that the offended party must be detained,
incarcerated. However, the Supreme Court said, in lieu of
actual restraint on the person of the said offended
party, on the liberty of the said party, arbitrary detention
would only apply if there is fear on the part of the said
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
offended party; if there was fear imposed by the accused
on the part of the said offended party.
In this case, SC said there was none. The DENR officers
said that they could go around the public place; they were
unafraid. Since they lack fear, it cannot be said that the act
is arbitrary detention. Hence, in the second resolution, the
Supreme Court, after convicting Mayor Astorga, acquitted
him.
ARTICLE 127. EXPULSION
Article 127. Expulsion. - The penalty of prision
correccional shall be imposed upon any public officer or
employee who, not being thereunto authorized by law,
shall expel any person from the Philippine Islands or shall
compel such person to change his residence.
Elements of Expulsion
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. The public officer or employee acts either:
a. By expelling a person from the
Philippines; or
b. By compelling a person to change his
residence
3. Offender is not authorized to do so by law.
ARTICLE 128. VIOLATION OF DOMICILE
Article 128. Violation of domicile. - The penalty of prision
correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon
any public officer or employee who, not being authorized
by judicial order, shall enter any dwelling against the will of
the owner thereof, search papers or other effects found
therein without the previous consent of such owner, or
having surreptitiously entered said dwelling, and being
required to leave the premises, shall refuse to do so.
If the offense be committed in the night-time, or if any
papers or effects not constituting evidence of a crime be
not returned immediately after the search made by the
offender, the penalty shall be prision correccional in its
medium and maximum periods.
Elements of Violation of Domicile
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. He was not authorized by a judicial order to enter the
dwelling and/or make a search therein for papers or
other effects; and
3. He either:
a. Enters the dwelling of another against the
will of the latter; or
b. Searching for papers or other effects
found therein without the consent of the
owner; or
c. After having surreptitiously entered the
dwelling, being discovered and asked to
leave, he refuses to leave.
14 of 188
The offender in the violation of domicile is a public officer
or employee acting under color of authority.
A public officer or employee is said to be acting under color
of authority if he has been vested with the authority to
implement a search warrant, but when he entered in the
said dwelling, he is not armed with a judicial order or
search warrant. Therefore, he was acting under color of
authority.
Different modes of violation of domicile:
I. By entering any dwelling against the will of the
owner thereof; or
There must a prohibition, an opposition from entering. It
can either be an implied or expressed opposition from
entering.
Implied opposition – the door is closed, although it is not
locked. It can be said that the owner is saying that “No one
can enter my house”
Expressed prohibition – when the owner is inside the
house and the officer knocks upon the door and upon
seeing the officer, the owner closes the door. If there are
sayings – “Do not enter”, “No entry”.
II. By searching papers or other effects found
therein without the previous consent of the
owner; or
III. By refusing to leave the premises, after having
surreptitiously entered the dwelling.
Surreptitious entering means entering the dwelling secretly
or candidly. Therefore, it is important that he must refuse
to leave after being discovered and asked to leave in order
to amount to violation of domicile.
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
1. Nighttime; or
2. If any papers or effects seized were not immediately
returned to the owner.
GEROCHE v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 179080 | November 26, 2014
FACTS: Petitioners Edigardo Geroche, Roberto Garde
and Generoso Marfil alias "Tapol" were charged with the
crime of Violation of Domicile under Article 128 of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC). One evening in the province
of Cotabato, the three accused, being a Barangay Captain
and the rest being CAFGUs, hence, persons in authority,
without proper judicial order, entered the house of Roberto
Mallo by forcibly breaking the door of said house against
the will of the occupants thereof, search the effects of the
house without the previous consent of the owner and then
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
mauled one of the occupants Bariliano Limbag inflicting
injuries to the latter.
ISSUE: WON the petitioners are guilty of the crime of
Violation of Domicile.
RULING: YES. The entry was done against the will of the
offended party. The search was without asking for his
consent. The entry was done surreptitiously and they
refused to leave when asked. Since the said act was
committed at night time and the airgun seized which is not
used in the commission of a crime was not immediately
returned, the penalty is qualified.
Q: A police officer was conducting a surveillance in
the person of X. X was just new in the place. The police
officers took notice that upon his transfer, selling of
drugs and drug addiction became rampant in the
place. So, the police officers got a tip. In the house of
X, many people were coming in and out. The police
officers started conducted surveillance. PO1 W was
assigned to conduct the surveillance. He dressed in
civilian attire. One time, he saw the gate was left
opened. He entered. But, the door was closed.
Although the door was closed, he tried to open and he
was successful. He went to the sala, there was silence
but he could hear voices upstairs. Suddenly, the
owner came down and shouted “Who are you?”. To
prevent any commotion, W immediately left. Is he
liable for violation of domicile?
A: YES. He is liable for Violation of Domicile under the first
act – by entering any dwelling against the will of the owner
thereof.
He is a public officer. He is not authorized by judicial order
to enter the dwelling of X. He entered the dwelling of X
against the will of the latter. There was an implied
prohibition to enter because the door was closed even if
the gate was opened. When he entered the dwelling of X
without any search warrant, he becomes liable for violation
of domicile under Article 128.
Note:
It must be entering against the will of the owner. Entering
against the will of the owner is not the same as entering
without the consent of the owner.
Q: What if X and Y, husband and wife, were watching
the television, and there were knocks at the door, so
he opened the door and there were police officers, out
of respect they told him to enter his house and to sit,
but the police officers said they are there to search his
house, so X was shocked, the police officers said that
they got a report about a missing bicycle at about 5pm,
and the person who took the bicycle went inside X’s
house and so X asked if they have a search warrant,
but the police officers said they failed to get a search
warrant, so X said then without such they cannot
conduct a search, but the police officers did not listen
15 of 188
and they pushed him and proceeded in conducting the
search, upon opening a room, they entered and
immediately saw the stolen bicycle, so they called the
owner and the owner identified it to be as the stolen
bicycle, so the police officers seized the said bicycle
and arrested both the husband and wife, X and Y. They
were both charged with the crime of theft. Can the said
bicycle be used as evidence against him? He filed a
counter-charge against the police officers for violation
of domicile. Are the police officers liable?
A: YES. First element of violation of domicile, they are
public officers, second element they are not armed with a
search warrant, third element – is the entry done against
the will of the owner? NO, they were allowed to enter, it
was the X who permitted them to enter and sit. But the
second act was violated, although they were permitted to
enter police officers were not allowed to conduct a search,
when X protested against the search, STILL the police
officers proceeded in conducting the search, therefore they
committed the second act, they searched papers or other
effects found therein WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE
OWNER, so there is VIOLATION OF DOMICILE.
Q: Is the bicycle seized and confiscated allegedly
belonging to the owner admissible as evidence in the
crime of theft filed against X and Y?
A: The bicycle found inside his house CANNOT BE USED
as evidence against X because it is a product of an illegal
search conducted by the police officers.
ARTICLE 129. SEARCH WARRANTS MALICIOUSLY
OBTAINED AND ABUSE IN THE SERVICE OF THOSE
LEGALLY OBTAINED
Article 129. Search warrants maliciously obtained and
abuse in the service of those legally obtained. - In addition
to the liability attaching to the offender for the commission
of any other offense, the penalty of arresto mayor in its
maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum
period and a fine not exceeding P1,000 pesos shall be
imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall
procure a search warrant without just cause, or, having
legally procured the same, shall exceed his authority or
use unnecessary severity in executing the same.
COMMITTED THROUGH
I. By procuring a search warrant without just
cause
It is without just cause when it is maliciously procured. It is
maliciously procured when any of the requisites for the
issuance of a search warrant is absent.
Requisites of a Valid Search Warrant
1. It is required that it is for one specific offense;
2. There must be probable cause;
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
3. The said probable cause was determined by the
issuing judge personally through searching
questions and answers in writing, under oath or
affirmation as the testimony given by applicant of
the said search warrant or any witnesses he may
produce;
4. The applicant of the search warrant and his
witnesses must testify only as to facts personally
known to them; and
5. The said search warrant must specifically state the
place to be searched and the thing to be seized.
If any of these requisites is wanting, then the said search
warrant is illegally procured. It is procured without just
cause. A search conducted by virtue of a search warrant
illegally procured without just cause is akin to a search
without a search warrant.
II. By exceeding his authority under the search
warrant
The public officer is said to have exceeded his
authority in the search warrant when despite the
discrepancy or the variance between the facts alleged in
the search warrant and the actual facts on the place to be
searched, the peace officer still proceeded with the search.
The Supreme Court said that a search warrant is always
specifically worded because the officers serving the search
warrant are not allowed to exercise discretion. They must
follow what is stated in the search warrant – the things to
be seized, the place to be searched, the time of the search.
There must be no deviation.
Note:
A search warrant is valid only for a period of 10 days
from the date of its issuance appearing on the search
warrant.
A search warrant may only be conducted at daytime. It
may only be implemented at daytime.
XPN: When there is a specific order in the search warrant
stating that it can be conducted at any time of the day or
night. Absence of such order in the said search warrant, a
search warrant can only be implemented at daytime.
III. By using excessive severity in executing a
search warrant legally procured
The public officer is said to have employed excessive
severity in the implementation of the search warrant when
in the conduct of search, they deliberately caused damage
on the property, they deliberately caused harm or injury to
any person in the conduct of the said search.
XPN: Under the Rules of Court, the police officers are
allowed to break door or window if at the time they will
conduct the search, they are not allowed entry.
16 of 188
ARTICLE 130. SEARCHING DOMICILE WITHOUT
WITNESSES
Article 130. Searching domicile without witnesses. - The
penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum
periods shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee
who, in cases where a search is proper, shall search the
domicile, papers or other belongings of any person, in the
absence of the latter, any member of his family, or in their
default, without the presence of two witnesses residing in
the same locality.
Committed by conducting a search in the absence of the
owner of the house, or any member of his family, or two
witnesses residing in the same locality.
Elements of Searching Domicile without Witnesses
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. He is armed with a search warrant legally
procured;
3. He searches the domicile, papers, or other
belongings of any person; and
4. The owner or any member of his family or two
witnesses residing in the same locality are not
present.
Hierarchy of witness
1. Owner
2. Any member of his family
3. Two witnesses residing in the same locality
Q: The search warrant states, “People of the
Philippines v. Cong. Arnie Teves for violation of RA
10591 Illegal Possession of Loose Firearms. The
undersigned here, by order, mandates peace officers
to seize and confiscate in the house of Cong. Teves
located in etc. etc. the following arms and
ammunitions.”
The police officers went to his house, but Teves was
not there. They raided the houses armed with a search
warrant issued by the court. They took pistols,
firearms, high-powered firearms, high caliber pistols.
When they opened the cabinet, they saw P70M cash.
They took all the arm alites, all the firearms, all the
pistols, and they also took the P70M cash. These
police officers inventoried the firearms seized.
However, they could not arrest Teves because he was
not there.
In case Teves arrives, files a complaint for violation of
domicile under Art. 129, can the police officers be held
liable?
A: YES, they are liable for Art. 129 violation of domicile
under the second act. The police officers exceeded their
authority when they took the cash. They have no authority
to take the cash even if it is a product of the crime because
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
it was not part of the search warrant. The search warrant
against Cong. Teves is for violation of RA 10591 Illegal
Possession of Loose Firearms, and cash is not a part of
ammunitions and firearms.
Q: A search warrant is issued, “People of the
Philippines v. X for illegal possession of dangerous
drugs. The police officers are hereby commanded to
search the house of X, and to seize and confiscate
dangerous drugs (shabu) as well as drug
paraphernalia and other things involving dangerous
drugs.”
The police officers went to the place of X around 5:00
in the afternoon. They know that X sells drugs secretly
using his motorcycle. When they looked at the yard,
the motorcycle was not there. So, they knew that X was
not yet in the house. In order to be sure, they inquired
from the helper, “Is X already in?” The helper said,
“Sir, wala pa po eh.” They asked what time does he
arrive home and the helper responded that X arrives
around 7:00 PM. So, the officers waited.
Past 8:00 PM, a motorcycle arrived. They moment X
parks his motorcycle inside his residence, the police
officers immediately told X, “You are under arrest.
There is a search warrant.” He was immediately placed
in handcuffs and thereafter, they brought him inside
his house.
While he was inside the house, he was told to sit down.
The police officer asked, “You read this search
warrant? Where is your room? We are going to
conduct a search in your house.” So, X brought the
police officer to his room. Aside from the helper, he
lives alone in the said house.
After the police officer had been shown of the house,
they brought back X to the door and was told to sit. X
was being guarded by another police officer. He was
further told to stay there as they will conduct a search
on his house. The search was witnessed by the
barangay chairman. They found a bag which contains
10-12 plastic sachets of shabu. The same was
inventoried and X was arrested. They filed a case
against X for violation of RA 9165.
The counsel of X, his brother, filed a countercharge
against the police officers for violation of domicile
under Arts. 129 and 130.
A: The police officers are liable of violation of domicile
under Art. 129 because they exceeded the authority in the
search warrant, if there is no express statement in the
search warrant that it can be conducted at ANY TIME OF
THE DAY OR NIGHT, then it can only be served at DAY
TIME. In this case, they served it at past 8:00 in the
evening. Therefore, they EXCEEDED THE AUTHORITY in
the search warrant, they violated the second act under Art.
129.
17 of 188
If according to the helper, X only arrives late at night, STILL
they should not have proceeded with the search, instead
they should go back to the courts and file a motion to
AMEND the said search warrant, then the Court will now
amend it and state that the search can already be
conducted anytime of the day or night. But without that,
they cannot serve the search warrant at night.
The police officers are also liable of violation of domicile
under Article 130.
Article 130 provides for a hierarchy of witnesses who must
be present in the conduct of the search. The law says it
must be witnessed by the owner of the house, it is only in
the absence of the owner of the house that it must be
witnessed by any member of his family. It is only in the
absence of the owner of the house or any member of his
family that there must be 2 witnesses residing from the
same locality.
In the problem, the owner of the house was there, but he
was not allowed to witness the said search. Therefore, the
said search was conducted in violation of Art. 130 and any
evidence confiscated will be inadmissible against the
owner of the house for being fruits of poisonous tree under
the exclusionary rule in Political Law or Remedial Law.
ARTICLE 131. PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION AND
DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL MEETINGS
Article 131. Prohibition, interruption and dissolution of
peaceful meetings. - The penalty of prision correccional in
its minimum period shall be imposed upon any public
officer or employee who, without legal ground, shall
prohibit or interrupt the holding of a peaceful meeting, or
shall dissolve the same.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon a public officer
or employee who shall hinder any person from joining any
lawful association or from attending any of its meetings.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any public officer
or employee who shall prohibit or hinder any person from
addressing, either alone or together with others, any
petition to the authorities for the correction of abuses or
redress of grievances.
Elements of Prohibition, Interruption, and Dissolution
of Peaceful Meetings
1. The offender is a public officer or employee;
2. The offender committed any of the following acts:
a. By prohibiting or by interrupting,
dissolving, without legal ground, the
holding of a peaceful meeting, or by
dissolving the same.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
b. By hindering any person from joining any
lawful association or from attending any of
its meetings.
c. By prohibiting or hindering any person
from addressing, either alone or together
with others, any petition to the authorities
for the correction of abuses or redress of
grievances.
For the crime to arise, it is necessary that the meeting that
was prevented, interrupted or dissolved must be a
peaceful meeting and it must be for any lawful
purpose. If the meeting is not a peaceful meeting or if the
meeting is not for lawful purpose, a public officer or
employee has all the rights to prevent, interrupt or dissolve
the said meeting.
Permits
This is in the exercise of the freedom of speech, freedom
of expression and freedom of assembly. However, these 3
freedoms are not absolute. The Supreme Court has
enjoined the power of the State to regulate these meetings
through permits.
Before any of these peaceful meetings for a lawful purpose
may be held in a public place, there must be a permit
coming from the local authority of the place. The permit is
only to regulate the said meeting and not to prohibit it.
Regulate as to the time, place and to the date, so that the
public would not be in inconvenience.
ARTICLE 132. INTERRUPTION OF RELIGIOUS
WORSHIP.
Article 132. Interruption of religious worship. - The penalty
of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be
imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall
prevent or disturb the ceremonies or manifestations of any
religion.
If the crime shall have been committed with violence or
threats, the penalty shall be prision correccional in its
medium and maximum periods.
Elements of Interruption of Religious Worship
1. This is committed by an offender who is again a
public officer or employee.
2. There is a religious ceremony or manifestations of
any religion that is about to take place or are going
on.
3. That the offender prevents or disturbs the said
religious worship or religious ceremony.
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE
If the offender makes use of violence or threats in
committing the crime, such use of violence or threats would
18 of 188
not constitute a separate and distinct charge. Rather, it is
considered as an aggravating or qualifying circumstance
which would mean an imposition of a higher penalty.
ARTICLE 133. OFFENDING THE RELIGIOUS
FEELINGS
Article 133. Offending the religious feelings. - The penalty
of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon
anyone who, in a place devoted to religious worship or
during the celebration of any religious ceremony shall
perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the
faithful.
Elements of Offending the Religious Feelings
1. Committed by a public officer or employee or a
private individual.
2. That the acts must be notoriously offensive to the
feelings of the faithful.
3. The said offender performs acts:
a. in a place devoted to religious worship, or
b. during the celebration of any religious
ceremony.
First element. The first element provides for the offender.
The offender may be a public officer or employee or a
private individual. This is the only crime under Title Two
where the offender can be a private individual. From Article
124 to Article 132 under Title Two, the offender can ONLY
be a public officer or employee. The only exception is
Article 133, offending the religious feelings wherein the
offender can either be a public officer or employee or a
private individual. The reason is, whoever may be the
offender, a public officer or employee or a private
individual, there will be the same offense made on the
feelings of the faithful.
Second element. Acts notoriously offensive to the
feelings of the faithful are those acts directed against their
religious
dogma, ritual, faith of the religion, or mocks, ridicule, or
scoffs of the said dogma, ritual, faith or he attempts to
damage the object of veneration of a certain religion. The
law says “notoriously offensive.” According to Reyes, it
means that it is offensive to all kinds of religion. If the same
thing would be done to any religion, they will also be
offended.
CELDRAN v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 220127 | 21 March 2018
FACTS: During the celebration of the second anniversary
of the May They Be One Campaign and the launching of
the Hand Written Bible which coincided with the feast of St.
Jerome, dignitaries of the catholic church and those of
different religion gathered in Manila Cathedral.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
While Brother Tirona was reading a passage from the
Bible, Celdran, in black suit and a hat, went to the center
of the aisle and in front of the altar suddenly brought out
and raised a placard with the word “DAMASO.” Commotion
ensued when Celdran started shouting while inside the
church disrupting the celebration.

HELD: Offending the Religious Feelings under Art. 133

First, the issue of whether the act complained of is

offensive to the religious feelings of the Catholics, is a
question of fact which must be judged only according to the
feelings of the Catholics and not those of other faithful
ones, for it is possible that certain acts may offend the
feelings of those who profess a certain religion, while not
otherwise offensive to the feelings of those professing
another faith.

Second, the acts of Celdran were meant to mock, insult,

and ridicule those clergy whose beliefs and principles were
opposed to his own.

Celdran filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that Art.

133 must be declared unconstitutional on the ground of
overbreadth or vagueness. It was argued that the terms
“notoriously offensive” and “religious feelings” are vague.

SC: First, Art. 133 cannot be subjected to facial invalidation

because it does not encroach on the freedom of
expression as it does not regulate speech. There is nothing
in the provision which imposes criminal liability on anyone
who wishes to express dissent on another religious group.
Second, the terms “notoriously offensive” and “religious
feelings” are not vague as these are words commonly
used. Also, jurisprudence provides for examples of acts
which are considered notoriously offensive to the religious
feelings. Moreover, the act of Celdran in purposely
dressing in Jose Rizal costume while raising a placard and
disrupting the celebration attended by the dignitaries of the
catholic church, among others, evinces his intent to cause
dishonor or offend the church.

19 of 188
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
They commit a swift attack accompanied by violence,
intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, directed against the
TITLE THREE:
duly constituted authorities of the Republic of the
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER Philippines, or any military camp or installation,
communications network, public utilities or other facilities
CHAPTER ONE: which are needed for the exercise and continued
REBELLION, SEDITION AND DISLOYALTY possession of powers, carried out singly or simultaneously
anywhere in the Philippines for the purpose of seizing or
ARTICLE 134. REBELLION OR INSURRECTION diminishing state power.

Article 134. Rebellion or insurrection; How committed. -
The crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed by rising
publicly and taking arms against the Government for the
purpose of removing from the allegiance to said
Government or its laws, the territory of the Philippine
Islands or any part thereof, of any body of land, naval or
other armed forces, depriving the Chief Executive or the
Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or
prerogatives. (As amended by R.A. 6968)
Elements of Rebellion (Art. 134)
1. That there be –
a. Public uprising and
b. Taking up of arms;
2. The purpose of the public uprising or movement is
to attain any of the following –
Elements of Coup d’etat (Art. 134-A)
1. That the offender is a person or persons belonging
to the military or police or holding any public office
or employment;
2. That it is committed by means of a swift attack
accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat,
strategy or stealth;
3. That the attack is directed against:
a. duly constituted authorities of the Republic
of the Philippines,
b. or any military camp or installation,
c. communication networks,
d. public utilities, or

a. To remove from the allegiance to the e. other facilities needed for the exercise and
Philippine Government or its laws – continued possession of power;
i. The territory of the Philippines or 4. That the purpose of the attack is to seize or
any part thereof; or
diminish state power.
ii. Any body of land, naval or other
armed forces; or Distinctions between Rebellion (Art. 134) and Coup
d’etat (Art. 134-A)
b. To deprive the Chief Executive or
Congress wholly or partially, of any of their
REBELLION COUP D’ETAT
powers or prerogatives.
Essence
ARTICLE 134-A. COUP D’ETAT The gravamen of rebellion The gravamen or the
is an armed public essence is a swift attack
uprising. directed against the duly
Article 134-A. Coup d'etat; How committed. - The crime of
constituted authorities of
coup d'etat is a swift attack accompanied by violence,
The public uprising is the Philippines.
intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, directed against
always coupled with taking
duly constituted authorities of the Republic of the
up of arms against the
Philippines, or any military camp or installation,
government.
communications network, public utilities or other facilities
Presence of civilian support
needed for the exercise and continued possession of
power, singly or simultaneously carried out anywhere in Rebellion is a crime of the Coup d’etat is only
masses. committed by members of
the Philippines by any person or persons, belonging to the
the military, the police or
military or police or holding any public office of employment
with or without civilian support or participation for the It involves a multitude of any public officer or
purpose of seizing or diminishing state power. (As people. It involves the employee, with or without
public, the civilians. civilian support.
amended by R.A. 6968)
Support of the public or
Coup d’etat is committed when the offenders are members
civilians are not necessary
of the military or police, or those holding any public office
in case of coup d’etat.
or employment, with or without civilian support.
Purpose

20 of 188
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
The purpose is to The purpose is to diminish There must be evidence presented in court that the
overthrow the government state powers. commission of these common crimes are indeed
and to replace it with the necessary to promote the ideals of the said rebels.
government of the rebels.
Means of commission Otherwise, the commission of these common crimes will
Since the purpose of Coup d’etat may be constitute a separate and distinct charge and will not be
rebellion is to overthrow committed not only by absorbed by rebellion or by coup d’etat.
the government, it is means of force and
always carried out by violence, but also by OCAMPO v. ABANDO
means of force and means of intimidation, G.R. No. 176830 | 11 February 2014
violence. threat, strategy or stealth.
FACTS: A mass grave was discovered by some members
THEORY OF ABSORPTION of the Philippine Army in Leyte. When they saw the mass
grave, it contained skeletal remains of individuals. The
IN REBELLION OR COUP D’ETAT
AFP believed that these individuals were said to be victims
by the CPP/NPA/NDFP to purge their ranks of suspected
There is a theory of absorption in rebellion or coup d’etat,
military informers – they killed these alleged to be
also otherwise known as the political offense doctrine.
informers in favor of the government.
Under the political offense doctrine, "common crimes,
Because of this, fifteen (15) counts of murder were filed
perpetrated in furtherance of a political offense, are
against fifty-four (54) members of the CPP/NPA/NDFP,
divested of their character as "common" offenses and
which included Saturnino Ocampo, et al.
assume the political complexion of the main crime of which
they are mere ingredients, and, consequently, cannot be
At that time, Ocampo and other members of the
punished separately from the principal offense, or
CPP/NPA/NDFP were already facing a case of rebellion
complexed with the same, to justify the imposition of a
before the RTC of Makati. And so, when they learned that
graver penalty."
there was this case of 15 counts of murder filed against
them, they moved that under the political offense doctrine,
Any ordinary act assumes a different nature by being
these alleged common crimes of murder should already be
absorbed in the crime of rebellion. Thus, when a killing is
absorbed by the crime of rebellion that they are currently
committed in furtherance of rebellion, the killing is not
facing at the RTC of Makati.
homicide or murder. Rather, the killing assumes the
political complexion of rebellion as its mere ingredient and
Therefore, they moved that these murder charges filed
must be prosecuted and punished as rebellion alone.
against them be dismissed because it should already be
(Ocampo v. Abando, G.R. No. 176830, 11 Feb. 2014)
absorbed by the so-called political offense doctrine.
The so-called theory of absorption in crimes of rebellion or
Should these 15 counts of murder be dismissed as
in crimes of coup d’etat provides that if common crimes are
they are simply absorbed by the crime of rebellion
committed incident to or in furtherance of the crime of
being faced by Ocampo, et al.?
rebellion or coup d’etat, these common crimes will simply
be absorbed by the said crime of rebellion or coup d’etat.
HELD: NO. The Supreme Court, in the said case, said that
under the political offense doctrine, common crimes,
Common crimes like murder, homicide, physical injuries,
perpetrated in furtherance of the political offense of
burning of houses or arson – if these are committed in
rebellion or the political offense of coup d’etat are divested
furtherance of, incident to, or in connection with the act of
of their character as "common" crimes and they assume
rebellion or in connection with the act of coup d’etat, they
the political complexion of the main crime which is rebellion
will not constitute a separate and distinct charge.
or coup d’etat.
They will simply be absorbed by the crime of rebellion or
These common crimes cannot be punished separately
coup d’etat under the so-called theory of absorption in
from the principal offense, neither can they be complexed.
rebellion and coup d’etat.
According to the Supreme Court, the moment these killings
Necessity for evidence that common crimes were
are committed in furtherance of rebellion, then the killing
committed in furtherance of rebellion or coup d’etat
will not be homicide or murder – they will simply be
absorbed by the crime of rebellion under the political
Before the theory of absorption in rebellion and coup d’etat
offense doctrine because they are merely ingredients in
however, may lie and absorb these common crimes, it is
the commission of the crime of rebellion.
necessary that there must be evidence showing in what
way the commission of these common crimes has fostered
However, the Supreme Court said that in this case, these
or has promoted the ideals of the rebels.
15 counts of murder cannot be dismissed. They cannot

21 of 188
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
simply be absorbed by the crime of rebellion being faced
by Ocampo, et al.
The reason is that the crime of rebellion within the
jurisdiction of the RTC of Makati has not yet even started.
Therefore, no evidence had yet been presented in court to
show in what manner the commission of these fifteen acts
of killing has promoted the ideals of these rebels.
Therefore, the Supreme Court said it cannot yet be
absorbed.
SC: The political offense doctrine is not a ground to
dismiss the charge against petitioners prior to a
determination by the trial court that the murders were
committed in furtherance of rebellion.
[W]hen the political offense doctrine is asserted as a
defense in the trial court, it becomes crucial for the court to
determine whether the act of killing was done in
furtherance of a political end, and for the political motive of
the act to be conclusively demonstrated.
The burden of demonstrating political motivation must be
discharged by the defense, since motive is a state of mind
which only the accused knows. The proof showing political
motivation is adduced during trial where the accused is
assured an opportunity to present evidence supporting his
defense. (Ocampo v. Abando, supra.)
Prof: In the said case, Justice Leonen concurred that
these 15 counts of murder cannot be absorbed but he has
a separate concurring opinion.
Although he concurred, his reasoning is different.
According to Justice Leonen, these mass killings are
considered as genocide – a crime against international
humanitarian law. According to him, crimes against
international humanitarian law such as genocide can never
be absorbed by the crime of rebellion.
You cannot kill a mass number of people, you cannot
commit genocide and it will only be absorbed by the
political offense of rebellion. So, he (J. Leonen) concurred,
however, he has a different reasoning.
Q: PO1 X was assigned in a particular town in Quezon,
which is penetrated by NPAs. PO1 X is on his way to
the PNP station. His tour of duty was 7 o’clock of that
morning until 7 o’clock of the next day. He was walking
towards the PNP station and was already in his
uniform.
While he was walking, he did not notice that in a store
which was already open, there was Y, an alleged
member of the NPA, who was drinking a cup of coffee
alone. The moment PO1 X passed by, Y immediately
saw PO1 X, who was in his uniform. And so, Y placed
his cup of coffee down and secretly and slowly
followed PO1 X.
22 of 188
When police officer X was already nearing the PNP
station, Y ran at police officer X and repeatedly
stabbed him at the back. He did not stop until police
officer X was dead. At the time of the stabbing, police
officer X was able to give a loud cry for help. And so,
other police officers coming from the police station
came out and they saw Y stabbing police officer X.
Upon seeing the police, Y immediately ran. The police
officers chased him and Y, the said member of the
CPP-NPA, was arrested. He was charged with the
crime of murder.
In his counter-affidavit, Y alleged that if ever he is to
be charged in court, it should not be for the heinous
crime of murder, rather it should be for the political
offense of rebellion.
According to him: First, he is a member of the NPA.
Second, since rebellion is a continuing crime, the fact
that the NPA already started a rebellion once, it
continued.
Third, he committed the act of killing police officer X in
order to promote the ideals of the NPA.
How should the public prosecutor resolve the case?
A: The public prosecutor should indict Y, the alleged
member of the NPA, for the crime of murder and not for
the political offense of rebellion. There was yet no showing
in what manner the said act of killing has ideals of the NPA.
The Supreme Court said mere self-serving statements
coming from the accused that he is a member of the NPA,
or mere self-serving statements coming from the accused
in his counter-affidavit that he did the act of killing to
promote the ideals of the NPA will not suffice.
There must be additional evidence to show if indeed he is
a member of the NPA and if indeed the said act of killing
was done to promote the ideals of the rebels. Absent this
further evidence, the crime to be charged should be the
crime of murder and not the political offense of rebellion.
Q: Rebellion and murder both have the same penalty.
Why would one insist for rebellion instead of murder?
A: This is because if it is a political crime, it is easy to get
out by just applying for amnesty. If it is a political crime, the
moment there is an amnesty proclamation, they can
immediately apply – it is usually done during Christmas or
any other occasion. They can immediately get out.
This is unlike if they are convicted of a heinous crime or
are being charged of a heinous crime. They cannot avail of
the so-called amnesty which is for political offenses.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
This is why even if they have just the same penalty, many
would insist that it should be rebellion instead of the crime
of murder. But evidence must first be presented.
ARTICLE 139. SEDITION
Article 139. Sedition; How committed. - The crime of
sedition is committed by persons who rise publicly and
tumultuously in order to attain by force, intimidation, or by
other means outside of legal methods, any of the following
objects:
1. To prevent the promulgation or execution of any law or
the holding of any popular election;
2. To prevent the National Government, or any provincial
or municipal government or any public officer thereof from
freely exercising its or his functions, or prevent the
execution of any administrative order;
3. To inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the person or
property of any public officer or employee;
4. To commit, for any political or social end, any act of hate
or revenge against private persons or any social class; and
5. To despoil, for any political or social end, any person,
municipality or province, or the National Government (or
the Government of the United States), of all its property or
any part thereof.
Elements of Sedition (Art. 139)
1. That the offenders rise –
a. Publicly and
b. Tumultously.
2. That they employed force, intimidation or any other
means outside of legal methods.
3. That they said public uprising is done in order to
obtain the following purposes –
a. To prevent the promulgation or execution
of any law or the holding of any popular
election;
b. To prevent the National Government, or
any provincial or municipal government or
any public officer thereof from freely
exercising its or his functions, or prevent
the execution of any administrative order;
c. To inflict any act of hate or revenge upon
the person or property of any public officer
or employee;
d. To commit, for any political or social end,
any act of hate or revenge against private
persons or any social class; and
e. To despoil, for any political or social end,
any person, municipality or province, or
the National Government, of all its
property or any part thereof.
23 of 188
Q: How is sedition different from rebellion?
REBELLION SEDITION
Public uprising
Both involve public uprising.
The public uprising must The act of public uprising
necessarily be coupled by need not be coupled with
taking up of arms. taking up of arms. It
suffices that it is done
outside lawful methods or
outside lawful means.
Purpose
The purpose of rebellion is The purpose can either be
always political in nature – political or social in nature.
to overthrow the They do not want to put up
government. They (the their own government in
rebels) want to put up a case of sedition but they
government of their own, a wanted to go against a law
government of the rebels. to be promulgated; they
wanted to go against a
public officer or employee.
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT REBELLION, COUP
D’ETAT AND SEDITION
There is such a crime as –
1. Conspiracy to commit rebellion; (Art. 136)
2. Conspiracy to commit coup d’etat; (Art. 136) and
3. Conspiracy to commit sedition. (Art. 141)
PROPOSAL TO COMMIT REBELLION, COUP D’ ETAT
There is such a crime as –
1. Proposal to commit rebellion; (Art. 136)
2. Proposal to commit coup d’etat; (Art. 136) and
There is no crime of proposal to commit sedition.
Proposal to commit sedition is not a punishable act under
the Revised Penal Code.
INCITING TO REBELLION, SEDITION
There is such a crime as –
1. Inciting to rebellion; (Art. 138) and
2. Inciting to sedition. (Art. 142)
There is no such crime as inciting to coup d’etat.
Inciting to coup d’etat is not a punishable act under the
RPC.
ARTICLE 138. INCITING TO REBELLION OR
INSURRECTION
Article 138. Inciting to rebellion or insurrection. - The
penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period shall be
imposed upon any person who, without taking arms or
being in open hostility against the Government, shall incite
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
others to the execution of any of the acts specified in article
134 of this Code, by means of speeches, proclamations,
writings, emblems, banners or other representations
tending to the same end. (Reinstated by E.O. No. 187)
Elements of Inciting to Rebellion (Art. 138)
1. The offender is not in open hostility or does not
take up arms against the Government;
2. He incites others in order to publicly uprise for any
of the purposes of rebellion to overthrow the
government.
3. The inciting is done by means of speeches,
proclamations, writings, emblems, banners or
other representations tending to the same end.
ARTICLE 142. INCITING TO SEDITION
Article 142. Inciting to sedition. - The penalty of prision
correccional in its maximum period and a fine not
exceeding 2,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person
who, without taking any direct part in the crime of sedition,
should incite others to the accomplishment of any of the
acts which constitute sedition, by means of speeches,
proclamations, writings, emblems, cartoons, banners, or
other representations tending to the same end, or upon
any person or persons who shall utter seditious words or
speeches, write, publish, or circulate scurrilous libels
against the (Government of the United States or the
Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines) or
any of the duly constituted authorities thereof, or which
tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing
the functions of his office, or which tend to instigate others
to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes, or which
suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots, or which
lead or tend to stir up the people against the lawful
authorities or to disturb the peace of the community, the
safety and order of the Government, or who shall
knowingly conceal such evil practices. (Reinstated by E.O.
No. 187)
Elements of Inciting to Sedition (Art. 142)
1. The offender is not a participant in a sedition;
2. He incites others to publicly uprise for any of the
purposes of sedition;
3. The inciting is done by means of speeches,
proclamations, writings, emblems, cartoons,
banners, or other representations tending to the
same end.
Whether it is inciting to rebellion or inciting to sedition, the
offender must not yet be a participant in a rebellion or in a
sedition. He must not be a participant, because if he is
already participating in a rebellion or sedition, then the
proper charge is violation of Art. 134 (Rebellion) or Art. 139
24 of 188
(Sedition) because he is already a participant in the
ongoing rebellion or sedition.
Therefore, in case of inciting to rebellion or inciting to
sedition, the offender is not yet a participant in the said
rebellion or sedition.
Inciting to rebellion is different from proposal to
commit rebellion
In case of inciting to rebellion, the act of inducing others to
publicly uprise for any of the purposes of rebellion is done
PUBLICLY (i.e., via speeches, proclamations, writings,
emblems, banners or other representations tending to the
same end).
Whereas, in case of proposal to commit rebellion, the act
of inciting or inducing people to commit rebellion is done
SECRETLY, not in public.
Q: There is an ongoing rebellion. Thousands of people
were participating in this public uprising in Metro
Manila, Cebu, and Davao. There was this public
uprising all over the country. In Metro Manila,
thousands of people participated.
Five truckloads of police officers arrived and police
officers alighted. Upon coming down from the said
truck, they immediately arrested as many participants
as they could in the said ongoing public uprising. They
placed handcuffs on each one of them and arrested
each one of them.
Among those arrested was X. He was placed with
handcuffs, informed of his constitutional rights and
was frisked. When X was frisked, the police officer
found a caliber .45 pistol tucked in his waist. It was
unlicensed, and there was no registration. Because of
that, aside from the crime of rebellion, X was also
charged with violation of R.A. No. 10591 (Illegal
Possession of Loose Firearms).
Are the charges correct?
A: The charges are wrong.
Q: What is the proper charge?
A: The proper charge is only rebellion.
Under Sec. 29, 2nd par. of R.A. No. 10591, the law provides
that if the use of a loose firearm is in furtherance of, or
incident to, or in connection with the crime of rebellion or
insurrection, or attempted coup d’ etat, they are simply
absorbed by the crime of rebellion or insurrection, or
attempted coup d’ etat.
In this case, X was a participant in the said rebellion when
he was found in possession of the said unlicensed
firearms. Since rebellion is a crime committed by taking up
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
of arms, then it is incident to, in furtherance of, or in
connection with the crime of rebellion.
Therefore, it is simply absorbed. The only case to be filed
against X would be rebellion. There is no separate and
distinct charge of violation of R.A. No. 10591 because his
use of a loose firearm shall simply be absorbed by the
crime of rebellion.
Q: There was a seditious rally ongoing. The protesters
applied for a permit, but the City of Manila denied their
application for permit. They were protesting the
promulgation of a new law. Hundreds of them were
participating. It was carried out in violence. They were
encouraging people to participate and those who will
not, they will box. It was carried out with violence, fear
and intimidation. It was a seditious rally.
A truck of police officers arrived and thereafter the
police officers tried to arrest as many participants as
they could. One of the participants arrested was X. He
was handcuffed and recited of his constitutional
rights. Thereafter, he was frisked or bodily searched.
When he was frisked, the police officers found a
caliber .45 pistol tucked in his waist. It was unlicensed
and unregistered.
And so, he was charged with two crimes – violation of
Art. 139, RPC (Sedition) and violation of R.A. No. 10591
(Illegal Possession of Loose Firearms).
Are the charges correct?
A: The charges are correct. Under Section 29, par. 3 of
RA 10591, the law provides that, if the use of loose
firearms is not in furtherance of, not incident to the
commission of a crime, then it shall constitute a separate
and independent charge.
Sedition is committed without use of firearms. There is no
requisite in the elements that it be coupled with taking up
of arms. Therefore, the fact that X was found in possession
of unlicensed firearm shall constitute a separate and
distinct charge. It is not absorbed because under Section
29, par 2. of RA 10591, the law provides that, only two
crimes can absorb the use of unlicensed firearm, that is,
rebellion or insurrection and attempted coup d’état.
Sedition has been removed. Although under the old law on
firearms, PD 1866 as amended by RA 8294, sedition
absorbs illegal use of firearms, under this new law, RA
10591, sedition has already been erased, deleted, as
among the crimes that will absorb illegal possession of
loose firearms.
Therefore, since X, aside from participating in the said
seditious rally, was found in possession of an unlicensed
pistol, he shall be charged separate and distinct for
violation of RA 10591.
25 of 188
CHAPTER TWO: CRIMES AGAINST POPULAR
REPRESENTATION
ARTICLE 143. ACTS TENDING TO PREVENT THE
MEETING OF CONGRESS
Article 143. Act tending to prevent the meeting of the
Assembly and similar bodies. - The penalty of prision
correccional or a fine ranging from 200 to 2,000 pesos, or
both, shall be imposed upon any person who, by force or
fraud, prevents the meeting of the National Assembly
(Congress of the Philippines) or of any of its committees or
subcommittees, constitutional commissions or committees
or divisions thereof, or of any provincial board or city or
municipal council or board. (Reinstated by E.O. No. 187).
Elements of Acts Tending to Prevent the Meeting of
the Assembly or Similar Bodies
1. There is a meeting of Congress or any of its
committees or subcommittees, constitutional
commissions or committees or divisions thereof, or
of any provincial board or city or municipal council
or board; and
2. The offender by means of force or fraud,
prevented the said meeting.
The offender can be any person.
ARTICLE 144. DISTURBANCE OF PROCEEDINGS
Article 144. Disturbance of proceedings. - The penalty
of arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to 1,000 pesos shall be
imposed upon any person who disturbs the meetings of the
National Assembly (Congress of the Philippines) or of any
of its committees or subcommittees, constitutional
commissions or committees or divisions thereof, or of any
provincial board or city or municipal council or board, or in
the presence of any such bodies should behave in such
manner as to interrupt its proceedings or to impair the
respect due it. (Reinstated by E.O. No. 187)
Elements of Disturbance of Proceedings
1. There is a meeting of Congress or of any of its
committees or subcommittees, constitutional
commissions or committees or divisions thereof, or
of any provincial board or city or municipal council
or board; and
2. The offender either:
a. disturbs any of such proceedings; or
b. behaves while in the presence of any such
bodies in such manner as to interrupt its
proceedings or to impair the respect due
it.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
Q: During the height of the pandemic, Congress,
particularly the Senate, still work although they no
longer went to the Senate Hall. They conduct their
committee hearings online.
During a hearing, it was the Committee on
Appropriations, it was the budget of a department of
an office attached to the President. When the said
budget was being discussed, aside from the members
of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, there was
also the head of office of the said office attached
(Communications Office) to the office of the President.
They were discussing the budget.
The Senate Committee Chair noticed that the head of
office, W, was standing up, sitting, and roaming
around until he received a note. The note came from
the Sergeant at Arms stating that, “Sir, it seems that
on top of the table of Chairman W is a bottle of wine
and a glass, and it seems that he has been drinking
that’s why he is behaving that way.” So, the Senate
Committee Chair inquired from Chairman W, “Are you
drunk? Is that a bottle of wine on top of your table?”
Then, Chairman W denied it. However, the way he
answered showed that he was drunk. Because of that,
the Senate Committee Chairman on Appropriations
dismissed the meeting. They said, “We will cite you in
contempt!”
Aside from citing him in contempt, can he be charged
criminally? Can he be charged of any crime?
A: He can be charged for violation of Article 144
Disturbance of Proceedings. Disturbance of
Proceedings is committed when there is a meeting of
Congress or any of its committees or subcommittees,
constitutional commissions or committees or divisions
thereof, or of any provincial board or city or municipal
council or board, and the offender disturbed the said
proceedings by behaving in such a manner as to interrupt
the said proceedings or to impair the respect due it.
In this case, this man, he was the head of office and what
is being taken up during the said committee hearing was
the budget of his office, yet he was there, behaving in such
a manner as to disturb the said proceedings. Because of
that, the Committee Chair dismissed the said committee
hearing for that day.
Note:
This is almost a dead provision. I do not know of anyone
having been charged although there were many
disturbances in the Congress. They will only cite him in
contempt. But theoretically, for purposes of the bar
exam, he can be charged criminally for violation of Article
144 Disturbance of Proceedings.
ARTICLE 145. VIOLATION OF PARLIAMENTARY
IMMUNITY
26 of 188
Article 145. Violation of parliamentary immunity. - The
penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person
who shall use force, intimidation, threats, or fraud to
prevent any member of the National Assembly (Congress
of the Philippines) from attending the meetings of the
Assembly (Congress) or of any of its committees or
subcommittees, constitutional commissions or committees
or divisions thereof, from expressing his opinions or
casting his vote; and the penalty of prision correccional
shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who
shall, while the Assembly (Congress) is in regular or
special session, arrest or search any member thereof,
except in case such member has committed a crime
punishable under this Code by a penalty higher than
prision mayor.
TWO ACTS PUNISHED:
I. Any person who, by means of force,
intimidation, threats, or fraud or any other
means, prevents any member of Congress
from attending its meeting, from expressing
his opinions, or casting his vote.
The offender can be any person.
II. Any public officer or employee who shall, while
the Congress is in regular or special session,
arrest or search any member thereof who has
committed a crime punishable by a penalty not
higher than prision mayor.
This can only be committed by public officer or employee.
The said public officer or employee arrests a member of
the Congress while the Congress is in regular or special
session when such member has committed a crime which
carries a penalty not higher than prision mayor.
So, if a crime committed by the said member of Congress
is higher than prision mayor, anytime he can be arrested
or searched without the arresting or searching officers
violating Article 145.
If the crime charged against the said member of the
Congress carries a penalty not higher than prision mayor,
any peace officer arresting or searching him will become
liable for Violation of Parliamentary Immunity. According to
the Supreme Court, it will be a disturbance of the functions
of the members of the Congress who had been voted by
the Filipino people. So, if the crime allegedly committed
does not carry a penalty higher than prision mayor, they
cannot be arrested or searched while in the performance
of their functions.
Q: Based on the evidence, Congressman X was
engaged in manufacture of dangerous drugs. The
police conducted a surveillance on the house of
Congressman X. Indeed, that house was being used
for manufacture of dangerous drugs and said
Congressman is engaged in drug trafficking, drug
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
peddling, and drug pushing. They have sufficient
evidence for that.
These police officers applied for a search warrant. The
RTC Judge granted the search warrant. Congress was
in session. The police officers raided the said house of
Congressman X armed with a search warrant issued
by the RTC Judge.
Are they liable for Violation of Parliamentary
Immunity?
A: NO. The crime for manufacture of dangerous drugs
carries a penalty higher than prision mayor, it is life
imprisonment to death. Therefore, anytime, if there is a
search warrant, his house can be searched without the
police officers committing Violation of Parliamentary
Immunity.
Q: Senator X had a fight with his wife. In the course of
the fight, Senator X stabbed his wife. He brought the
wife to the hospital but a day thereafter, the wife died.
A case of Parricide was filed against Senator X. The
fiscal found probable cause and a case was filed
before the court. The RTC Judge found probable cause
and issued the warrant of arrest. Armed with a warrant
of arrest, the police officers went to the Halls of the
Senate and served the warrant of arrest to Senator X.
He was handcuffed and brought to the PNP Station for
investigation. Thereafter, the filing of the charges
against him. Are the arresting peace officers liable for
Violation of Parliamentary Immunity?
A: NO. Although at the time of the arrest, Congress was in
its regular session and he was arrested inside the Halls of
the Senate, the peace officers are not liable for Violation of
Parliamentary Immunity because Parricide carries a
penalty higher than prision mayor. The penalty for
Parricide is reclusion perpetua to death. Therefore,
anytime, the said senator may be arrested without the
peace officers committing violation of Article 145.
Q: Congressman X, while he was doing his duty,
giving aid to his people, was suddenly hit by a man,
one of his constituents. The constituent said, “You
failed in your promise. I voted for you, but you failed in
your promise! You said that you were going to build a
school in this area through your CDF. But none!” Then
he started calling Congressman X names like liars,
cheaters, etc. The congressman was very mad. So, the
congressman pulled out his pistol and fired a shot at
the said man. The latter was hit near the chest. He was
brought to the hospital. The doctor said that it was a
shallow wound, a non-fatal wound.
Congressman X was charged with a crime of
attempted homicide. A warrant of arrest was issued by
the court. The police officers served the warrant of
arrest to Congressman X while he was in the halls of
Congress. The Speaker of the House prevented the
27 of 188
police officers from arresting Congressman X. The
Speaker of the House said, “You cannot do this! He is
inside the halls of Congress. Get out!” However, the
police officers, plenty of them, prevailed. They served
the warrant of arrest to Congressman X and thereafter,
brought him to the police station for investigation and
placed him behind bars until he posted bail.
Are the police officers liable for Violation of
Parliamentary Immunity?
A: YES. The penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. If
it is attempted, the maximum penalty is prision
correccional. It is not higher than prision mayor. Therefore,
the moment they served the warrant of arrest when
Congress was in its regular or special session, they
committed a violation of Article 145.
CHAPTER THREE: ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES AND
ASSOCIATIONS
ARTICLE 146. ILLEGAL ASSEMBLY
Article 146. Illegal assemblies. - The penalty of prision
correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its
medium period shall be imposed upon the organizers or
leaders of any meeting attended by armed persons for the
purpose of committing any of the crimes punishable under
this Code, or of any meeting in which the audience is
incited to the commission of the crime of treason, rebellion
or insurrection, sedition or assault upon a person in
authority or his agents. Persons merely present at such
meeting shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor, unless
they are armed, in which case the penalty shall be prision
correccional.
If any person present at the meeting carries an unlicensed
firearm, it shall be presumed that the purpose of said
meeting, insofar as he is concerned, is to commit acts
punishable under this Code, and he shall be considered a
leader or organizer of the meeting within the purview of the
preceding paragraph.
As used in this article, the word "meeting" shall be
understood to include a gathering or group, whether in a
fixed place or moving. (Reinstated by E.O. No. 187).
TWO KINDS OF ILLEGAL ASSEMBLY:
I. Any meeting attended by armed persons for
the purpose of committing any of the crimes
punishable under the RPC.
Elements of the First Mode
1. There is meeting, a gathering or group of persons,
whether in fixed place or moving;
2. The meeting was attended by armed persons; and
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
3. The purpose of the meeting is to commit any of the
crimes punishable under the Revised Penal Code.
The law requires that this meeting be attended by armed
persons. When the law requires that the meeting be
attended by armed persons, the law does not mean that all
those in attendance be armed. It suffices that any of them
be armed. And when you say arms, the law does not
necessarily mean pistol, firearms, or guns. It includes any
weapon, anything that can cause injury or violence on
another person. It could be icepick, lead pipes, knives,
bolos. They are within the meaning of arms.
The purpose of the said meeting is to commit a felony, a
violation of the Revised Penal Code.
II. Any meeting in which the audience, whether
armed or not, is incited to commit treason,
rebellion or insurrection, sedition, or assault
upon a person in authority or agents of person
in authority.
Elements of the Second Mode
1. There is meeting, a gathering or group of persons,
whether in fixed place or moving; and
2. The meeting was attended by an audience,
whether the said audience is armed or not; and
3. The audience were incited to commit treason,
rebellion or insurrection, sedition, or direct assault.
Under the second mode, there is no requisite that those in
attendance or the audience be armed. What is required is
that the audience in attendance be incited to commit
treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition, or direct
assault. There is no requisite that any of them be armed.
ARTICLE 147. ILLEGAL ASSOCIATIONS
Article 147. Illegal associations. - The penalty of prision
correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine
not exceeding 1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon the
founders, directors, and presidents of associations totally
or partially organized for the purpose of committing any of
the crimes punishable under this Code or for some
purpose contrary to public morals. Mere members of said
associations shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor.
(Reinstated by E.O. No. 187).
TWO KINDS OF ILLEGAL ASSOCIATION:
I. Associations totally or partially organized for
the purpose of committing any of the crimes
punishable under the Revised Penal Code.
II. Associations totally or partially organized for
the purpose of committing crimes against
public morals.
28 of 188
Q: Ten (10) people met in a secluded restaurant. They
were inside a private room. They have this secret
meeting. These ten people were members of fraternity.
In the said meeting, they were discussing the ways
and means to kill W, the head of their opposing
fraternity. They said that W has to be killed. The ten
people were all discussing this.
When their orders arrived, the waiter serving the said
orders heard the said discussion. The ten people
didn’t know that this person knew W. The moment the
said waiter left the room, the waiter informed the
manager what he heard that these ten men belonging
to a fraternity is agreeing, deciding, conspiring,
conniving to kill W.
W is a frequent customer of the said restaurant. So, the
management of the said restaurant immediately gave
the nearest police station a call. The police officers
arrived after the ten men have come to an agreement
that they are going to kill W – the crime of murder
punished under the RPC. On their way out, the police
officers were there waiting at the door. They were all
arrested. They were charged with Illegal Assembly.
Are they liable for Illegal Assembly?
A: NO. They are not liable for Illegal Assembly.
There is a meeting, gathering, or group of persons in a
fixed place – in the said restaurant. What is the purpose?
To commit murder, a crime against the RPC. However, the
second element is absent. Based on the facts of the
problem, none of them is armed. Therefore, Illegal
Assembly of the first act will not lie.
Illegal Assembly of the second act also will not lie. The
crime that they are about to commit is not treason, rebellion
or insurrection, sedition, nor direct assault.
Therefore, Illegal Assembly, whether of the first act or the
second act, will not lie.
Q: What crime, if any, did they commit?
A: They did not commit any crime. Their act of
conspiring to commit murder W is a mere preparatory act.
It is not yet an overt act. There is no such crime as
conspiracy to commit murder because it is not a crime by
itself. Therefore, they did not commit any crime.
Q: What if, in the same problem, when the police
arrived and each of them were arrested, the police
noticed that three of the men were armed. Inside the
bag that they were holding, on their shoulder, they
found that there was this thing on them – caliber .38
revolver. All of these were confiscated. They were
charged with Illegal Assembly.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
Can they be held liable with Illegal Assembly?
A: YES. There is a meeting, gathering, or group of persons
in a fixed place – in the said restaurant. It was attended by
armed persons – three of them were armed. Their purpose
was to commit the crime of murder, which is punishable
under the RPC.
Therefore, all ten men may be charged with the crime of
Illegal Assembly.
BAR Q: A, B, and C gathered about fifty (50) people in
Payatas. Their purpose was to incite these people to
rebel against the government. These people were
invited; they did not know yet the purpose, but they
were invited. When they arrived, they were arranging
the chairs. The police officers, who got a tip about the
meeting, suddenly arrived. They were all arrested,
together with A, B and C.
Are they liable for Illegal Assembly?
A: NO. They are not liable for Illegal Assembly.
The first element is immediately absent. There was yet no
meeting, gathering. They were still arranging the chairs in
the said place. You cannot call it a meeting or gathering
already. It has not yet started.
Therefore, the first element is immediately absent.
Q: What if they are already seated? A, B, and C went
on stage and they, with the use of a microphone,
introduced General W. General W threw his speech,
incited the people. He narrated all of the negative
things about the government. He told the people, “Are
you waiting for more bad things? Let us uprise! Let us
rebel against this government! Let us put down the
government and try a new government led by the
military!” All of the people raised their arms, and with
closed fists, said “Yes! Let us publicly uprise! Let us
throw down this government! Let us try a government
led by the military!”
The police arrived. They were all arrested. What crime
or crimes may be filed against A, B, C, the fifty people,
and General W?
A: A, B, C and the fifty people can be charged with Illegal
Assembly under the second act.
Since it is Illegal Assembly under the second act, there is
no need to show evidence that any one of them is armed.
From the mere fact that these fifty people were incited to
commit rebellion, the crime of Illegal Assembly is already
present.
Were they incited? Yes. They raised their hands in closed
fists, saying “Yes! It is time to rebel, publicly uprise and
29 of 188
overthrow the government!” They were incited to commit
rebellion. Hence, it is Illegal Assembly.
Insofar as General W is concerned, he may be charged
with Inciting to Commit Rebellion. By means of speech,
by means of proclamation, he incited the people to publicly
uprise in order to overthrow the present government in
order to commit the purpose of rebellion. Therefore, he
may be charged with Inciting to Rebellion.
CHAPTER FOUR: ASSAULT UPON, AND
RESISTANCE AND DISOBEDIENCE TO, PERSONS IN
AUTHORITY AND THEIR AGENTS
ARTICLE 148. DIRECT ASSAULT
Article 148. Direct assaults. - Any person or persons who,
without a public uprising, shall employ force or intimidation
for the attainment of any of the purpose enumerated in
defining the crimes of rebellion and sedition, or shall attack,
employ force, or seriously intimidate or resist any person
in authority or any of his agents, while engaged in the
performance of official duties, or on occasion of such
performance, shall suffer the penalty of prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a
fine not exceeding P1,000 pesos, when the assault is
committed with a weapon or when the offender is a public
officer or employee, or when the offender lays hands upon
a person in authority. If none of these circumstances be
present, the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum
period and a fine not exceeding P500 pesos shall be
imposed.
TWO KINDS OF DIRECT ASSAULT
I. Without public uprising, by employing FORCE
or INTIMIDATION for the attainment of any of
the purposes of rebellion and sedition.
Note:
Purposes of Rebellion:
1) To remove from the allegiance to the
Government or its laws:
(a) the territory of the Philippines or any part
thereof; or
(b) any body of land, naval, or other armed forces;
or
2) To deprive the Chief Executive or Congress,
wholly or partially, of any of their powers or
prerogatives.
Purposes of Sedition:
1) To PREVENT the promulgation or execution of
any law or the holding of any popular election;
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
2) To PREVENT the National Government, or
any provincial or municipal government or any
public officer thereof from freely exercising its
or his functions, or PREVENT the execution of
any administrative order;
3) To INFLICT any act of hate or revenge upon
the person or property of any public officer or
employee;
4) To COMMIT, for any political or social end, any
act of hate or revenge against private persons
or any social class;
5) To DESPOIL, for any political or social end,
any person, municipality, province, or the
National Government of all its property or any
part thereof.
Elements of the First Form of Direct Assault
1. The offender employs force or intimidation;
2. The aim of the offender is to attain any of the
purposes of the crime of rebellion or any of the
objects of the crime of sedition; and
3. There is no public uprising.
II. Without public uprising, by ATTACKING, by
EMPLOYING FORCE, or by SERIOUSLY
INTIMIDATING or SERIOUSLY RESISTING any
person in authority or any of his agents, while
in the performance of official duties, or on the
occasion of such performance.
Whether it is direct assault of the first kind or the second
kind, notice that there must be no public uprising.
Therefore, in crimes of rebellion and sedition wherein
public uprising is an essential element, there can be no
direct assault because direct assault requires that there be
no public uprising.
If the purpose of the offender is to overthrow the
government, or to prevent the promulgation of a law by
employing force or violence, but there is no public uprising,
the crime committed is direct assault under the first kind.
The more popular kind of direct assault is direct assault of
the second act.
Elements of the Second Form of Direct Assault
1. The offender
a) Makes an attack;
b) Employs force;
c) Makes a serious intimidation; or
d) Makes a serious resistance;
30 of 188
2. The assault is against a person in authority or an
agent of a person in authority;
3. At the time of assault, the person in authority or his
agent is engaged in the performance of his official
functions or the assault was on the occasion of
such performance of official functions;
4. The offender knows him to be a person in authority
or an agent of a person in authority; and
5. There is no public uprising.
First element
If the person assaulted or attacked is a person in
authority, the force employed and the attacked done need
not be serious in nature for the crime to arise. This is
because under Art. 148, the mere act of laying of hands on
a person in authority already gives rise to qualified direct
assault.
If the victim is a mere agent of a person in authority, for
direct assault to arise, it is necessary that the force
employed and the attack done be serious in nature.
Otherwise, it will only be violation of Art. 151 of the Revised
Penal Code – Resistance and Serious Disobedience.
Second element
The victim or offended party is a person in authority or his
agent.
For purposes of direct assault and indirect assault, the
following are deemed to be persons in authority under
Art. 152, first and third paragraph of the Revised Penal
Code:
1. Any person directly vested with jurisdiction,
whether as an individual, or as a member of some
court, government-owned or controlled
corporation, board or commission;
2. A barangay chairman or barangay captain;
3. Teachers, professors, persons charged with
supervision of public or duly recognized private
schools, colleges and universities; and
4. Lawyers in the actual performance of their
professional duties or on the occasion of such
performance.
Q: How about an agent of persons in authority?
A: It is any person who, by direct provision of the law or by
election or by appointment by competent authority, is
charged with the maintenance of public order and the
protection and security of life and property, such as:
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
1. Barrio captain;
2. Barrio councilman;
3. Barrio policeman; or
4. Barangay leader.
Any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority
shall be deemed an agent of a person in authority. (Art.
152, par. 2)
Third Element
At the time of assault, the person in authority or his agent
is either:
1. engaged in the performance of his official
functions; or
2. the assault was on the occasion of such
performance of official functions.
If at the time of the assault, the person in authority is
actually performing his official functions, immediately,
direct assault arises. There is no need to know the motive
or the reason.
Note:
The mere fact that the person in authority or the agent,
at the time of the assault, was engaged in the
performance of his official functions immediately gives
rise to direct assault. There is defiance or disrespect of
lawful authority because he was in the performance of
his official functions.
However, if at the time of the assault, the person in
authority or his agent is not engaged in the performance of
his official functions, you have to know the motive or the
reason behind the assault:
1. If the motive or the reason behind the assault was
the person in authority or the agent’s past
performance of official functions, direct assault
arises.
2. If the motive or the reason behind the assault has
nothing to do with the person in authority or the
agent’s past performance of official functions,
direct assault is not committed.
The law used the phrase “on occasion of such
performance of official duties.” The Supreme Court said
that such phrase means that the assault was because of
or by reason of past performance of his official functions.
Fourth Element
The offender knows him to be a person in authority or an
agent. The essence of the law is defiance of lawful
authority. Therefore, he ought to know that the one he is
assaulting or attacking is a person in authority or an agent
thereof.
31 of 188
Fifth Element
There must be no public uprising.
COMPLEX CRIME OF DIRECT ASSAULT
Whenever direct assault is committed and a felony
resulted, (e.g. the person in authority or agent died, or
suffered injury, or sustained fatal wounds but survived
because of immediate medical intervention), always
complex direct assault with the resulting felony.
Thus:
1. Direct Assault with Murder;
2. Direct Assault with Homicide;
3. Direct Assault with Frustrated Murder;
4. Direct Assault with Attempted Homicide;
5. Direct Assault with Serious Physical Injuries;
6. Direct Assault with Less Serious Physical Injuries.
However, if the resulting felony is only a light felony, like
slight physical injuries, do not complex it with direct
assault. There are two reasons:
a. Under Art. 48, light felonies cannot be complexed.
b. In case of direct assault, there will always be the
most minor of injuries. Hence, such will simply be
absorbed.
If the resulting felony by reason of the assault on the
person in authority or the agent is only a light injury, like
slight physical injuries, it will simply be absorbed by the
said crime of direct assault.
QUALIFIED DIRECT ASSAULT
The following circumstances will qualify direct assault:
1. If the assault is done by use of a weapon;
2. If the assault is committed by a public officer or
employee;
3. If the offender lays hands upon a person in
authority.
The first two qualifying circumstances – if the assault is
done by use of a weapon or the assault is committed by a
public officer or employee – will apply regardless of
whether the victim is a person in authority or a mere agent
of a person in authority.
The last qualifying circumstance – laying of hands – will
only lie if the victim is a person in authority. Laying of hands
will not qualify direct assault if the victim is a mere agent of
a person in authority.
ARTICLE 149. INDIRECT ASSAULT
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
Article 149. Indirect assaults. - The penalty of prision
correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine
not exceeding P500 pesos shall be imposed upon any
person who shall make use of force or intimidation upon
any person coming to the aid of the authorities or their
agents on occasion of the commission of any of the crimes
defined in the next preceding article.
Elements of Indirect Assault
1. A person in authority or an agent of a person in
authority is a victim of direct assault;
2. Someone came to his aid; and
3. The offender employed force or intimidation upon
such person coming to the aid of the person in
authority or agent of person in authority.
The crime committed by the offender on the person who
came to the aid is indirect assault.
Based on the first element, Art. 149 was not amended by
Congress, but Congress amended Art. 152. Under Art.
152, 2nd par., any person who comes to the aid of a person
in authority who is a victim of direct assault is deemed to
be an agent of a person in authority. Therefore, a person
coming to the aid of a person in authority who is under
direct assault is deemed to be an agent of a person in
authority. When he, too, is assaulted, the crime committed
is not Art. 149 indirect assault, but direct assault under Art.
148. This is because he is deemed to be an agent of a
person in authority.
Therefore, Art. 149 will only apply if the victim of the direct
assault is an agent of a person in authority and someone
came to his aid and the offender employed force or
intimidation on that person who gave the aid.
Q: The mayor was inside his office. X arrived. X told
the secretary, “Where is the mayor? I need to talk to
the mayor.” The secretary told X, “Busy, maraming
sina-signan na document.” X said he will wait. X sat on
the bench. The secretary said, “Why? What do you
want from the mayor? I might be able to help you.” X
said, “My son is sick. I need the help of the mayor. I
voted for him. He has to help me. I voted for him.” The
secretary said, “Okay, have a seat first.”
The secretary went back to his table, opened the
drawer, and took 2,000 pesos from the drawer. He went
back to X who was seated on the bench. The secretary
said, “Here, X. This may be of good help to your son.
You can now leave. Bring this. It might be helpful to
your son in the hospital.” But X said, “No, I do not need
the 2,000 pesos. I voted for the mayor. He has to help
me. My son is in the hospital. I do not need the 2,000
pesos. I need to talk to him. I will not leave without
talking to the mayor.”
32 of 188
The secretary went inside the office of the mayor.
“Mayor, may gusto kumausap sainyo. Ayaw umalis.
May sakit daw yung anak sa hospital. Hihingi ng
tulong.” The mayor told the secretary, “Okay. After five
minutes, let him in.”
After five minutes, the secretary bought X inside the
office of the mayor. The secretary said, “Mayor, ito po
si X. Hihingi raw po ng tulong.” They both shook
hands. The mayor smiled at X, and told him, “Upo ka
muna. Isa na lang itong document, sisign-an ko lang
tapos usap tayo.” The moment X was seated, the
mayor bowed his head to sign the document.
Suddenly, X stood up, he pulled a long knife and
stabbed the mayor repeatedly on the neck and chest.
The secretary gave a loud cry. There was a
commotion. X was arrested, and the mayor was
immediately brought to the nearest hospital. Medical
intervention was done upon the mayor, and he luckily
survived despite fatal wounds on the neck and chest.
What crime is committed by X?
A: The mayor is a person of authority, and at the time of
the assault, the said person of authority, the mayor is in the
performance of his function. In fact, he was inside his office
doing his job, signing certain documents. Therefore,
regardless of X intent, it is immediately direct assault.
Since X made use of a weapon, it is qualified direct assault,
and since the mayor sustained fatal wounds but survived,
it will be frustrated murder. It is frustrated murder
because obviously there was treachery in the commission
of the crime. Hence, the crime committed by X is
qualified direct assault with frustrated murder.
Q: What if in the same problem, the mayor was in the
office signing his documents, then suddenly the
mayor received a call, it came from his brother, the
mayor’s wife was brought to the hospital, was about to
give birth, and the said mayor was so happy. The said
mayor decided to leave office and to go to the hospital.
The mayor told the driver to be in speed, he wanted to
see immediately the act of delivery. He wanted to be
there with his wife in the act of delivery. The said driver
was driving fast. Suddenly, when they turned right at
the intersection going to the street at the said hospital,
suddenly there was this motorcycle in front, and
because of the motorcycle that suddenly appeared in
front of the van of the said mayor, the driver had no
recourse but to stop. The moment they were in full
stop, there was another motorcycle on the mayor’s
side. On the said motorcycle, a man immediately
repeatedly fired at the van. When the mayor fell on his
seat full of blood, the said man opened the door and
still repeatedly fire at the head of the mayor and
shooting the mayor’s head. The driver was left unhurt.
The two men sped away but later they were arrested.
These two men were A and B.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
During the investigation, when they were being
investigated, these two men informed the police
investigators that they were the brothers of C. C was
an employee of the city hall who was charged by the
mayor himself of violation of R.A. 1319, and thereafter
dismissed, because of that, their brother committed
suicide. And so now, as an act of revenge, according
to A and B, they killed the mayor. Based on these, what
crime should be filed against A and B?
A: A and B should be charged as co-conspirators for
the crime of qualified direct assault with murder. At the
time of the assault, the mayor, a person in authority is not
engaged in the performance of his official function, he was
on his way out, therefore, you have to know the motive of
the perpetrators, and what is the motive of the
perpetrators? An act of revenge because of the dismissal
of their brother, an act done by the mayor as a performance
of his past duty as a mayor.
Therefore, since the act done by A and B were in
connection with the mayor’s past performance of his official
function, the assault was said to be on occasion of such
performance of official function. Hence, the crime
committed is direct assault. Weapon was used, and
therefore it will be qualified direct assault. The mayor died,
obviously it was planned, there was treachery. So, it is
qualified direct assault with murder.
Q: What if in the same problem, upon investigation of
A and B, A and B told the investigators that they killed
this mayor because they had been looking for this
mayor. According to them, this mayor came from
Pampanga. At that time, he was just an ordinary
citizen. This mayor was just their neighbor. Although
an ordinary citizen, he was already one of the richest
in their province. According to A and B, when their
mother was sick, they asked help from him, being one
of the richest men in the place but he denied to give
help, and their mother died. They learned in news that
he is the mayor, and so they looked for him, and that
is the reason why they killed.
The reason given by A and B was a personal one, it has
nothing to do with the mayor’s past performance of his
official function. Therefore, the crime committed by A and
B would be plain murder. It is not qualified direct assault
with murder, but only murder because the act of killing was
not done on occasion of such performance of his official
function because it was not done because of by reason of
the mayor’s past performance of his official duty. The crime
committed is murder.
Q: A case of rape was filed before the office of the
prosecutor, it was assigned to public prosecutor X.
Fiscal X called for a clarificatory hearing during the
preliminary investigation, and so both parties arrived,
that is the respondent W, and the child victim. It was a
case of rape, and they appeared during the said
33 of 188
clarificatory hearing. When the fiscal arrived, he was
seated and thereafter, began asking questions on the
said child victim. When the said fiscal began asking
questions on the said child victim, the said respondent
W immediately and suddenly boxed the face of the
fiscal, the said fiscal fell. When the said fiscal fell, the
said companion the said child victim tried to stop
respondent W from further attacking the said fiscal
and so respondent W pulled out an icepick and
stabbed the said companion of the complainant, Y.
Thereafter, the security guards of the hall of justice
arrived and respondent W was arrested. Both the
public prosecutor and the person who came to his aid,
the companion of the private complainant were
brought to the hospital. The public prosecutor
sustained serious physical injuries, on the other hand,
the said person who came to his aid, by the name of Y,
sustained a fatal wound but he survived because of
immediate medical intervention. He was hit on the said
icepick on the abdomen. It was a fatal wound, but he
survived. What crime/s may be filed against
respondent W insofar as this incident is concerned?
A: The fiscal under Art. 152 (3) is deemed to be a person
in authority. At the time he was assaulted, he was engaged
in the performance of his official function and therefore the
crime committed is direct assault. Hands were laid on him,
therefore, it is qualified direct assault. He sustained
physical injuries, therefore, it is qualifed direct assault
with serious physical injuries. That is the crime
committed by W insofar as the fiscal is concerned.
What about Y, the person who came to the aid of the public
prosecutor concerned? When Y came to the aid of the
public prosecutor, a person in authority engaged in the
performance of his functions, and who was a victim of
direct assault, Y is deemed to be an agent of a person in
authority under Art. 152 (2), therefore, when W attacked Y,
he was attacking an agent of person in authority, W is liable
for direct assault under Art. 148. W sustained fatal wounds
but survived, therefore it is direct assault with frustrated
homicide. W made use of a weapon, an icepick, so it is
qualified direct assault with frustrated homicide.
The crimes committed by W insofar as the public
prosecutor is concerned is qualified direct assault with
serious physical injuries. Insofar as Y, the person who
came to the aid of the public prosecutor concerned, the
crime committed is qualified direct assault with frustrated
homicide.
Q: What if the victim was not a public prosecutor, but
a police officer. It was the police officer who was called
in order to maintain peace and order in the said
preliminary investigation. He was there to maintain
peace and order when suddenly attacked by
respondent W. He was boxed and boxed, and then
thereafter, Y the companion of the complainant came
to the aid of the said police officer, and Y prevented W
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
from further attacking the police. So, he stabbed Y with
a use of an icepick on the abdomen.
W was arrested. Police officer as well as the person
who came to his aid Y were brought to the hospital.
The police officer sustained serious physical injuries.
Y, the person who came to his aid sustained a fatal
wound on the abdomen but survived because of
immediate medical intervention. What crime/s should
be filed against W?
A: Insofar as the police officer is concerned, the police
officer is an agent of authority. At the time of the assault,
he was engaged in the performance of his official function,
therefore, it is direct assault. Although W laid hands on
him, since he was a mere agent of a person in authority, it
will not qualify direct assault, but because he sustained
serious physical injuries, it is direct assault with serious
physical injuries.
Insofar as Y, the person who came to the aid of the police
officer concerned. When Y came to aid of the police, Y
remained to be a private person. He is not deemed to be
an agent of a person in authority because the person he
aided is already an agent of person in authority. Therefore,
insofar as Y in concerned, the crime committed by W is
indirect assault. All the elements are present. The police
officer is an agent of person in authority, he is a victim of
direct assault, Y came to his aid, and W employed force,
an intimidation, and even stabbed Y. Therefore, indirect
assault is committed, but he sustained fatal wound and he
survived. Therefore, it will be indirect assault with
frustrated homicide. That will be the crime committed by
W Insofar as Y, the person who came to the aid of the
police officer.
PEOPLE v. PITULAN
G.R. No. 226486 | 22 January 2020
FACTS: In this case, police officers received a call, there
were these persons who were onboard a van, and they
were acting suspiciously, And so, the police officer went to
the said place and they found the said van, and the police
officers told them to alight from the said van. However, the
driver of the said van, Pitulan did not want to get out. Here
comes police officer Monteroso, and the rest police officers
came to him, and told him to get out. Instead of getting out,
Pitualn shot police officer Monteroso.
SC: In this case of People v. Pitulan, the Supreme Court
said the said accused is liable for direct assault with
homicide. The charge was direct assault with murder.
Supreme Court said, it is direct assault with homicide.
In this case, the said accused Pitulan was the driver of the
van, and he was the one who shot and killed the said police
officer Monteroso. Supreme Court said that when the said
shooting happened, Monteroso and his team were
responding to this report of a suspicious group of men
onboard, and at that particular moment, they were in their
34 of 188
complete uniform. Since they were in their complete
uniform, Pitulan knew that they were police officers in the
exercise of their official duties.
They were in their complete police officer uniform.
Therefore, when Pitulan shot him, he was shooting an
agent of a person in authority. Hence, Supreme Court said,
it is direct assault.
However, the Supreme Court said it is not murder. It is only
homicide. It is only direct assault with homicide, not
murder. Supreme Court said, the fact that Pitulan would
not want to stop the van, the fact that Pitulan would not
want to get out despite the order coming from police officer
Monteroso, Supreme Court said Monteroso already
forewarned of the violent behavior of Pitulan to evade
arrest. Since he was already forewarned, it cannot be said
that there is treachery at the time of the act, therefore, it is
homicide and not murder.
DELA PEÑA v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 227041 | 3 March 2021
FACTS: It was already late at night. There were persons
having drinking spree, and these persons were loud. They
were singing and talking loudly. The people in the area
were complaining – they could not sleep because of these
people. One of the neighbors therein was Barangay Tanod
Carlos. The people told him, “Barangay Tanod pagsabihan
mo naman ‘yan oh, ang ingay ingay nila, hindi kami
makatulog dito sa ating barangay pagsabihan mo naman
gabing gabi na.”
Because of that, Barangay Tanod Carlos came out of his
house, went to these men, and told them, “Pare, tumigil na
tayo diyan, magsiuwi na tayo. Maraming di makatulog
naiingayan sa inyo. Magsiuwi na tayo.” However, instead
of obeying the said Barangay Tanod, the said men boxed
him on his jaw, and hit him with a piece of wood.
Thereafter, police officers arrived, and the said men were
arrested.
The Barangay Tanod filed a case of direct assault against
one of these men. The accused charged in court was Dela
Peña because he was the one who boxed him and hit with
a piece of wood. The Barangay Tanod filed a case of direct
assault under Art. 148, direct assault upon an agent of a
person in authority.
The defense raised by Dela Peña was, “No, he was a
barangay, tanod, he cannot be considered as an agent of
a person in authority at the time of that particular moment
because it was already nighttime. Gabing gabing na, hindi
na siya duty, off duty na po siya.” That was the defense
raised by the said accused.
Is the said accused liable of direct assault?
HELD: The Supreme Court said, yes. The said accused
is liable of direct assault. In this case of Dela Peña v.
People, the Supreme Court said, the said victim (barangay
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
tanod) is an agent of a person in authority pursuant to the
Local Government Code under Sec. 388. A barangay
tanod is an agent of a person in authority. The said
barangay tanod was boxed on his jaw, he was hit with a
piece of wood, and the accused knew him to be a barangay
tanod. Hence, there was direct assault.
Supreme Court said there is no merit on the argument
raised by the accused that he was already a private person
at the time of the assault because it was already midnight,
it was past the hours of his duty. Supreme Court said that
a barangay tanod, just like a police officer has the duty to
maintain peace and order in his community on a daily
basis, regardless of the time of day. Therefore, it is the duty
of a police officer or a barangay tanod to maintain peace
and order in the community, in the vicinity, in the locality on
a daily basis, regardless of the time of day even if it is
already midnight. Hence, the assault on him is an assault
on an agent of a person in authority.
ARTICLE 151. RESISTANCE AND DISOBEDIENCE
Article 151. Resistance and disobedience to a person in
authority or the agents of such person. - The penalty of
arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be
imposed upon any person who not being included in the
provisions of the preceding articles shall resist or seriously
disobey any person in authority, or the agents of such
person, while engaged in the performance of official duties.
When the disobedience to an agent of a person in authority
is not of a serious nature, the penalty of arresto menor or
a fine ranging from 10 to P100 pesos shall be imposed
upon the offender.
Under Art. 151, there are two acts punished: (1) resistance
and serious disobedience, and (2) simple disobedience.
Elements of Resistance and Serious Disobedience
1. A person in authority or his agent is engaged in the
performance of his official function, or gives a local
order;
2. Offender seriously disobeys or resisted the said
order;
3. That such resistance or disobedience will not
amount to:
1. Direct assault;
2. Indirect assault; or
3. Disobedience to summons issued by Congress
Elements of Simple Disobedience
1. A person in authority or his agent is engaged in the
performance of official duty or gives a lawful
order;
35 of 188
2. The offender disobeys such agent of a person in
authority;
3. Such disobedience is not in serious nature.
RESISTANCE AND
SERIOUS SIMPLE DISOBEDIENCE
DISOBEDIENCE
The person giving the The person giving the
lawful order can either be lawful order is merely an
a person in authority or an agent of a person in
agent.
authority.
The said The said disobedience is
resistance/disobedience not serious in nature.
to the lawful order is
serious in nature although
not amounting to violations
of Art. 148, 149, and150.
PEOPLE v. MALLARI
G.R. No. 224679 | 12 February 2020
FACTS: There was a commotion in a billiard hall and the
police officers responded. The police officers tried to arrest
the women who were involved in the said commotion.
There was this one woman by the name of Mallari and the
said woman refused to be brought to the PNP station. She
grabbed the shirt of one of the police officers, Police Officer
Navarro, slapped him in the face and thereafter kicked his
legs a number of times. Because of this, Police Officer
Navarro filed a case against Mallari for Direct Assault
against an agent of person of authority. Mallari was
convicted up to the Court of Appeals.
RULING: When the case reached the Supreme Court, the
Supreme Court said that Mallari is NOT liable for Direct
Assault against an agent of person of authority under
Article 148. Rather, Mallari is liable under Article 151
Resistance and Serious Disobedience. The Supreme
Court said that when the person being arrested by the
police resists or uses force that is not dangerous, grave, or
severe, the crime is not Direct Assault under Article 148.
The proper charge is Resistance and Disobedience of an
agent of person in authority under Article 151. To be
considered as Direct Assault, the laying of hands or the
use of physical force on an agent of person in authority
must be serious in nature.
In this case, the said accused grabbed the shirt of the said
police officer, slapped his face, and kicked his legs several
times. These acts and resistance were not serious in
nature to be considered as Direct Assault. Hence, the
Supreme Court downgraded the conviction only to violation
of Article 151 Resistance and Serious Disobedience.
SYDECO v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 202692 | 12 November 2014
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
FACTS: Sydeco was driving his car with his employees.
He is a bar owner. At wee hours of the morning, they
passed by Roxas Boulevard where there was a
checkpoint. According to the police officers, they took
notice of this van because it was swerving from one lane
to another. So, they told the van to make a stop. When the
van came to a halt, the police officers used their flashlights
and inspected the van. Thereafter, the police officer told
the accused to get out of his van because he shall be
searched. They also told the companions of the accused
to get out of the van because they would be searched, and
the van should be searched too. But the accused refused
saying, “Plain view lang po, Sir. Bawal po ang personal
search. Plain view lang.” The police officers got mad at him
and brought him out and thereafter a case was filed against
him for resistance and serious disobedience under Article
151. Accused was convicted up to the Court of Appeals.
RULING: Supreme Court acquitted the accused Sydeco
ruling that all the elements of Article 151 are absent.
First element, the person in authority or his agent is
engaged in the performance of his function or gives a
lawful order to the offender. The Supreme Court said that
the order given by the police officers to the accused and to
his companions to get out of the said van because they will
be searched, and the van will be searched is not a lawful
order. The Supreme Court said that an accused or a
person can only be searched, and his vehicle can only be
searched if he is caught in flagrante delicto committing a
crime. Here, the act of the accused in swerving from one
lane to another cannot be considered as a criminal act. It
is not a violation of the LTO Rules and Regulations unless
and until there is a sign board which says no swerving. It
being early hours of the morning (3 am), it will not cause
traffic. Therefore, the order given by the police officers is
not a lawful order. The first element is absent.
Second element, the offender resists or seriously disobeys
such person in authority or his agent, is also absent. The
said statement by Sydeco, his refusal to get out and to be
subjected to a body search and his van to a search, and
his insistence to a plain view search is a mere act within
his rights. The Supreme Court said he has a right to protest
on the said search because he was not caught in flagrante
delicto committing a crime. He has a right to invoke his right
to privacy. The said act done not being a lawful order,
Sydeco has the right to refuse it. His insistence on a plain
view search is not considered a refusal nor a violation.
Last element, that such resistance or disobedience will not
amount to direct assault, indirect assault, or disobedience
to summons issued by Congress, is also absent.
Therefore, all the elements being absent, the Supreme
Court held that the said accused should be acquitted of the
crime charged.
ARTICLE 150. DISOBEDIENCE TO SUMMONS
36 of 188
Art. 150. Disobedience to summons issued by the National
Assembly, its committees, or subcommittees, by the
Constitutional Commissions, its committees,
subcommittees, or divisions. - The penalty of arresto
mayor or a fine ranging from two hundred to one thousand
pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment shall be
imposed upon any person who, having been duly
summoned to attend as a witness before the National
Assembly, (Congress), its special or standing committees
and subcommittees, the Constitutional Commissions and
its committees, subcommittees, or divisions, or before any
commission or committee chairman or member authorized
to summon witnesses, refuses, without legal excuse, to
obey such summons, or being present before any such
legislative or constitutional body or official, refuses to be
sworn or placed under affirmation or to answer any legal
inquiry or to produce any books, papers, documents, or
records in his possession, when required by them to do so
in the exercise of their functions. The same penalty shall
be imposed upon any person who shall restrain another
from attending as a witness, or who shall induce
disobedience to a summon or refusal to be sworn by any
such body or official.
ACTS PUNISHED
I. By refusing, without any legal excuse, to obey
summons issued by the Congress or any of its
committees, Constitutional Commissions, or
subcommittees.
Under the first act, the crime will arise if the refusal is
without any legal excuse. If the said offender or the person
to whom a summons was issued is in the hospital, he
suffered a heart attack, or he suffered high blood pressure
because of receipt of said summons, and suddenly he was
brought to the hospital and it was the doctor that prevented
him from going to the said hearing otherwise it will
aggravate his condition, then he has a valid and legal
excuse not to appear to the said hearing and not to obey
the summons. It will not bring about criminal liability
because there is a legal and valid justifiable excuse.
II. By refusing to be sworn or to be placed under
affirmation while being before such legislative or
constitutional body or official.
Under the second act, the said accused received the
summons and appeared during the committee hearing.
However, he refused to be sworn in and to be placed under
affirmation. He refused to state that tell the truth and
nothing but the truth. Thus, he becomes liable for
disobedience to summons.
III. By refusing to answer any legal inquiry or to
produce any books, papers, or documents in his
possession, when required by such legislative
or Constitutional body to do so.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
Under the third act, the said accused received the
summons, he appeared during the committee hearing, and
he allowed himself to be sworn in. However, when the
members of the Senate and the House or Representative
began asking questions, he refused to answer the legal
inquiry. Or, if there were books or documents in his
possession, he refused to bring them. In that case, he
becomes liable for violation of Article 150.
However, if the reason for not answering the questions
raised by a Senator or Congressman or not bringing the
books is that it will incriminate him in the commission of the
crime. Then, he has the right to do so.
IV. By restraining another to attend as a witness in
such legislative or constitutional body.
Under the fourth act, it is not the accused who received the
summons, it is another person. But he restrained that other
person from attending the said legislative or committee
hearing, from attending and giving his testimony as a
witness.
V. By inducing disobedience to a summons or
refusal to be sworn by such legislative or
constitutional body.
These are the acts punished as disobedience to summons.
Congress has the power to issue summons because under
the Constitution, the Congress has the power to
investigate. Since they have the power to investigate in aid
of legislation, therefore they have the power to issue
summons to those persons who could shed light on the
said investigation. If he disobeys the summons, based on
any of the acts enumerated under Article 150, the offender
becomes liable for Disobedience to Summons.
CHAPTER FIVE: PUBLIC DISORDERS
ARTICLE 153. TUMULTS AND OTHER
DISTURBANCES
Art. 153. Tumults and other disturbance of public
orders; Tumultuous disturbance or interruption liable
to cause disturbance. - The penalty of arresto mayor in
its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum
period and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos shall be
imposed upon any person who shall cause any serious
disturbance in a public place, office, or establishment, or
shall interrupt or disturb public performances, functions or
gatherings, or peaceful meetings, if the act is not included
in the provisions of Articles 131 and 132.
The penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed upon
persons causing any disturbance or interruption of a
tumultuous character.
37 of 188
The disturbance or interruption shall be deemed to be
tumultuous if caused by more than three persons who are
armed or provided with means of violence.
The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon any
person who in any meeting, association, or public place,
shall make any outcry tending to incite rebellion or sedition
or in such place shall display placards or emblems which
provoke a disturbance of the public order.
The penalty of arresto menor and a fine not to exceed P200
pesos shall be imposed upon these persons who in
violation of the provisions contained in the last clause of
Article 85, shall bury with pomp the body of a person who
has been legally executed.
ACTS PUNISHED
I. By causing any serious disturbances in a public
place, office, or establishment.
Under the first act, by causing any serious disturbances in
a public place, office or establishment, there must be
deliberate intent on the part of the offender to cause a
serious disturbance when he went to the said public place.
He went to the said public place, deliberately to cause
serious disturbance. Therefore, it was planned. He
planned to cause serious disturbance in going to the said
public place.
II. By interrupting or disturbing performances,
functions or peaceful gatherings or peaceful
meetings. Provided, the act does not amount to
violation of Articles 131 (prohibition,
interruption, and dissolution of peaceful
meetings) and 132 (interrupting of religious
worship).
Under the second act, you have to distinguish it from
violations of Articles 131 and 132. Article 131 is the
prohibition, interruption, and dissolution of peaceful
meetings and Article 132 interruption of religious worship.
In order to bring about violation of Article 153, the
interruption or disturbance of public performances,
functions, and peaceful gatherings must not amount to
violations of Articles 131 and 132.
III. By making any outcry tending to incite rebellion
or sedition in any meeting, association, or public
place.
IV. By displaying placards or emblems which
provoke a disturbance of public order in such
meeting, association, or public place.
Under the third and fourth act, when you say making an
outcry tending to incite rebellion or sedition in any meeting,
association, or public place, when you say outcry, it is an
act of shouting perversive, provocative words in order to
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
stir the audience and the people to obtain by means of
force and violence any of the objects, purposes, or designs
of rebellion or sedition. The outcry, the displaying of
placards and emblems must be brought about by some
unconscious outburst of emotions. Therefore, when the
said offender went there, it was not his intention to make
the outcry or display these placards, the said outcry or
display of placards was brought about by some
unconscious outburst of emotions not intentionally done. It
was only brought about by the circumstances that took
place in the gathering or meeting.
Thus, it must not be intentionally calculated to incite people
to rebel or to commit sedition because otherwise, the crime
would be inciting to rebellion or inciting to sedition.
V. By burying with pomp, the body of a person who
has been legally executed.
Under the fifth act, by burying with pomp the body of a
person who has been legally executed. A person is said to
be legally executed when he committed a heinous crime
and he was sentenced with death penalty, a capital
punishment and the State executed the death penalty. If
this person is buried with such extravagance as if he is a
hero, those participating in the said extravagant act of
burying can be liable under Article 153. If they will bury this
convict executed with pomp, with extravagance as if he
was a hero, it will arise public emotion. People will
sympathize. People will believe that the State committed a
mistake in executing him. In that case, they can be held
liable for Disturbance of Public Order.
These are the acts punished as disturbance to public
order. If these acts are committed, by more than 3 persons
who are armed or provided by means of violence, it is
considered as tumultuous in nature.
Therefore, there must be at least four persons who are
armed or provided with means of violence for it to be
considered as tumultuous.
Distinctions between Article 153 and Articles 131 and
132
ARTICLE 153 ARTICLES 131 & 132
As to the Person of the Offender
The offender can be any Since it is under Title II:
person. He can be a public Crimes Against the
officer or employee, or he Fundamental Law of the
can be a private person. State, it is committed only
by a public officer or
employee. Here, the
offender is always a public
officer or employee.
If the offender is a public officer
The said public officer The public officer offender
offender who is making the who is making the
interruption or disturbance disturbance or interruption
must be a participant in the is an outsider insofar as
38 of 188
said peaceful gathering or the said public gathering
function. or religious worship is
concerned.
Purpose
The purpose of the The purpose of the
offender is to cause a offender is to prevent a
disturbance of public person from freely
order. To disturb the exercising his freedom of
peaceful gathering. speech, freedom of
expression, freedom of
gathering, freedom of
association, or freedom to
express his religious
worship.
ARTICLE 154. UNLAWFUL USE OF MEANS OF
PUBLICATION AND UNLAWFUL UTTERANCES
Art. 154. Unlawful use of means of publication and
unlawful utterances. - The penalty of arresto mayor and
a fine ranging from P200 to P1,000 pesos shall be imposed
upon:
1. Any person who by means of printing, lithography, or
any other means of publication shall publish or cause to be
published as news any false news which may endanger
the public order, or cause damage to the interest or credit
of the State;
2. Any person who by the same means, or by words,
utterances or speeches shall encourage disobedience to
the law or to the constituted authorities or praise, justify, or
extol any act punished by law;
3. Any person who shall maliciously publish or cause to be
published any official resolution or document without
proper authority, or before they have been published
officially; or
4. Any person who shall print, publish, or distribute or
cause to be printed, published, or distributed books,
pamphlets, periodicals, or leaflets which do not bear the
real printer's name, or which are classified as anonymous.
There is no particular law that punishes fake news. In fact,
we do not have a particular definition of what fake news is.
There was a bill in Congress, but it was not enacted into
law. There is no concrete or particular definition of what
fake news is. There is no law, in particular, expressly
punishing the spreading of fake news. However, the
offender can be held liable under Article 154. If it is done
via internet, it would be in relation to the Anti-Cybercrime
Law.
ACTS PUNISHED
I. By publishing or causing to be published by
means of printing lithography or any other
means of publication, as news any false news
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
which may endanger the public order, or cause
damage to the interest or credit of the State.
Under the first act, what has been published is a false news
which must endanger public order or may cause damage
to public interest.
The offender, the author, and the publisher knew that it is
false. Nevertheless, despite such knowledge that it is false,
he still published the same. If the false news would
endanger public order or cause damage to the interest or
credit of the State, the offender can be held liable under
Article 152.
If it is done via internet, it is in relation to R.A. 10175 or the
Anti-Cybercrime Law (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012).
R.A. No. 10175, Section 6. All crimes defined and
penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and
special laws, if committed by, through and with the use of
information and communications technologies shall be
covered by the relevant provisions of this Act: Provided,
That the penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree
higher than that provided for by the Revised Penal Code,
as amended, and special laws, as the case may be.
II. By encouraging disobedience to the law or to the
constituted authorities or by praising, justifying,
or extolling any act punished by law.
Under the second act, anyone who encourages
disobedience to the law or an act which is punished by law
can be held liable under Art. 154.
Q: There was a new law enacted by Congress and
there were members of a Non-Governmental
Organization who were against the implementation of
this new law. The members of the NGO prepared
leaflets and distributed it to the people encouraging
the people not to comply with the law or obey the law.
When they were distributing it to the public, they were
arrested. Are they liable for Inciting to Sedition or are
they liable for Unlawful Use of Means of Publication
under the Second Act of Article 154?
A: They are liable for violation of Article 154, Second
Act. They encouraged disobedience to this new law about
to be implemented or promulgated. It is already a law. It
has already been enacted by Congress and signed by the
President. Since it is a law, we are obliged to obey the said
law. If you have any grievance against the said law, go
through the proper means. But you have to obey the law.
Hence, the offender can be liable for violation of Article
154, second act.
Why not inciting to sedition? Because these offenders, in
preparing the leaflets, encouraging the public to disobey
the law is not encouraging them to publicly uprise, they
were only encouraging them to disobey the law, not to
publicly uprise. Therefore, it cannot be inciting to sedition.
39 of 188
III. By maliciously publishing or causing to be
published any official resolution or document
without proper authority, or before they have
been published officially.
Take note of the word maliciously. The act of publishing,
causing to be published any official resolution or document
without proper authority or before they have been
published officially must be done with malice (deliberate
intent). Otherwise, Article 154 is not violated.
IV. By printing, publishing, or distributing books,
pamphlets, periodicals, or leaflets which do not
bear the real printer’s name, or which are
classified as anonymous.
Every publication, printing must contain the real printer’s
name or it cannot be classified as anonymous. Otherwise,
the offender becomes liable for unlawful use of means of
publication.
These acts are considered as unlawful use of means of
publication punished Article 154.
ARTICLE 155. ALARMS AND SCANDALS
Article 155. Alarms and scandals. - The penalty of arresto
menor or a fine not exceeding P200 pesos shall be
imposed upon:
1. Any person who within any town or public place, shall
discharge any firearm, rocket, firecracker, or other
explosives calculated to cause alarm or danger;
2. Any person who shall instigate or take an active part in
any charivari or other disorderly meeting offensive to
another or prejudicial to public tranquility;
3. Any person who, while wandering about at night or while
engaged in any other nocturnal amusements, shall disturb
the public peace; or
4. Any person who, while intoxicated or otherwise, shall
cause any disturbance or scandal in public places,
provided that the circumstances of the case shall not make
the provisions of Article 153 applicable.
ACTS PUNISHED:
I. Discharging any firearm, rocket, firecracker, or
other explosives within any town or public
place calculated to cause (which produces)
alarm or danger.
The purpose is to cause alarm and danger. In case of
discharging of firearms, take into consideration the intent
of the offender. If the intent of the offender in the act of
discharging the firearm is to kill a person, although the
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
person is not hit, the crime committed is already attempted
homicide/murder.
But if the act of discharging the firearm or pointing the gun
is done without intent to kill, the discharge of firearm will
not kill the person because the offender knew that it is
outside the shooting range (malayo siyang maabot pero
dinischarge parin nya firearm), the crime commited is
Illegal Discharge of Firearms under Article 254.
If the act of discharging of firearm is intended to cause
alarm and danger in a public place, the crime committed is
alarms and scandals. If the firearm is not discharged but
merely poked or merely pointed at the temple, at the head,
at the chest, the crime committed can either be grave
threats or other crimes. So, in discharging of firearms, if
pointed and fired, the crime committed can either be an
attempted felony, illegal discharge of firearm, or alarms
and scandals.
If it was only pointed or poked, depending on the
accompanying word (e.g. papatayin kita or any other term),
but he did not do it, it will be grave threats. But if he merely
poked it without saying any words, it is only other light
threats. So, it depends on the intent of the offender,
whether the firearm is discharged or merely poked or
pointed at another person.
II. Instigating or taking an active part in any
charivari or other disorderly meeting offensive
to another or prejudicial to public tranquility.
When you say charivari, it is a disorderly act. The
offender, instead of using a certain music, they used other
instrument to produce noise – a mock serenade, a mocking
use of instruments that caused alarm and danger,
annoying or disturbing public peace or order.
III. Disturbing the public peace while wandering
about at night or while engaged in any other
nocturnal amusement.
In your place, there would be sometimes birthday parties
wherein there will be karaoke and sometimes, you are
already about to sleep but you can still hear the voices of
those singing. There are some municipalities who have
ordinances that prevent these. But there are certain
municipalities that do not have these ordinances, and if you
happen to live in that municipality, then these men can be
charged with alarms and scandals.
IV. Causing any disturbance pr scandal in public
place whether intoxicated or not, provided
Article 153 is not applicable.
Where lies the difference? In case of tumults and
disturbance of public order under Article 153, the intent of
the offender in going to the said public place is to cause
serious disturbance – causing any serious disturbance in
a public place, office, or establishment (first act punished
under Article 153).
40 of 188
In the fourth act punished in alarms and scandals, the
offender, in going to the said public place has to intention
to cause disturbance or scandal. However, because of the
turn of events, he caused scandal or disturbance, whether
intoxicated or not. He becomes liable for alarms and
scandals.
ARTICLE 156. DELIVERING PRISONERS FROM JAIL
Article 156. Delivery of prisoners from jails. - The penalty
of arresto mayor in its maximum period of prision
correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon
any person who shall remove from any jail or penal
establishment any person confined therein or shall help the
escape of such person, by means of violence, intimidation,
or bribery. If other means are used, the penalty of arresto
mayor shall be imposed.
If the escape of the prisoner shall take place outside of said
establishments by taking the guards by surprise, the same
penalties shall be imposed in their minimum period.
Elements of Delivering Prisoners from Jail
1. That there is a person confined in a jail or penal
establishment;
2. That the offender removes therefrom such persons
or assisted in the escape of such person.
Prisoners being referred to under Article 156 can be any
prisoner. He can be a prisoner convicted by final judgment
or a detention prisoner, provided he is in jail.
The offender under Article 156 can by any person. He can
be a public officer/employee, he can be a private person,
he can be an inmate, he can be a stranger.
Note:
Article 156 may be committed by any person except the
custodian of the said prisoner. If it is the custodian, it is
infidelity in the custody of prisoners under Article 223 or
Article 224 of Title VII because there is a violation of the
trust and confidence reposed on him as the custodian of
the said prisoner.
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
1. If violence or intimidation has been used in the
commission of the crime;
2. Bribery is used in delivering persons from jail.
CHAPTER SIX: EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE
Three Kinds of Evasion from Service of Sentence
1. Evasion of Service of Sentence under Art. 157
2. Evasion of service of sentence on the occasion of
disorder, conflagrations, earthquakes, or other
calamities
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
3. Evasion of service of sentence by violation of the
conditional pardon
ARTICLE 157. EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE
Article 157. Evasion of service of sentence. - The penalty
of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods
shall be imposed upon any convict who shall evade service
of his sentence by escaping during the term of his
imprisonment by reason of final judgment.
However, if such evasion or escape shall have taken place
by means of unlawful entry, by breaking doors, windows,
gates, walls, roofs, or floors, or by using picklocks, false
keys, deceit, violence or intimidation, or through
connivance with other convicts or employees of the penal
institution, the penalty shall be prision correccional in its
maximum period.
Elements of Evasion of Service of Sentence
1. The offender is a convict by final judgment;
2. That he is serving his sentence which consists in
a deprivation of liberty; and
3. That he evades the service of his sentence by
escaping during the term of his sentence.
First Element. Whatever be the kind of evasion (either 157,
158, or 159), evasion can only be committed by a prisoner
convicted by final judgment. It cannot be committed by
a mere detention prisoner because a mere detention
prisoner is still facing the trial, it just so happened that he
cannot post the bail fixed by the Court or the crime he
committed is not bailable, but he is not yet convicted, he is
not yet serving his sentence, he is only placed behind bars
in order to prevent his escape. Therefore, he has yet no
sentence to evade.
Second element. Those who are imprisoned are deprived
of their liberty. If the penalty imposed is destierro, the
offender may still commit evasion of service of sentence
under Art. 157 because destierro also involves deprivation
of liberty although partial in nature because a person
sentenced with destierro is prohibited from entering the
place designated in the judgment of the Court. If he enters
this place which he is prohibited from entering, he commits
evasion under Article 157.
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE
1. The act of escaping is done by means of unlawful
entry;
2. The act of escaping is done by breaking doors,
windows, gates, walls, roofs, or floors;
3. The act of escaping is done by using picklocks,
false keys, disguise, deceit, violence or
intimidation; or
41 of 188
4. The act of escaping is done through connivance
with other convicts or employees of the penal
institution.
Q: X is a prisoner convicted by final judgment. He is
serving his final judgment, he is in the penal
institution. He has a friend by the name of Y. Y is his
childhood friend and best friend. They treat each other
as brothers. Y often visits X. In one of his visits, Y was
able to bring inside two knives because X have long
been requesting Y to help him get out. Finally, Y was
able to smuggle inside two sharp knives. Together
with the food, the guard was not able to see it. The two
friends were now eating. Y told X that he has two
knives. Thereafter, he gave one to X. While they were
eating, they were planning what they will do.
Thereafter, they saw the custodian of X by the name of
Z. X himself told Z, “Sir lunch na! Sipag mo naman,
kain ka! Madaming dalang pagkain kaibigan ko. Kain
ka Sir”. Z said, “Sige gutom na nga ako!”. So, the
custodian went with them in their table and ate
together with them.
While the custodian was eating together with X and Y,
X looked at Y, and together, with the signal of Y, placed
the knives in the neck of Z and told Z to give them the
key or else, they will stab him. Since knives were
pointed at Z, he cannot do anything, so he gave the key
to X. X was able to leave together with Y. What crime/s
are committed by X, Y, and Z?
A: X, a prisoner convicted by final judgment, is liable for
evasion of service of sentence under Article 157,
qualified by intimidation. The penalty shall be qualified
because he intimidated the custodian by means of the said
knives, pointed at the neck of the custodian.
Y, the friend, is liable for delivering prisoners from jail.
All the elements are present. X is a prisoner, he is there in
the penal institution and Y assisted in X’s removal from the
said institution. The penalty is also qualified by intimidation.
Z, the custodian, his liability is under Article 224,
infidelity in the custody of prisoner by evasion through
negligence. He is a public officer, he is the one entrusted
with the custody of X, a prisoner convicted by final
judgment, and X was able to escape by reason of his
negligence. The negligence punished by law must amount
to a deliberate non-performance of his official duty. The
duty of a custodian is to guard the prisoner, not to dine or
eat together with the said prisoner. When he accepted the
offer of X to eat together with them, there is negligence on
his part, there is a violation of his duty to guard the said
prisoner. Therefore, Z will be liable for infidelity in the
custody of prisoners under Article 224 by evasion through
negligence.
Q: X is a prisoner convicted by final judgment. X told
his friend Y, who often visits him, that he wanted to go
out for Christmas Day. Y, who has a good paying job,
promised X that he will be able to spend Christmas Day
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
outside the penal institution. On that same day, before
leaving, Y talked to the custodian of X, and Y told the
custodian that his friend, intends to leave the said
penal institution and that if he will allow him to leave,
Y will give him Php 100,000. The custodian was in need
of money, it is Christmas time, he needed much
money. So, the custodian said yes to the offer made
by Y. The custodian told Y to give him the money today
and X will be able to leave tonight. Y left and thereafter,
he came back hours later and he gave the Php 100,000
to the said custodian. That night, X was able to have a
successful escape and he went to the house of his
friend. What crime/s are committed by X, Y, and the
custodian?
A: X, a prisoner convicted by final judgment, is liable
for evasion of service of sentence under Article 157. X
is a prisoner convicted by final judgment and he evades
the service of his sentence by escaping during the term of
his sentence.
Y, the friend, is liable for delivering prisoners from jail
under Article 156. Since the act of assisting in the removal
of X from jail is done by him by making and giving this bribe
money to the custodian, he is also liable for corruption of
public official under Article 212. So, Y committed to crimes
which are delivering prisoners from jail under Article 156
and corruption of public officials under Article 212.
The custodian is liable for infidelity in the custody of
prisoner under Article 223 by conniving or consenting
the escape of a prisoner. The custodian has been
entrusted the custody of this prisoner. The prisoner
escaped because he connives, consents with the escape
of the said prisoner. Therefore, the said custodian is liable
for infidelity in the custody of the prisoner by conniving and
consenting with the escape of said prisoner.
How did he connive? He received the bribe, he received
the P100,000. Therefore, in addition to infidelity in the
custody of prisoner under Art. 223, by conniving or
consenting to the escape of the prisoner, the custodian is
also liable for direct bribery under Art. 210. A public officer
who received a bribe in connection with the performance
of his official function – he received the bribe in order to
allow X to leave the penal institution. X, the very prisoner
he has been entrusted to see.
Therefore, in this case, he will be liable for 2 crimes: 1)
infidelity in the custody of prisoner under Art. 223 by
conniving and consenting in the escape of the prisoner;
and 2) direct bribery under Art. 210.
Q: Aren’t you going to complex it? Isn’t it if the said
custodian connived and consented because of the
bribe money, P100,000 that he received, an offense is
a necessary means to commit the other? Therefore,
should they be complexed?
42 of 188
A: NO. Because under Article 210 Direct Bribery, the law
prohibits the complexity of crimes. Under Art. 210, the
penalty for direct bribery shall be in addition to any other
liability arising from the crime agreed upon. Therefore, you
cannot complex it even if the direct bribery was a
necessary means to commit infidelity in the custody of
prisoners, Art. 210 Direct Bribery prohibits complexing of
crimes. Therefore, there will be 2 crimes committed by the
said custodian: infidelity and direct bribery.
ARTICLE 158. EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE
IN TIMES OF CALAMITIES AND DISORDER
Article 158. Evasion of service of sentence on the
occasion of disorder, conflagrations, earthquakes, or other
calamities. - A convict who shall evade the service of his
sentence, by leaving the penal institution where he shall
have been confined, on the occasion of disorder resulting
from a conflagration, earthquake, explosion, or similar
catastrophe, or during a mutiny in which he has not
participated, shall suffer an increase of one-fifth of the time
still remaining to be served under the original sentence,
which in no case shall exceed six months, if he shall fail to
give himself up to the authorities within forty-eight hours
following the issuance of a proclamation by the Chief
Executive announcing the passing away of such calamity.
Convicts who, under the circumstances mentioned in the
preceding paragraph, shall give themselves up to the
authorities within the above mentioned period of 48 hours,
shall be entitled to the deduction provided in Article 98.
Elements of Evasion of Service in times of Calamities
and Disorders
1. The offender is a prisoner convicted by final
judgment;
2. He is serving his sentence in a penal institution;
3. There is a calamity or disorder arising from
explosion, earthquake, catastrophe, or a mutiny in
which he has not participated.
4. He escapes in times of these calamities and
disorders and thereafter, he failed to give himself
up to the proper authorities within 48 hours
following the declaration of the Chief Executive
that the calamity has already lapsed.
First element. Same offender, he must be convicted by
final judgment. However, there is an additional
requirement.
Second element. Under Art. 158, the second element
requires that he must be serving his sentence in a penal
institution. He must be behind bars, not merely a sentence
which merely deprives him of his liberty.
Third element. There must be a calamity, disorder,
earthquake or any other catastrophe, or there is a mutiny
in which he did not participate.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
Fourth element. Upon his escape, is he liable under Art.
158? NO. He is not liable. He is allowed to escape because
there is a calamity. Prisoners are accountability of the
State. In times of calamities, in times of catastrophe, the
state can no longer protect them. Therefore, prisoners may
leave. Upon escaping or leaving, they are not liable.
When will the crime arise? Based on the fourth element, if
they fail to return to the proper authorities within 48 hours
following the declaration by the Chief Executive that the
calamity had already lapsed. If after the calamity had
lapsed, the President declared that the calamity had
already lapsed and ordered all the prisoners to return
within 48 hours, failure to do so will make the offender
liable under Article 158. That is the time the crime will arise.
Q: X is a prisoner serving his sentence at the Bilibid.
There was this very strong earthquake, magnitude 7.
Everything was falling, the building was shaking, there
was a loud siren at the National Penitentiary. They
were trained in a seminar that the moment they heard
that kind of siren, they are allowed to leave, there is
danger. All gates were opened, prisoners were allowed
to leave.
X left and went to the house of a friend. Two days
thereafter, the President, in a press conference in
Malacañang, televised and heard over the radio. He
was stating, “The earthquake had already lapsed, I got
confirmation and no more aftershocks. All you
prisoners of the national penitentiary who left, you are
given 48 hours to return. If you fail to return, there will
be a manhunt against you, so return within 48 hours.
X heard it but did not return. He likes the life outside.
Afraid that he will be discovered in the place of his
friend, he went from one place to another. He went into
hiding. There was a warrant of arrest issued against
him. The police officers were looking for him.
After several months, the police authorities finally
found X and thereafter, X was brought back to jail.
What is the effect of X’s act of not returning within 48
48 hours following the declaration by the Chief
Executive that the calamity had already lapsed?
A: He will be charged with Evasion of Service of
Sentence under Art. 158 of the RPC. In case of
conviction, he will be penalized with a penalty equivalent
to one-fifth (1/5) of the term of his sentence.
Other effect, if you will remember the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, among those disqualified to be given an
indeterminate sentence is a prisoner who has escaped or
evaded the service of sentence. Therefore, X is not entitled
to an indeterminate sentence. The penalty to be imposed
on him was the straight penalty equivalent to 1/5 of the
term of the service of sentence, but in no case to be more
than six (6) years.
43 of 188
Q: What if in the same problem, X after hearing the
press conference of the President ordering them to
return within 48 hours, X immediately returned. What
is the effect?
A: There will be a one-one fifth deduction based on the
remainder of his sentence. This is also in Book 1, Arti. 90,
as amended by RA 10592 or special allowance for loyalty.
Q: What if in the same problem, despite the
earthquake, X did not leave, and he survived. What is
effect to his criminal liability?
A: There will be two-fifths (2/5) deduction based on the
term of his sentence. He who stayed put has a greater
credit or special allowance for loyalty than he who left and
then returned.
There was an old case in the book of Reyes. It was a CA
decision, not an SC decision.
CASE: The prisoner detained at the Bilibid left during a riot,
and he failed to return. Is he liable under Art. 157? This did
not reach the Supreme Court, meaning the accused is
amenable to the decision of the CA.
The CA said a riot is not a mutiny, a catastrophe, nor a
calamity. Therefore, Art. 157 will apply. The moment he left
the institution, he immediately becomes liable for evasion
of service of sentence and no amount of return within 48
hours will bring about an allowance for loyalty because
according to the Court of Appeals, a riot is not a mutiny.
When you say a riot, it is a commotion, a fight among
inmates (gang v. gang). But, when you say a mutiny, it is
an act of disturbance, commotion, a protest of the prison
guards or officers against their lawful authority, the director
of prison. Therefore, a mutiny is not a riot.
Hence when the escape is done during a riot, the moment
the prisoner escapes, he immediately becomes liable for
the liabilities under Art. 157 Evasion of Service of Sentence
and no amount of return within 48 hours will give him the
benefit of a special allowance for loyalty.
ARTICLE 159. OTHER CASES OF EVASION OF
SERVICE OF SENTENCE
Article 159. Other cases of evasion of service of sentence.
- The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period
shall be imposed upon the convict who, having been
granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive, shall
violate any of the conditions of such pardon. However, if
the penalty remitted by the granting of such pardon be
higher than six years, the convict shall then suffer the
unexpired portion of his original sentence.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
This is the third kind of evasion of service of sentence –
evasion of service of sentence by violation of the
conditional pardon.

Elements of Evasion of Service of Sentence by

Violation of Conditions of Conditional Pardon:

1. The offender is a prisoner convicted by final

judgment;
2. He has been granted conditional pardon by the
President or Chief Executive; and
3. He violates the terms of his conditional pardon.

As we have discussed in Book 1, Art. 94, conditional

pardon is only a mode for partially extinguishing criminal
liability because, unlike an absolute pardon, a conditional
pardon is subject to strict terms and conditions. The said
offender granted conditional pardon must comply with the
terms and conditions attached to the conditional pardon. If
he violates, he becomes liable for violation of evasion of
service of sentence under Art. 159.

BAR Q: Is evasion of service of sentence under Art.

159 Evasion of Service of Sentence by Violation of
Conditional Pardon a substantive felony or not?

A: It depends. There are two situations being referred to

under Art. 159.

1. If the penalty remitted by grant of pardon does not

exceed or is more than six (6) years, for having
violated the said conditions of the said pardon, a
new penalty shall be imposed on him.
2. If the penalty remitted by grant of pardon exceeds
or is more than six (6) years, even if he violates
the conditions, no new penalty shall be imposed
on him. He shall only serve the remainder of his
sentence. In this case, Art. 159 is NOT A
SUBSTANTIVE offense because no new penalty
is imposed on the part of the said offender.

ARTICLE 160. QUASI-RECIDIVISM

Article 160. Commission of another crime during service

of penalty imposed for another offense; Penalty. - Besides
the provisions of Rule 5 of Article 62, any person who shall
commit a felony after having been convicted by final
judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or
while serving the same, shall be punished by the maximum
period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony.

Any convict of the class referred to in this article, who is not

a habitual criminal, shall be pardoned at the age of seventy
years if he shall have already served out his original
sentence, or when he shall complete it after reaching the
said age, unless by reason of his conduct or other
circumstances he shall not be worthy of such clemency.

A special aggravating circumstance. See discussion under

Aggravating Circumstances.

44 of 188
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
TITLE FOUR: CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC
INTEREST
ARTICLE 161. FORGING THE SIGNATURE OR STAMP
OF THE PRESIDENT OR THE GREAT SEAL
Article 161. Counterfeiting the great seal of the
Government of the Philippine Islands, forging the signature
or stamp of the Chief Executive. - The penalty of reclusion
temporal shall be imposed upon any person who shall
forge the Great Seal of the Government of the Philippine
Islands or the signature or stamp of the Chief Executive.
ACTS PUNISHED
1. Forging the Great Seal of the Government of the
Philippines.
2. Forging the signature of the President.
3. Forging the stamp of the President.
ARTICLE 162. USING FORGED SIGNATURE OR
COUNTERFEIT SEAL OR STAMP
Article 162. Using forged signature or counterfeit seal or
stamp. - The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed
upon any person who shall knowingly make use of the
counterfeit seal or forged signature or stamp mentioned in
the preceding article.
Elements of Using Forged Signature or Counterfeit
Seal or Stamp
1. That the Great Seal of the Republic was
counterfeited or the signature or stamp of the Chief
Executive was forged by another person;
2. That the offender knew of the counterfeiting or
forgery; and
3. That he used the counterfeit seal or forged
signature or stamp.
Q: X is applying for a job in the government. He needed
a recommendation coming from a politician so that he
will be accepted. His friend, Y knew how to counterfeit
signatures. He is very good in counterfeiting
signatures. They were able to secure a copy of a
document of Malacañang, so they knew the signature
of Pres. Bongbong Marcos. So, Y copied and imitated
the signature of Pres. Bongbong Marcos and then he
wrote a letter of recommendation coming from the
president himself in the fake or falsified letterhead of
Malacañang.
X believed that since his friend is very good, it will not
be detected so he attached it to his curriculum vitae as
well as his application letter. However, it was
discovered by the particular agency that the said letter
of recommendation coming from Malacañang
45 of 188
allegedly signed by the president was a fake one. The
signature of the president was falsified, counterfeited.
What crime/s are committed by X and Y?
A: Y is liable under Art. 161 Forging the Signature, the
Seal or Stamp of the President. Article 161 punishes the
person who forges the signature, the stamp, and the great
seal of the President.
Article 162 punishes the person who makes use of the said
document containing the said forgery. X knew that it was
forged by his friend. Nevertheless, he used it in his
application. Therefore, he will be liable under Article 162.
ARTICLE 163. MAKING AND IMPORTING AND
UTTERING FALSE COINS
Article 163. Making and importing and uttering false coins.
- Any person who makes, imports, or utters, false coins, in
connivance with counterfeiters, or importers, shall suffer:
1. Prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods and
a fine not to exceed P10,000 pesos, if the counterfeited
coin be silver coin of the Philippines or coin of the Central
Bank of the Philippines of ten centavo denomination or
above.
2. Prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods
and a fine of not to exceed P2,000 pesos, if the
counterfeited coins be any of the minor coinage of the
Philippines or of the Central Bank of the Philippines below
ten-centavo denomination.
3. Prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not
to exceed P1,000 pesos, if the counterfeited coin be
currency of a foreign country. (As amended by R.A. No.
4202, approved June 19, 1965).
ACTS PUNISHED
I. Counterfeiting of Coins. There is counterfeiting
of coins when the offender copies or imitates the
peculiar design of a genuine or authentic coin in
order to produce a spurious one.
II. Importing False coins. There is importing false
coins when the offender brings into Philippine
ports any false or counterfeited coins.
III. Uttering of False Coins. There is uttering of false
coins when the offender circulates, passes, gives
away from one person to another these false or
counterfeited coins.
In case of counterfeiting of coins, the coins which can be
the subject of counterfeiting may be any coins for as long
as it is genuine and authentic. It could be coins of present
circulation. It could be old or vintage coins (e.g., coins from
the time of Former President Marcos, Sr. and coins from
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
the time of Rizal). It could be foreign coins, any coins. For
as long as it is genuine and authentic, it can be the subject
of counterfeiting because it can be imitated. What is being
punished is the imitation/copying of the peculiar design in
order to produce a spurious.
ARTICLE 164. MUTILATION OF COINS
Article 164. Mutilation of coins; Importation and utterance
of mutilated coins. - The penalty of prision correccional in
its minimum period and a fine not to exceed P2,000 pesos
shall be imposed upon any person who shall mutilate coins
of the legal currency of the United States or of the
Philippine Islands or import or utter mutilated current coins,
or in connivance with mutilators or importers.
In mutilation of coins under Art. 164, the coins which may
be the subject of mutilation must be genuine coins which
are in present circulation. If the coin is old or vintage, or
of foreign currency, even if it is mutilated, the public will not
be damaged because it is not in circulation, it is not being
used. Therefore, the public will not be deceived.
Coins are mutilated when the offender scraps off,
scratches off parts of the metal contents of the coin thereby
diminishing the intrinsic value of the said coin. Therefore,
any person coming across the said coin will be deceived
as to the intrinsic value of the said coin.
COUNTERFEITING MUTILATION
The coins which may be The coins which must be
subject of counterfeiting the subject of mutilation
may be any coin for as must be in present
long as it is genuine and circulation. If it is not, the
authentic. crime will not arise.
ARTICLE 165. SELLING OF FALSE OR MUTILATED
COIN, WITHOUT CONNIVANCE
Article 165. Selling of false or mutilated coin, without
connivance. - The person who knowingly, although without
the connivance mentioned in the preceding articles, shall
possess false or mutilated coin with intent to utter the
same, or shall actually utter such coin, shall suffer a
penalty lower by one degree than that prescribed in said
articles.
Q: Mother X went to the market with P2,000. Based on
the budget, it is enough to buy the needs of the family.
After buying all the needs in the list, she is now a few
coins left – the change. She flagged down a tricycle
and told the tricycle her address to bring her home.
The tricycle stopped at the gate of her house. When
the tricycle stopped in the gate of the house, X alighted
and took coins from her pocket. The fare is P40 so she
gave the driver four (4) P10 coins. When the tricycle
driver received the said four (4) P10 coins, the tricycle
driver said, “Nay, peke ‘to. Bakit ka nagbabayad ng
peke, ‘nay?” X replied, “Ha hindi ko alam na peke yan,
46 of 188
sukli lang yan sa akin sa palengke. Wait here, I’m going
inside the house, and I will give you the P40.”
X went inside her house to get the P40 but when she
came back, the tricycle driver is no longer there. She
stood there looking for the tricycle driver. Suddenly,
the tricycle arrived. Onboard the tricycle were two
police officers and told X, “You are under arrest. There
is a complaint against you – you paid him fake,
counterfeited, falsified P10 coins.” So, the said woman
was arrested.
Is the said woman liable for possession of
counterfeited coins under Art. 165?
A: The woman is not liable. Although she was found in
possession of the counterfeited coins, and that by her acts,
there was on her part intent to utter the same, to circulate
the same, she lacks knowledge that the coins were
counterfeited or imitated. The second element is wanting
as she had no knowledge that the coins were counterfeited
because they were just given to her as change for the
things she bought at the public market. Absent
knowledge that the coins were counterfeited or
imitated; she cannot then be held criminally liable for
possession of counterfeited or mutilated coins. The
second element requires that she has knowledge of the
fact that the coins are counterfeited and imitated, and
despite knowledge, she has the intent to utter the same.
When it comes to the signature of the President, the stamp,
the seal, it is forgery. When it comes to coins, it is
counterfeiting. When it comes to checks, instruments
payable to bearer, payable to order, also forgery. When it
comes to documents, it is falsification.
FALSIFICATION (ARTICLES 170, 171, 172)
Four Kinds of Documents which may be the Subject of
Falsification
1. Public Document – one prepared and executed
by a competent public official or a notary public
with all the solemnities required by law;
2. Official Document – a document issued by a
public official in the exercise of his official function;
3. Commercial Document – a document defined
and regulated by the Code of Commerce or any
other commercial mercantile law; and
4. Private Document – a document, deed, or
instrument, executed by private persons without
the intervention of a competent public official or
notary public, by which document any agreement
or disposition is proved, evidenced, or set forth.
It is important to know the kind of document that is falsified:
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
1. If the document falsified is a public, official
document, there is no need to prove the
element of damage, prejudice, injury, or intent
to cause damage on the part of the offended party
or any third person, because it is presumed by law
to be genuine and authentic, and evidence of the
facts stated therein. Therefore, any falsification of
the said document is a violation of the truth being
proclaimed by the said document.
2. If the document falsified is a private document,
for the crime to arise, it is necessary that there is
intent to cause damage or there was damage
or prejudice caused to the offended party or to a
third person. Without damage, there is no crime of
falsification of private document because it is a
crime against public interest. No damage, no
conviction.
All official documents are public documents, but not
all public documents are considered official
documents. Before a public document may be considered
as an official document, it must be issued by a public
official in the exercise of his official functions.
A private document may become a public document. A
private document may become an official document. If the
said private document is submitted to a public office, it is
now part of public documents and becomes part of public
records. If it is issued by the custodian or any person in
charge of the said document in the exercise of his official
function, it is now considered an official document.
ARTICLE 171. FALSIFICATION BY PUBLIC OFFICER,
EMPLOYEE, NOTARY PUBLIC, OR ECCLESIASTICAL
MINISTER
Article 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or
notary or ecclesiastic minister. - The penalty of prision
mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos shall be
imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who,
taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a
document by committing any of the following acts:
1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or
rubric;
2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in
any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so
participate;
3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or
proceeding statements other than those in fact made by
them;
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
5. Altering true dates;
47 of 188
6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine
document which changes its meaning;
7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting
to be a copy of an original document when no such original
exists, or including in such a copy a statement contrary to,
or different from, that of the genuine original; or
8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the
issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any
ecclesiastical minister who shall commit any of the
offenses enumerated in the preceding paragraphs of this
article, with respect to any record or document of such
character that its falsification may affect the civil status of
persons.
Under this provision, the law punishes the falsification by a
public officer, employee, notary public, or even by an
ecclesiastical minister.
Elements of Falsification by Public Officer, Employee,
Notary Public, or Ecclesiastic Minister
1. The offender is a public officer, employee, or
notary public;
2. The said offender has taken advantage of his
official position/function;
3. The said offender falsifies a document by
committing any of the following modes stated
therein:
a. By counterfeiting or imitating any
handwriting, signature, or rubric;
b. By causing it to appear that persons
have participated in any act or
proceeding when they did not in fact
so participate;
c. By attributing to persons who have
participated in an act or proceeding
statement other than those in fact
made by them;
d. By making untruthful statements in a
narration of facts;
e. By altering true dates;
f. By making any alteration or
intercalation in a genuine document
which changes its meaning;
g. By issuing in an authenticated form a
document purporting to be a copy of
an original document when no such
original exists or by including in such
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
a copy a statement contrary to or
different from that of the genuine
original; and
h. By intercalating any instrument or
note relative to the issuance thereof in
any protocol, registry, or official book.
4. If the offender is an ecclesiastical minister, the
document falsified may affect the civil status of
persons.
Q: Who is the offender?
A: The offender is the public officer, employee, or notary
public.
Q: What if the offender is an ecclesiastical minister?
A: Based on the last element of Article 171, if the offender
is an ecclesiastical minister, for said provision to be
violated, it is necessary that the document he falsified
must affect the civil status of the offended party.
If the document falsified will not affect the civil status
of the offended party, the crime is under Article 172,
not Article 170.
For Article 171 to lie against a public officer or employee,
it is necessary that in the act of falsifying the document, the
public officer, employee, or notary public must have taken
advantage of his public position, his public office.
The offender is said to have taken advantage of his
public position or public office when:
1. He has the duty to make or prepare or otherwise
intervene in the preparation of the document; or
2. He has the official custody of the document which
he falsifies.
Although Article 171 is silent as to the kind of
document falsified, it necessarily follows that the
document falsified is a public, official document since
the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary
public.
The eight (8) acts of falsification are mentioned under
Article 171. They also apply in Article 172. Article 171
requires that the offender takes advantage of his
official position; otherwise, the liability is under the first
act of Article 172.
ARTICLE 172. FALSIFICATION BY PRIVATE
INDIVIDUALS AND USE OF FALSIFIED DOCUMENTS
Article 172. Falsification by private individual and use of
falsified documents. - The penalty of prision correccional in
48 of 188
its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more
than P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the
falsifications enumerated in the next preceding article in
any public or official document or letter of exchange or any
other kind of commercial document; and
2. Any person who, to the damage of a third party, or with
the intent to cause such damage, shall in any private
document commit any of the acts of falsification
enumerated in the next preceding article.
Any person who shall knowingly introduce in evidence in
any judicial proceeding or to the damage of another or
who, with the intent to cause such damage, shall use any
of the false documents embraced in the next preceding
article, or in any of the foregoing subdivisions of this article,
shall be punished by the penalty next lower in degree.
THREE PUNISHABLE ACTS
I. Falsification of a public, official, or
commercial document by a private
individual;
1. The offender is a private person or a
public officer acting in his private
capacity;
2. The offender commits any act of
falsification under Article 171; and
3. The said acts of falsification were
committed in a public, official, or
commercial document.
II. Falsification of a private document by any
person;
1. The offender is any person;
2. The offender commits any of the acts
of falsification under Article 171
except paragraph 7. Therefore, said
paragraph will not apply if the
document is a private document; and
3. The document falsified is a private
document and there was intent to
cause damage, or damage was
caused to a private person or to a third
person.
NB: In falsification of a private document,
it is necessary that there must be damage
or intent to cause damage.
III. The use of falsified document.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
1. If the said falsified document is used
in a judicial proceeding, there is no
need to prove damage or intent to
cause damage.
2. If the said document is used in any
other official transaction outside
judicial proceedings, it is necessary to
prove damage or intent to cause
damage for the crime to arise.
Q: X falsified a deed of absolute sale. It was notarized
by the notary public. A case of falsification of public
document was filed against X. X said he cannot be held
liable of falsification because the sale did not proceed,
therefore, there was no damage. Is X’s defense
meritorious?
A: The defense of X has no merit. In falsification of public
or official document like a deed of absolute sale, the
presence of intent to cause damage and intent to injure a
third person is not necessary. What is being punished is
the violation of the public fate and the destruction of the
truth being solemnly proclaimed by the said public or
official document.
Q: X was charged with the falsification of a public
document. He falsified a deed of absolute sale. The
private complainant, during the hearing of the case,
presented only a machine copy of the said deed of
absolute sale allegedly containing his signature
falsified by X. When asked to produce the original
copy, the private complaint said he couldn’t produce
it, but what he has is the falsified copy of the deed of
absolute sale where X allegedly falsified,
counterfeited, copied, imitated, the signature of said
private complainant. Can X be convicted of
falsification of public document by the mere
presentation of the photocopy of the deed of absolute
sale?
A: No. In the case of Lamsen v. People, the Supreme
Court said that there are other handwriting elements which
could not be determined in a mere photocopy. There are
handwriting details which could not be visibly detected by
the naked eye in a mere photocopy. It further said that the
handwriting movement, the line quality, the emphasis,
cannot be determined in a mere photocopy. Therefore, it is
necessary to present the original copy of the said deed of
absolute sale. Without presentation of the said deed of
absolute sale, the original copy which contains the alleged
counterfeited signature, it would be an acquittal. The mere
representation of a photocopy would not give rise to a
conviction.
TORRES v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 241164 | 14 August 2019
FACTS: Torres was an intelligence agent of the NBI. She
falsified her daily time records (DTR). She counterfeited
49 of 188
the signature of her superior to make it appear that her
superior verified her DTR. She also made untruthful
statement of facts as she made it appear in her DTR that
she reported for work in September, October, and
November, when she did not. Consequently, she was
charged with falsification. Torres then was charged with six
counts of falsification of public documents.
HELD: The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of
Torres, stating that the Court of Appeals did not err in
affirming the conviction of Torres for six counts of
falsification of public documents. Evidence showed and it
was established by the prosecution that Torres, an
intelligence agent of NBI, took advantage of her official
position in falsifying her DTR by 1) counterfeiting or
imitating the signature of her supervising officer to make it
appear that the latter verified; 2) making untruthful
statements in a narration of facts because she caused it to
appear that she regularly reported for work in the months
of September to November, when she actually stopped
working in those months; and 3) altering true dates.
Here, it was ruled that Torres was liable for six counts of
falsification of public documents.
GALEOS v. PEOPLE
642 SCRA 485 | 09 February 2011
FACTS: Galeos is an employee of the municipal hall. Any
public officer of the government, whether local or national,
must file his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net
Worth, otherwise known as SALN. In the SALN, there is
that question: Are you related to anyone in the government
service within the fourth degree of consanguinity? In this
case, Galeos stated that there is none. However, it was
later discovered that Galeos is a relative of the town mayor.
As such, he was charged with falsification of public
document under paragraph 4 of Article 171, by making
untruthful statements in a narration of facts.
HELD: The Supreme Court convicted Galeos of
falsification of public document, ruling that, since Galeos
answered ‘no’ in the question raised in the SALN whether
or not he has a relative in the government service within
the fourth degree of consanguinity, he made an untruthful
statement in a narration of facts because the truth is that
he was related to Mayor Ong at the same he was the
municipal mayor, and he was a relative within the fourth
degree of consanguinity of Galeos since they are first
cousins.
Another issue raised in this case is regarding the answer
of Galeos in his 1994 SALN in the question: Are you related
to anyone in the government service within the fourth
degree of consanguinity? Galeos left the answer box
empty or blank; he did not answer it. The Supreme Court
held that he was also liable for falsification. Insofar as his
1994 SALN is concerned, he left in blank the boxes to the
same question which is deemed as falsification. It was
further ruled that one is guilty of falsification in the
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
accomplishment of his information, of his personal data
sheet, if he withholds material facts which would have
affected the approval of his appointment or promotion in
the government. Had he put a check therein, he would not
have been admitted to government service. By leaving it
blank, he tried to withhold a valuable information which led
to his admission. Therefore, he is guilty of falsification
because of his nondisclosure of such relationship to the
Mayor within the fourth degree of consanguinity.
CHAPTER TWO:
OTHER FALSITIES
ART. 177. USURPATION OF AUTHORITY OR
OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS
Article 177. Usurpation of authority or official functions. -
Any person who shall knowingly and falsely represent
himself to be an officer, agent or representative of any
department or agency of the Philippine Government or of
any foreign government, or who, under pretense of official
position, shall perform any act pertaining to any person in
authority or public officer of the Philippine Government or
any foreign government, or any agency thereof, without
being lawfully entitled to do so, shall suffer the penalty of
prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.
USURPATION OF AUTHORITY OR OFFICIAL
FUNCTIONS
Under Art. 177, there are two acts, or two kinds of
usurpation –
1. Usurpation of Public Authority; and
2. Usurpation of Official Functions.
There is usurpation of public authority when a person
knowingly and falsely represents himself to be an agent,
officer or representative of any department or agency of
the Philippine Government or of a foreign government.
The mere act of false representation will give rise to the
felony.
On the other hand, there is usurpation of official
functions when a person performs an act pertaining to a
person in authority or a public officer, either of the
Philippine Government or of a foreign government under
false pretense of official position without being lawfully
entitled to do so.
In usurpation of official function, the offender must perform
an act. The said act pertains either to a person in authority
or to a public officer either of the Philippine Government or
of a foreign government. It will become a crime if he did so
under false pretense of official position and without being
lawfully entitled to do so.
50 of 188
USURPATION OF USURPATION OF
PUBLIC AUTHORITY OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS
Essence
There is usurpation of There is usurpation of
public authority when a official functions when a
person knowingly and person performs an act
falsely represents himself pertaining to a person in
to be an agent, officer or authority or a public
representative of any officer, either of the
department or agency of Philippine Government or
the Philippine Government of a foreign government
or of a foreign under false pretense of
government. official position without
being lawfully entitled to
do so.
How committed
The mere act of false The offender must perform
representation will give an act. The said act
rise to the felony. pertains either to a person
in authority or to a public
officer either of the
Philippine Government or
of a foreign government.
It will become a crime if he
did so under false
pretense of official position
and without being lawfully
entitled to do so.
RUZOL v. SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. Nos. 186739-960 | 17 April 2013
FACTS: Mayor Ruzol issued 221 permits providing for the
transport of logs within his jurisdiction. The DENR learned
about this. And so, the officers of the DENR filed against
Mayor Ruzol a violation of Art. 177. The DENR said that
such act of issuing permit is exclusive within the power of
the DENR – it cannot be performed by the mayor.
And so, they said that when Mayor Ruzol issued these 221
permits, according to the officers of the DENR, he
becomes liable for violation of Art. 177. Mayor Ruzol was
convicted by the Sandiganbayan.
When the case reached the Supreme Court, Mayor Ruzol’s
defense was that he acted in good faith. According to
Mayor Ruzol, he issued the said permits in order to
prevent, to regulate the transport of logs within his
jurisdiction, to prevent illegal logging within his jurisdiction
and to monitor illegal logging within his jurisdiction.
According to him, he acted in good faith.
HELD: The Supreme Court said it is settled in
jurisprudence that in case of usurpation under Art. 177,
good faith is a defense.
Since Mayor Ruzol acted in good faith, he has no criminal
mind – his intention was to monitor, regulate and ensure
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
that there will be no illegal logging in his jurisdiction. The
Supreme Court said, without criminal mind, without mens
rea, his actus reus will not work alone. There must be both
mens rea and actus reus, because – according to the
Supreme Court – it is a felony.
PEOPLE v. HILVANO
G.R. No. L-8583 | 31 July 1956
Q: The mayor went on leave. He has to go to the US for
a month. Because of that, he appointed the first
councilor, the number one councilor in the area, to be
the acting mayor. Thereafter, he flew to the US.
Councilor X is now acting and performing his job as
an acting mayor. The next day, however, here comes
the vice mayor. The vice mayor said, “First city
councilor, I am already here. You should already
vacate your post as acting mayor because under the
law, the moment the mayor is out, the vice mayor
automatically becomes the acting mayor. You can
already vacate your post.”
Councilor X said, “No, that’s not true. The mayor
designated me. The mayor, before leaving, designated
me to be the acting mayor. Therefore, I should sit as
the acting mayor until he arrives.”
Since the first councilor did not want to leave his
position, what vice mayor asked opinions from the
Provincial Fiscal and from the Executive Secretary of
the President. Both of them sent messages to
Councilor X that he should vacate his position
because under the law, under the Administrative Code,
under the Local Government Code, it is the vice mayor
who automatically becomes the acting mayor the
moment the mayor is out or on leave.
Despite receipt of this memorandum, clarification
coming from the Provincial Fiscal and the Executive
Secretary, still, Councilor X did not vacate his position.
Because of that, the vice mayor filed a case of violation
of Art. 177 against the said councilor acting as mayor.
Councilor X said he acted in good faith because he
was designated by the mayor as the acting mayor. Is
he liable as charged?
A: YES. The Supreme Court said he is liable under Art.
177.
In the old case of People v. Hilvano (31 July 1956, En
Banc), the Supreme Court said at first, the said councilor
can claim good faith because he was designated by the
mayor to be the acting mayor.
However, the moment communications came from the
Provincial Fiscal and the Executive Secretary of the
President saying that under the law, under the
Administrative Code, under the Local Government Code, it
51 of 188
is the vice mayor who should sit as acting mayor the
moment the mayor is out, when he (Councilor X) received
this communication, still he did not vacate his position. In
that case, he already acted in bad faith.
Therefore, the Supreme Court held Hilvano liable for
violation of Art. 177.
Q: X and Y went to the mayor and they wanted to have
this civil wedding ceremony. They said that they could
not afford a church wedding, they don’t have the
money, so it will merely be a civil wedding ceremony.
The mayor asked from X and Y if they have already
complied with all the requirements for a valid wedding
ceremony. X and Y said yes, and they showed all the
documents.
The mayor looked at the documents and gave them to
his executive assistant. The executive assistant told
the mayor, “Mayor, kumpleto naman.” The moment the
executive assistant told the mayor that everything is in
order, all the documents have been complied with, the
mayor set the wedding on the last day of the month,
April 30.
Because of that, these two persons X and Y went to
the mayor’s office on April 30. It happens to be a
Friday. The moment they reached the mayor’s office,
the executive assistant told X and Y, “I’m sorry, but the
mayor is out. The mayor is attending a League of
Conference of Mayors. It is happening now in Baguio.
It is very far from here. He will be back by Sunday. I will
advise that you come back Monday.”
But, the bride to be, X, became hysterical. “No, that
cannot be, everything is already set! The people are
already at the reception area at the restaurant – we
cannot postpone it! The wedding ceremony shall be
now, no other day!” When the executive assistant saw
X was already becoming hysterical, he told X and Y,
“That’s not a problem. I can celebrate and solemnize
your marriage. It has been delegated to me by the
mayor. Come inside.”
Thereafter, the executive assistant celebrated,
solemnized, officiated the wedding ceremony of X and
Y. They were told to affix their signature on the
certificate of marriage. They affixed their signature
above the printed name of the spouses. The witnesses
who served as ninong and ninang also affixed their
signatures.
But the executive assistant told X and Y, “I cannot yet
give you a copy of your Certificate of Marriage. You
have to come back Monday. Because it is the mayor
who has to sign as the solemnizing officer. Kindly
come back Monday.” Because of that X and Y left.
Here comes Monday, they went back to the office. The
executive assistant immediately handed to them a
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
copy of their Certificate of Marriage. In the said
Certificate of Marriage, above the printed name of the
mayor as the solemnizing officer, there was the
signature of the mayor.
What crime or crimes is/are committed by the
executive assistant and by the mayor?
A: The executive assistant is liable under Art. 177,
usurpation of official function.
He performs an act pertaining to a person in authority – the
mayor – under false pretense of official function although
he is not entitled to do so. The power to solemnize,
celebrate the marriage by the mayor cannot be delegated
to a mere executive assistant. Therefore, he did so under
false pretense of official position and without being lawfully
entitled to do so. Therefore, he is liable under Art. 177.
He is also liable under Art. 171, falsification of public
document, that is, the Certificate of Marriage.
Q: Why falsification?
A: He is a public officer, he took advantage of his official
position, he falsified the Certificate of Marriage.
Q: Which act of falsification under Art. 171 has been
violated?
A: He violated the second act. He caused it to appear
that it was the mayor who solemnized the marriage but in
truth and in fact, he was the one who solemnized the said
marriage. Therefore, he is liable for falsification.
Q: What about the mayor?
A: The mayor is liable under Art. 171. He is a public
officer; he took advantage of his public position in falsifying
the said Certificate of Marriage.
Q: Which act of falsification?
A: The fourth act – making untruthful statements in a
narration of facts.
When the mayor affixed his signature on the bottom as the
solemnizing officer above his printed name, he was in
effect saying that he was the one who solemnized, who
officiated the civil wedding ceremony between X and Y,
when in truth and in fact, he was not present during the
said occasion. Therefore, he committed violation of Art.
171 under the fourth act – making untruthful statements in
a narration of facts.
ART. 178. USING FICTITIOUS NAME AND
CONCEALING TRUE NAME
Article 178. Using fictitious name and concealing true
name. - The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not to
52 of 188
exceed 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who
shall publicly use a fictitious name for the purpose of
concealing a crime, evading the execution of a judgment
or causing damage.
Any person who conceals his true name and other
personal circumstances shall be punished by arresto
menor or a fine not to exceed 200 pesos.
USING FICTITIOUS NAME AND CONCEALING TRUE
NAME
Under Art. 178, the law also punishes two acts –
1. Using a fictitious name; and
2. Concealing true name.
Elements of Using a Fictitious Name
1. The offender uses a name other than his real
name;
2. The offender uses the said name publicly;
3. The purpose of the offender is either –
a. To conceal a crime;
b. To evade the execution of a judgment; or
c. To cause damage to the public interest.
Elements of Concealing True Name
1. The offender conceals his real name and other
personal circumstances;
2. The purpose of the offender is to conceal his real
identity.
ANTI-ALIAS LAW
C.A. NO. 142, AS AMENDED
(Not part of 2023 Bar syllabus)
Sec. 1. Except as a pseudonym solely for literary, cinema,
television, radio or other entertainment purposes and in
athletic events where the use of pseudonym is a normally
accepted practice, no person shall use any name different
from the one with which he was registered at birth in the
office of the local civil registry, or with which he was
baptized for the first time, or, in case of an alien, with which
he was registered in the bureau of immigration upon entry;
or such substitute name as may have been authorized by
a competent court: Provided, That persons, whose births
have not been registered in any local civil registry and who
have not been baptized, have one year from the approval
of this act within which to register their names in the civil
registry of their residence. The name shall comprise the
patronymic name and one or two surnames.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
Under the Anti-Alias Law, no person can use any name
other than his real name by which it is registered at birth in
the office of the local civil registry, or with which he was
baptized for the first time, or, in case of an alien, with which
he was registered in the bureau of immigration upon entry
in the Philippines.
If he uses an alias, if uses another name, then he can be
held liable under CA 142. A pseudonym or an alias can
only be used by persons involve in literary, cinema,
television, radio or other entertainment purposes and in
athletic events where the use of pseudonym is a normally
accepted practice or when the use of another name is
allowed by competent authority.
OLD BAR Q: In a raid conducted in a sauna bath parlor,
among those arrested was Atty. X. After a days’ work,
he decided to drop by the said sauna bath to have a
good massage. While he was having his massage, the
police armed with a search warrant raided the place.
The police officers were able to secure a search
warrant because based on their surveillance, the
establishment is actually a prostitution den. Everyone
was arrested including Atty. X who was just in the
ground floor receiving a massage.
When he was investigated at the police station, he was
asked of his name. He was so embarrassed to divulge
his real name because it will reveal that he is a lawyer.
And so, he did not divulge his real name. He said that
he is Y. And when asked of his profession, he did not
state the truth that he is a lawyer. However, he stated
truthfully his address, civil status, that he is married,
the name of his wife, the name of his children.
Everything except his name and his profession
because he was too embarrassed.
Is Atty. X liable under Article 178 for using a fictitious
name? Is Atty. X liable under Article 178 for concealing
true name? Is Atty. X liable under CA 142, as
amended?
A: Atty. X is not liable for using a fictitious name.
Although he used the name “Y”, although it can be said to
be done publicly because it was during an investigation
conducted at the police station, his purpose was only to,
because of embarrassment, he did not want to divulge his
name. He did not do so to conceal a crime, to evade
execution of a judgment, or to cause damage to public
interest. None of these purposes. Therefore, he cannot be
held liable for using a fictitious name.
Atty. X is not liable for concealing true name. He is not
liable for concealing true name because, although he did
not disclose his real name and profession, he truthfully
stated his other personal circumstances such as, his
address, his civil status, the name of his wife, the name of
his children. Therefore, he can easily be identified by just
going to his place of residence. The police can easily
53 of 188
identify who he really is. There was no concealment of his
real identity.
Atty. X is not liable under CA 142, as amended. For “Y”
to be considered as an alias of Atty. X, it is necessary that
used the name “Y” habitually and publicly. Although in
this case, he used the name “Y” publicly during an
investigation, there was no evidence showing that he used
it habitually. He used the said name “Y” only in one
circumstance, only on one occasion without any showing
that he used it in any other circumstances. Therefore, “Y”
cannot be considered as alias of Atty. X.
FALSE TESTIMONY
1. False Testimony in Criminal Cases
a. False Testimony Against the Defendant
(Art. 180)
b. False Testimony Favorable to the
Defendant (Art. 181)
2. False Testimony in Civil Cases
ART. 180 FALSE TESTIMONY AGAINST A
DEFENDANT
Elements of False Testimony Against a Defendant
1. There is a criminal proceeding;
2. The offender testified falsely under oath against the
defendant;
3. The offender knew that his testimony is false; and
4. The defendant against whom the false testimony is
given is either acquitted or convicted in a final
judgment.
ART. 180 FALSE TESTIMONY FAVORABLE TO A
DEFENDANT
Elements of False Testimony Favorable to a Defendant
1. There is a criminal proceeding;
2. The offender testified falsely under oath in favor of
the defendant; and
3. The offender knew that his testimony is false.
If you will look at the elements of Arts. 180 and 181, the
difference lies in the fact that in case of false testimony
against the defendant, there is 4th element whereas in case
of false testimony favorable to a defendant, the 4th element
is not necessary.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets

FALSE TESTIMONY FALSE TESTIMONY filed a case of False Testimony against the Defendant
AGAINST THE FAVORABLE TO A under Article 180. Will the case prosper?
DEFENDANT DEFENDANT
A: The case will not prosper. The first element is present,
Before the false witness
there is a criminal proceeding. The offender W testified
can be prosecuted in falsely under oath against X. The offender W knew his
court, it is necessary that Right after the giving of the testimony is false. He was paid. He was rehearsed. He
there is a final termination false testimony favorable memorized his testimony. The first three elements are
of the case of the said to the said defendant, the present but the fourth element is absent. The case was still
defendant. The defendant said false witness can under review by the Court of Appeals. There was yet no
final termination of the said case. The said defendant X has
is either acquitted or already be prosecuted in
not yet been acquitted or convicted by final judgment.
convicted by final court. No need to wait for Therefore, the filing of the case of violation of Article 180
judgment. Without that, the final termination of the against W is still premature.
the filing of a case against case.
the false witness is still Q: X was charged in court, W, a paid and rehearsed
premature. witness, stated falsities against him. Thereafter, after
The penalty to be imposed trial on the merits, the judge did not believe him
because of so many inconsistencies on his testimony
on the false witness
as witness who allegedly saw the killing. The judge did
depends on the final not believe him. The judge said: “For reasonable
The law prescribes a
sentence imposed on the doubt, X is hereby acquitted of the crime charged.”
particular penalty.
defendant against whom
the false testimony was Although X won, although he was acquitted of the
given. crime charged and was very happy for the acquittal, he
was still mad at W. He filed a case of violation of Art.
180 – False Testimony Against a Defendant against W.
Note:
Whether it is a false testimony against the defendant or Will the case prosper?
false testimony favorable to a defendant, it is not
required that in making the decision, the judge must A: YES. The case will prosper because upon acquittal of
consider the false testimony. There is no such X, there was already a final termination of the said case.
requisite that the false testimony be considered by the
Generally, an acquittal cannot be the subject of a right to
judge.
appeal.
Q: X is being charged with the crime of homicide. The Q: X was charged with homicide. After the
fiscal presented all its witnesses, but the fiscal said, presentation of the prosecution’s evidence, it is time
“Mahina ang ating ebidensya, walang nakakita. Medyo for the defense to present the evidence. The defense
mahina ‘yung circumstantial evidence.” When the presented first the accused X. The defense counsel
parents of the victim learned this, they told the fiscal, moved that there must be a witness to corroborate X’s
“Meron pong nakikita. Kilala ko po yan pero medyo testimony. X talked to his friend, W. W testified in favor
natatakot eh. Kakausapin ko po.” of X. Despite W’s testimony in favor of X, the judge still
convicted X and found X guilty of homicide because of
The next day, the parents of the victim went to the the evidence of the prosecution, finding his guilt
office of the public prosecutor and presented W. So, beyond reasonable doubt.
the fiscal began asking questions to determine truth
on the statement of the mother that indeed, W saw the X filed his appeal before the CA. While the case was
act of killing. Since this witness was a paid rehearsed pending appeal, the private complainant, the heirs of
witness by the parents of the victim since he the victim, were so mad at W for testifying falsely in
memorized everything, the fiscal was convinced that favor of X. They filed a case against W for violation of
he was present at the scene. Art. 181 – False testimony favorable to the defendant.
On the next day of hearing, the fiscal asked the court Will the case prosper?
that he be given a chance to present his last witness.
So, the fiscal presented W. Under oath, W started A: YES. The case will prosper.
lying, testifying against the defendant X. After trial on
the merits, the judge convicted X. Anytime after W has given his false testimony favorable to
X, he can already be prosecuted for violation of Art. 181
X appealed to the Court Appeals. When the case of X because in case of Art. 181, the last element (under Art.
was pending appeal, X, very mad at W, immediately

54 of 188
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
180) is absent. The penalty is specifically provided for by
law. It does not depend on the final sentence to be imposed
on the said defendant.
ARTICLE 183. PERJURY
Article 183. False testimony in other cases and perjury
in solemn affirmation. - The penalty of arresto mayor in
its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum
period shall be imposed upon any person, who knowingly
makes untruthful statements and not being included in the
provisions of the next preceding articles, shall testify under
oath, or make an affidavit, upon any material matter before
a competent person authorized to administer an oath in
cases in which the law so requires.
Any person who, in case of a solemn affirmation made in
lieu of an oath, shall commit any of the falsehoods
mentioned in this and the three preceding articles of this
section, shall suffer the respective penalties provided
therein.
Elements of Perjury
1. The offender made a statement under oath or
executed an affidavit upon a material matter;
2. The said statement under oath or affidavit was made
before a competent officer duly authorized to receive
and administer oath;
3. That in the said statement or affidavit, the offender
made a willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood;
4. The said statement or affidavit containing falsity is
required by law.
First element. How is perjury committed?
There are two ways of committing perjury based on the first
element:
a. Making a statement under oath; and
It must not be in a judicial proceeding. If the false
statement is made in a judicial proceeding, the
crime committed is false testimony. For it to be
perjury, the said false statement under oath must
be made in a quasi-judicial, administrative or
legislative proceeding.
b. Executing an affidavit upon a material matter.
Second element. Whether it is a statement or affidavit, it
must be subscribed and sworn to before a competent
officer duly authorized to receive and administer oath.
Otherwise, perjury will not be committed. The essence of
perjury is the violation of the solemnity of the oath. Hence,
it is necessary that the said statement or affidavit must be
55 of 188
made before a competent officer duly authorized to receive
and administer oath.
Third element. The third element requires that the offender
made in the said statement or affidavit a deliberate
assertion of falsity.
It must be deliberately done. There must be malice on the
part of the offender. Therefore, good faith is a defense in
case of perjury.
Q: The offender stated the falsities in the sworn
statement or affidavit because he was being coerced.
If he will not to state those statements, he will be
placed behind bars. There was coercion on the part of
a third person. The offender could not do anything so
he stated the said falsities. Can he be held liable?
A: NO. He cannot be held liable. It is a defense that he has
no criminal intent to perjure himself. There was good faith
on his part.
Fourth element. The fourth element requires that the said
statement/affidavit must be required by law because it is a
crime against public interest.
Note:
On Art. 183’s recent amendment
Art. 183 has been recently amended. However, the
amendment has nothing to do with the substance of the
crime. The amendment is only to increase the
imposable penalty to prision mayor.
From a less grave felony, perjury is now punished by
prision mayor. The purpose of Congress is to increase
the imposable penalty on persons who deliberately
perjure themselves.
Thus, the amendment is only on the penalty and not on
the substance of the crime.
Q: A case of estafa was filed before the office of the
public prosecutor. The public prosecutor read both the
complaint and counter-affidavit. He needed further
evidence, so he set the case for preliminary
investigation for clarificatory hearing. Both parties
were required to attend the clarificatory hearing. The
private complainant, together with his witnesses, and
the respondent, together with his witnesses, attended
the said clarificatory hearing.
The public prosecutor, under oath, began asking the
witness for the private complainant, and the witness
began stating falsities. It was discovered that the
statements were falsities.
What crime is committed by the witness? Is he liable
for False Testimony or Perjury?
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
A: The liability is perjury. It is not false testimony.
The said statement under oath was not made in a judicial
proceeding, but in a quasi-judicial proceeding.
Q: X stated falsities in a counter-affidavit on a material
matter. What is the crime committed?
A: The crime committed is perjury because is an affidavit
is required to be under oath.
Q: X stated falsities on a document not required to be
under oath. What crime is committed?
A: It depends on what the fiscal will file.
In one of the cases assigned to you, the fiscal said that the
making of a false statement in a document is considered
as falsification of public document. Whereas, in another
case, the SC said that it is perjury.
The moment the false statement under oath is made in a
document, it can either be:
1. Falsification of public document; OR
2. Perjury.
This depends on the case filed by the public prosecutor
against the offender.
ARTICLE 184. OFFERING FALSE TESTIMONY IN
EVIDENCE
Article 184. Offering false testimony in evidence. - Any
person who shall knowingly offer in evidence a false
witness or testimony in any judicial or official proceeding,
shall be punished as guilty of false testimony and shall
suffer the respective penalties provided in this section.
This is committed by any person who shall offer in
evidence a false witness or a false testimony.
Elements of Offering False Testimony in Evidence
1. The offender offered in evidence a false witness or
false testimony.
2. The offender knew the witness or the testimony
was false.
3. The offer was made in a judicial or official
proceeding.
Note:
The mere act of offering the false testimony or false
witness will already give rise to the crime. There is no
requisite that the false testimony or false witness be
considered. The mere act of the offender of offering the
false testimony or false witness will make him criminally
liable.
56 of 188
Amendment on Art. 184
Art. 184 is also included in the amendment. Note, it is only
as to the increase in penalty, not with respect to the
substance of the crime.
Q: How is Art. 184 different from subornation of
perjury?
A: Subornation of perjury is the crime committed by the
procurer of a false witness. It is the crime of a person who
procures a false witness to testify in court. In case of
subornation of perjury, in order for the suborner or the
person who procured the false witness to become
criminally liable, it is necessary that the false witness must
first be convicted of perjury.
This is not true in case of Art. 184. Under Art. 184, the mere
fact that the offender offers a false witness, even if the false
witness has not yet testified in court or perjured himself,
will make him criminally liable. There is no requisite that
the false witness must first be convicted of perjury.
From previous notes:
There is no such crime as subornation of perjury under
the present RPC because we already have Art. 184.
[Articles 185 to 187 were not discussed during lecture. The
notes added here were culled from previous notes.]
CHAPTER THREE: FRAUDS
Section One
Machinations, monopolies and combinations
ARTICLE 185. MACHINATIONS
IN PUBLIC AUCTIONS
Article 185. Machinations in public auctions. - Any person
who shall solicit any gift or promise as a consideration for
refraining from taking part in any public auction, and any
person who shall attempt to cause bidders to stay away
from an auction by threats, gifts, promises, or any other
artifice, with intent to cause the reduction of the price of the
thing auctioned, shall suffer the penalty of prision
correccional in its minimum period and a fine ranging from
10 to 50 per centum of the value of the thing auctioned.
ACTS PUNISHED:
I. SOLICITING GIFT OR PROMISE
• By soliciting any gift or promise as a consideration
for refraining from taking part in any public auction.
• The mere act of soliciting any gift or promise, so
that he will refrain from taking part of the public
auction, will already give rise to the crime. It is not
necessary that he actually received the gift, it is not
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
necessary that he actually will not participate in the
said auction.
Elements
1. There be a public auction.
2. The accused solicited any gift or a promise from
any of the bidders.
3. That such gift or promise was the consideration for
his refraining from taking part in that public
auction.
4. The accused had the intent to cause the reduction
of the price of the thing auctioned.
II. ATTEMPTING TO CAUSE BIDDERS TO STAY
AWAY
• By attempting to cause bidders to stay away from
an auction by threats, gifts, promises or any other
artifice
• The mere attempt to cause bidders not to
participate in the said public auction by threats,
gifts or promise will already give rise to the crime.
It is not necessary that the bidders would not
actually participate.
Elements
1. There be a public auction
2. The accused attempted to cause the bidders to
stay away from that public auction.
3. It was done by threats, gifts, promises or any other
artifice.
4. The accused had the intent to cause the reduction
of the price of the thing auctioned.
In both instances, the intent of the offender is to cause the
reduction of the price of the thing which is the subject
of the auction. When you say public auction, it is vested
with public interest. The intent is to get the best price for
the thing subject of the auction. If there are no bidders, you
cannot the best price, only one bid, then the said property
will be given to you. So, the public will be deceived. They
will not be able to get the best price for the thing which is
the subject of the auction. If the intent of the offender in
making the said bidders not to participate is to cause the
reduction of the price, then he can be held liable under
article 185.
ARTICLE 186. MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN
RESTRAINT OF TRADE
Article 186. Monopolies and combinations in restraint
of trade. - The penalty of prision correccional in its
minimum period or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos,
or both, shall be imposed upon:
57 of 188
1. Any person who shall enter into any contract or
agreement or shall take part in any conspiracy or
combination in the form of a trust or otherwise, in restraint
of trade or commerce or to prevent by artificial means free
competition in the market;
2. Any person who shall monopolize any merchandise or
object of trade or commerce, or shall combine with any
other person or persons to monopolize and merchandise
or object in order to alter the price thereof by spreading
false rumors or making use of any other article to restrain
free competition in the market;
3. Any person who, being a manufacturer, producer, or
processor of any merchandise or object of commerce or an
importer of any merchandise or object of commerce from
any foreign country, either as principal or agent, wholesaler
or retailer, shall combine, conspire or agree in any manner
with any person likewise engaged in the manufacture,
production, processing, assembling or importation of such
merchandise or object of commerce or with any other
persons not so similarly engaged for the purpose of making
transactions prejudicial to lawful commerce, or of
increasing the market price in any part of the Philippines,
of any such merchandise or object of commerce
manufactured, produced, processed, assembled in or
imported into the Philippines, or of any article in the
manufacture of which such manufactured, produced, or
imported merchandise or object of commerce is used.
If the offense mentioned in this article affects any food
substance, motor fuel or lubricants, or other articles of
prime necessity, the penalty shall be that of prision mayor
in its maximum and medium periods it being sufficient for
the imposition thereof that the initial steps have been taken
toward carrying out the purposes of the combination.
Any property possessed under any contract or by any
combination mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, and
being the subject thereof, shall be forfeited to the
Government of the Philippines.
Whenever any of the offenses described above is
committed by a corporation or association, the president
and each one of its agents or representatives in the
Philippines in case of a foreign corporation or association,
who shall have knowingly permitted or failed to prevent the
commission of such offense, shall be held liable as
principals thereof.
ACTS PUNISHED:
I. Combination to prevent free competition in the
market
This is committed by any person who shall enter into any
contract or agreement or taking part in any combination
whether in the form of trust or otherwise, in restraint of
trade or commerce or to prevent by artificial means free
competition in the market.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
II. Monopoly to restrain free competition in the
market
This is committed by monopolizing any merchandise or
object of trade or commerce or by combining with any other
person or persons in order to alter the prices thereof by
spreading false rumors or making use of any other artifice
to restrain free competition in the market.
III. Manufacturer, producer or processor or
importer combining, conspiring or agreeing
with any person to make transactions
prejudicial to lawful commerce to increase the
market price of merchandise.
The first two acts under Article 186 can be committed by
any person and not necessarily by manufacturers,
producer or processors.
The third act however can be committed only by
manufacturers, processors, producers and importers who
combined with any other person or persons in order to
commit a transaction prejudicial to lawful commerce or to
increase the market price of any merchandise or object of
commerce.
Whether it be the first, second or third act, the mere
conspiracy in order to restrain or to prevent free
competition will already give rise to the crime. It is not
necessary that there be actual restraint in trade or
commerce.
Q: What if Petron, Caltex and Shell connived,
combined and agreed with one another to hoard fuel.
They know that the fuel prices will increase by March
and so they decided to hoard it. Can they be held liable
under Article 186?
A: Juridical corporations cannot be the subject of criminal
action. First, it cannot be said that juridical persons can act
with intent. Second, you cannot imprison a juridical person
in case of conviction. So if the offender is a juridical entity,
who shall be held liable?
The president, the directors or any of the members of the
said corporation, association or partnership, who
knowingly permitted and allowed this combination or
monopoly in restraint of trade or commerce. Note that they
must have knowingly permitted the same otherwise, they
cannot be held criminally liable.
If the objects, which are the subject of this monopoly or
combination in restraint of trade or commerce are prime
commodities such as food, motor fuel, lubricants, it is not
even necessary that there be conspiracy. A mere
proposal, a mere intial step to hoard, to prevent free
competition in the market will already give rise to the
crime.
58 of 188
Section Two
Frauds in commerce and industry
ARTICLE 187. IMPORTATION AND DISPOSITION
OF FALSELY MARKED ARTICLES
Article 187. Importation and disposition of falsely marked
articles or merchandise made of gold, silver, or other
precious metals or their alloys. - The penalty of prision
correccional or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos, or
both, shall be imposed on any person who shall knowingly
import or sell or dispose of any article or merchandise
made of gold, silver, or other precious metals, or their
alloys, with stamps, brands, or marks which fail to indicate
the actual fineness or quality of said metals or alloys.
Any stamp, brand, label, or mark shall be deemed to fail to
indicate the actual fineness of the article on which it is
engraved, printed, stamped, labeled or attached, when the
rest of the article shows that the quality or fineness thereof
is less by more than one-half karat, if made of gold, and
less by more than four one-thousandth, if made of silver,
than what is shown by said stamp, brand, label or mark.
But in case of watch cases and flatware made of gold, the
actual fineness of such gold shall not be less by more than
three one-thousandth than the fineness indicated by said
stamp, brand, label, or mark.
This is committed by any person who shall import, sell, or
dispose any article or merchandise made of gold, silver,
other precious materials, or their alloys.
Elements of Importation and Disposition of Falsely
Marked Articles
1. The offender imports, sells or disposes any article
or merchandise made of gold, silver, other
precious materials, or their alloys; and
2. That the stamps, brands or marks of those articles
or merchandise fail to indicate the actual fitness or
quality of said metals or alloys.
3. The offender knows that the stamps, brands or
marks fail to indicate the actual fitness or quality of
the metals or alloys.
This is considered a criminal act because the offender,
despite knowing that the articles or merchandise that he
imported are misbranded, he still imports the same, sells
the same or disposes the same
Mere importation is a punishable act, therefore it is not
necessary for the offender to become liable under Article
187 that he must have sold the misbranded articles or that
he must have disposed the article because mere
importation will already give rise to the crime.
ARTICLE 188. SUBSISTING AND ALTERING
TRADEMARK, TRADE-NAMES, OR SERVICE MARKS
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets

ARTICLE 189. UNFAIR COMPETITION, FRAUDULENT

REGISTRATION OF TRADEMARK, TRADE-NAME OR
SERVICE MARK, FRAUDULENT DESIGNATION OF
ORIGIN, AND FALSE DESCRIPTION

[Articles 188-189 are repealed by the Intellectual Property

Code of the Philippines.]

59 of 188
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
TITLE V.
CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER
PROHIBITED DRUGS
Articles were repealed by
COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF
2002 (R.A. No. 9165)
SECTION 5. SALE, TRADING, ADMINISTRATION,
DISPENSATION, DELIVERY, DISTRIBUTION AND
TRANSPORTATION
Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation,
Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous
Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and
a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall
be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by
law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give
away to another, distribute dispatch in transit or transport
any dangerous drug, including any and all species of
opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved,
or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12)
years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine
ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00)
to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be
imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law,
shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to
another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any
controlled precursor and essential chemical, or shall act as
a broker in such transactions.
If the sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery,
distribution or transportation of any dangerous drug and/or
controlled precursor and essential chemical transpires
within one hundred (100) meters from the school, the
maximum penalty shall be imposed in every case.
For drug pushers who use minors or mentally
incapacitated individuals as runners, couriers and
messengers, or in any other capacity directly connected to
the dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and
essential chemical trade, the maximum penalty shall be
imposed in every case.
If the victim of the offense is a minor or a mentally
incapacitated individual, or should a dangerous drug
and/or a controlled precursor and essential chemical
involved in any offense herein provided be the proximate
cause of death of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty
provided for under this Section shall be imposed.
The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall
be imposed upon any person who organizes, manages or
60 of 188
acts as a "financier" of any of the illegal activities
prescribed in this Section.
The penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty
(20) years of imprisonment and a fine ranging from One
hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred
thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any
person, who acts as a "protector/coddler" of any violator of
the provisions under this Section.
ILLEGAL TRANSPORTATION
OF DANGEROUS DRUGS
Q: There was a checkpoint. There was a motorcycle.
Upon seeing the checkpoint, the motorcycle decided
to turn around. X, the driver did not want to pass.
Nevertheless, he could not reach his destination
without passing the checkpoint. He went through the
checkpoint.
Since he was so afraid and nervous in passing the
checkpoint, the motorcycle slid, and X fell together
with the motorcycle. The police officers manning the
checkpoint came up to X, wanting to help him. As they
were lifting X, they found on this side, tapped on the
waist of X a loose firearm. They asked X for the license,
for the registration. X said it is not registered. The
police officers confiscated the said pistol, and
thereafter placed handcuffs on X and informed him of
his constitutional rights. Since X was caught in
flagrante delicto violating the law, he was subjected to
a valid search, ang his motorcycle was subjected to a
motorcycle search. When they opened the container at
the back of the motorcycle, they saw this box which is
the size of a color green double mint. They opened it,
they looked at the double mint. When they opened it, it
was not double mint. It contains six elongated plastic
sachets of shabu. And so, the said shabu was
confiscated. Positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride, what crime/s is/are committed by X?
A: X is liable under section 5 of R.A. 9165, that is illegal
transportation of dangerous drugs. Supreme Court
said, to transfer dangerous drugs is to carry or convey from
one place to another. It is immaterial whether the said
dangerous drugs reached its destination or not. The
essence of transportation of dangerous drugs is the
movement of the said dangerous drugs from one place to
another. In this case, even if it did not reach its place of
destination, he is still liable under Sec. 5 R.A. 9165, illegal
transportation of dangerous drugs.
Q: X was about to go to Malaysia. He was the carrier,
he had dangerous drugs of shabu inside his luggage
And so, he went to NAIA and thereafter it was
discovered. The said drugs inside his trolley bags
were discovered. When it was opened, the drugs were
neatly packed inside the said luggage, and it was
discovered that he is bound to go to Malaysia to hand
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
over these dangerous drugs shabu to the said person
in Malaysia. What crime is committed by X?
A: The Supreme Court said X is liable for attempted
transportation of dangerous drugs, that is Sec. 5 of R.A.
9165 in relation to Sec. 26 of R.A. 9165. There is the
attempt to transfer, to convey, to move the dangerous
drugs from the Philippines to a foreign country (Malaysia).
It is attempted according to the Supreme Court in relation
to Sec. 26 of R.A. 9165. A mere attempt to transfer
dangerous drugs, a mere attempt to commit any of the acts
under Sec. 5 of R.A. 9165 is punished under Sec. 26 of
R.A. 9165. And now, Supreme Court said, the penalty for
an attempt is the same as the penalty as if it is in the
consummated stage. So, if the penalty is life imprisonment
to death, the same penalty even if it is in the attempted
stage as if it is also consummated. Nag-iba lang yung
designation, attempted, pero pareho pa rin ng penalty.
ILLEGAL SALE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS
Q: The police officers based on their surveillance knew
that W is engaged in drug pushing. And so, they
planned this buy bust operation. The police officers
assigned PO1 X, a neophyte who is new in the area.
“Hindi pa nakikita ng mukha mo ang mga tao, ikaw ang
magiging poseur buyer”. Because of that, P01 X was
designated as the poseur buyer in the said buy bust
operation. Police officer X was given the marked
money. The marked money was two P500 bills, P1000.
Thereafter, they told him to give him the signal by
removing his hat the moment the said transaction was
already committed.
On the day of the said buy bust operation, the police
officers together with Police officer X, the designated
poseur buyer went to the place, it was only police
officer X, the poseur buyer who went to the house of
W, and thereafter he told W he was going to buy shabu
worth P1000. W took from his pocket four plastic
sachets of shabu. He handed it to police officer X, and
police officer X gave the money and then thereafter
police officer X removed his hat to signal that the
transaction is complete. The police officers came
rushing, W was arrested. W was charged with illegal
sale of dangerous drugs. Is W liable as charged?
A: Yes, W is liable as charged.
Elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs
1. The buyer and the seller are clearly identified.
Who is the buyer? Police officer X, he was
designated as the poseur buyer. Who is the seller?
W, the drug peddler.
2. The corpus delicti and the price must be
established.
61 of 188
In every prosecution for dangerous drugs, the
corpus delicti is the drugs itself. In this case, four
plastic sachets of shabu, and the price, P1000.
3. The said corpus delicti must be handed by the said
seller to the said poseur.
In this case, the seller gave four plastic sachets of
shabu to police officer X.
All the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs are
present, therefore the said accused, W, shall be liable for
illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
Supreme Court said, in illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the
sale is already consummated the moment there is this
exchange of dangerous drugs and money. Since it is
sale, it is necessary that money, the price must be
established because it is illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
SECTION 11. POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS
Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - The
penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging
from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten
million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any
person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any
dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of
the degree of purity thereof:
(1) 10 grams or more of opium;
(2) 10 grams or more of morphine;
(3) 10 grams or more of heroin;
(4) 10 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride;
(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride
or "shabu";
(6) 10 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin
oil;
(7) 500 grams or more of marijuana; and
(8) 10 grams or more of other dangerous drugs such as,
but not limited to, methylenedioxymethamphetamine
(MDA) or "ecstasy", paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA),
trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA), lysergic acid diethylamine
(LSD), gamma hydroxyamphetamine (GHB), and those
similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their
derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the
quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic
requirements, as determined and promulgated by the
Board in accordance to Section 93, Article XI of this Act.
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the
foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as
follows:
(1) Life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred
thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand
pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantity of methamphetamine
hydrochloride or "shabu" is ten (10) grams or more but less
than fifty (50) grams;
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
(2) Imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to
life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred
thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand
pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs
are five (5) grams or more but less than ten (10) grams of
opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine
hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil,
methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu", or other
dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or
"ecstasy", PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly
designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives,
without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity
possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or three
hundred (300) grams or more but less than five (hundred)
500) grams of marijuana; and
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to
twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred
thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand
pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs
are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin,
cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or
marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or
"shabu", or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited
to, MDMA or "ecstasy", PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those
similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their
derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the
quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic
requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of
marijuana.
Under Sec. 11 of R.A. 9165, the law punishes illegal
possession of dangerous drugs.
Elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs
1. That the offender is found in possession of any
article or item, which identified to be dangerous
drugs;
2. He is not authorized by law to possess the same;
3. He freely and consciously possesses the said
dangerous drugs.
Under the first element, he was found in possession. When
you say possession, it is not only actual or physical
possession, it also includes constructive possession. The
moment the dangerous drugs is in the place under the
control and custody of the said offender, it is indeed
constructive possession.
Under the third element, he freely and consciously
possesses the said dangerous drugs. There is on his part,
animus possidendi. There is intent to possess. He knows
it is drugs, nevertheless he possesses it. There is intent to
possess.
The first and third element must be proven by the state.
The first and third element, the burden to prove these two
62 of 188
elements lies on the prosecution and the state. However,
insofar as the second element is concerned, the
prosecution and the state need not prove it because the
law presumes it.
The second element, the offender is not authorized by law
to possess the dangerous drugs. The second element is
presumed by law because according to the Supreme
Court, dangerous drugs are per se contraband. Since
dangerous drugs are per se contraband, no person is
allowed by law to possess it. Therefore, the second
element is presumed by law. Any person found in
possession of dangerous drugs is not authorized by law to
possess the same. The burden is on the defense to prove
that the said accused is authorized to possess the same.
May this be for medical purposes, that is the only cure, etc.
but the law presumes it, the burden is on the accused to
prove otherwise.
Q: People vs. X for illegal possession of dangerous
drugs. It was stated therein, illegal possession of
dangerous drugs that the assigned police officers are
hereby ordered to search the house of X located in this
a particular place, and to seize and confiscate an
undetermined quantity of methamphetamine
hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu, and
paraphernalia used in packing shabu, and to bring it to
the court.
The police officers went to the said place, and they
served the search warrant to X, they were able to
confiscate shabu, dangerous drugs, paraphernalia,
inventorying the same, photographs the same, and
thereafter, positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride, X was charged for illegal possession.
There was a motion to quash the said warrant. Motion
to quash the said warrant and that the said shabu
confiscated be inadmissible in evidence because
according to the counsel of X, the said search warrant
failed to comply with the requisites for the valid
issuance of a search warrant because it failed to
specifically state the things to be seized because what
was stated in the search warrant is undetermined
quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride, and
paraphernalia used in the packing of shabu. Therefore,
it failed to expressly state the things to be seized,
undetermined quantity. Should the search warrant be
quashed? Are the drugs seized admissible in
evidence?
A: YES, it is admissible in evidence. The wordings in the
search warrant “undetermined quantity of
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, and drug
paraphernalia used in repacking shabu”, Supreme Court
said it complies with the requisite of particularity as to the
things to be seized. An undetermined quantity of
methamphetamine hydrochloride already provides a
meaningful restriction on the things that can be seized by
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
the police officers. Therefore, it already prevented
exploratory searches.
Based on this, the only thing they can seize is shabu, not
money, marijuana, nor ecstasy – only shabu because of
the statement “undetermined quantity of
methamphetamine hydrochloride”. Except, if they see the
other dangerous drugs inadvertently, in that case, they
are bound to seize it. But, if in the conduct of the search
they were able to see other drugs, they cannot seize those.
They can only seize what has been specifically stated in
the search warrant.
Here, it was specifically stated that they can only take,
seize, and confiscate methamphetamine hydrochloride in
an indeterminate portion or quantity. The judge will not put
100 packs, how will the judge know that it is really 100
packs when in fact he is not in the vicinity? So, it must be
undetermined quantity. The Supreme Court said that it
already provides a meaningful restriction of the things to
be seized and taken by the police officers and it already
prevents exploratory searches. The Supreme Court said,
YES, it is a valid search, and the accused is convicted.
SECTION 13. POSSESSION DURING PARTIES,
SOCIAL GATHERINGS, OR MEETINGS
Section 13. Possession of Dangerous Drugs During
Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings. – Any person
found possessing any dangerous drug during a party, or at
a social gathering or meeting, or in the proximate company
of at least two (2) persons, shall suffer the maximum
penalties provided for in Section 11 of this Act, regardless
of the quantity and purity of such dangerous drugs.
Q: The police officers received a call from their reliable
informant, “Sir may naglalaro po dito ng cara y cruz
dito sa Kalye Pagasa. Dito po sa dulo. Bilis bilisan niyo
lang, Sir.” The police officers, upon receiving the
information, immediately went to the said place. They
found 5 men, A, B, C, D, and E. They were all playing
cara y cruz. The police officers arrested these men
who were violating PD No. 1603 as amended or Illegal
Gambling. Since they were caught inflagrante delicto
committing a crime, they were placed in handcuffs,
informed or their constitutional rights, and thereafter
each of them were frisked and bodily searched.
When A was searched, inside the pocket of his pants,
the police officers found a plastic sachet of shabu.
When B was searched, inside the pocket of his pants,
the police officers also found a small plastic sachet of
shabu. When C, D and E were searched, the police
officers did not find any. So only A and B were found
with plastic sachets of shabu. When it was brought to
the PNP Crime Laboratory for testing, it contains 0.001
mg of shabu. Thereafter, aside from violation of Illegal
Gambling, A and B were also charged with violation of
Section 11 of RA No. 9165 or Illegal Possession of
Dangerous Drugs.
63 of 188
After trial on the merits, the judge convicted A and B
for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs. What
penalty should the court impose on A and B?
A: The Supreme Court said, in the case of Plan and
Enolva v. People (G.R. No. 247589, 24 August 2020) that
the penalty to be imposed is life imprisonment, the
maximum penalty prescribed. The crime committed is
Section 11 in relation to Section 13 of RA No. 9165. Under
Section 13, if a person is found in possession of dangerous
drugs in a party, in a social gathering, in a meeting, or in
the proximate company of at least two or more persons,
the maximum penalty prescribed by law should be the one
imposed. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
Therefore, regardless of the quantity and purity of the
dangerous drugs, even if it is 0.001 (‘kahit ga-tinga pa
yan”), if you are found in the possession of the same in the
company of at least two or more persons, the penalty
should be life imprisonment.
Q: X was found in possession of shabu which amounts
to 9.38 grams. Under Section 11, with that amount of
dangerous drugs, in that quantity, the penalty is 20
years and 1 day to life imprisonment. Therefore, after
trial on the merits, the judge imposed upon him the
maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Is the judge
correct?
A: The Supreme Court in the case of People v. Lim said,
no, the judge is wrong. The Supreme Court said, the
maximum penalty of life imprisonment may only be
imposed if the offender found in possession of the
dangerous drugs is in a party, in a social gathering, in a
meeting, or in the company of at least two or more persons.
In this case, he was found alone, not in a party, not in a
meeting, not in the company of at least two or more
persons. Therefore, the penalty to be imposed upon him
cannot be life imprisonment. In this case, the Supreme
Court imposed upon him an indeterminate sentence of 20
years and 1 day to 30 years.
SECTION 15. ILLEGAL USE
Section 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs. – A person
apprehended or arrested, who is found to be positive for
use of any dangerous drug, after a confirmatory test, shall
be imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6) months
rehabilitation in a government center for the first offense,
subject to the provisions of Article VIII of this Act. If
apprehended using any dangerous drug for the second
time, he/she shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment
ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12)
years and a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos
(P200,000.00): Provided, That this Section shall not be
applicable where the person tested is also found to have in
his/her possession such quantity of any dangerous drug
provided for under Section 11 of this Act, in which case the
provisions stated therein shall apply.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
Q: X is a professor at the UST Faculty of Civil Law.
Among the policy of the University is that they will
randomly pick professors who shall be subjected to
drug testing. For that month, Professor X was among
those random professors that will be subjected to drug
testing. So, he saw his name in the bulletin boarding
among those who will be subjected to random drug
testing. Professor X went to the UST Hospital and after
drug testing, he was found positive for use of
dangerous drugs in the confirmatory test.
Can the UST Faculty of Civil Law file a case for Illegal
Use of Dangerous Drugs against Professor X who was
found positive for the use of dangerous drugs after the
confirmatory test?
Q: X just passed the CPA Licensure Examination. He
applied to one of the biggest accountancy firms in
Makati. He applied at Sycip and was immediately
accepted because he topped the CPA Board Exam. It
is a policy in the said company that any employee can
be randomly picked for drug testing and although he
was just a neophyte in the said company, during the
said picking, his name was picked so he was one of
those to be subjected to the mandatory drug testing.
He was tested and was found positive for the use of
dangerous drugs. Can he be charged for Illegal Use of
Dangerous Drugs under Section 15 of RA No. 9165?
A: The first problem about the UST Professor and the
second problem about the accountant, even if they were
found positive for the use of dangerous drugs, they cannot
be prosecuted for Illegal Use of Dangerous Drugs
under Section 15 of RA No. 9165. In the case of SJS
Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board, the Supreme Court
upheld the constitutionality of Section 36 (d) and (e)
wherein these so called “mandatory random suspicion less
drug testing” conducted by school institutions and private
companies among their students or among their
employees and/or officers. The Supreme Court held that
these are constitutional.
Why? According to the Supreme Court, the moment these
students enrolled in this university, moment the employees
applied for work in this private company, they waived their
right to privacy. They knew that it is the policy of the said
company to conduct mandatory random suspicion less
drug testing, nevertheless, they still entered and enrolled
in the said campus or company. Therefore, in doing so,
they waived their right to privacy. Hence, the Supreme
Court said, it is constitutional.
However, although it is constitutional, the Supreme Court
held in People v. Solano that those found positive for use
of Dangerous Drugs based on mandatory random
suspicion less drug testing cannot be prosecuted for
violation of Section 15. Why? If you will look at Section
15 Use of Dangerous Drugs, the first paragraph states that
a person apprehended or arrested found positive for use
64 of 188
of dangerous drugs shall be penalized. The phrase is a
person apprehended or arrested found positive for use
of dangerous drugs. Therefore, the Supreme Court said,
the word person immediately follows apprehended or
arrested. Hence, only those apprehended or arrested
and thereafter subjected to drug testing and found
positive can be charged with violation of Section 15.
In this case, Professor X was not apprehended or arrested.
CPA X was not apprehended or arrested. They were just
subjected to drug testing because of the policy for
mandatory random suspicion less drug testing. Therefore,
they cannot be charged with violation of Section 15, R.A.
No. 9165.
Q: The police officers got a report that X was extorting
money from someone. So, they planned his
entrapment procedure in the said restaurant and on
the date of the exchange of money. The moment X
accepted the said money, NBI agents immediately
arrived, and he was arrested. The NBI agents noticed
that X seems to be under the influence of drugs, so,
before bringing him to the police station for
investigation, he was first brough to the PNP Crime
Lab for drug testing, he was ordered to subject his
urine for drug test, but he refused, and he was asking
for his counsel. However, the police officers prevailed
upon him and he subjected his urine for drug test.
After confirmatory test, X was found positive for use
of dangerous drugs. So, he was charged with violation
of Section 15 of R.A. 9165 – Illegal Use of Dangerous
Drugs. X was convicted. Is X liable for Illegal Use of
Dangerous Drugs?
A: The Supreme Court said NO.
Elements of Illegal Use of Dangerous Drugs,
as enunciated in in the case of Dela Cruz v. People
1. That the offender has been apprehended or
arrested for the commission of a crime;
2. The said offender is subjected to a drug test;
3. After a confirmatory test, he was found positive for
use of dangerous drugs.
First element. The word “crime” does not refer to any crime
punished by any law, the word crime refers to crimes
punished under R.A. 9165. Applying this in the case, X
(Dela Cruz) was apprehended for robbery extortion, he
was not apprehended for any crime punishable under R.A.
9165. He was apprehended for robbery extortion in an
entrapment procedure. Therefore, the police officer has no
right to forcibly subject him to a drug test because he was
not caught committing any violation of R.A. 9165. Such act
of the police of subjecting X to a drug test amounted to a
violation of X’s right to privacy. Therefore, the Supreme
Court made it clear that in the first element of Illegal Use of
Dangerous Drugs, the word “crime” refers to crimes
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
punished under R.A. 9165 and not to any other crime
punished by any other law.
SECTION 21. PROCEDURE IN THE SEIZURE AND
CONFISCATION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated,
Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant
Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or
Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA shall take charge and
have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential
chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or
laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or
surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and
control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the
same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from
whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or
his/her representative or counsel, a representative from
the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any
elected public official who shall be required to sign the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure
of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs,
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment,
the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic
Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination
results, which shall be done under oath by the forensic
laboratory examiner, shall be issued within twenty-four (24)
hours after the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That
when the volume of the dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential
chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within
the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall
be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of
dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic
laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification
shall be issued on the completed forensic laboratory
examination on the same within the next twenty-four (24)
hours;
(4) After the filing of the criminal case, the Court shall,
within seventy-two (72) hours, conduct an ocular
inspection of the confiscated, seized and/or surrendered
dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, including
the instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory
equipment, and through the PDEA shall within twenty-four
(24) hours thereafter proceed with the destruction or
burning of the same, in the presence of the accused or the
person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or
seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
65 of 188
representative from the media and the DOJ, civil society
groups and any elected public official. The Board shall
draw up the guidelines on the manner of proper disposition
and destruction of such item/s which shall be borne by the
offender: Provided, That those item/s of lawful commerce,
as determined by the Board, shall be donated, used or
recycled for legitimate purposes: Provided, further, That a
representative sample, duly weighed and recorded is
retained;
(5) The Board shall then issue a sworn certification as to
the fact of destruction or burning of the subject item/s
which, together with the representative sample/s in the
custody of the PDEA, shall be submitted to the court
having jurisdiction over the case. In all instances, the
representative sample/s shall be kept to a minimum
quantity as determined by the Board;
(6) The alleged offender or his/her representative or
counsel shall be allowed to personally observe all of the
above proceedings and his/her presence shall not
constitute an admission of guilt. In case the said offender
or accused refuses or fails to appoint a representative after
due notice in writing to the accused or his/her counsel
within seventy-two (72) hours before the actual burning or
destruction of the evidence in question, the Secretary of
Justice shall appoint a member of the public attorney's
office to represent the former;
(7) After the promulgation and judgment in the criminal
case wherein the representative sample/s was presented
as evidence in court, the trial prosecutor shall inform the
Board of the final termination of the case and, in turn, shall
request the court for leave to turn over the said
representative sample/s to the PDEA for proper disposition
and destruction within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt
of the same; and
(8) Transitory Provision: a) Within twenty-four (24) hours
from the effectivity of this Act, dangerous drugs defined
herein which are presently in possession of law
enforcement agencies shall, with leave of court, be burned
or destroyed, in the presence of representatives of the
Court, DOJ, Department of Health (DOH) and the
accused/and or his/her counsel, and, b) Pending the
organization of the PDEA, the custody, disposition, and
burning or destruction of seized/surrendered dangerous
drugs provided under this Section shall be implemented by
the DOH
The apprehending team having initial custody of the
dangerous drugs seized or confiscated shall physically
inventory the same and photograph the same in the
presence of the person from whom the dangerous drug
was taken or confiscated, or his representative or his
counsel or any representative from the DOJ, or from the
media, and any elected public official. The inventory,
marking, and photograph must be done in the presence of
these persons.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
Under RA 10640, the following must be present during the
inventory and photographing:
1) Person from whom the dangerous drugs were taken
(accused) or his counsel or representative;
2) Duly elected public official; and
3) A representative from the National Prosecution
Service (DOJ) OR a representative from the
media.
Note:
Section 21 has been amended by R.A. 10640. Based
on the amendment brought about by R.A. 10640,
instead of the conjunctive word “and” between
“representative from the National Prosecution Service”
and “representative from the media”, we now have the
disjunctive word “or” in between them. So, either of the
two. It is no longer required that both representative
from the National Prosecution Service (DOJ) and a
representative from the media must be present. Any of
those two suffices.
The Supreme Court has been so strict in the presence of
these people. In many cases, only the accused and the
Barangay Captain are present – acquitted; only the
accused and a media representative is present – acquitted.
According to the Supreme Court, Section 21 must be
STRICTLY complied with.
Under Section 21 or R.A. 9165 as amended by R.A. 10640,
the marking of the pieces of evidence – the marking of the
dangerous drugs, the making of inventory, and the taking
of photographs must be done immediately. The word
“immediately” means right there at the scene of the
confiscation, right there at the scene of the crime, right
there at the scene of the seizure.
PEOPLE v. ABDULAH
G.R. No. 243941 | 11 March 2020
FACTS: The police officer received a call that there were
2 Muslim women engaged in selling dangerous drugs.
They planned a buy-bust operation. It was a success. The
Muslim women were arrested for illegal sale. The plastic
sachets were confiscated. The confiscated items were
placed in a bag. Thereafter, the police officers, after seizing
the dangerous drugs, went to the Barangay Hall. There,
the inventory and photographing were made in the
presence of the accused, the Barangay Captain, and a
representative from the media, everything was complied
with. So, the Muslim women were convicted by the RTC
and such conviction was affirmed by the CA.
SC: It should be an acquittal. The amendment brought
about by R.A. 10640 requires that the marking, the taking
of photographs, the making of the inventory must be done
immediately at the crime scene.
Here, the said drugs were placed in a bag and then brought
to the Barangay Hall. In between that area, things may
66 of 188
happen. The said marking and taking of photographs was
not made in the scene of the crime. Therefore, Section 21
as amended has not been complied with.
Based on the evidence presented, when the arresting
police officers were asked as to why they did not mark it in
the said area, the police officers said that it is because the
said area was a Muslim area. They were afraid that is why
they brought the confiscated items to the Barangay Hall.
The Supreme Court said that hatred against Muslim
community Islamophobia is not a justifiable ground for not
complying with Section 21 of R.A. 9165. It must be done
immediately right at the scene of the crime, at the scene
confiscation unless there a valid or justifiable reason.
There are instances before wherein the Supreme Court
sustained or affirmed the conviction of many accused
convicted of violation of R.A. 9165 even if Section 21 was
not strictly complied with. Because then, according to the
Supreme Court, as long as there is a (1) justifiable ground
for substantial compliance; and (2) the apprehending
officers were able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary
value of the dangerous drugs, that will suffice (that is
before kasi ngayon, magkulang lang ng isang witness,
acquittal na). But recently, just an absence of media, of a
barangay official, just the marking being done in the police
station or in another place, it will always be an acquittal.
Recently, the Supreme Court would strictly require that
Section 21 be complied with.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE
The Chain of Custody Rule is the duly recognized marking
of the dangerous drugs from the time of its seizure to the
time it is brought to the crime lab for testing, to the time it
is given to the custodian for safekeeping to the time it is
presented to the court as evidence, to the time it is given
to the PDEA for destruction.
The purpose is to ensure that there is no change,
alteration, or contamination of the dangerous drugs. That
the dangerous drug seized and confiscated from the
accused would be the very same dangerous drug tested at
the forensic crime lab and would be the very same
dangerous drug presented in court as evidence against the
said accused. Therefore, any person having temporary
custody of the dangerous drugs must place their signature
and the time wherein they were in custody of the said
dangerous drugs on the plastic sachet.
SECTION 23. PLEA-BARGAINING
Section 23. Plea-Bargaining Provision. – Any person
charged under any provision of this Act regardless of the
imposable penalty shall not be allowed to avail of the
provision on plea-bargaining.
Q: X was charged with Illegal Sale of Dangerous
Drugs. During arraignment. X pleaded not guilty.
During pre-trial, the counsel of X, Atty. Y, prayed to the
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
Court that they be allowed to enter into a valid plea-
bargaining agreement, that accused X will plead guilty
to the lesser crime of Illegal Possession of Drug
Paraphernalia, your honor. The judge granted the said
wish. Is the judge correct?
A: YES. Sec. 23 of RA 9165 which prohibits the act of
entering into a valid plea-bargaining agreement has been
declared by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional in the
case of Estipona v. Judge Lobrigo.
In the case of Estipona v. Judge Lobrigo, the Supreme
Court said that Sec. 23 which prohibits plea-bargaining
agreement – pleading to a lesser crime – in case of
violation of RA 9165 is unconstitutional because it
encroaches upon the power of the Supreme Court to
provides rules and regulation for the judiciary.
Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the power
to provide rules and regulations for the judiciary. Since
these rules and regulations embodied in the Rules of Court
allows plea bargaining agreement, that applies even to
violation of RA 9165. Therefore, Sec. 23 of RA 9165 is
unconstitutional.
Q: X was charged with Illegal Sale of Dangerous
Drugs. During arraignment, he pleaded not guilty.
During his pre-trial, his counsel said “Your honor, we
move and pray that we be allowed to enter in a valid
plea-bargaining agreement. The accused in this case
would like to plead guilty to the lesser crime of illegal
possession of drug paraphernalia under Sec. 12.”
The fiscal objected. He said, “We will allow him to
plead guilty only to illegal possession of dangerous
drugs, your honor.” The judge, despite the objection
raised by the public prosecutor, granted him of the
same. The fiscal said, “Your honor, I register my
continuing objection.”
X was rearraigned and after said re-arraignment for
illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, he was
convicted only of violation of Sec. 12. The fiscal was
determined and raised the case to the Supreme Court.
Is the judge correct?
A: NO. Supreme Court said that in every plea-bargaining
agreement, there must be the consent of the private
complainant and the state. The representative of the
state (the offended party in victimless crimes like violation
of RA 9165) is the public prosecutor. Without the consent
given by the public prosecutor to the said plea-bargaining
agreement, the said plea-bargaining agreement is null and
void. So, the case is remanded for trial.
SECTION 26. NON-APPLICABILITY OF
PROBATION LAW
Section 24. Non-Applicability of the Probation Law for
Drug Traffickers and Pushers. – Any person convicted for
67 of 188
drug trafficking or pushing under this Act, regardless of the
penalty imposed by the Court, cannot avail of the privilege
granted by the Probation Law or Presidential Decree No.
968, as amended.
Q: X was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
During arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. During pre-
trial, his counsel moved and prayed that X be allowed
to enter into a valid plea-bargaining agreement. He
wanted to plead guilty to illegal possession of drug
paraphernalia under Sec. 12. With the consent of the
public prosecutor, the judge granted it. So, X was
rearraigned – illegal possession of drug paraphernalia,
violation of Sec. 12. He pleaded guilty to Sec. 12 and
the judge imposed the maximum penalty – 4 years
imprisonment. Since the penalty imposed by the court
on X was maximum of 4 years, his counsel said, “Your
honor, we are going to immediately file an application
for probation.” The counsel filed for the same which
the trial court denied. “You have been charged with
illegal sale of dangerous drugs and under Sec. 24, in
case of persons convicted of drug pushing or drug
trafficking, probation is not allowed. You only pleaded
guilty to a lesser crime of illegal possession of drug
paraphernalia.”
Is the judge correct?
A: NO. In the case of Pascua v. People, the Supreme
Court said that whether it is under Sec. 24 of RA 9165 or
under the probation law as amended, what is material is
not the crime charged, but the crime for which the accused
has been convicted. That should be the basis of the
privilege to apply for probation.
In this case, although X was charged with illegal sale of
dangerous drugs, based on a valid plea-bargaining
agreement, he was only convicted of illegal possession of
drug paraphernalia. Since the penalty prescribed by law
and the penalty imposed by the court is a maximum of four
(4) years, it is within the probationable penalty of six (6)
years. Therefore, he should be given the privilege to apply
for probation. He should be given at least the privilege to
apply, because whether to grant it or not will still depend
on the trial court, not on the Supreme Court.
SECTION 26. ATTEMPT OR CONSPIRACY
Section 26. Attempt or Conspiracy. – Any attempt or
conspiracy to commit the following unlawful acts shall be
penalized by the same penalty prescribed for the
commission of the same as provided under this Act:
(a) Importation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled
precursor and essential chemical;
(b) Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery,
distribution and transportation of any dangerous drug
and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical;
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
(c) Maintenance of a den, dive or resort where any
dangerous drug is used in any form;
(d) Manufacture of any dangerous drug and/or controlled
precursor and essential chemical; and
(e) Cultivation or culture of plants which are sources of
dangerous drugs.
Q: The Chief PNP of Taguig received a report that in
this particular barangay, particularly in a store, there
are always drug deals. The Chief PNP of Taguig told
Police Officer X and Y, “You go to the said place. You
disguise yourselves in order to catch this drug
pusher.” So, Police Officers X and Y took off their
police uniform and dressed in civilian clothes. After
dressing up, they went to the place pretending to be
civilians. They seated on the bench in front of the
store.
After a few minutes, a man and a woman approached
Police Officer X and Y. The said man (W) and his wife
told Officer Y, “Gusto nyong umiskor?” Police Officer
X and Y responded, “Oo, meron ka ba?” W said, “Oo
naman, meron ako. Dos (P200) ang isa.” Police Officer
Y said, “Patingin naman.” W and his wife opened their
palms. In the palm of their hands, there were plastic
sachets of shabu. Police Officers X and Y immediately
arrested W. The wife was able to run. Thereafter, they
immediately told him, “You are under arrest. We are
police officers.”
What crime/crimes is committed by W?
A: W is NOT LIABLE for illegal sale of dangerous
drugs. He is liable only for attempted illegal sale of
dangerous drugs under Sec. 26 of RA 9165.
Q: Why attempted? What element of illegal sale is
absent?
First element – that the buyer and seller must be clearly
identified. Who is the buyer? Police Officer X and Y. Who
is the buyer/=? W.
Second element – that the corpus delicti and the price must
be established. The corpus delicti is the drugs and the
price is the P200 each sachet.
The first and second element is present. But the third
element is absent.
Third element – the said corpus delicti must be handed by
the seller to the poseur buyer. In this case, even before W
was able to give Police Officers X and Y the said plastic
sachets of shabu, Police Officers X and Y already told W,
“We are police officers, and you are under arrest.”
Therefore, for want of the third element, there was only an
attempted illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Sec. 26.
68 of 188
Note:
Even if it is only attempted illegal sale, the penalty is just
the same as illegal sale of dangerous drug
In these acts enumerated under Section 26, there is
conspiracy, there is attempted. But again, the penalty is
just the same as in the consummated stage.
SECTION 29. PLANTING OF EVIDENCE
Section 29. Criminal Liability for Planting of Evidence. –
Any person who is found guilty of "planting" any dangerous
drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical,
regardless of quantity and purity, shall suffer the penalty of
death.
Q: The Police Officers knew that X is involved in drugs.
They have so many reports. There were many times
that X is under the influence of drugs, he would be
running around in their community. But every time
they tried to arrest him; they could not find any drugs
in his possession. Someone would easily tip him off
and so, no drugs was ever found in his possession.
One time, two (2) police officers, Police Officers Y and
Z saw X seated on the bench. They went and seated
next to him. Thereafter, Police Officer Y surreptitiously
inserted a small plastic sachet of shabu at the back
pocket of the pants of X. However, someone saw it.
What crime is committed by the said police officer?
A: The police officer is liable under Sec. 29 for planting
of evidence. If what has been planted is dangerous drugs
to an innocent person to inflict upon him violation of R.A.
9165, it is expressly punished under Sec. 29 of said law;
that is, planting of evidence. If what has been planted is
any other act, any other thing, to inflict upon him the
commission of the crime outside perjury, it is Article 363
of the Revised Penal Code for incriminating innocent
persons.
Q: X was caught in the act of selling dangerous drugs.
In a buy-bust operation, X was caught in the act of
selling dangerous drugs. He was brought to the PNP
station. During investigation, it was discovered that X
is a minor; he is only 17 years old. His birth certificate
showed that he was only a minor at the time he was
arrested for sale of illegal dangerous drugs in the buy-
bust operation. Upon investigation also, it was
revealed, shown, and established that X acted with
discernment. He knew the protocol of the government
against illegal drugs. He often watched the television,
heard over the radio, how people were arrested, killed,
for dangerous drugs. He obviously knew that it is
illegal, and that it is a criminal act. Nevertheless, he
divulged to the police that he acted with discernment
for easy money as he is the breadwinner of his family.
So, he acted with discernment. Because of that, he
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
was prosecuted for violation of Sec. 5 of R.A. 9165 for
illegal sale of dangerous drugs.

After trial on the merits, he was convicted for illegal

sale of dangerous drugs. The penalty imposed on him
is the maximum penalty of life imprisonment. His
counsel from the Public Attorney’s Office filed a
motion for reconsideration stating that the judge
committed an error when it imposed the maximum
penalty of life imprisonment considering that the said
accused was a minor at the time of the commission of
the crime. As such, the court should have considered
the privilege mitigating circumstance of minority in his
favor to lower the imposable penalty to one degree.

The said motion was denied by the judge. The judge

said that what X violated is a violation of special penal
laws, R.A. 9165; therefore, mitigating circumstances
under Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code does not
apply. Is the judge correct, or is it the counsel that is
correct?

A: The counsel is correct. Under Sec. 98 of R.A. 9165, it

is expressly provided that the provisions of the Revised
Penal Code shall not apply to violations of R.A. 9165. The
Supreme Court said that the law used the word “shall”;
therefore, it is mandatory. However, there is a qualification
— except when the offender is a minor offender, when
the offender is a juvenile offender.

In this case, X is a juvenile offender. He was only 17 years

old at the time of the commission of the crime. If the
offender is a juvenile offender and the crime he committed
carries the penalty of life imprisonment to death, it shall be
considered reclusion perpetua to death. Now that it has the
same nomenclature as the Revised Penal Code, the judge
can already consider the provisions of the RPC on
mitigating circumstances.

The crime allegedly committed by X is illegal sale of

dangerous drugs which is punished by life imprisonment;
therefore, it shall be considered as reclusion perpetua to
death because he was a minor at the time of the
commission of the crime. Since it already has the same
nomenclature, the judge shall already consider the
privilege mitigating circumstance of minority, thus
lowering the penalty by one degree. It should then be
reclusion temporal, and not reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment.

69 of 188
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
TITLE SIX:
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS
CHAPTER TWO:
OFFENSES AGAINST DECENCY AND GOOD
CUSTOMS
ARTICLE 200. GRAVE SCANDAL
Article 200. Grave scandal. — The penalties of arresto
mayor and public censure shall be imposed upon any
person who shall offend against decency or good customs
by any highly scandalous conduct not expressly falling
within any other article of this Code.
Elements of Grave Scandal
1. The offender performs an act or acts;
2. The said act or acts are highly scandalous as
offending against morals, decency, or good
customs;
3. The act or acts complained of being committed in
a public place or within the public knowledge or
view; and
4. The highly scandalous conduct is not expressly
falling within any other article of this Code.
Based on the first and second element, the offender must
be performing a highly scandalous act offensive to
morals, decency, or good customs. It must be
performed either in a public place or private place.
If he performs the act in a public place, grave scandal
immediately arises; however, if the highly scandalous act
is done in a private place, for the crime to arise, it must
be within public knowledge or view, therefore, someone
must have witnessed the performance of said act.
Like an impossible crime, grave scandal is a crime of last
resort. It is expressly provided under the law that you can
only file a case of grave scandal if the said highly
scandalous act would not constitute any other
violation of the Revised Penal Code. If the said highly
scandalous act would violate another provision of the
Code, that is the proper charge, and not the crime of grave
scandal.
Q: Husband and wife having sexual intercourse in a
public place at Luneta Park. Are they liable for grave
scandal?
A: YES. They have the right to perform the said sexual
intercourse as they are married. Walang pumipigil sa
kanila. It only becomes grave scandal because they
performed it in a public place. Therefore, the said sexual
intercourse becomes highly scandalous and offensive to
70 of 188
morals. The fact that it was done in a public place even
without others knowing it, they are already liable for grave
scandal.
Q: X was 15 years old, while Y was 25 years old. They
are in a relationship. They engaged in sexual
intercourse at Luneta Park in celebration of their
anniversary. They were arrested. Should they be
charged for grave scandal?
A: NO. Here, X, a 15-year-old, is not liable for any crime;
however, Y is liable not for grave scandal, but for
statutory rape because he had carnal knowledge with X
who is under 16 years old. Based on Art. 266-A (d), as
amended, there is statutory rape when the victim is under
16 years old. In this case, since X was only 15 years old,
and Y was 25 years old, the act of sexual intercourse of the
latter with X, regardless of consent, constitutes statutory
rape. Therefore, the proper charge is statutory rape
against only Y.
Q: X was caught masturbating at the MRT. People were
looking at him. Nevertheless, he continued. Can he be
charged with grave scandal? Going by the elements:
First, he performed an act; second, the said act is
highly scandalous; and third, it was done in a public
place. How about the fourth element? Does it
constitute any other violation of the Revised Penal
Code?
A: NO. However, it constitutes a violation of a special
penal law, the Safe Spaces Act. As such, he can still be
charged with grave scandal because Art. 200 expressly
provides that the act must not fall under any other provision
of this Revised Penal Code. So, although it constitutes a
violation of a special penal law, under the Safe Spaces Act,
one of the acts punished there is the act of masturbating in
public; although it constitutes a crime, it falls under another
law—a special penal law—not under the Code. Therefore,
aside from violation of the Safe Spaces Act, he can
also be charged for grave scandal as all the elements
are present.
Note:
There is no more vagrancy. We only have prostitution
which is committed by women who, for money or profit,
habitually indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
TITLE SEVEN:
CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS
CHAPTER ONE:
PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS
ARTICLE 203. WHO ARE PUBLIC OFFICERS
Article 203. Who are public officers. - For the purpose of
applying the provisions of this and the preceding titles of
this book, any person who, by direct provision of the law,
popular election or appointment by competent authority,
shall take part in the performance of public functions in the
Government of the Philippine Islands, of shall perform in
said Government or in any of its branches public duties as
an employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank or
class, shall be deemed to be a public officer.
CHAPTER TWO:
MALFEASANCE AND MISFEASANCE IN OFFICE
All the felonies under Title Seven (Arts. 204 to 245) can
either be a malfeasance, misfeasance or a nonfeasance.
There is malfeasance when a public officer performs in his
official function an act prohibited by law.
There is misfeasance when a public officer performs an
official act in a manner not in accordance with what the law
provides.
There is nonfeasance when a public officer knowingly and
willfully refrains, refuses or omits to do an act which the law
or his office requires him to do.
SECTION ONE. – DERELICTION OF DUTY
ARTICLE 204. KNOWINGLY RENDERING UNJUST
JUDGMENT
Article 204. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment. - Any
judge who shall knowingly render an unjust judgment in
any case submitted to him for decision, shall be punished
by prision mayor and perpetual absolute disqualification.
Elements of Knowingly Rendering Unjust Judgment
1. The offender is a judge;
2. That he renders a judgment in a case submitted to
him for decision;
3. That the judgment is unjust;
4. The judge knows that his judgment is unjust.
This is committed by a judge who, in a case submitted for
decision, renders an unjust judgment despite knowledge
71 of 188
that a judgment is unjust. He knows the judgment that he
is rendering is unjust. Nevertheless, he issues the same.
A judgment is said to be unjust when it is contrary to law or
it is not supported by the evidence presented in court.
The judge knows the judgment is unjust. Nevertheless, he
renders the same.
Judicial immunity from suit
Judges enjoy judicial immunity from suit. So, for them to be
liable for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, it is
necessary that in rendering the said unjust judgment, he
acted in bad faith.
Even if the judgment is, to the eyes of another, unjust, if
the judge renders the same by reason of some erroneous
interpretation of the law, mere error on the part of the judge
acting in good faith, he cannot be charged with knowingly
rendering an unjust judgment.
ARTICLE 205. JUDGMENT RENDERED THROUGH
NEGLIGENCE
Article 205. Judgment rendered through negligence. - Any
judge who, by reason of inexcusable negligence or
ignorance shall render a manifestly unjust judgment in any
case submitted to him for decision shall be punished
by arresto mayor and temporary special disqualification.
Elements of Judgment Rendered Through Negligence
1. The offender is a judge;
2. That he renders a judgment in a case submitted to
him for decision;
3. That the judgment is manifestly unjust;
4. That it is due to his inexcusable negligence or
ignorance.
ARTICLE 206. UNJUST INTERLOCUTORY ORDER
Article 206. Unjust interlocutory order. - Any judge who
shall knowingly render an unjust interlocutory order or
decree shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its
minimum period and suspension; but if he shall have acted
by reason of inexcusable negligence or ignorance and the
interlocutory order or decree be manifestly unjust, the
penalty shall be suspension.
Elements of Unjust Interlocutory Order
1. The offender is a judge;
2. That he performs any of the following acts:
a. knowingly renders unjust interlocutory
order or decree; or
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
b. renders a manifestly unjust interlocutory
order or decree through inexcusable
negligence or ignorance.
ARTICLE 207. MALICIOUS DELAY IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Article 207. Malicious delay in the administration of
justice. - The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum
period shall be imposed upon any judge guilty of malicious
delay in the administration of justice.
Elements of Malicious Delay in the Administration of
Justice
1. The offender is a judge;
2. There is a proceeding in his court;
3. He delays the administration of justice;
4. The delay is malicious, that is, delay is caused by
the judge with deliberate intent to inflict damage on
either party in the case.
ARTICLE 208. PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES;
NEGLIGENCE AND TOLERANCE
Article 208. Prosecution of offenses; negligence and
tolerance. - The penalty of prision correccional in its
minimum period and suspension shall be imposed upon
any public officer, or officer of the law, who, in dereliction
of the duties of his office, shall maliciously refrain from
instituting prosecution for the punishment of violators of the
law, or shall tolerate the commission of offenses.
DERELICTION OF DUTY IN THE PROSECUTION OF
OFFENSES
Offender in Art. 208
This is committed by a public officer who is in charge with
the prosecution of offenses or who has to cause the
prosecution of offenses.
The public prosecutors of the DOJ; the special prosecutors
of the Office of the Ombudsman – they have the duty to
prosecute.
Persons in authority, agents of persons in authority – they
have the right, the power to cause the prosecution of
offenses.
Acts punishable under Art. 208
1. By maliciously refraining from instituting
prosecution against violators of the law;
Prof: Knowing that a crime has been committed,
they did not cause the arrest or prosecution of
these offenses, and he did so with malice and
72 of 188
deliberate intent to favor the violator of the law.
They did the same in order to favor or to side with
the said offender.
2. By maliciously tolerating the commission of
offenses.
Prof: Knowing that a crime is about to be
committed, he tolerates the same, and he did so
with malice and deliberate intent to favor the
violator of the law. They did the same in order to
favor or to side with the said offender.
Elements of Dereliction of Duty in the Prosecution of
Offenses
1. That the offender is a public officer or officer of the
law who has a duty to cause the prosecution of, or
to prosecute offenses.
2. That there is a dereliction of the duties of his office;
that is knowing the commission of the crime, he
does not cause the prosecution of the criminal or
knowing that a crime is about to be committed, he
tolerates its commission.
3. That the offender acts with malice and deliberate
intent to favor the violator of the law.
ARTICLE 209. BETRAYAL OF TRUST BY AN
ATTORNEY OR SOLICITOR
Article 209. Betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor. -
Revelation of secrets. - In addition to the proper
administrative action, the penalty of prision correccional in
its minimum period, or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000
pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any attorney-at-law
or solicitor ( procurador judicial) who, by any malicious
breach of professional duty or of inexcusable negligence
or ignorance, shall prejudice his client, or reveal any of the
secrets of the latter learned by him in his professional
capacity.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon an attorney-at-
law or solicitor (procurador judicial) who, having
undertaken the defense of a client or having received
confidential information from said client in a case, shall
undertake the defense of the opposing party in the same
case, without the consent of his first client.
ACTS PUNISHED
1. By causing damage to his client, either by –
a. Malicious breach of professional duty; or
by
b. Inexcusable negligence; or
2. By revealing any of the secrets of his client learned
by him in his professional capacity; or
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
3. By undertaking the defense of the opposing party
in the very same case, after undertaking the
defense of the first party or having obtained
confidential information from said party – except
when there is consent on the part of the first party.
This is the criminal liability of the said attorney. Aside from
criminal liability under Art. 209, he may also be charged
administratively for violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility of Lawyers, either before the Supreme
Court or before the IBP.
For committing any of the three acts enumerated under Art.
209, the said attorney or the said lawyer can be charged
both criminally (under Art. 209) and administratively. These
are cumulative remedies – one does not exclude the other.
First act: By causing damage to his client, either by
malicious breach of professional duty or by
inexcusable negligence
EXAMPLE: A counsel, after his client was convicted, was
told to file a motion for reconsideration. He promised to file
the same. In fact, he received additional money or fees just
for making the MR. But, despite the lapse of 15 days from
the promulgation of judgment, he failed to file. His only
reason was that it slipped his mind, he forgot about it.
He can be held liable under Art. 209. Because of his
malicious breach of professional duty – it was his duty to
file the MR, he gave the assurance to his client but he failed
to do so, he caused damage to his client – the conviction
or the decision became final and executory.
Second act: By revealing any of the secrets of his
client learned by him in his professional capacity
The second act under Art. 209 becomes a criminal act
because it is a violation of the lawyer-client privileged
communication. Anything divulged by a client to his
counsel pertaining to the case – the counsel shall not
disclose it, tell it or reveal it to any other person. That is
sacred between the both of them. That is privileged
between the both of them.
For violation, he can be held liable criminally and also
administratively.
Third act: By undertaking the defense of the opposing
party in the very same case, after the undertaking the
defense of the first party or having obtained
confidential information from said party – except when
there is consent on the part of the first party
The third act is considered criminal in nature and also a
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility
because there is a conflict of interest. After the said
attorney has undertaken the defense of the first client, he
becomes the lawyer of the second party.
73 of 188
Obviously, he will win the said case because he knows the
loopholes of the said case that he filed in favor of the said
first party.
EXAMPLE: X filed an estafa case against Y through his
counsel Atty. Z. Atty. Z was the one who prepared the
complaint for estafa.
Now that the case is before the court, Atty. Z is the counsel
of X in the said estafa case. However, for failure of X to pay
Atty. Z’s appearance fee of P20,000 every hearing, Atty. Z
said he will be withdrawing as counsel. He withdrew as
counsel with the consent of X.
Later, his services were engaged by the defendant Y.
Since he needed money, and Y said he will be paying all
appearance fees, he took the engagement. Atty. Z is now
the counsel of the defendant against whom he filed a case
when he was the counsel of the private complainant X.
There was an obvious conflict of interest.
Prof: Do not do that. Even if the first client consented, still,
do not do that. There are many clients out there. Never
take the services of the opposing party against whom you
filed a case. That is so unfair to your first client. It is not
only against the Code of Professional Responsibility, it is
also against ethics, morality. Nakakahiya kay God ‘pag
ginawa mo ‘yun.
Even if it happens if the first client gives his consent, still
do not do it. There are other clients.
ARTICLE 210. DIRECT BRIBERY
Article 210. Direct bribery. - Any public officer who shall
agree to perform an act constituting a crime, in connection
with the performance of this official duties, in consideration
of any offer, promise, gift or present received by such
officer, personally or through the mediation of another,
shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium and
maximum periods and a fine of not less than the value of
the gift and] not less than three times the value of the gift
in addition to the penalty corresponding to the crime
agreed upon, if the same shall have been committed.
If the gift was accepted by the officer in consideration of
the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime,
and the officer executed said act, he shall suffer the same
penalty provided in the preceding paragraph; and if said
act shall not have been accomplished, the officer shall
suffer the penalties of prision correccional, in its medium
period and a fine of not less than twice the value of such
gift.
If the object for which the gift was received or promised
was to make the public officer refrain from doing something
which it was his official duty to do, he shall suffer the
penalties of prision correccional in its maximum period and
a fine of not less than the value of the gift and not less than
three times the value of such gift.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
In addition to the penalties provided in the preceding
paragraphs, the culprit shall suffer the penalty of special
temporary disqualification.
The provisions contained in the preceding paragraphs
shall be made applicable to assessors, arbitrators,
appraisal and claim commissioners, experts or any other
persons performing public duties. (As amended by Batas
Pambansa Blg. 871, approved May 29, 1985)
Elements of Direct Bribery
1. The offender is a public officer;
2. The offender commits any of the following acts –
a. By agreeing to perform, or by performing,
in consideration of an offer, promise, gift
or present, an act constituting a crime in
connection with the performance of his
official duties; or
b. By accepting any gift or present in
consideration for the execution of an act
which does not constitute a crime in
connection with the performance of his
official duties; or
c. By agreeing to refrain or by refraining from
doing an act which it is his official duty to
do, in consideration of an offer, promise,
gift or present.
“in connection with the performance of his official
duties”
Direct bribery is the crime committed by a public officer
who receives the bribe in connection with the performance
of his official duties. Always, the bribe, the money, the
consideration, the present or the gift must be received by
the public officer in connection with the performance of his
official duties.
If there is no relation between the bribe or the
consideration and the performance of his official duties, it
is another crime, but it is not the crime of direct bribery. It
is necessary that the crime was given in connection with
the performance of his official duty.
Either he is the one who received it, or another person in
his favor.
First act: By agreeing to perform, or by performing, in
consideration of an offer, promise, gift or present, an
act constituting a crime in connection with the
performance of his official duties
Third act: By agreeing to refrain or by refraining from
doing an act which it is his official duty to do, in
consideration of an offer, promise, gift or present.
74 of 188
Under the first act, if the thing the public officer is being
tasked to do is to commit an act constituting a crime, mere
agreement will suffice. Mere acceptance of the offer will
suffice.
It is not necessary that he actually received the money,
bribe or consideration. Mere acceptance of the offer, or
mere agreement will already suffice. It is not necessary
that he actually performs the said criminal act.
The same principle holds on the third act. Under the third
act, if the act the public officer is being tasked to do is to
refrain from doing his official duty because of the
consideration given, mere agreement will suffice. Mere
acceptance of the offer so as not to perform the official duty
will suffice.
It is not necessary that he actually received the money,
bribe or consideration. It is not necessary that he actually
refrains from doing his official duty. Mere agreement will
suffice.
Second act: By accepting any gift or present in
consideration for the execution of an act which does
not constitute a crime in connection with the
performance of his official duties
The first and the third act have the same principle, but not
the second act. Under the second act, for direct bribery to
arise, it is necessary that there must be actual acceptance
of the gift or present, or of the consideration.
The reason is, under the second act, a public officer is not
being tasked to do a criminal act. He is tasked to perform
his duty. It is his duty to do it, but he would not do it without
the bribe. This is why it is necessary that there must be
actual acceptance of the said gift or present.
Prohibition against complexing crimes with direct
bribery
If under the first act and under the third act the public officer
actually performs the criminal act, or actually refrains from
doing his duty, aside from direct bribery, it will constitute
another crime. You do not complex it. It will constitute a
separate and distinct charge.
This is because under Art. 210, the penalty for direct
bribery shall be in addition to any liability attaching to the
said public officer for the crime agreed upon.
ARTICLE 211. INDIRECT BRIBERY
Article 211. Indirect bribery. - The penalties of prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods, and
public censure shall be imposed upon any public officer
who shall accept gifts offered to him by reason of his office.
(As amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 871, approved May
29, 1985).
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
Elements of Indirect Bribery
1. The offender is a public officer;
2. That he accepts gifts;
3. That the gifts are offered to him by reason of his
office.
Indirect bribery is committed when the offender is a public
officer and he accepts a gift or present by reason of the
public office or by reason of the public position that he
holds.
In case of indirect bribery, a public officer is not being
asked to do an act. The said gift or present was given to
him only because of the position that he holds, because of
the office that he occupies.
If he received the said gift or present, he becomes liable
for indirect bribery. If he does not receive the said gift or
present, then he is not liable of any crime.
There is no attempted or frustrated stages, because here,
a public officer is not being tasked to do an act.
ARTICLE 211-A. QUALIFIED BRIBERY
Article 211-A. Qualified bribery. - If any public officer is
entrusted with law enforcement and he refrains from
arresting or prosecuting an offender who has committed a
crime punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or death in
consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present, he shall
suffer the penalty for the offense which was not
prosecuted.
If it is the public officer who asks or demands such gift or
present, he shall suffer the penalty of death. (As added by
Sec. 4, RA No. 7659).
Elements of Qualified Bribery
1. The offender is a public officer in charge of law
enforcement;
2. The said public officer does not arrest or prosecute
an offender who has committed a crime punished
by reclusion perpetua and/or death;
3. The reason is because of the gift, present or
consideration given.
Art. 211-A obviously is not included in the original RPC. It
was a mere insertion, it was merely inserted by R.A. No.
7659, or The Heinous Crime Law. This is why, under Art.
211-A, if it is the public officer who solicited the bribe, the
penalty prescribed will be death penalty.
Art. 211-A is specific. It is necessary that the said public
officer must be one entrusted with law enforcement.
Second, the offender that he does not want to arrest or
75 of 188
prosecute must be held for a crime which is punished by
reclusion perpetua and/or death. It is specific compared to
direct bribery.
Q: X was at Manila Hotel. When he was about to leave
Manila Hotel, he chanced upon Judge W sitting on a
sofa at the lobby of the hotel. X has a pending civil
case in the sala of Judge W, which is already
submitted for decision. X knew he will lose the case
because all pieces of evidence were against him.
X took the strength and courage to talk to the judge.
He went to Judge W seated on the sofa and introduced
himself as X. He told the judge that he had a case
pending at his sala. The judge said “Yes, yes, I
remember you. I often see you in court. What can I do
for you?”
So, X sat in favor of the judge and offered the judge P2
million in exchange for a favorable decision. Judge W
told X, “Here is my address. Go to my house tonight,
bring the P2 million in cold cash. The decision will be
in your favor.” Thereafter, X left.
Is Judge W liable of direct bribery at that particular
stage?
A: YES. Judge W already committed the crime of direct
bribery under Art. 210, first par. of the RPC.
By merely accepting the offer of X, Judge W, a public
officer, agrees to perform an act constituting a crime in
connection with the performance of his official duties. Mere
agreement will suffice. It is not necessary that he actually
received the P2 million. It is not necessary that he actually
rendered the said favorable decision in favor of X. Mere
acceptance of the said offer in consideration of the P2
million will already give rise to the crime.
Under the first act of direct bribery, mere agreement or
mere acceptance of an offer will already consummate the
crime.
Q: X is charged with Qualified Rape before the Office
of the Public Prosecutor. After preliminary
investigation, after clarificatory hearing, the case was
already submitted by the public prosecutor for
resolution. The public prosecutor told the private
complainant and the respondent X, “Come back two
weeks thereafter. The resolution will already be
released by then.”
However, within a week’s time, X already went back to
the fiscal’s office and asked from the secretary of the
fiscal handling the case, “Is the resolution already
out?” The secretary said, “Wala pa po. Wala pa pong
ibinibigay sa akin. Wala pa pong resolution.” X told the
secretary, “Is the fiscal in? Can I talk to him in
private?” The secretary said, “May hearing po sa
umaga, sa hapon po available.”
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
Because of that, X told the secretary he will come back
in the afternoon. Here comes the afternoon. X came
back to the office in the afternoon and after coming
back to the said office, he had a talk with the said
public prosecutor. In talking to the public prosecutor,
X offered the said public prosecutor P2 million in
exchange for a finding of no probable cause and for
the dismissal of the case.
The fiscal did not immediately give an answer because
the fiscal knew that the evidence of qualified rape
against X was overwhelming. There is a sworn
statement of the private complainant, there is a
medico-legal certificate coming from the PNP medico-
legal saying that indeed there were hymenal
lacerations on the said girl’s genital; and from the
girl’s testimony herself.
And so, the fiscal said, “Mahirap ‘to kasi ‘yung
ebidensiya nagpopoint sa ‘yo.” The fiscal told this to
X, but X told the fiscal, “Dadagdagan ko, fiscal. Gawin
kong P3 million in exchange for the dismissal of the
case.” And so the fiscal told X, “Okay, you come back
tomorrow. Bring me the P3 million, cold cash, and let
us see.”
The following day, X came back. When X came back,
he gave a small bag to the public prosecutor. When the
public prosecutor opened it, it was cold cash of P3
million. The prosecutor said, “Come back after a
week’s time and get the resolution.”
After a week’s time, X came back and the resolution –
case dismissed, no probable cause.
Because of this, the public prosecutor was charged of
the following cases: The public prosecutor was
charged with violation of Sec. 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019;
with the crime of Qualified Bribery under Art. 211-A.
Are the charges correct?
A: The charges are wrong. Qualified bribery will not lie
against the said public prosecutor because the first
element is immediately absent.
The first element of qualified bribery under Art. 211-A – the
offender is a public officer in charge of law enforcement.
The Supreme Court said a public prosecutor is not in
charge with the enforcement of the law. This refers to
police officers who have the duty to enforce the law.
Therefore, the first element is absent. Qualified bribery
under Art. 211-A will not lie against the said fiscal.
Q: How about the charge of violation of Sec. 3(b) of
R.A. No. 3019? Will the case prosper?
A: NO, it will not prosper. Under Sec. 3(b) of R.A. No.
3019, the law punishes the act of directly or indirectly
76 of 188
receiving any gift, present, share, percentage or benefit,
for himself or for another person, in connection with any
contract or transaction between the government and any
other party wherein the public officer in his official capacity
has to intervene under the law.
The preliminary investigation issued by the public
prosecutor cannot be considered a contract. It cannot be
considered as a transaction because the term ‘transaction’
must be construed as analogous to the term which it
precedes, which is ‘contract’. Therefore, the charges are
wrong.
Q: What is the proper charge to be filed against the
said public prosecutor who received P3 million to
bring about a dismissal of the case despite the fact
that it has probable cause?
A: The said public prosecutor should be charged with
direct bribery under Art. 210.
He is a public officer and he received bribe in connection
with the performance of his official duty.
What is that official duty? To prosecute this offender. It is
his duty to file the case against him. Evidence was
overwhelming insofar as probable cause is concerned.
Therefore, he is liable for direct bribery under Art. 210, third
act – he refrained from doing an act which it is his official
duty to do in consideration of an offer, promise, gift or
present.
Since he actually refrains from doing the said duty, he is
also liable for Art. 208, dereliction of duty in the prosecution
of offenses.
All the elements of dereliction of duty in the prosecution of
offenses are present –
1. He is a public officer in charge to prosecute
offenders;
2. He does not cause the prosecution of X because
of the P3 million that he received.
Therefore, he is liable of two crimes – he can be charged
with direct bribery under Art. 210, third act; and also
violation of Art. 208, dereliction of duty in the prosecution
of offenses.
R.A. NO. 3019 – ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT
PRACTICES ACT
SECTION 3
(a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another public
officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules and
regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an
offense in connection with the official duties of the latter, or
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
allowing himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to
commit such violation or offense.
(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift,
present, share, percentage, or benefit, for himself or for
any other person, in connection with any contract or
transaction between the Government and any other part,
wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to
intervene under the law.
(c) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift,
present or other pecuniary or material benefit, for himself
or for another, from any person for whom the public officer,
in any manner or capacity, has secured or obtained, or will
secure or obtain, any Government permit or license, in
consideration for the help given or to be given, without
prejudice to Section thirteen of this Act.
CANLAS v. PEOPLE and SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. Nos. 236308-09 | 17 February 2020
Q: Can a private person be held liable under R.A. No.
3019?
A: YES. The Supreme Court said it is settled in
jurisprudence that private persons, when acting in
conspiracy with public officers may be indicted and may be
found guilty for violation of Sec. 3 of R.A. No. 3019.
The Supreme Court said this is in consonance with the
avowed policy of R.A. No. 3019 to repress certain acts of
public officers and private persons that constitute graft and
corrupt practices. So, it is settled in the case of Canlas v.
People that a private person can be held liable under R.A.
No. 3019.
FACTS: Two informations were filed against accused
Efren Canlas. According to the informations, former Makati
Mayor Jejomar Binay Jr. conspired with petitioner Canlas
in giving unwarranted benefits, advantage and preference
to Hilmarc’s and causing undue injury to the Government
by awarding Hilmarc’s the contract of the Phase IV
construction of the Makati City Hall Parking Building
through simulated public bidding.
Canlas filed a motion to quash, alleging that he is a private
individual and as such, RA 3019 does not apply to him. He
argues that he can only be held liable under Sec. 4(b) of
RA 3019 and he did not induce or cause any public officer
to commit a violation of Sec. 3(e).
RULING: Private persons, when acting in conspiracy with
public officers, may be indicted and, if found guilty, held
liable for the pertinent offenses under Section 3 of RA
3019, in consonance with the avowed policy of the anti-
graft law to repress certain acts of public officers and
private persons alike constituting graft or corrupt practices
act or which may lead thereto.
MERENCILLO v. PEOPLE
77 of 188
G.R. No. 142369 | 13 April 2007
FACTS: Merencillo, the BIR officer, was charged with two
crimes. He was charged with violation of Section 3(b) of
RA 3019 and the crime of direct bribery. He asked P
20,000.00 in exchange for the issuance of the Certificate
Authorizing Registration (CAR). In course of the
entrapment operation, Merencillo was caught in the act of
receiving the said P 20,000.00.
Merencillo’s Defense: He cannot be charged with both
crimes. He will be placed in double jeopardy. Is this
argument meritorious?
RULING: NO. Merencillo’s argument that charging him
with the crimes of violation of Section 3(b) of RA 3019 and
direct bribery will place him in double jeopardy has no
merit.
First, Supreme Court said, Section 3 of RA 3019 is clear in
its beginning statement:
“In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already
penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute
corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby
declared to be unlawful.”
Therefore, violations of Section 3 of RA 3019 will always
be in addition to any acts or omissions that a public officer
is already being penalized by existing law. Hence,
Supreme Court said and note, double jeopardy will not
arise if a person is charged simultaneously or successively
of violation of Section 3 of RA 3019 and the RPC.
Second, the two have different elements. Therefore,
double jeopardy will not arise.
Whereas in case of Section 3(b) of RA 3019, a mere
request or demand of any gift, present, share, percentage,
or benefit is enough to constitute a violation of the law. In
case of direct bribery, acceptance of a promise or offer or
receipt of any gift or present is required to constitute direct
bribery.
Third, they differ in the ambit or scope.
The scope of Section 3(b) of RA 3019 is specific. It is
limited only to contracts or transactions involving monetary
considerations where the public officer has the authority to
intervene under the law. Whereas in case of direct bribery,
it has a wider, bigger, and more general in scope. It
includes performance of an act constituting a crime,
execution of an unjust act which does not constitute, and
agreeing to refrain or by refraining from doing an act which
it is his official duty to do.
With this, the Supreme Court held Merencillo liable for the
two crimes.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
(d) Accepting or having any member of his family accept
employment in a private enterprise which has pending
official business with him during the pendency thereof or
within one year after its termination.
Members of the family of the said public officer cannot
accept an employment in a private enterprise which has
pending official business in the office being held by said
public officer.
In one case, while the husband, Edwin Villanueva, was the
Provincial Director of TESDA in the province of Aklan, his
wife accepted an employment in a nonstock nonprofit
TESDA accredited educational association. Supreme
Court said, that is a clear violation of Section 3(d) of RA
3019. Section 3(d) of RA 3019 is clear and straightforward.
A public officer or any member of its family cannot accept
employment in a private enterprise with whom such public
officer has a pending official business during his
incumbency or within 1 year from his termination.
Therefore, the Supreme Court said, he is liable for violation
of Section 3(d) of RA 3019. (Edwin Villanueva and Nida
Villanueva v. People, G.R. No. 237864, July 08, 2020)
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the
Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted
benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his
official administrative or judicial functions through manifest
partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
negligence.
Elements of Section 3(e) of RA 3019
1. That a public officer is performing official,
administrative, or judicial functions;
2. That he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad
faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and
3. He caused undue injury to any party including the
government, or he gave a private party unwarranted
benefits, advantage, or preference.
There are three (3) modes of committing violation of
Section 3(e) of RA 3019.
1. By manifest partiality;
2. By evident bad faith;
3. By gross inexcusable negligence.
AMBIL Jr. v. SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No. 175457 | 06 July 2011
FACTS: Governor Ambil transferred Mayor Adalim, who
was charged with the crime of murder. As we all know,
murder is a nonbailable offense if the evidence of guilt is
strong. Mayor Adalim was then at the provincial jail.
However, the IBP heard that Governor Ambil transferred
Mayor Adalim from the provincial jail to his house. So, the
IBP wrote a letter to the NBI to conduct an investigation
about these rumors that the said governor transferred the
mayor to his house. The NBI conducted an investigation
78 of 188
and in the said investigation, the NBI found truth. Because
of that, the NBI filed before the Office of the Ombudsman
a case of violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 against
Governor Ambil. The Ombudsman after conducting
investigation found truth, and so the Ombudsman filed a
case for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 against
Governor Ambil. But not only against him, also against the
Provincial Jail Warden Apelado. They were charged as co-
principals for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019.
Arguments raised by Governor Ambil:
He cannot be held liable for violation of Section 3(e) of RA
3019. According to him, although the first element is
present, the second and the third element are absent.
According to him, he transferred the said mayor from the
provincial jail to his house because there was a threat on
the life of the said mayor. Therefore, he, as the provincial
jailer, has the power to transfer him from the jail to his
house in order to protect and save him. Likewise, the third
element is absent according to the governor because the
third element punishes the act of giving a private party
unwarranted benefit. The governor argued that Mayor
Adalim is not a private party but a public officer. Therefore,
the second and third element of Section 3(e) of RA 3019
being absent and therefore he cannot be held liable.
Are all the elements present? Is the argument of the
governor correct?
RULING: The Supreme Court said all the elements are
present and therefore the arguments raised by the said
governor are incorrect.
According to the Supreme Court, the first element is given.
Being the governor, he was a public officer and he was
acting in his official and administrative functions.
The second element is also present. The Supreme Court
said the said governor, when he transferred Mayor Adalim
from the jail to his house, acted with manifest partiality in
favor of the said mayor as against the other prisoners in
the said provincial jail.
Not only that, the Supreme Court also said he acted with
evident bad faith. This is because a prisoner can only be
transferred from one institution to another if there is an
order coming from the court. Here, there is no order
coming from the court. Therefore, he acted with evident
bad faith.
The third element, according to the Supreme Court, is also
present. The argument raised by him that the said mayor
is not a private party is erroneous. The Supreme Court said
the governor misinterpreted the meaning of the words
“private party.”
The Supreme Court said a private party is different from a
private person. A private person is one which is not a public
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
officer or employee. But, a private party is either a private
person or a public officer acting in his private capacity.
Mayor Adalim is within the meaning of a private party
because although a public officer, he acted in his private
capacity. Therefore, all the elements are present.
Arguments of Provincial Jail Warden Apelado:
First, Apelado raised the justifying circumstance that he
was merely acting in obedience with an order issued by a
superior authority, the last justifying circumstance under
Art. 11.
RULING: The Supreme Court said this will not lie, because
the order must be lawful. In this case, the order of the
superior authority, Gov. Ambil, is not a lawful order and
Apelado should have known that it was not lawful because
there was no order coming from the court. Only a court can
transfer prisoners via a court order.
Second, Apelado argued that he is only of Salary Grade 22
and therefore, the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over
him.
RULING: The Supreme Court said no. Although the Court
has held that only public officers of Salary Grade 27 or
above are within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, in
this case, Apelado is being charged as a co-principal, as a
co-accused of the governor, who is way beyond Salary
Grade 27. Since he is a co-principal and a co-accused of
the governor who is within the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan, then Apelado, too, is within the jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan even if he is only of Salary Grade
22.
SC: The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over petitioner
Ambil, Jr. is beyond question. The same is true as regards
petitioner Apelado, Sr. As to him, a Certification from the
Provincial Government Department Head of the HRMO
shows that his position as Provincial Warden is classified
as Salary Grade 22.
Nonetheless, it is only when none of the accused are
occupying positions corresponding to salary grade '27' or
higher shall exclusive jurisdiction be vested in the lower
courts. Here, petitioner Apelado, Sr. was charged as a co-
principal with Governor Ambil, Jr., over whose position the
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction. Accordingly, he was
correctly tried jointly with said public officer in the proper
court which had exclusive original jurisdiction over them —
the Sandiganbayan.
SECTION 7. STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND
LIABILITIES & RA 6713
Public officers can file their SALN within 30 days from
assumption into office. And then it must be filed on or
before the 30th day of April of the next years and within 30
days after separation from the service.
79 of 188
In RA 3019, it is stated “on or before 15th of April” but there
is another law which provides also for the filing of SALN
and that is RA6713 which is the code of ethical standards
for public officers.
Under RA 6713, and this is what is being followed, it must
be on or before the 30th day of April.
Prof: RA 3019 requires all public officers to file their
statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN).
Failure to file will be a violation of RA3019 and RA6713.
But, if the public officer files but states falsities in the SALN,
the crime can either be perjury or the crime of falsification
of public document.
Remember the case of Galeos v. People, where he stated
falsities in his SALN, he answered falsities in his SALN.
The Supreme Court convicted Galeos of Falsification of
Public Document.
So, what RA 3019 prohibits is non-filing. But if the public
officer files but there are falsities made in the SALN, then
the case can either be Falsification of Public Document or
the crime of Perjury under Article 183.
COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION
The Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction on violations
of RA 3019 if the public officer charged is of Salary Grade
27 or above. Below that, the Ombudsman must file the
case before the proper trial court.
PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD
Violations of RA 3019 prescribes in twenty (20) years from
the time of the commission or from the time of discovery of
the said crime. However, the right of the government to
recover ill-gotten wealth cannot be barred by prescription,
by laches, or by estoppel.
SECTION 13. SUSPENSION AND LOSS OF BENEFITS
Section 13. Suspension and loss of benefits. Any public
officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a
valid information under this Act or under the provisions of
the Revised Penal Code on bribery is pending in court,
shall be suspended from office. Should he be convicted by
final judgment, he shall lose all retirement or gratuity
benefits under any law, but if he is acquitted, he shall be
entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and benefits
which he failed to receive during suspension, unless in the
meantime administrative proceedings have been filed
against him.
The law provides that public officers who are charged shall
be placed under preventive suspension. Supreme Court
said, Section 13 is mandatory. The Sandiganbayan has the
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
ministerial duty to place a public officer charged of violation
of RA 3019 under preventive suspension.
As early as the case of Bayot v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos.
61776 to 61861 March 23, 1984, the Supreme Court has
ruled that Section 13 of RA 3019 is constitutional because
placing him under preventive suspension is not considered
a felony. It is merely a preventive measure. A preventive
measure in order to prevent the public officer charged in
court for violation of RA 3019 from tampering the evidence,
from influencing the witnesses, or from committing further
crimes. Since it is a mere preventive measure, and not a
penalty imposed, then Supreme Court said, Section 13 is
constitutional.
And it is mandatory but it is not automatic. It is not
automatic because after the filing of the information by the
Ombudsman to the Sandiganbayan, it does not
automatically mean that the Sandiganbayan will
immediately place the concerned public officer under
preventive suspension. The Sandiganbayan must still look
at the information. Is the information sufficient in form and
substance to bring about a conviction? Is there probable
cause? If there is, it is now mandatory on the part of the
Sandiganbayan to place the said public officer under
preventive suspension.
Prof: Bata pa siguro kayo. The hotel in Quezon City was
burned. Many guests died because they couldn’t find the
exit. Because of that, the heads of the City Engineers
Office of Quezon City were charged with violation of
Section 3(e) of RA 3019. They were also charged
administratively for gross neglect of duty. Both cases were
filed to the office of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman has
the jurisdiction on the administrative case. In so far as the
criminal case, after finding probable cause, the
Ombudsman filed the case before the Sandiganbayan.
In so far as the administrative case is concerned, the Office
of the Ombudsman placed the said City Engineer under
preventive suspension for a period of 6 months.
Thereafter, after about 2 years, when the case for violation
of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 was filed before the
Sandiganbayan, the Sandiganbayan upon a finding of
probable cause, also placed the same City Engineer under
preventive suspension.
The officer’s counsel said, that cannot be, he has already
undergone preventive suspension in the administrative
case, therefore, it is wrong for the Sandiganbayan to place
him again under preventive suspension because both
cases arise from the same facts and circumstances.
Is the argument of the counsel, correct?
A: NO. Supreme Court said, the Sandiganbayan has the
duty to place him under preventive suspension. It is not
“either or”. Even if he has already undergone preventive
suspension in the administrative case, still he has to be
placed under preventive suspension by reason of Section
80 of 188
13 of RA 3019 which provides for its mandatory application
because the law used the word “shall”.
ARTICLE 212. CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS
Article 212. Corruption of public officials. - The same
penalties imposed upon the officer corrupted, except those
of disqualification and suspension, shall be imposed upon
any person who shall have made the offers or promises or
given the gifts or presents as described in the preceding
articles.
If direct bribery or indirect bribery is the crime committed
by the public officer receiving the bribe, the crime
committed by the giver of the bribe is Corruption of Public
Officials under Article 212.
Corruption of Public Officials is committed by any person
who shall make an offer or promise or give any gift or
present to a public officer under circumstances in which the
public officer will become liable for direct bribery or indirect
bribery.
Elements of Corruption of Public Officials
1. The offender makes or offers promises or gifts or
presents to a public officer; and
2. That the offers or promises are made or the gifts or
the gifts or presents given to a public officer, under
circumstances that will make the public officer liable
for direct bribery or indirect bribery.
Q: X was driving his car. He was stopped by an MMDA
Officer allegedly by violating the traffic rules and
regulations. When his driver’s license was asked by
the MMDA Officer, instead of giving his driver’s
license, he gave him secretly P500.00. But the MMDA
Officer said, “No, I do not receive bribes.” Then X
pulled out again his wallet and this time, took P1000.00
and gave it to the said officer. But the MMDA Officer
said, “No! I told you; I do not receive bribes! Hand me
your license, I will give you the ticket.” The MMDA
refused to be corrupted. Is X liable for Attempted
Corruption of Public Officials? Is there such a crime?
A: YES. Under Article 212, in case of Corruption of Public
Officials, the penalty is the same as that imposed upon the
public officer corrupted. Therefore, there is such a crime as
Attempted Corruption of Public Officials. As held in the
case of Pozar v. People, GR L-62439, October 23 ,1984,
the opening phrase in Article 212, “the same penalties
imposed upon the public officer corrupted”. This simply
means that the penalty will be the same as the penalty for
direct bribery or indirect bribery. So, there is such a crime
as Attempted Corruption of Public Officials
ARTICLE 213. FRAUDS AGAINST THE PUBLIC
TREASURY AND SIMILAR OFFENSES
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
Article 213. Frauds against the public treasury and similar
offenses. - The penalty of prision correccional in its
medium period to prision mayor in its minimum period, or
a fine ranging from 200 to 10,000 pesos, or both, shall be
imposed upon any public officer who:
1. In his official capacity, in dealing with any person with
regard to furnishing supplies, the making of contracts, or
the adjustment or settlement of accounts relating to public
property or funds, shall enter into an agreement with any
interested party or speculator or make use of any other
scheme, to defraud the Government;
2. Being entrusted with the collection of taxes, licenses,
fees and other imposts, shall be guilty or any of the
following acts or omissions:
(a) Demanding, directly, or indirectly, the payment of sums
different from or larger than those authorized by law.
(b) Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided by law,
for any sum of money collected by him officially.
(c) Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by way of
payment or otherwise things or objects of a nature different
from that provided by law.
When the culprit is an officer or employee of the Bureau of
Internal Revenue or the Bureau of Customs, the provisions
of the Administrative Code shall be applied.
TWO (2) ACTS PUNISHED:
1. Fraud against public treasury (par.1); and
2. Illegal exaction (par. 2)
Elements of Fraud against Public Treasury
1. That the offender is a public officer;
2. That he should have taken advantage of his office,
that is he intervened in the transaction of his official
capacity;
3. That he entered into an agreement with any
interested party or speculator or made use of any
other scheme with regard to:
a. furnishing supplies;
b. the making of contracts;
c. the adjustment or settlement of accounts
relating to public property or funds.
4. That the accused had intent to defraud the
Government.
Elements of Illegal Exaction
1. That the offender is a public officer entrusted with
the collection of taxes, licenses, fees and other
imposts; and
2. He is guilty of any of the following acts or omissions:
81 of 188
a. Demanding, directly or indirectly, the
payment of sums different from or larger
than those authorized by law;
b. Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as
provided by law, for any sum of money
collected by him officially; or
c. Collecting or receiving, directly or
indirectly, by way of payment or otherwise,
things or objects of a nature different from
that provided by law.
Q: Who is the offender in Illegal Exaction?
A: The offender in Illegal Exaction is the public officer who
is in charge with the collection of taxes, licenses, fees, and
other imposts. He must be a Collecting Public Officer. And
he violates the rules on collection.
Under the first act, a mere demand of any amount different
from that which is authorized by law whether it is higher or
lower will already give rise to a crime. The law does not
require that payment be made.
Under the second act, for every sum of money you paid to
the government, you have the right to get the official
receipt. If the said public officer deliberately fails to issue
the said official receipt for the sum of money collected from
you, then he becomes liable for Illegal Exaction under the
second act.
Under the third act, if the law requires that payment must
be made in cash, do not accept any payment other than
that in cash. Otherwise, the said public officer will be liable
for Illegal Exaction.
Q: X went to the City Hall. He is an owner of a small
sari-sari store. The said small sari-sari store is
licensed, and so he is now renewing his license. Since
he knew that there will be an inspection, and he was
afraid to be penalized, he went to the City Treasurer’s
Office to ask how much he has to pay for the renewal
of the license of his small sari-sari store.
Y, the city cashier, said, “You have to pay 1,000
pesos.” X said, “Wala pa akong benta. Wala pa akong
pangbayad. Magi-inspection na bukas.” because he
knew Y. Y told X, “Bigyan mo na lang ako ng limang
kahong sigarilyo. Pwede na yun.”
X came back. He came with 5 packs of cigarettes to Y,
the collecting officer. Is he liable?
A: YES. Y, the collecting officer, is liable for Illegal
Exaction.
He cannot receive 5 packs of cigarettes. Said 5 packs of
cigarettes will not go to the government. Therefore, the act
of the collecting officer in receiving an amount which is not
authorized by law will make him liable for Illegal Exaction.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
Q: X is a cashier at the City Treasurer’s Office. Here
comes a person paying for the renewal of his business
license. He inquired from X, “How much do I have to
pay?” X said, “A new ordinance has just taken effect
since yesterday. For the renewal of your business
license, you have to pay 5,000 pesos.”
The person believed. Said person gave 5,000 pesos to
X. X took the money and when the person was asking
from X if he could have his official receipt (OR), X said,
“Oh. I have no more official receipt here. Anyway, just
come back here tomorrow. I will give you your
certificate of renewal of business permit. That will
suffice because it means you have paid.” Because of
that, the person left.
X placed the entire 5,000 pesos inside the cash vault
assigned to him. The amount to be collected should
only be 3,000, but he demanded 5,000 and placed the
entire money inside the cash vault and thereafter, he
continued doing his duty for that day. When it was time
to go home, X realized that he has an excess collection
in the amount of 2,000 pesos. He opened the cash
vault, took the 2,000 pesos (four 500 peso bills), and
he placed it inside his wallet and went home. He used
it to buy groceries to be given to his family.
What crime or crimes is/are committed by cashier X?
A: First, he is liable for Illegal Exaction under Art. 213,
second paragraph.
He is a collecting public officer. He demanded an amount
larger than that authorized by law. The amount authorized
by law is 3,000 pesos, yet he demanded, and even
received 5,000 pesos. He also deliberately failed to issue
the official receipt for the sum of money that he has
collected.
Therefore, he is liable for illegal exaction.
Second, Cashier X is also liable for Malversation of
Funds and Property under Art. 217.
The moment Cashier X placed the entire 5,000 pesos
inside the cash vault, the entire 5,000 pesos became part
of public funds. When he opened it again and took 2,000
pesos by four 500 peso bills, he was in effect taking part of
public funds.
Therefore, he becomes liable for malversation of public
funds and property.
[Articles 214-216 were not discussed during lecture. The
following are culled from previous notes.]
ARTICLE 214. OTHER FRAUDS
Article 214. Other frauds. - In addition to the penalties
prescribed in the provisions of Chapter Six, Title Ten, Book
82 of 188
Two, of this Code, the penalty of temporary special
disqualification in its maximum period to perpetual special
disqualification shall be imposed upon any public officer
who, taking advantage of his official position, shall commit
any of the frauds or deceits enumerated in said provisions.
Elements of Other Frauds
1. That the offender is a public officer.
2. That he takes advantage of his official functions.
3. That he commits any of the frauds or deceit
enumerated in Articles 315 to 318.
If a public officer commits any of the frauds or deceits
constituting estafa or swindling under Art. 315-318, and he
does so by taking advantage of his official position, his
criminal liability is Other Frauds under Art. 214. It is not
estafa or swindling because in the case of a public officer,
there is an additional penalty.
If you look at Article 214, the law says that the penalty is
the same penalty as the first offense under Art. 315-318.
But additional to that, he is punished with temporary
disqualification to perpetual disqualification for having
taken advantage of his official position. Therefore, if it is a
public officer who commits estafa or swindling, the crime is
under Art. 214 and there is an additional penalty.
Q: The military in Mindanao needs blankets. The head
of military asked the supply officer in Manila how
much a blanket costs. They will be buying 1000
blankets. Supply officer canvassed and found that a
blanket cost 500. He connived and conspired with the
supplier of the blankets and told him to price apiece of
600 pesos. So it was what was delivered to Mindanao.
Therefore, the government issued a check in the
amount of 600K wherein it should only be 500K. What
crime has been committed by the supply officer?
A: The supply officer is liable for Article 213 first paragraph
(Fraud Against the Public Treasury) because there is no
allocation of the budget yet. Therefore, when the treasury
paid for more than what has been paid, the treasury is
defrauded. Hence, the crim committed is Article 213 (1).
Q: What if the GAA had already been approved by the
Congress and signed by the President, there was
already a budget for the entire calendar year. In this
budget, the military was given a portion for the
blankets. So there was 1000 blankets with 500K budget
allocated. Upon the enactment of the same, the head
of the military asked the supply officer to canvass.
Upon canvassing, he found that there were blankets
that cost 500 pesos each. But the supply officer
connived with the supplier of the blankets and told him
that instead of delivering blankets with premium
quality costing 500 pesos, he should deliver only
inferior quality blankets costing 300 pesos each,
anyway, the people in Mindanao would not know. So
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
the poor quality blankets were delivered. What crime
is committed?
A: The crime committed is not fraud against public treasury
but Other Frauds under Article 214. This is because there
is an allocation in the GAA and as such, the treasury can
no longer be defrauded because such amount has long
been allocated or earmarked for the purchase of the
blankets. The fraud is in the implementation of the budget
therefore it amounted to Estafa. Other frauds is committed
by any public officer, who, by taking advantage of his
official position would commit any of the acts of Estafa
under Articles 315 – 318.
ARTICLE 215. PROHIBITED TRANSACTIONS
Article 215. Prohibited transactions. - The penalty of
prision correccional in its maximum period or a fine ranging
from 200 to 1,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon
any appointive public officer who, during his incumbency,
shall directly or indirectly become interested in any
transaction of exchange or speculation within the territory
subject to his jurisdiction.
Elements of Prohibited Transactions
1. That the offender is an appointive public officer;
2. That he becomes interested directly or indirectly in
any transaction of exchange or speculation;
3. That the transaction takes place within the territory
subject to his jurisdiction; and
4. That he becomes interested in the transaction
during his incumbency.
ARTICLE 216. POSSESSION OF PROHIBITED
INTEREST BY A PUBLIC OFFICER
Article 216. Possession of prohibited interest by a public
officer. - The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period
to prision correccional in its minimum period, or a fine
ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed
upon a public officer who directly or indirectly, shall
become interested in any contract or business in which it
is his official duty to intervene.
This provisions is applicable to experts, arbitrators and
private accountants who, in like manner, shall take part in
any contract or transaction connected with the estate or
property in appraisal, distribution or adjudication of which
they shall have acted, and to the guardians and executors
with respect to the property belonging to their wards or
estate.
Persons liable
83 of 188
1. Public officer who, directly or indirectly, became
interested in any contract or business in which it
was his official duty to intervene;
2. Experts, arbitrators and accountants who, in like
manner, took part in any contract or transaction
connected with the estate or property in the
appraisal, distribution, or adjudication of which
they had acted; and
3. Guardians and executors with respect to the
property belonging to their wards or the estate.
ARTICLE 217. MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS
AND PROPERTY
Article 217. Malversation of public funds or property;
Presumption of malversation. - Any public officer who, by
reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public
funds or property, shall appropriate the same or shall take
or misappropriate or shall consent, through abandonment
or negligence, shall permit any other person to take such
public funds, or property, wholly or partially, or shall
otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation
of such funds or property, shall suffer:
1. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods, if the amount involved in the
misappropriation or malversation does not exceed two
hundred pesos.
2. The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium
periods, if the amount involved is more than two hundred
pesos but does not exceed six thousand pesos.
3. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to
reclusion temporal in its minimum period, if the amount
involved is more than six thousand pesos but is less than
twelve thousand pesos.
4. The penalty of reclusion temporal, in its medium and
maximum periods, if the amount involved is more than
twelve thousand pesos but is less than twenty-two
thousand pesos. If the amount exceeds the latter, the
penalty shall be reclusion temporal in its maximum period
to reclusion perpetua.
In all cases, persons guilty of malversation shall also suffer
the penalty of perpetual special disqualification and a fine
equal to the amount of the funds malversed or equal to the
total value of the property embezzled.
The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any
public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon
demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be prima facie
evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to
personal use. (As amended by RA 1060).
Elements of Malversation of Public Funds or Property
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
1. Offender be a public officer;
2. He had custody or control of funds by reason of
the duties of his office;
3. Those funds and property were public funds and
property for which he was accountable; and
4. He appropriated, took, misappropriated or
consented, or through his abandonment or
negligence, he permitted another person to take
them.
Q: Based on the first, second and third elements, what
kind of public officer is the offender in the crime of
Malversation under Art. 217?
A: He must be an accountable public officer.
Q: Who is an accountable public officer?
A: An accountable public officer is a public officer, who, by
reason of the duties of his office, has received public funds
and property that he has the obligation to account for later
to the State.
Q: Based on the last element, we have two ways of
committing Malversation of Public Funds or Property.
What are these?
A: Malversation of public funds and property can be
committed through the offender’s:
1. Positive act – when he himself appropriated, took,
misappropriated the said public funds and
property. This is malversation through dolo or
deliberate intent.
2. Passive act – when because of the public officer’s
negligence or abandonment, he permitted another
person to misappropriate the said public funds and
property in his custody. This is malversation
through culpa or negligence.
Q: Is demand an element under Art. 217?
A: NO. Demand is not an element. Under Art. 217, if
demand is made to an accountable public officer of funds
and property and the same is not forthcoming, the law
creates a prima facie presumption that the public officer
has malversed the public funds and property.
VENEZUELA v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 205693 | 14 February 2018 Reyes, Jr J.
FACTS: Valenzuela was the mayor of Pozorrubio,
Pangasinan. A team of auditors conducted an investigation
on the account of Costes, then municipal treasurer. It was
discovered that a shortage of hp 2,872,808.00 on the joint
accounts of Costes and Venezuela. Consequently, three
84 of 188
demand letters were issued against Valenzuela ordering
him to liquidate his cash advances. Venezuela sent an
explanation letter acknowledging his accountability for the
cash advances amounting to Php 943,200.00, while
denying the remainder of the cash advances.
An information was filed accusing Villanueva of the crime
of Malversation of Public Funds. During the trial, it was
found that the receipts submitted by Venezuela purportedly
evidencing his payment of the unliquidated cash advances
did not really reflect the payments claimed, as they were
issued to different persons, in different amounts and for
different amounts.
The Sandiganbayan convicted Venezuela. It
acknowledged that Venezuela made a partial refund of his
liabilities, thereby reducing his unliquidated cash advances
to Php. 2,572,808.00. It considered such refund as a
mitigating circumstance akin to voluntary surrender.
ISSUE: Is Venezuela guilty of malversation of public
funds?
RULING: YES. Verily, in the crime of malversation of
public funds, all that is necessary for conviction is proof
that the accountable officer had received the public funds
and that he failed to account for the said funds upon
demand without offering a justifiable explanation for the
shortage.
A municipal mayor, being the chief executive of his
respective municipality, is deemed an accountable
officer, and is thus responsible for all the government
funds within his jurisdiction. Undoubtedly, as the
municipal mayor, Venezuela had control of the subject
funds, and was accountable therefor.
Finally, anent the last element for the crime of malversation
of public funds, Venezuela failed to return the amount of
Php2,572,808.00, upon demand. His failure or inability
to return the shortage upon demand created a prima
facie evidence that the funds were put to his personal use,
which Venezuela failed to overturn.
The payment, indemnification, or reimbursement of, or
compromise on the amounts or funds malversed or
misappropriated, after the commission of the crime, does
not extinguish the accused's criminal liability or
relieve the accused from the penalty prescribed by the
law. At best, such acts of reimbursement may only affect
the offender's civil liability, and may be credited in his favor
as a mitigating circumstance analogous to voluntary
surrender.
Venezuela claims that he was incorrectly charged for
Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217. He points
out that he had ceased to hold office as municipal mayor
on June 30, 1998, when the COA auditors sent the
demand letter ordering him to liquidate his cash advances.
Thus, the offense that must be charged against him should
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
fall under Article 218 of the RPC or Failure of
Accountable Officer to Render Accounts, which
punishes an officer (incumbent or retired) who fails to
render an account of his funds. Suffice it to say, demand
is not necessary in malversation. Demand merely raises a
prima facie presumption that the missing funds have been
put to personal use. The demand itself, however, is not an
element of, and is not indispensable to constitute
malversation. Malversation is committed from the very
moment the accountable officer misappropriates public
funds and fails to satisfactorily explain his inability to
produce the public funds he received.
Thus, even assuming for the sake of argument that
Venezuela received the demand after his term of office,
this does not in any way affect his criminal liability. The fact
remains that he misappropriated the funds under his
control and custody while he was the municipal
mayor. To claim that the demand should have been
received during the incumbency of the public officer, is to
add an element that is not required in any of the laws or
jurisprudence.
CASE DISCUSSION: VENEZUELA V. PEOPLE
In the case of Mayor Venezuela v. People, the Supreme
Court said that demand merely raises a prima facie
presumption that the missing cash have been put to
personal use by the public officer. Mayor Venezuela’s
failure or inability to return the shortage upon demand
created a prima facie presumption that the funds were
used by him for his personal purposes.
Therefore, the purpose of demand is to create a prima
facie presumption, but the Supreme Court said that
demand is not in itself nor indispensable to constitute
malversation because malversation is consummated from
the very moment the accountable public officer
appropriates the public funds and fails to satisfactorily
explain his inability to produce the public funds that he has
received.
Q: X is a cashier. She was doing her duties and making
collections. She received a phone call that her
husband was downstairs. The husband said, “I’m here
on the ground floor. I have something to give you.
Come down for a moment.”
Cashier X told Cashier Y to man her place. Thereafter,
Cashier X went downstairs and met her husband.
When Cashier X left, Cashier Y saw that Cashier X left
the key in the cash vault’s key hole. When Y saw it, Y
went to X’s seat, opened the vault, took Php. 20,000
and went back to her seat.
When Cashier X came back, she continued doing her
duties, unaware that Php. 20,000 had already been
taken.
85 of 188
At about 3:00 in the afternoon, auditors from the
Provincial Auditor’s Office arrived. A surprise audit
was conducted and Cashier X was informed that she
was short of Php. 20,000. She was asked where the
funds were. Cashier X was shocked. Because of that,
she could not give a justifiable reason or explanation
why she was short of Php. 20,000. Because of that, for
her failure to give any valid explanation, she was
charged with Malversation of Public Funds or Property
under Art. 217.
The Information alleged that she appropriated,
misappropriated and took Php. 20,000 from her
collection. It was discovered during an audit
conducted by the officers of the Provincial Auditors
Office.
During the trial on the merits of the case, based on the
evidence presented, the truth was established that it
was Cashier Y who took the Php. 20,000 when X left to
go downstairs. It was clear and convincing evidence
presented by the defense counsel and therefore the
judge convicted Cashier X not of Malversation through
dolo or deliberate intent but Malversation through
culpa or negligence.
Is the judge correct?
A: YES. As ruled by the Court in the case of Torres v.
People, the dolo (deliberate intent) or culpa (negligence)
are merely the modalities in the commission of the crime
of malversation. But whether malversation is committed
through dolo or culpa, the same act of malversation is
punished by law and they have the same penalties
prescribed under the law.
Therefore, even if the crime charged is malversation
through dolo or deliberate intent, if the evidence presented
only establishes malversation through culpa or negligence,
the judge can very well convict him of malversation through
culpa or negligence.
TORRES v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 175074 | 31 August 2011 Peralta, J.
FACTS: Petitioner Jesus Torres was the principal of Viga
Rural Development High School (VRDHS). On April 26,
1994, he directed Edmundo Lazado, the school’s collection
and disbursing officer, to prepare the checks representing
the teachers’ and employees’ salaries, salary differentials,
additional compensation allowance (ACA) and personal
emergency relief allowance (PERA) for the months of
January to March, 1994. Lazado prepared three (3) checks
in the total amount of ₱196,654.54, all dated April 26,
1994, and Amador Borre, Head Teacher III, signed the
three (3) checks.
Upon the instruction of the [petitioner], Lazado endorsed
the checks and handed them to the accused. It was the
custom in the school for Lazado to endorse the checks
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
representing the teachers’ salaries and for the accused to
encash them at PNB, Virac Branch and deliver the cash to
Lazado for distribution to the teachers. The following day,
April 27, 1994, the accused encashed the three (3) checks
at PNB, Virac Branch but he never returned to the school
to deliver the money to Lazado.
The petitioner admitted that he encashed the subject
checks at PNB, Virac Branch in the morning of April 27,
1994 but instead of going back to the school, he proceeded
to the airport and availed of the flight to Manila to seek
medical attention for his chest pain. Two (2) days after,
around 4:30 o’clock in the morning of April 29, 1994, while
he and his nephew were on the road waiting for a ride,
three (3) armed men held them up and took his bag
containing his personal effects and the proceeds of the
subject checks. He reported the incident to the police
authorities, but he failed to recover the money.
The accused is not deprived of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him because the dolo or the culpa are
merely modalities in the commission of the crime.
Q: X was charged with the crime of malversation under
Art. 217. During the hearing of the case, when X
testified, he was able to show and establish in open
court that the said funds that were missing during
audit has been entrusted to him for his administration.
According to him, it is for the construction of three
libraries in the public school. Since it was pandemic,
classes are online, there was no need to establish the
libraries so he used it first in order to provide for the
basic needs of his constituents whose houses were
gutted by a fire. According to him, it was important to
use this for the benefit of his constituents instead of
building libraries which at the moment could not be
useful since classes are online.

ISSUE: Is petitioner guilty of malversation of public funds? Having proven that in court, the judge convicted X of
technical malversation although the Information
RULING: YES. Petitioner posits that he could not be alleges malversation under Art. 217.
convicted under the allegations in the Information without
violating his constitutional right to be informed of the Is the judge correct?
accusations against him. He maintains that the Information
clearly charged him with intentional malversation and not A: NO. The judge is wrong.
malversation through negligence, which was the actual
nature of malversation for which he was convicted by the Since the Information charged X in court of Malversation
trial court. This lacks merit. under Art. 217, it is incorrect for him to convict the accused
public of technical malversation under Art. 220 because
Malversation may be committed either through a positive malversation under Art. 217 is different, separate and
act of misappropriation of public funds or property, or distinct from technical malversation under Art. 220. One is
passively through negligence. To sustain a charge of not necessarily included in the other. One is not merely a
malversation, there must either be criminal intent or modality of the other. They are two different and distinct
criminal negligence, and while the prevailing facts of a felonies and one does not absorb the other.
case may not show that deceit attended the commission of
the offense, it will not preclude the reception of evidence to Malversation under Art. 217 v. Technical Malversation
prove the existence of negligence because both are under Art. 220
equally punishable under Article 217 of the Revised Penal
Code. Malversation under Art. Technical Malversation
217 under Art. 220
More in point, the felony involves breach of public trust, The offender is in charge The public officer has
and whether it is committed through deceit or negligence, of the public funds and public funds and property
the law makes it punishable and prescribes a uniform property for safekeeping; in his possession for his
penalty therefor. Even when the Information charges willful to be the custodian of the administration.
malversation, conviction for malversation through same.
negligence may still be adjudged if the evidence ultimately He has the obligation to The public officer has the
proves the mode of commission of the offense. account later the public duty to apply it to that
funds and property in his particular use for which it
CASE DISCUSSION: TORRES V. PEOPLE custody. has been appropriated by
law or ordinance.
The Supreme Court in this case ruled that malversation The public officer The public officer applied
through culpa or negligence is necessarily included in appropriated, took or the public funds and
malversation through dolo or deliberate intent. The misappropriated the property to another public
accused cannot argue that he has been denied of the public funds for his own use other than that to
nature and cause of the accusation against him even if the personal use. which it has been
crime charged is malversation through dolo or deliberate appropriated by law or
intent. He can be convicted of malversation through culpa ordinance.
or negligence if that is what the evidence has established. Malum in se. Malum prohibitum.

86 of 188
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
Note:
If the charge is Art. 217, even if evidence shows that
the act constitutes technical malversation, the judge
has to acquit the accused of Art. 217. A separate case
for technical malversation under Art. 220 should be
filed.
A judge cannot conviction an accused of technical
malversation charged under an Information that alleges
malversation under Art. 217.
Torres v. People (Question from the block)
Q: The designation of the offense in the Information is
to allow the accused to prepare for his defense. Is it
not unfair that when the information charges
intentional malversation, he will not be able to prepare
for negligent malversation?
As the Supreme Court said, malversation through
negligence is necessarily included in malversation through
dolo or deliberate intent. So, when the accused is
preparing his defense that he did not do it intentionally, it
somehow necessarily follows that since there was no
intent, there is also no negligence. Even in cases of
homicide, for example the charge was murder by means of
a motor vehicle, but during the presentation of evidence
there is only negligence. Thus, the charge will be only
reckless imprudence. In this case, since reckless
imprudence is necessarily included in the crime of murder,
you cannot say that the offender has been deprived of his
right to be informed of the nature of the accusation against
him. If he denied that it was intentional, it also follows that
he denies that it was negligently committed.
TIP: If you are on the defense, use everything to defend
him.
[Articles 218-219 were not discussed during lecture. The
following are culled from previous notes.]
ARTICLE 218. FAILURE OF ACCOUNTABLE OFFICER
TO RENDER SEPARATE ACCOUNTS
Article 218. Failure of accountable officer to render
accounts. - Any public officer, whether in the service or
separated therefrom by resignation or any other cause,
who is required by law or regulation to render account to
the Insular Auditor, or to a provincial auditor and who fails
to do so for a period of two months after such accounts
should be rendered, shall be punished by prision
correccional in its minimum period, or by a fine ranging
from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both.
Elements of Failure of Accountable Officer to Render
Accounts
1. Offender is a public officer, whether in the service
or separated therefrom;
87 of 188
2. He must be an accountable public officer for public
funds or property;
3. He is required by law or regulation to render
accounts to the Commission on Audit, or to a
provincial Auditor; and
4. He fails to do so for a period of two months after
such accounts should be rendered.
ARTICLE 219. FAILURE OF A RESPONSIBLE PUBLIC
OFFICER TO RENDER ACCOUNTS BEFORE
LEAVING THE COUNTRY
Article 219. Failure of a responsible public officer to render
accounts before leaving the country. - Any public officer
who unlawfully leaves or attempts to leave the Philippine
Islands without securing a certificate from the Insular
Auditor showing that his accounts have been finally settled,
shall be punished by arresto mayor, or a fine ranging from
200 to 1,000 pesos or both.
Elements of Failure of Responsible Public Officer to
Render Accounts Before Leaving the Country
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He must be an accountable officer for public funds
or property;
3. He must have unlawfully left (or be on point of
leaving) the Philippines without securing from the
Commission on Audit a certificate showing that his
accounts have finally been settled.
ARTICLE 220. TECHNICAL MALVERSATION
Article 220. Illegal use of public funds or property. - Any
public officer who shall apply any public fund or property
under his administration to any public use other than for
which such fund or property were appropriated by law or
ordinance shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in
its minimum period or a fine ranging from one-half to the
total of the sum misapplied, if by reason of such
misapplication, any damages or embarrassment shall
have resulted to the public service. In either case, the
offender shall also suffer the penalty of temporary special
disqualification.
If no damage or embarrassment to the public service has
resulted, the penalty shall be a fine from 5 to 50 per cent
of the sum misapplied.
Elements of Technical Malversation
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. There is public fund or property under his
administration;
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
3. Such public fund or property has been
appropriated by law or ordinance; and
4. He applies the same to a public use other than that
for which such fund or property has been
appropriated by law or ordinance.
YSIDORO v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 192330 | 14 November 2012 ABAD, J.:
FACTS: The Municipal Social Welfare and Development
Office (MSWDO) of Leyte operated a Core Shelter
Assistance Program (CSAP) that provided construction
materials to indigent calamity victims with which to rebuild
their homes. The beneficiaries provided the labor needed
for construction. When construction for calamity victims in
Sitio Luy-a, Barangay Tinugtogan, was 70% done, the
beneficiaries stopped reporting for work for the reason that
they had to find food for their families. This worried Lolita
Garcia (Garcia), the CSAP Officer-in-Charge, for such
construction stoppage could result in the loss of
construction materials particularly the cement. Thus, she
sought the help of Cristina Polinio (Polinio), an officer of
the MSWDO in charge of the municipality’s Supplemental
Feeding Program (SFP) that rationed food to malnourished
children. Polinio told Garcia that the SFP still had sacks of
rice and boxes of sardines in its storeroom. And since she
had already distributed food to the mother volunteers, what
remained could be given to the CSAP beneficiaries.
Garcia and Polinio went to petitioner Arnold James M.
Ysidoro, the Leyte Municipal Mayor, to seek his approval,
which the mayor gave. Subsequently, the mayor was
charged for technical malversation. In his defense, Ysidoro
claims that the diversion of the subject goods to a project
also meant for the poor of the municipality was valid since
they came from the savings of the SFP and the Calamity
Fund. Ysidoro also claims good faith, believing that the
municipality’s poor CSAP beneficiaries were also in urgent
need of food.
ISSUES:
1. Are the goods he approved for diversion in the
nature of savings that could be used to augment
the other authorized expenditures of the
municipality?
2. Is good faith a valid defense for technical
malversation.
HELD:
1. NO. The subject goods could not be regarded as
savings. The SFP is a continuing program that ran
throughout the year. Consequently, no one could
say in mid-June 2001 that SFP had already
finished its project, leaving funds or goods that it
no longer needed. The fact that Polinio had
already distributed the food items needed by the
88 of 188
SFP beneficiaries for the second quarter of 2001
does not mean that the remaining food items in its
storeroom constituted unneeded savings. The
Local Government Code provides that an
ordinance has to be enacted to validly apply funds,
already appropriated for a determined public
purpose, to some other purpose.
2. NO. Good faith is not a defense in technical
malversation. Criminal intent is not an element of
technical malversation. The law punishes the act
of diverting public property earmarked by law or
ordinance for a particular public purpose to
another public purpose. The offense is mala
prohibita, meaning that the prohibited act is not
inherently immoral but becomes a criminal offense
because positive law forbids its commission based
on considerations of public policy, order, and
convenience. It is the commission of an act as
defined by the law, and not the character or effect
thereof, that determines whether or not the
provision has been violated. Hence, malice or
criminal intent is completely irrelevant.
CASE DISCUSSION: YSIDORO V. PEOPLE
The Supreme Court said in this case that criminal intent is
not an element of technical malversation. What the law
punishes is the act of diverting public funds or property
earmarked by law or ordinance for a particular public
purpose to another public purpose.
The offense is mala prohibita. The prohibited act is not
inherently evil or wrong; it becomes criminal because
positive law forbids its commission based on public policy
and order.
Mayor Ysidoro said that he acted in good faith. The
Supreme Court said that good faith is not a defense.
Criminal intent not being an element of technical
malversation, lack of criminal intent is not a defense. Dura
Lex Sed Lex. The law is harsh, but it is the law. Mayor
Ysidoro’s act, no matter how noble or miniscule the amount
diverted, still constituted the crime of technical
malversation. However, the Supreme Court recognized
that Mayor Ysidoro’s offense was not grave. It imposed
upon Mayor Ysidoro only a penalty of fine and no
imprisonment because the offense is not grave warranting
a mere fine as penalty.
ABDULLA v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 150129 | 6 April 2005
FACTS: Convicted by the Sandiganbayan of the crime of
technical malversation, appellant Norma A. Abdulla is now
before this Court on petition for review under Rule 45.
Along with Nenita Aguil and Mahmud Darkis, appellant was
charged under an Information which alleged that she and
Nenita Aguil, being then the President and cashier
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
respectively of the Sulu State College, conspiring and
confederating with Mahmud Darkis, Administrative Officer
V of the said school, applied for the payment of wages of
casuals the amount of P40,000 which amount was
appropriated for the payment of the salary differentials of
secondary school teachers of the said school.
Appellant’s co-accused, Nenita Aguil and Mahmud Darkis,
were both acquitted. Only appellant was found guilty and
sentenced by the Sandiganbayan in its decision. Upon
motion for reconsideration, the Sandiganbayan amended
appellant’s sentence by deleting the temporary special
disqualification imposed upon her. Still dissatisfied,
appellant, now before this Court, persistently pleas
innocence of the crime charged.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not there was unlawful intent on the
appellant’s part.
2. Whether or not the essential elements of the crime
of technical malversation is present.
HELD:
1. NO. The presumption of criminal intent will not
automatically apply to all charges of technical
malversation because disbursement of public
funds for public use is per se not an unlawful act.
Here, appellant cannot be said to have committed
an unlawful act when she paid the obligation of the
Sulu State College to its employees in the form of
terminal leave benefits such employees were
entitled to under existing civil service laws.
There is no dispute that the money was spent for
a public purpose – payment of the wages of
laborers working on various projects in the
municipality. It is pertinent to note the high priority
which laborers’ wages enjoy as claims against the
employers’ funds and resources. Settled is the rule
that conviction should rest on the strength of
evidence of the prosecution and not on the
weakness of the defense. Absent this required
quantum of evidence would mean exoneration for
accused-appellant. The Sandiganbayan’s
improper reliance on Sec. 5(b) of Rule 131 does
not save the day for the prosecution’s deficiency in
proving the existence of criminal intent nor could it
ever tilt the scale from the constitutional
presumption of innocence to that of guilt. In the
absence of criminal intent, this Court has no basis
to affirm appellant’s conviction.
2. NO. The Court notes that there is no particular
appropriation for salary differentials of secondary
school teachers of the Sulu State College in RA
6688.
89 of 188
The third element of the crime of technical
malversation which requires that the public fund
used should have been appropriated by law, is
therefore absent. The authorization given by the
Department of Budget and Management for the
use of the forty thousand pesos (P40,000.00)
allotment for payment of salary differentials of 34
secondary school teachers is not an ordinance or
law contemplated in Article 220 of the Revised
Penal Code. Appellant herein, who used the
remainder of the P40,000 released by the DBM for
salary differentials, for the payment of the terminal
leave benefits of other school teachers of the Sulu
State College, cannot be held guilty of technical
malversation in the absence, as here, of any
provision in RA 6688 specifically appropriating
said amount for payment of salary differentials
only. In fine, the third and fourth elements of the
crime defined in Article 220 of the Revised Penal
Code are lacking in this case. Acquittal is thus in
order.
CASE DISCUSSION: ABDULLA V. PEOPLE
The Supreme Court said that in order for technical
malversation to lie against a public officer, it is necessary
that there must be a law or ordinance appropriating the
funds allegedly technically malversed.
In the absence of a law or ordinance appropriating the finds
allegedly technically malversed, the use of the funds for
another public purpose will not bring about a conviction for
violation of Art. 220—technical malversation.
Note:
If you are given a problem during the bar, what you
need to look first is whether or not a law or ordinance
appropriating the public funds or property exists for a
particular public use or purpose.
If there is none, the funds can be transferred just like in
the case of Abdulla v. People. The funds in the case
were transferred because there was no law or
ordinance. The 40,000 pesos was just released by the
DBM as salary differentials. It came from a lump sum
appropriation of the GAA. It is not for a particular public
purpose. Therefore, even if it is used for a different
purpose, the Supreme Court said that Abudlla is no
liable as there is no law or ordinance that appropriates
the said amount for a particular public purpose.
Q: Can Malversation be committed by private
persons?
A: YES. Malversation can be committed by private
persons.
Q: Can Malversation be committed against private
funds?
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
A: YES. Malversation can be committed against private
funds. If the said private funds have been seized, attached,
or deposited by public authorities, they are no longer
considered as private funds as they are already under the
custody of the law. (in custodia legis)
Any act of taking the same will amount to malversation of
public funds and property.
Q: X was caught in possession of a caliber .45 pistol.
No license, so it was confiscated. He was brought to
the PNP station and the gun was given to the
custodian. A case of violation of R.A. 10591 was
charged against X. During the hearing of the case, the
public prosecutor moved that a subpoena duces
tecum and ad testificandum be issued against the
custodian. The public prosecutor wanted the court to
see the gun, the unlicensed pistol.
The subpoena was issued by the court for the PNP
custodian to bring the gun before the court. He did not
mind the subpoena. He received it, but he did not
appear in court. For the second time, he did not appear
in court again. The judge was mad so he issued a show
cause order against the PNP custodian. Hence, he
became afraid and appeared in court.
There, he narrated to the court that the gun is gone
because according to him he sold the gun. He was
charged with Malversation. He said, “No, it cannot be
malversation, as it is private property. It belongs to
accused X. He is not yet convicted and therefore it
cannot be considered public property.”
Is his contention meritorious?
A: NO. It is already public property because it has been
seized and attached by public authorities. Therefore, it is
in custody of the law, and when he sold the same, he
committed the crime of malversation of public funds and
property because he has the duty to account it later to the
State or government.
Related to malversation is plunder.
Plunder is committed by any public officer who by himself
are in connivance with members of his family, relatives, or
affinity by consanguinity, business associates,
subordinates, or any other persons, amasses,
accumulates, acquires ill-gotten wealth through a
combination or series of overt acts in the aggregate
amount or total value of at least P50,000,000.00.
Q: Can plunder be committed by private persons?
A: YES, in the case of Napoles vs. Sandiganbayan.
Plunder can be committed even by private persons if the
said private person is in connivance with the public officer
by the mere statement of Sec. 2 R.A. 7080. Plunder is
committed by any public officer who by who by himself are
90 of 188
in connivance with any members of his family, relatives, or
affinity by consanguinity, business associates,
subordinates, therefore other persons who are in
connivance with him, can also be charge with a crime of
plunder, not only public officers.
Section 2. Definition of the Crime of Plunder; Penalties. —
Any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with
members of his family, relatives by affinity or
consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other
persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten
wealth through a combination or series of overt or criminal
acts as described in Section 1(d) hereof in the aggregate
amount or total value of at least Fifty million pesos
(P50,000,000.00) shall be guilty of the crime of plunder and
shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death. Any
person who participated with the said public officer in the
commission of an offense contributing to the crime of
plunder shall likewise be punished for such offense. In the
imposition of penalties, the degree of participation and the
attendance of mitigating and extenuating circumstances,
as provided by the Revised Penal Code, shall be
considered by the court. The court shall declare any and
all ill-gotten wealth and their interests and other incomes
and assets including the properties and shares of stocks
derived from the deposit or investment thereof forfeited in
favor of the State. (As amended by RA 7659, approved
Dec. 13, 1993.)
Under Sec. 2, the penalty for plunder is reclusion perpetua
to death. The threshold amount is P50,000,000.00.
Anything lower than P50M, that crime is any other crime,
but not the crime of plunder. The penalty is reclusion
perpetua to death, and under sec. 2, in imposing the
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, the court, the
justices, may consider mitigating and extenuating
circumstances, and also the degree of participation of the
said offender. They can consider the mitigating
circumstance under art. 13. They can also consider the
degree of participation whether he is a principal, a mere
accomplice, or an accessory in the crime of plunder.
MACAPAGAL-ARROYO v. PEOPLE
G.R. NO. 220598 | 19 July 2016
In the case of GMA vs. People, the Supreme Court said,
the law on plunder requires that in the information filed in
court, it is required that a particular public officer must be
identified as the main plunderer. A particular public officer
must be identified as the one who amass, or accumulated
the ill-gotten wealth. If plunder is charged against several
persons in conspiracy with one another, there must be a
state, an allegation in the information as to who is the main
plunderer. His co-conspirators may be members of his
family, relatives, or affinity by consanguinity, business
associates, subordinates, or any other person.
In the case, the Supreme Court granted the demurrer to
evidence filed by the counsel of former president. The
Supreme Court said, absent a statement in the information,
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
absent an allegation in the information as to who is the
main plunderer, who is that particular public officer who
amassed the said ill-gotten wealth, then there is no
conspiracy in this case. Supreme Court said, considering
that there are 10 persons who were accused of amassing,
acquiring ill-gotten wealth, the 366 million shall be divided
into 1/10. It amounts only to 36 million, way below the
threshold amount of 50M.
Just like in case of violation of R.A. 3019, for public officers
of salary grade 27 or above, the Sandiganbayan has
jurisdiction. Just like also R.A. 3019, plunder prescribes in
20 years from the time the last act constituting plunder has
been committed.
INFIDELITY IN THE CUSTODY OF PRISONERS
Under Art. 223, 224, and 225, we have infidelity in the
custody of prisoners.
ARTICLE 223. CONNIVING WITH OR CONSENTING
TO EVASION
Article 223. Conniving with or consenting to evasion. - Any
public officer who shall consent to the escape of a prisoner
in his custody or charge, shall be punished:
1. By prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods and temporary special disqualification in its
maximum period to perpetual special disqualification, if the
fugitive shall have been sentenced by final judgment to any
penalty.
2. By prision correccional in its minimum period and
temporary special disqualification, in case the fugitive shall
not have been finally convicted but only held as a detention
prisoner for any crime or violation of law or municipal
ordinance.
Under Art. 223, infidelity in the custody of prisoners by
conniving or consenting with the escape of prisoners.
Elements of Conniving with or Consenting to Evasion
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He has in his custody or charge a prisoner, either
detention prisoner or prisoner by final judgment;
3. Such prisoner escaped from his custody;
4. That he was in connivance with the prisoner in the
latter’s escape, or is with his consent.
ARTICLE 224. EVASION THROUGH NEGLIGENCE
Article 224. Evasion through negligence. - If the evasion
of the prisoner shall have taken place through the
negligence of the officer charged with the conveyance or
custody of the escaping prisoner, said officer shall suffer
91 of 188
the penalties of arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prision correccional in its minimum period and temporary
special disqualification.
Under Art. 224, infidelity in the custody of prisoners by
evasion through negligence.
Elements of Evasion through Negligence
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He is charged with the conveyance or custody of
a prisoner, either detention prisoner or prisoner by
final judgment;
3. Such prisoner escapes through his negligence.
ARTICLE 225. ESCAPE OF PRISONER UNDER THE
CUSTODY OF A PERSON NOT A PUBLIC OFFICER
Article 225. Escape of prisoner under the custody of a
person not a public officer. - Any private person to whom
the conveyance or custody or a prisoner or person under
arrest shall have been confided, who shall commit any of
the offenses mentioned in the two preceding articles, shall
suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed
for the public officer.
Under Art. 225, infidelity in the custody of prisoners by one
who is not a public officer.
Elements
1. Offender is a private individual;
2. Conveyance (or charge) of custody of prisoner or
person under arrest is confided to him;
3. Prisoner or person under arrest escapes
4. Offender consents to the escape of the prisoner or
person under arrest or that the escape takes place
through his negligence.
Whether it is under Art. 223, 224, or 225, the offender in
infidelity in the custody of prisoner must be the said person
who has been entrusted with the custody of the prisoner.
He must be entrusted either by law, or by appointment of
competent authority to be the custodian of the said
prisoner because the essence of the crime is violation of
the trust and confidence reposed on him as the custodian
of the said prisoner. If he is not the custodian, he is not
entrusted with the custody of the said prisoner, and he
connives and consents with the escape of the prisoner, we
studied that, it is under Art. 156, delivering prisoners from
jail.
Q: X is a detention prisoner. He is charged with the
crime of murder, non-bailable, that’s why he is in a
provincial jail. His case is scheduled in the calendar of
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
RTC. Two security guards (BJMP prison guards)
assigned to him, placed handcuffs on X. They were
waiting for the arrival of the BJMP vehicle that will
bring them to the hall of justice, which is more than 30
minutes away from the said place. It is already 8:20,
the BJMP has not yet arrived, and so the two BJMP
guards, guard Y and Z, decided to bring X outside with
handcuffs, they flagged down a jeepney, and
thereafter, onboard the said jeepney, they brought him
to the said hall of justice. In the hall of justice, they
arrived late. They informed the court what happened,
and so the court heard the case. After the hearing the
case, here comes the wife of X. The wife of X told the
two jail guards, “Can I talk to you, sir?”, and the jail
guards said “Yes. Why?”. The wife told the two jail
guards, Y and Z, “I was able to save P50,000. 25K for
you, sir Y, and 25K for you Z. These are all your if you
will allow my husband X to go home with me today.”
Both BJMP guards looked at each other, and then
thereafter, by looking at each other, they took the said
cash, and then thereafter they told the woman “leave
now immediately.” Then, X left together with the said
wife. What crime/s is/are committed by the said BJMP
guards?
A: BJMP guards Y and Z are liable for infidelity in the
custody of prisoners. They were the ones appointed to
be the custodian of the said prisoner X to bring him to the
court and back to the detention cell. However, in
connivance, they allowed him to leave. They are liable for
violation of Art. 223, infidelity in the custody of prisoner by
conniving, consenting with the escape of the prisoner
because of the bribed money that they received.
Any other crime committed?
They are also liable for direct bribery under Art. 210. They
received the said money in connection with the
performance of their official duties. It is their official duty to
guard X. After the hall of justice, they have to bring X back
to the BJMP jail, however, they failed to do so because of
the bribed money they have received. Therefore, they are
liable for infidelity, and also direct bribery. Which act of
direct bribery? The first act. They received the said bribery
in order to allow the escape of prisoner. You cannot
complex it because direct bribery prohibits complexity of
crimes.
INFIDELITY IN THE CUSTODY OF DOCUMENTS
Art 223, 224, and 225 infidelity in the custody of prisoners.
Under Art. 226, 227, and 228, infidelity in the custody of
documents.
ARTICLE 226. REMOVAL, CONCEALMENT OR
DESTRUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Article 226. Removal, concealment or destruction of
documents. - Any public officer who shall remove, destroy
92 of 188
or conceal documents or papers officially entrusted to him,
shall suffer:
1. The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not exceeding
1,000 pesos, whenever serious damage shall have been
caused thereby to a third party or to the public interest.
2. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and
medium period and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos,
whenever the damage to a third party or to the public
interest shall not have been serious.
In either case, the additional penalty of temporary special
disqualification in its maximum period to perpetual
disqualification shall be imposed.
Under Art 226, infidelity in the custody of documents by
removal, concealment, or destruction of the said
documents
Elements of Removal, Concealment, or Destruction of
Documents
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He removes, destroys, or conceals documents or
papers;
3. Said documents or papers should have been
entrusted to such public officer by reason of his
office;
4. Damage, whether serious or not, to a third party or
to the public interest should have been caused.
ARTICLE 227. OFFICER BREAKING SEAL
Article 227. Officer breaking seal. - Any public officer
charged with the custody of papers or property sealed by
proper authority, who shall break the seals or permit them
to be broken, shall suffer the penalties of prision
correccional in its minimum and medium periods,
temporary special disqualification and a fine not exceeding
2,000 pesos.
In case of Art. 227, infidelity in the custody of the
documents by breaking the seal.
Elements of Breaking Seal
1. Offender is a public officer ;
2. He is charged with the custody of papers or
property;
3. These papers or property are sealed by proper
authority; and
4. He breaks the seals or permits them to be broken.
ARTICLE 228. OPENING OF CLOSED DOCUMENTS
Article 228. Opening of closed documents. - Any public
officer not included in the provisions of the next preceding
article who, without proper authority, shall open or shall
permit to be opened any closed papers, documents or
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
objects entrusted to his custody, shall suffer the penalties
or arresto mayor, temporary special disqualification and a
fine of not exceeding 2,000 pesos.
In Art. 228, infidelity in the custody of the documents by
opening closed documents.
Elements of Opening of Closed Documents
1. Offender is a public officer ;
2. Any closed papers, documents, or objects are
entrusted to his custody;
3. He opens or permits to be opened said closed
papers, documents or objects; and
4. He does not have proper authority.
Under Art. 226, removal, concealment, or destruction of
documents. When you say removal of documents, it
presupposes appropriation of the said official document.
The said removal of the said document must be for an illicit
purpose, an illegal purpose.
Concealment, when you say concealment, it means that
the said document in custody of the said public officer are
not forwarded to their destination. It is not necessary that
they are secreted in a place where they could not be found.
What is necessary is that they did not reach their place of
destination. They were concealed.
When you say destruction, it is equivalent to rendering the
said document useless, or the obliteration of the said
document. Complete destruction of the said document is
not necessary for the crime to arise.
Of the three crimes (Art 226, 227, 228), it is only under art.
226 wherein damage or intent to cause damage is an
element. The third element of Art. 226 requires that there
must be damage, or intent to cause damage to a third
person, or to public interest. Without damage, there is no
crime of infidelity under art. 226. The damage to third
person, or to public interest must be actual. There must be
an actual damage but not necessarily pecuniary, or
material damage. Mere alarm to the public because of the
concealment, destruction, or removal of the said document
is sufficient.
OTHER OFFENSES OR IRREGULARITIES BY PUBLIC
OFFICERS
ARTICLE 231. OPEN DISOBEDIENCE
Article 231. Open disobedience. - Any judicial or executive
officer who shall openly refuse to execute the judgment,
decision or order of any superior authority made within the
scope of the jurisdiction of the latter and issued with all the
legal formalities, shall suffer the penalties of arresto mayor
in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum
period, temporary special disqualification in its maximum
period and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
93 of 188
Under Art 231, the punishes an open disobedience. Open
disobedience is committed when:
Elements of Open Disobedience
1. Offender is a judicial or executive officer;
2. There is judgment, decision, or order of a superior
authority;
3. Such judgment, decision or order was made within
the scope of the jurisdiction of the superior
authority and issued with all the legal formalities;
and
4. Offender without any legal justification openly
refuses to execute the said judgment, decision or
order which he is duty bound to obey.
In order for open disobedience to arise, it is necessary that
the refusal must be clear, manifest, it must be intentional,
not a mere omission arising from oversight or mislook.
ARTICLE 233. REFUSAL OF ASSISTANCE
Article 233. Refusal of assistance. - The penalties of
arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional
in its minimum period, perpetual special disqualification
and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos, shall be imposed
upon a public officer who, upon demand from competent
authority, shall fail to lend his cooperation towards the
administration of justice or other public service, if such
failure shall result in serious damage to the public interest,
or to a third party; otherwise, arresto mayor in its medium
and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos
shall be imposed.
In Art. 233, we have refusal of assistance. Refusal of
assistance is committed by a public officer who fails to lend
his cooperation towards the administration of justice, and
such failure was made upon demand of a competent
authority. Damage is not an element in the refusal of
assistance. Damage to public interest merely aggravates
the imposition of penalties but damage is NOT an element
for the crime to arise. Damage, serious damage is only
considered as an aggravating circumstance so as to
increase the imposable penalty.
ARTICLE 235. MALTREATMENT OF PRISONERS
Article 235. Maltreatment of prisoners. - The penalty of
arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional
in its minimum period, in addition to his liability for the
physical injuries or damage caused, shall be imposed upon
any public officer or employee who shall overdo himself in
the correction or handling of a prisoner or detention
prisoner under his charge, by the imposition of punishment
not authorized by the regulations, or by inflicting such
punishment in a cruel and humiliating manner.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
Under Art. 235, the law punishes maltreatment of
prisoners.
Elements of Maltreatment of Prisoners
1. Offender is any public officer;
2. He has in his custody a prisoner (whether a
detention or prisoner convicted by final judgment);
and
3. He maltreats the said prisoner:
a. By overdoing himself in the correction or
handling of the said;
b. By imposing the penalty not required by
law;
c. By inflicting penalties in a cruel; and
d. By maltreating such prisoner in order to
extort a confession, or to obtain any
information.
For one to be considered as a prisoner for purposes of Art.
235, it is necessary that he must be booked. What does it
mean? After arrest, his mug shots were already taken,
front view, right view, left view, and his fingerprints were
already taken. It means he has already been booked as a
prisoner of the said station. It is already considered as an
accountability of the state, he is already a prisoner and
article 235 will already lie if he has been maltreated by the
public officer who has custody of him.
Q: X was walking. While X was walking, police officers
Y and Z onboard their police cars so X, they know X,
he was said to engage in snatching, robbery in the said
place, in the slightly dark place. People always
complain of him, however, none of them formally filed
a complaint against him since there is no evidence.
However, the police officer knew it was X who was
doing all this kind of snatching, robbery, theft in this
place.
One time while the police officers were patrolling the
area, they chanced upon X sitting on the bench and
they thought, “Hmm, mambibiktima na naman yan.”
So, the police officers Y and Z went there and then
thereafter they saw X stood up from the bench and X
was already walking upon seeing the police officers,
he was leaving the place. The police officer’s car
followed X. Thereafter, the car of the police officer
stopped and police officer Y and Z immediately went
at the back of X and they placed handcuffs on him and
placed him inside the car. Thereafter, they brought him
to the police station. He was investigated.
During the investigation, he was being investigated for
robbery, theft, and he did not know anything about that
“Wala akong alam diyan sir!” The police officers were
mad because he would not admit. He said, “Meron
bang nag-complain? Eh sir wala naman ah!” Because
94 of 188
of this, the police officers got mad at him and so he
was booked. His mugshots were taken, his
fingerprints were taken, and thereafter he was placed
behind bars. He was struggling he said, “There was no
complaint against me sir!” But still, he was placed
behind bars.
Police officers Y and Z were thinking based on records
no one has complained against X. They have no right
to place him behind bars and so what they did, they
took him out of the prison cell, they brought him to the
investigation room and there he was being forced to
admit to the commission of snatching and robbery in
the area so that they would have reason to place him
behind bars but he wouldn’t admit and because of that
the police officers Y and Z began mauling him. He was
mauled by these police officers. Punched everywhere,
different parts of the body until he vomited blood
because of the punches on the chest. Upon seeing that
he vomited blood, the police officers became afraid
that he might die in their custody and so he was
immediately brought to the nearest hospital. The
doctor said he sustained serious physical injuries.
What crime/s should be filed against the said police
officers Y and Z?
A: Police officers Y and Z should be charged with
maltreatment of prisoners. They shall also be charged
with serious physical injuries. They shall also be
charged with violation of RA No. 9745, the Anti-Torture
Act. These crimes shall be filed against the said erring
police officers with custody of prisoners.
All the elements of maltreatment are present:
1. Said offender is a public officer;
2. They have in their custody the prisoner. (He has
been booked, photographed, etc.);
3. He inflicted upon him punishments which are not
required by law.
The law does not require the use of force, the use
of mauling in order to obtain a confession or obtain
any information.
Therefore, they are liable for maltreatment of prisoners.
Because of the said act of maltreating X, X sustained
serious physical injuries therefore, in addition to
maltreatment of prisoners, the said police officers shall
also be charged with the crime of serious physical injuries
under Article 263.
Isn’t it that the serious physical injuries was just a
manifestation of the said act of maltreatment therefore the
serious physical injuries should be absorbed in
maltreatment? Serious physical injuries cannot be
absorbed in maltreatment because under article 235, the
law expressly provides the penalty for maltreatment shall
be in addition to the physical injuries or damage caused
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
therefore if by reason of the said maltreatment of prisoners
then the said prisoners maltreated suffered injuries,
suffered damage, the liability for that would be in addition
to the said public officer’s liability for article 235.
Likewise, the police officers shall be charged under RA No.
9745, the Anti-Torture Act. Could not this maltreatment and
serious physical injuries simply be absorbed by torture?
No, because under Section 15 of RA 9745, the Anti-Torture
Act, the law expressly provides that torture as a crime shall
not absorb and shall not be absorbed by any other crime
or felony committed as a consequence or some means in
the conduct or commission thereof. Torture shall be treated
as a separate and independent criminal act whose penalty
shall be imposable without prejudice to any other criminal
liability arising from any domestic or international laws.
Torture as a crime, shall always be separate and
distinct. It cannot absorb article 235. It cannot absorb
article 263, physical injuries. So, the police officers shall be
prosecuted of these three crimes: 1) maltreatment of
prisoners; 2) serious physical injuries; and 3) violation of
R.A. 9745.
ANTI-TORTURE ACT
Q: What if in the same problem, the police officers
were convicted of violation of R.A. 9745. So, they were
now serving their final sentence. They learned from
their counsel that the president has issued a special
amnesty proclamation for all political offenders. They
told their counsel “Apply mo kami Atty. Apply mo
kami”. The attorney indeed applied in favor of police
officers Y and Z in the said amnesty application.
Should the said amnesty proclamation be granted?
A: NO. It is expressly prohibited under Section 16. Under
section 16, any person who has committed violation of R.A.
9745, cannot be given the benefit of a special amnesty
program or any other acts which will lessen their criminal
liability.
Section 17. Applicability of Refouler. - No person shall be
expelled, returned or extradited to another State where
there are substantial grounds to believe that such person
shall be in danger of being subjected to torture. For the
purposes of determining whether such grounds exist, the
Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and
the Secretary of the DOJ, in coordination with the
Chairperson of the CHR, shall take into account all relevant
considerations including, where applicable and not limited
to, the existence in the requesting State of a consistent
pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human
rights.
Under Section 17 of RA 9745, we have the so-called
Applicability of Refouler - No person shall be expelled,
returned or extradited to a foreign country where there are
substantial grounds/reasonable grounds to believe that the
95 of 188
said person shall be subjected to torture. That is the so-
called Applicability of Refouler.
ARTICLE 236. ANTICIPATION OF DUTIES OF A
PUBLIC OFFICE
Article 236. Anticipation of duties of a public office. - Any
person who shall assume the performance of the duties
and powers of any public officer or employment without
first being sworn in or having given the bond required by
law, shall be suspended from such office or employment
until he shall have complied with the respective formalities
and shall be fined from 200 to 500 pesos.
ARTICLE 237. PROLONGING PERFORMANCE OF
DUTIES AND POWERS
Article 237. Prolonging performance of duties and powers.
- Any public officer shall continue to exercise the duties and
powers of his office, employment or commission, beyond
the period provided by law, regulation or special provisions
applicable to the case, shall suffer the penalties of prision
correccional in its minimum period, special temporary
disqualification in its minimum period and a fine not
exceeding 500 pesos.
ARTICLE 238. ABANDONMENT OF OFFICE OR
POSITION
Article 238. Abandonment of office or position. - Any
public officer who, before the acceptance of his
resignation, shall abandon his office to the detriment of the
public service shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor.
If such office shall have been abandoned in order to evade
the discharge of the duties of preventing, prosecuting or
punishing any of the crime falling within Title One, and
Chapter One of Title Three of Book Two of this Code, the
offender shall be punished by prision correccional in its
minimum and medium periods, and by arresto mayor if the
purpose of such abandonment is to evade the duty of
preventing, prosecuting or punishing any other crime.
Elements of Abandonment of Office
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. The said offender tendered his resignation from
his position;
3. His resignation has not yet been accepted by his
superior;
4. The public officer already abandons his office to
the detriment of public service.
It is necessary for the crime to arise, in abandoning his
position, he resigned but it was not yet accepted, and it
resulted into the detriment of public service. The crime of
abandonment of public office is qualified if the office is
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
abandoned in order to evade the discharge of the public
officer’s duty of preventing, prosecuting, or punishing any
of the crimes under Title 1 and Chapter 1 of Title 3 of the
RPC (Crimes Against Public Order).
Q: How would you distinguish dereliction of duty in the
prosecution of offenses under Article 208 from
Abandonment of Office under Article 238?
A: In case of Abandonment of Office under Article 238, the
public officer abandons the office in order to evade the
discharge of his duty to prosecute any crime. Whereas, in
case of Article 208, the public officer does not abandon his
office. He merely fails to prosecute a violator of the law.
From Articles 239 to Article 241 – Usurpation of
Legislative, Executive, or Judicial Powers.
[Articles 239-244 were not discussed. The following are
culled from the previous notes.]
ARTICLE 239. USURPATION OF LEGISLATIVE
POWERS
Article 239. Usurpation of legislative powers. - The
penalties of prision correccional in its minimum period,
temporary special disqualification and a fine not exceeding
1,000 pesos, shall be imposed upon any public officer who
shall encroach upon the powers of the legislative branch of
the Government, either by making general rules or
regulations beyond the scope of his authority, or by
attempting to repeal a law or suspending the execution
thereof.
Elements of Usurpation of Legislative Officers
1. That the offender is an executive or judicial officer;
2. That the offender:
a. Makes general rules and regulations
beyond the scope of his authority;
b. Attempts to repeal a law; or
c. Suspend the execution thereof.
NOTE: It can only be committed by an executive or judicial
officer.
ARTICLE 240. USURPATION OF EXECUTIVE
FUNCTIONS
Article 240. Usurpation of executive functions. - Any judge
who shall assume any power pertaining to the executive
authorities, or shall obstruct the latter in the lawful exercise
of their powers, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in
its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum
period.
Elements of Usurpation of Executive Functions
96 of 188
1. That the offender is a judge;
2. That the offender:
a. Assumes the power exclusively vested to
executive authorities of the Government; or
b. Obstructs executive authorities from the lawful
performance of their functions.
NOTE: It can only be committed by a Judge.
ARTICLE 241. USURPATION OF JUDICIAL
FUNCTIONS
Article 241. Usurpation of judicial functions. - The penalty
of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision
correccional in its minimum period and shall be imposed
upon any officer of the executive branch of the
Government who shall assume judicial powers or shall
obstruct the execution of any order or decision rendered by
any judge within its jurisdiction.
Elements of Usurpation of Judicial Functions
1. That the offender is holding office under the
Executive Branch of the Government;
2. That the offender:
a. Assumes the power exclusively vested in
the Judiciary; or
b. Obstructs the execution of any order or
decision given by a judge within his
jurisdiction.
NOTE: It can only be committed by a public officer of the
Executive Branch of the Government. Therefore, if the
person who assumes judicial power does not belong to the
Executive Branch, but belongs to the legislative branch,
the crime is not Usurpation of Judicial Function but
USURPATION OF PUBLIC FUNCTION AND OFFICIAL
AUTHORITY under Article 177. Articles 239, 240, and 241
are specific as to the offenders.
EXAMPLE: If the one who encroached upon the powers of
the Judge does not belong to the executive branch, but he
is legislator, it cannot be considered as usurpation of
judicial functions, rather it will be Usurpation of Public
Function and Official Authority Under Article 177.
ARTICLE 242. DISOBEYING REQUEST FOR
DISQUALIFICATION
Article 242. Disobeying request for disqualification. - Any
public officer who, before the question of jurisdiction is
decided, shall continue any proceeding after having been
lawfully required to refrain from so doing, shall be punished
by arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
Elements of Disobeying Request for Disqualification
1. That the offender is a public officer;
2. That a proceeding is pending before such public
officer;
3. That there has been a question regarding the
jurisdiction brought before the proper authority;
4. There is a question brought before the proper
authority regarding his jurisdiction, which is yet to
be decided.
ARTICLE 243. ORDERS OR REQUESTS BY
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS TO ANY JUDICIAL
AUTHORITY
Article 243. Orders or requests by executive officers to
any judicial authority. - Any executive officer who shall
address any order or suggestion to any judicial authority
with respect to any case or business coming within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of justice shall suffer the
penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500
pesos.
Elements of Orders or Requests by Executive Officers
to any Judicial Authority
1. That the offender is an executive officer;
2. That the offender addresses any order or
suggestion to any judicial authority;
3. That the order or suggestion relates to any case or
business within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
courts of justice.
ARTICLE 244. UNLAWFUL APPOINTMENTS
Article 244. Unlawful appointments. - Any public officer
who shall knowingly nominate or appoint to any public
office any person lacking the legal qualifications therefor,
shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not
exceeding 1,000 pesos.
Elements of Unlawful Appointment
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He nominates or appoints a person to a public
office;
3. Such person lacks the legal qualification thereof;
4. Offender knows that his nominee or employee
lacks the qualifications at the time he made the
nomination or appointment.
ARTICLE 245. ABUSES AGAINST CHASTITY
Article 245. Abuses against chastity; Penalties. - The
penalties of prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods and temporary special disqualification
shall be imposed:
1. Upon any public officer who shall solicit or make immoral
or indecent advances to a woman interested in matters
97 of 188
pending before such officer for decision, or with respect to
which he is required to submit a report to or consult with a
superior officer;
2. Any warden or other public officer directly charged with
the care and custody of prisoners or persons under arrest
who shall solicit or make immoral or indecent advances to
a woman under his custody.
If the person solicited be the wife, daughter, sister of
relative within the same degree by affinity of any person in
the custody of such warden or officer, the penalties shall
be prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods
and temporary special disqualification.
This is committed by any public officer who solicits or
makes immoral or indecent advances to any woman who
is interested in any matter pending before him, with which
he has to make a decision, with which he has to consult a
superior authority.
Likewise, it is committed by any warden against any
woman who is under his custody.
Likewise it is committed by any warden against the wife,
sister, or daughter of a male prisoner under his custody.
ESSENCE OF THE CRIME
The essence of the crime is the making immoral and
indecent solicitation by the public officer against the victim
or offended party. Here, the offended party is always a
woman.
ACTS PUNISHED
a. Public officer solicits or makes any indecent or
immoral advances to a woman who is interested in
matters pending before him for his decision or
where the public officer is required to submit a
report or to consult with a superior officer;
b. Warden or other public officer directly charged with
the care and custody of prisoners or persons
under arrest, and he solicits or makes any
indecent or immoral advances to a woman;
c. Warden or other public officer directly charged with
the care and custody of prisoners or persons
under arrest, and the said officer makes any
indecent or immoral advances to the wife,
daughter, sister or any relative falling within the
same degree of affinity of the male prisoner.
For the crime to arise, it is not necessary that the said
woman has accepted or acted on the said solicitation.
Elements of Abuses against Chastity
1. That the offender is a public officer;
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets

2. That he solicits or makes any indecent or immoral

advances to a woman;

3. That the offended party is a woman who is:

a. Interested in matters pending before the

public officer for his decision or where the
public officer is required to submit a report
or to consult with a superior officer; or

b. Under the custody of the offender, who is

a warden or other public officer directly
charged with the care and custody of
prisoners or persons under arrest; or

c. The wife, daughter, sister or any relative

falling within the same degree of affinity of
the person under the custody and charge
of the offender (mother is not included
here).

Q: X has a pending case before the fiscal’s office.

Upon seeing X, the fiscal already has a crush on X.
After the resolution of the case, the case is now
terminated and is already with the court. The fiscal
upon seeing X told X, “Kamusta na? Want to have
lunch with me just for today?” Is the public prosecutor
liable for abuses against chastity?

A: NO. It will not be considered as abuses against chastity.

It cannot be considered as an immoral solicitation; it is just
a mere invitation. The said woman, X, may decline or
agree with the said invitation but it is not considered as
immoral or indecent solicitation.

98 of 188
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
TITLE EIGHT: CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
ARTICLE 246. PARRICIDE
Article 246. Parricide. - Any person who shall kill his
father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate,
or any of his ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse,
shall be guilty of parricide and shall be punished by the
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.
Elements of Parricide
1. That a person is killed;
2. That the deceased is killed by the accused;
3. That the deceased is the father, mother, or child,
whether legitimate or illegitimate, legitimate other
descendant, legitimate other ascendant, or
legitimate spouse of the accused.
Parricide is committed when the offender kills his:
1. Father;
2. Mother;
3. Child, whether legitimate or illegitimate;
4. Legitimate other ascendants;
5. Legitimate other descendants; or
6. The legitimate spouse.
NOTE: The offended party is specified.
RELATIONSHIP
It is evident that parricide is a crime based on relationship.
The said relationship must be:
1. The said relationship must be legitimate (except in
the case of a parent and a child - it can be
legitimate or illegitimate);
2. The relationship must be in the direct line;
3. The said relationship must be by blood (except in
case of legitimate spouses).
ARTICLE 248. MURDER
Article 248. Murder. - Any person who, not falling within
the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be
guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion
temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with
any of the following attendant circumstances:
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength,
with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken
the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford
impunity.
99 of 188
2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise.
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion,
shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault
upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means
of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means
involving great waste and ruin.
4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the
preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a
volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public
calamity.
5. With evident premeditation.
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting
the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his
person or corpse.
Elements of Murder
1. A person kills another;
2. The said act of killing is attended by any of the
following qualifying circumstances.
a. When the act of killing is done with treachery,
taking advantage of superior strength, with the
aid of armed men, employing means to
weaken the defense, or employing means or
persons to insure or afford impunity;
b. When the act of killing is done in consideration
of price, reward, or promise;
c. When the act of killing is done by means of
fire, inundation, poison, explosion, shipwreck,
stranding of a vessel, derailment, or assault
upon a railroad, fall of an airship, by means of
motor vehicles, or by any other means
involving great waste and ruin.
d. When the act of killing is done on occasion of
any calamities enumerated in paragraph c
above, or on occasion of an earthquake,
eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone,
epidemic, or any other public calamities.
e. When the act of killing is done with evident
premeditation; or
f. When the act of killing is done with cruelty, by
deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the
suffering of the victim or by outraging or
scoffing at his person or corpse.
In murder, the act of killing must be attended by any one,
only one of the qualifying circumstances enumerated. If the
person kills another and the said killing does not amount to
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
parricide or infanticide, and the said act of killing is not
attended by any of the circumstances that are mentioned
for the crime of murder, it is under Article 249 Homicide.
a. A brother killing his brother in the course of a fight
is Homicide. Although they are legitimate brothers,
although they are related by blood, their
relationship is NOT in the direct line. It will be the
crime if Homicide and NOT Murder.
b. A stepson killing his stepfather in the course of a
fight is Homicide. It is not parricide because their
relationship is not legitimate, it is a stepfather-
stepson relationship.
c. Husband killing the wife, vice versa, the crime
committed is Parricide. Even if they are not blood
related, as long as they are legitimate spouses and
they are legally married spouses, the crime
committed is Parricide when one kills another.
ART 247. DEATH OR PHYSICAL INJURIES INFLICTED
UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
Article 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under
exceptional circumstances. - Any legally married person
who having surprised his spouse in the act of committing
sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill any of
them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter,
or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall
suffer the penalty of destierro.
If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other
kind, he shall be exempt from punishment.
These rules shall be applicable, under the same
circumstances, to parents with respect to their daughters
under eighteen years of age, and their seducer, while the
daughters are living with their parents.
Any person who shall promote or facilitate the prostitution
of his wife or daughter, or shall otherwise have consented
to the infidelity of the other spouse shall not be entitled to
the benefits of this article.
Elements of Death or Physical Injuries Inflicted under
Exceptional Circumstances
1. That a legally married person or a parent surprises
his spouse or his daughter, the latter under 18
years of age and living with him, in the act of
committing sexual intercourse with another
person;
2. That the said legally married spouse 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;
100 of 188
3. That 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.
Q: X arrived home, it was unannounced. He was not
feeling well at that time. When he arrived home, it was
only 4 pm. He came home early this time. Usually, he
comes home at around 8 pm. When he arrived home,
he realized that the house was very silent. He believed
that his wife was not there and that she went outside.
Since he has his own keys, he opened the door of the
house wanting to take a rest and have a good sleep.
He opened the master’s bedroom. Upon opening, he
was shocked as he saw on the matrimonial bed his
own wife in actual sexual intercourse with another
man. When he looked at the man, it was his best friend,
his compadre. Jealous and angry at what he
witnessed, X took the fan knife he always carried with
him and stabbed both of them. Both of them died.
Thereafter, he surrendered to the authorities admitting
the killing but saying that he killed them in the actual
act of sexual intercourse. He even surrendered the
knife that he used. After investigation, the police
officers filed cases of Parricide and Murder against X
before the office of the public prosecutor. If you were
the investigating public prosecutor, would you indict
X as charged by the police?
A: YES. The public prosecutor must indict X of Parricide
for killing his own wife and for Homicide for killing his best
friend. It is NOT murder because the killing happened at
the spur of the moment. None of the qualifying
circumstances for murder under Article 248 attended the
killing of the best friend. Therefore, the proper charges
would be Parricide and Homicide.
Q: If you were the defense counsel engaged by X, what
would be your line of defense?
A: Your line of defense would be that the said act of killing
took place under exceptional circumstances under Article
247.
Q: If you were the judge, based on the facts, how would
you rule?
A: You have to convict X of the crime of Parricide for killing
his wife and of the crime of Homicide for killing his best
friend. However, since Article 247 applies, the penalty
should only be destierro.
In so far as Article 247, in the present case, both stages of
Article 247 are present.
First, a legally married spouse surprises the other spouse
in the actual act of sexual intercourse with another man,
with another person.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
In this case, the spouse X caught his wife in the act of
actual sexual intercourse with another person, his own
best friend.
Second, that he killed or inflicted serious physical injuries
upon any or both of them while in the actual act of sexual
intercourse of immediately thereafter.
In this case, X killed both of them during the actual act of
sexual intercourse.
Therefore, although the judge has to convict the accused
of the crimes as charged, the penalty would be only that
provided for another Article 247 Destierro because the said
provision applies.
PEOPLE v. ABARCA
G.R. No. 1234 | 12 February 1950
In this case, the Supreme Court held that Article 247 is
NOT a felony or a crime. It is an ABSOLUTORY cause. It
is a matter of defense on the part of the accused to prove
that the moment he committed the act of killing, the
moment he did the act of inflicting serious physical injuries,
upon any or both of his wife/husband or the lover of either,
Article 247 applies. Thus, the penalty would only be
destierro.
In the case of People v. Abarca, the Supreme Court even
stated that the said destierro cannot be considered as a
penalty. It is an act of protection given by the State to the
said offender from any retaliation coming from the relatives
or members of the family. You do not file a case for
violation of Article 247 because it is a matter of defense, if
proven, it will absolve the accused of the proper penalty
prescribed by law for the crime, Reclusion Perpetua to
Death, Reclusion Temporal, rather it would only be
Destierro.
Q: X heard rumors that his wife was having an affair.
He hired a secret investigator, and the investigator
followed the wife of X. X now knew, he saw pictures
and video evidence that his wife was having an affair.
Usually, in this particular room in this motel, they
would check in. On the day that they would usually go
in the motel, X went to the said room in the motel and
hid behind the cabinet. The moment his wife and the
paramour entered the said place, when they were in
the actual act of sexual intercourse, X went out from
hiding in the cabinet and repeatedly stabbed his wife
and her paramour, killing both of them. Prosecuted for
the crime of Parricide and the crime of Murder, X raised
Article 247 as a defense. Will Article 247 lie in his
favor?
A: NO. Article 247 will NOT lie in his favor. That a legally
married spouse “surprises” the other spouse in the actual
act of sexual intercourse. In this case, the husband was not
surprised to find the wife and the paramour in actual sexual
intercourse. In fact, X went to the motel ahead of time and
101 of 188
planned the act of killing. He knew that his wife was having
an affair. He planned the killing. Therefore, Article 247 will
not lie in favor of X. He should be convicted of Parricide for
killing his wife and of Murder for killing the Paramour.
Obviously, since the killing was planned there is the
qualifying circumstance of treachery in the commission of
the offense.
In the case of People v. Abarca, when Abarca fired a shot
at the paramour of his wife, a stray bullet hit a couple.
Therefore, will it give rise to frustrated homicide on these
two persons?
The Supreme Court said no. Article 4, Par. 1 or the
proximate cause doctrine will not apply because in case of
Article 4, Par. 1 it is necessary that the offender is
performing a felonious act. When Abarca fired at the lover
of his wife, he was not performing an unlawful or felonious
act. Therefore, the act of wounding the said couple will not
bring about a case for frustrated homicide. He is not said
to have performed a felonious act; therefore, it is lawful.
However, in doing the said lawful act there was negligence
on his part. Therefore, in so far as the spouses are
concerned, he would be liable for Reckless Imprudence
resulting in Physical Injuries.
ARTICLE 251. DEATH CAUSED IN A TUMULTUOUS
AFFRAY
Article 251. Death caused in a tumultuous affray. - When,
while several persons, not composing groups organized for
the common purpose of assaulting and attacking each
other reciprocally, quarrel and assault each other in a
confused and tumultuous manner, and in the course of the
affray someone is killed, and it cannot be ascertained who
actually killed the deceased, but the person or persons
who inflicted serious physical injuries can be identified,
such person or persons shall be punished by prision
mayor.
If it cannot be determined who inflicted the serious physical
injuries on the deceased, the penalty of prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be
imposed upon all those who shall have used violence upon
the person of the victim.
In case of death in a tumultuous affray, there are several
persons who do NOT belong to a group designed to attack
one another reciprocally. However, these several persons
attacked one another reciprocally in a chaotic and
tumultuous manner and in the course therefore, someone
was killed. It cannot be ascertained who killed the said
deceased. However, the persons who inflicted serious
physical injuries or used any form of violence on the said
deceased can be identified.
Elements of Death Caused in a Tumultuous Affray
1. There be several persons;
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
2. They did not compose groups organized for the
common purpose of assaulting and attacking each
other reciprocally;
3. These several persons quarreled and assaulted one
another in a confused and tumultuous manner;
4. That someone was killed in the course of the affray;
5. It cannot be ascertained who actually killed the
deceased;
6. The person or persons who inflicted serious physical
injuries or who used violence can be identified.
ARTICLE 252. PHYSICAL INJURIES INFLICTED IN
TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY
Article 252. Physical injuries inflicted in a tumultuous
affray. - When in a tumultuous affray as referred to in the
preceding article, only serious physical injuries are inflicted
upon the participants thereof and the person responsible
thereof cannot be identified, all those who appear to have
used violence upon the person of the offended party shall
suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that provided
for the physical injuries so inflicted.
When the physical injuries inflicted are of a less serious
nature and the person responsible therefor cannot be
identified, all those who appear to have used any violence
upon the person of the offended party shall be punished
by arresto mayor from five to fifteen days.
In the case of Article 252, physical injuries inflicted in a
tumultuous affray, there is a tumultuous affray and a
participant or some of the participants therein suffered
serious or less serious physical injuries. It cannot be
ascertained who inflicted the serious or less serious
physical injuries upon these participants. However, the
persons who used any form of violence against them can
be identified. Based on the elements, death in a
tumultuous affray and physical injuries inflicted in a
tumultuous affray will only lie if the said act of killing or if
the said act of inflicting serious or less serious physical
injuries happened during a tumultuous affray AND it cannot
be ascertained who is the culprit or perpetrator of the said
act of killing or inflicting serious or less serious physical
injuries.
Elements of Physical Injuries Inflicted in Tumultuous
Affray
1. There is a tumultuous affray;
2. A participant or some participants thereof suffer
serious physical injuries or physical injuries of a
less serious nature only;
3. The person responsible thereof cannot be
identified;
102 of 188
4. All those who appear to have used violence upon
the person of the offended party are known.
Even if the act of killing or the act of inflicting serious or
less serious physical injuries happened during a
tumultuous affray but the actual perpetrator of the crime or
offender can be identified by a witness, then Articles 251
and 252 will NOT apply. Therefore, the crime will be
Homicide, Murder, or Physical Injuries under Article 253 to
256.
In case of death in a tumultuous affray, the victim who died
or the deceased can be any person. He can be a
participant in the tumultuous affray, or he can be a total
stranger to it.
On the other hand, in case of physical injuries inflicted in a
tumultuous affray, the law specifies a participant or some
participants thereof. Therefore, it is necessary that the
person who was inflicted with serious or less serious
physical injuries must be a participant or the participants in
the said tumultuous affray.
In both instances, the actual perpetrator of the crime
cannot be ascertained.
Q: X was sleeping. Thereafter, he was awakened
because of the noise outside. X opened the window of
his house and there was a fight, a tumultuous affray.
Several men were hitting one another and there were
no particular offender or particular assailant, they
were just hitting one another and people nearby
clapping their hands, some were laughing, some were
smiling. X was not contended of looking at the
window, so he went out and went near the said affray.
X was busy watching the affray when after a few
seconds, he fell down on the ground. There was an
icepick on his chest. X immediately cried for help, and
he was brought by the people around to the nearest
hospital. However, the next day, X perished. During the
investigation conducted by the police, none of the
people therein saw who stabbed X on the chin. No one
watching the fight could identify who stabbed X on the
chest. They said that it was a confused fight, and they
cannot see which one is attacking one, they were just
busy looking when suddenly X fell on the ground with
an icepick on the chest. But no one could identify who
stabbed him on the chest. However, two witnesses
said that while they were watching, they saw a
participant in the said tumultuous affray by the name
of Y, punched him on the neck. Who shall be charged
for the death of X and what should be the proper
nomenclature of the crime?
A: It was Y who shall be charged for the death of X and the
proper charge is not murder. The proper charge is death
in a tumultuous affray. X died in the course of the said
affray. No one could ascertain or determine who killed him,
who stabbed him on the chest. Neither could anyone tell
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
who inflicted in him serious physical injuries. However, two
witnesses saw Y inflicted any form of violence on him.
Therefore, Y should be the one liable for death in a
tumultuous affray.
Q: What if the same problem, X was awakened and
then thereafter, he saw this tumultuous affray, a
chaotic one. He was there watching, and he went very
near. However, he was not satisfied by merely
watching, he wanted to join the affray, he wants to be
part of it. So, he entered it and he began attacking one
another, attacking each other - any person, no
particular target. So, he too was being attacked left
and right until he suddenly shouted, “ayoko na, ayoko
na!”. He went out and he was bleeding on his eye,
head, and ears. It seems that it was his right face which
was so injured by the different punches coming from
different persons. Thereafter, he went to the doctor
and the doctor said that he needs to stay in the
hospital for 2 weeks as he sustained injuries which
would heal within the period of two weeks. He
sustained less serious physical injuries. X, because he
wanted to file a case, tried to recall who have been
punching him but he could not remember because it
was really a confused fight, he did not see and recall
who was the one punching him left and right on the
face, eye, ears, and neck. However, what he
remembers is the moment he entered the said fight,
one of the persons therein, by the name of Y, hit him
on the leg. After that, he began joining. Who shall be
charged for the less serious physical injuries
sustained by X?
A: It is Y who shall be charged for the less serious
physical injuries sustained by X. Since it cannot be
ascertained who inflicted upon him the less serious
physical injuries, then, the one who caused any form of
violence on him, which is Y in this case, shall be liable. The
charge would be Physical Injuries Inflicted in a Tumultuous
Affray under Article 252.
Note:
This will only apply if the actual perpetrator of the crime
cannot be identified and if the said act of killing and
infliction of serious or less serious physical injuries took
place in a tumultuous affray. In case of a death in a
tumultuous affray, the deceased can be anyone. In case
of Physical Injuries Inflicted in a Tumultuous Affray, the
said victim injured must be a participant in the said affray
. prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods,
ARTICLE 253. GIVING ASSISTANCE TO SUICIDE
Article 253. Giving assistance to suicide. - Any person
who shall assist another to commit suicide shall suffer the
penalty of prision mayor; if such person leads his
assistance to another to the extent of doing the killing
himself, he shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal.
103 of 188
However, if the suicide is not consummated, the penalty
of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods,
shall be imposed.
Two ways of committing the crime:
1.) By assisting another to commit suicide whether the
suicide is consummated or not; or
2.) By lending assistance to another to commit suicide
to the extent of doing the killing himself.
Q: X is sick with a terminal disease and he is only
breathing through a machine. He doesn’t want this
kind of life, only breathing and being taken care of
everybody, and most of all, so much expenses for his
family, he didn’t want to be a burden to his family. So,
one time, when her husband arrived, he told the
husband, “I am already 80 years old, I have lived a full
good life, raise good children, so it’s time for me to go.
I am having a hard time, I am in pain, and I am only
breathing through this machine. Please remove this
tube that gives life to me.” The husband refused and
said that, “As long as I’m here, I will take care of you”.
But the wife said that she has been a burden to
everyone for months. She kept on begging the
husband. The wife was crying in pain. The husband
then removed the tube that gives life to the wife and
the wife died. What crime is committed by the said
husband?
A: The husband is liable for giving assistance to commit
suicide. The crime committed is not parricide. Giving
assistance to suicide is not parricide because the intent to
take her own life came from the said woman, came from
the said deceased, she only induced, requested, and
asked the help of the husband so that she will already die.
Under Article 253, there are two ways of giving assistance
to suicide. In this case, the husband is liable in the second
act. He lends assistance to killing of the said wife in the act
of committing suicide by doing the killing himself. For that,
the penalty is higher, the penalty for giving assistance to
suicide under the second act is reclusion temporal, when it
is the offender who did the act of killing.
ARTICLE 254. ILLEGAL DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS
Article 254. Discharge of firearms. - Any person who shall
shoot at another with any firearm shall suffer the penalty of
unless the facts of the case are such that the act can be
held to constitute frustrated or attempted parricide, murder,
homicide or any other crime for which a higher penalty is
prescribed by any of the articles of this Code.
Elements of Illegal Discharge of Firearms
1. That the offender discharges a firearm against or
at another person;
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
2. That the offender has no intention to kill that
person.
Under Article 254, the offender aimed a firearm at another,
discharges it, absent an intent to kill. His intention was only
to intimidate, to threaten the said person. There is no intent
to kill the said person.
ARTICLE 255. INFANTICIDE
Article 255. Infanticide. - The penalty provided for
parricide in Article 246 and for murder in Article 248 shall
be imposed upon any person who shall kill any child less
than three days of age.
If the crime penalized in this article be committed by the
mother of the child for the purpose of concealing her
dishonor, she shall suffer the penalty of prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods, and if
said crime be committed for the same purpose by the
maternal grandparents or either of them, the penalty shall
be prision mayor.
Infanticide is committed when the person killed is a child
less than three (3) days old or less than 72 hours. In
case of infanticide, it is the age of the victim that is
controlling. The victim must be less than three (3) days old
or 72 hours.
The offender can be any person. He can be a relative, a
parent, a stranger to the said child. Whoever he is, the
moment the victim is less than three (3) days old or 72
hours, the crime committed is infanticide.
If it is the woman herself who kills her child less than
three (3) days old or 72 hours because she wanted to
conceal her dishonor, such concealment of dishonor is a
privileged mitigating circumstance which will lower the
imposable penalty.
TWO KINDS OF ABORTION
1. Intentional Abortion (Article 256, 258, and 259)
2. Unintentional Abortion (Article 257)
ARTICLE 256. INTENTIONAL ABORTION
Article 256. Intentional abortion. - Any person who shall
intentionally cause an abortion shall suffer:
1. The penalty of reclusion temporal, if he shall use any
violence upon the person of the pregnant woman.
2. The penalty of prision mayor if, without using violence,
he shall act without the consent of the woman.
3. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods, if the woman shall have consented.
104 of 188
Ways of committing intentional abortion
1. By inflicting violence upon the person of a
pregnant woman;
2. By acting, without violence and without consent of
the pregnant woman, by administering abortive
drugs or beverage on the said pregnant woman.
3. By acting, without violence and with consent of the
pregnant woman, by administering abortive drugs
or beverage on the said pregnant woman.
In case of intentional abortion, the intent of the offender is
to expel the fetus from the womb of the said woman. The
act can be done either with or without violence.
Elements of Intentional Abortion
1. There is a pregnant woman;
2. Violence is exerted, or drugs or beverages be
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 of after
having been expelled therefrom.
4. The abortion is intended.
ARTICLE 257. UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION
Article 257. Unintentional abortion. - The penalty of
prision correccional in its minimum and medium period
shall be imposed upon any person who shall cause an
abortion by violence, but unintentionally.
Unintentional abortion can only be committed by inflicting
violence, physical force upon a woman which resulted to
the said unintentional abortion of the fetus inside her
womb.
Elements of Unintentional Abortion
1. There is a pregnant woman;
2. violence is used upon such pregnant women
without intending an abortion;
3. the violence is intentionally exerted; and
4. as a result of the violence, the fetus dies, either in
the womb or after having been expelled therefrom.
INTENTIONAL ABORTION v. UNINTENTIONAL
ABORTION
INTENTIONAL UNINTENTIONAL
ABORTION ABORTION
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
The intent of the offender is 2. the abortion is intended;
against the woman, he has
no intent to kill the fetus, the 3. the abortion is caused by –
intention is against the
a. the pregnant woman herself;
woman who happens to be
The intent of the offender
pregnant, and because of b. any other person with her consent;
is against the fetus.
the physical force and
violence inflicted on the said c. any of your parents, with her consent for
woman, the fetus was the purpose of conceiving her dishonor.
expelled unintentionally.
ARTICLE 259. ABORTION PRACTICED BY A
To bring about PHYSICIAN OR MIDWIFE AND DISPENSING OF
intentional abortion ABORTIVES
If despite the physical
(Articles 256, 258, and
violence or force inflicted by
259), it is necessary that Article 259. Abortion practiced by a physician or midwife
the offender against the
the fetus died in order to and dispensing of abortives. - The penalties provided in
pregnant woman, the fetus
bring about a Article 256 shall be imposed in its maximum period,
did not die, there is no crime
consummated respectively, upon any physician or midwife who, taking
against the fetus. There is
intentional abortion. If advantage of their scientific knowledge or skill, shall cause
no such crime as attempted
the fetus did not die an abortion or assist in causing the same.
or frustrated unintentional
despite the fact that the
abortion, because in an
offender already Any pharmacist who, without the proper prescription from
unintentional abortion, the
performed all the acts of a physician, shall dispense any abortive shall suffer arresto
offender has no intent
execution, the crime mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
against the fetus. The intent
committed is frustrated
of the offender is only
intentional abortion Dispensing of abortives is committed by a pharmacist who
against the woman who
because to bring about shall dispense an abortive without a prescription from a
happens to be pregnant.
intentional abortion, the physician. The mere act of dispensing the said abortives
fetus must die. without prescription from a physician will hold the said
pharmacist criminally liable.
Modifying circumstances
Modifying circumstances is
are considered by the Elements of Art. 259
immaterial unless the law
Court in imposing the
provides otherwise.
penalty. 1. There is a pregnant woman who suffered an
abortion;
ARTICLE 258. ABORTION PRACTICED BY THE
WOMAN HERSELF OR HER PARENTS 2. The abortion is intended;

3. Offender, who must be a physician or midwife,

Article 258. Abortion practiced by the woman herself of by
her parents. - The penalty of prision correccional in its
medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon a
woman who shall practice abortion upon herself or shall
consent that any other person should do so.
Any woman who shall commit this offense to conceal her
dishonor, shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in
its minimum and medium periods.
If this crime be committed by the parents of the pregnant
woman or either of them, and they act with the consent of
said woman for the purpose of concealing her dishonor,
the offenders shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional
in its medium and maximum periods.
Elements of Abortion Practiced by the Woman Herself
or her Parents
1. There is a pregnant woman who has suffered an
abortion;
causes or assists in causing, the abortion;
4. Said physician or midwife takes advantage of his
or her scientific knowledge or skill.
As to Pharmacists, the Elements are:
1.) The offender is a pharmacist;
2.) There is no proper prescription from a physician;
3.) The offender dispenses any abortive.
Q: X lived in a far-flung barrio. It is a small community,
the people know each other. One time, X went out and
her neighbors and friends told her, “Uy, buntis ka?
Napansin naming lumalaki tyan mo araw araw”. X kept
on saying no because she does not have a boyfriend.
X’s mother, who was inside the house, heard the
friends of X teasing her that she is pregnant. For the
longest time, the mother did not notice that the tummy
of her daughter is getting bigger, until she heard the
neighbors saying that her daughter’s tummy is getting

105 of 188
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
bigger. The moment the inside the house, the mother to the offended party less than 72 hours) that is
stared at the tummy of her daughter and she indeed (father, mother, child – controlling.
realized that her daughter’s tummy is big, so she whether legitimate or
asked her daughter if she is pregnant, to which X said illegitimate, legitimate
no. Days passed and the mother said that, “No, you are other ascendants,
pregnant. Your tummy is changing. We go to legitimate other
Poblacion tomorrow. You have to have a check up to descendants, or the
determine what is inside your tummy. If you are not legitimate spouse)
pregnant, why is it becoming bigger by day?”. Concealment of
Concealment of dishonor is
dishonor is not a
The next day, they travelled for three (3) hours to go to a mitigating or extenuating
mitigating or extenuating
Poblacion. They went to the Health Center and after circumstance.
circumstance.
examination by the physician, it was confirmed that X
is pregnant. X became hysterical, she denied it to her The offender must be The offender can be any
mother and to everyone. She even said that if ever she related. person.
is pregnant, it came from the evil spirit, but definitely In case or conspiracy Conspiracy will lie even with
not from a man because she has no man. So, they went with someone who is not strangers because it is the
home. a relative, conspiracy will age of the victim or child that
not lie. is controlling.
She tried many times to get rid of the baby but the
mother was always there telling her not to do anything Q: In the same problem, when it was confirmed in town
to harm the baby and the mother prevailed. After nine that X was having a baby, she became hysterical, she
months, she delivered the baby. After delivering the cried aloud. When they came home, she became
said baby, she immediately covered the mouth of the depressed, always tense, afraid of things to come. She
said baby, but the mother arrived and told her not to is always afraid. She will be always crying at night.
do that. X was so afraid that people might know, the Because of that, because of her way of living from the
cries of the baby could be heard, so she covered the time she learned that she is pregnant, less than 7
mouth of the baby, but the mother prevented her from months, the baby wanted to get out. The mother
doing so. That very same night, she attempted to kill helped in the delivery of the said baby. The baby got
the baby many times which she failed to do so because out and has an intrauterine life of less than 7 months.
the mother. However, until early morning, the mother Right after seeing the baby, X was so mad, and hearing
said, “Do not do any harm to the baby. I will just go to the baby’s cries, the moment the mother went outside,
the kitchen to boil some water”. The moment the X immediately covered the mouth of the baby and the
mother arrived, the baby is already dead, X suffocated said baby died. What crime is committed by X?
her very own baby by means of a pillow.
A: X is liable for intentional abortion.
What crime is committed by X?
Q: In the same problem, because X was living a
A: X is liable for infanticide. X killed her baby less than depressed and tensed life, the baby got out less than
three (3) days old, less than 72 hours. Therefore, the crime seven (7) months. The baby has an intrauterine life of
committed is infanticide. less than seven (7) months. Right after seeing the
baby, X wanted to immediately kill the baby but the
Q: What if for many times, she tried to kill her very own mother prevailed upon. She couldn’t sleep. The
baby but failed to do so because the mother prevailed. following morning, the baby was still there. X was
Until at the third day, the mother went to the market in waiting for her mother to get out. Finally, in the
order to buy food and milk for the baby. When the afternoon, after 24 hours, the mother got out, so X had
mother arrived, the baby is wrapped in a blanket, the opportunity to kill the baby, to which she did. What
already dead. X killed the baby. The baby is three (3) crime is committed by X?
days old. What crime is committed by X?
A: X is liable for infanticide.
A: X is liable for parricide. Since the baby is already three
(3) days old, no longer less than three (3) days old, the ABORTION v. INFACTICIDE
crime committed is already parricide.
INTENTIONAL
PARRICIDE v. INFANTICIDE INFANTICIDE
ABORTION
The victim is already a
PARRICIDE INFANTICIDE The victim is still a fetus. person.
Relationship is
It is the age of the victim
controlling; the said
(less than three (3) days old,
offender must be related

106 of 188
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
The umbilical cord is not
yet cut, the said fetus still The umbilical cord is already
draws life from the said cut off and the baby is alive.
mother.
If the baby has an
If the baby has an
intrauterine life of less
intrauterine life of less than
than seven (7) months
seven (7) months and the
and the baby is killed
baby is killed after 24 hours,
within 24 hours, it is
it is infanticide.
abortion.
Q: X was watering her plants outside the gate. There’s
a fence and the house. Outside the fence, it is full of
imported plants. While she was busy watering the
plants near the fence (outside), here comes their
neighbor Y. Y confronted X by saying, “I just got from
the store. I got information that you have been telling
everyone that my daughter had an abortion after her
boyfriend left her. Who are you to tell that? Who told
you that? That is not true!”. Y was shouting at X. X
answered by saying, “No! I do not leave my house, I’m
always inside my house. What you heard was
impossible.” Y replied, “You have been sending
everyone text messages about my daughter. Why are
you doing this to my daughter? She’s still a minor,
she’s only sixteen”. Y was very mad. When X
answered again and kept on denying, Y failed to
control himself. Y slapped X and thereafter, punched
her twice in the chest and in the tummy. X fell and
started to plead. She was 4 months pregnant, and Y
did not know of the same. Upon seeing X bleeding, Y
became so afraid and then, left.
X cried for help, calling his husband. Her husband
came out and brought her to the hospital. The doctor
told X that she was very lucky, and that the fetus is
unhurt despite her bleeding. X was very happy that the
baby was unhurt despite the bleeding and the
punching she received.
What crime is committed by Y?
A: Y is liable for physical injuries against the pregnant
woman, X. Y did not know that the said woman was
pregnant. He inflicted violence on her because she kept on
denying that she was the one who spread the rumor. The
intent of Y was only on X. He did not have any intention on
the fetus as he did not know that X was pregnant.
Since the fetus did not die, there is no crime committed by
Y against the fetus. The crime she committed is only
against the woman on whom violence is inflicted.
Therefore, the crime is physical injuries.
Q: What if in the same problem, after X was punched
by Y on the thighs, on the chest, and on the tummy,
she had a bad fall. She fell on a big rock. She started
to bleed and thereafter, she was brought to the
hospital by her husband.
107 of 188
The doctor said, “I am sorry, you lost your baby.” She
was hospitalized for a period of 30 days. She was
depressed, crying and crying because of her loss.
What crime/s are committed by Y?
A: Insofar as X is concerned, the crime committed by Y
is serious physical injuries. Insofar as the fetus is
concerned, the crime is unintentional abortion. Since the
crimes were both products of Y’s act of inflicting violence
on the said woman, you complex it under Art. 48. So, the
crime committed is serious physical injuries with
unintentional abortion because the single act performed
by the offender resulted to two less grave felonies.
Q: Y confronted X, the pregnant woman. He did not
know that the woman was pregnant. When X denied
spreading the rumor, the neighbor Y lost control of
himself and he punched X a number of times. She fell
on the ground and started to bleed because of the
impact. That time, X was already nine (9) months
pregnant and with a big tummy. Y punched him in the
tummy causing her to lose balance and fall to the
ground.
The moment Y saw that X was bleeding, Y immediately
left the place.
Meanwhile, X was crawling wanting to go inside the
house. She was calling and calling the name of her
husband. She was able to reach the gate of the house
and tried to stand up. When she was able to stand up,
Y came, armed with a bolo. Y hacked X two times, on
the chest and on the tummy. Thereafter, Y left.
The husband arrived and brought X to the hospital.
However, both the wife and the baby are dead. What
crime/s did Y commit?
A: Insofar as the woman is concerned, Y is liable for
murder qualified by treachery and abuse of superior
strength. Insofar as the baby is concerned, the crime
committed is intentional abortion.
Insofar as the woman is concerned, Y is liable for murder.
It was obvious that X was pregnant. When Y saw that X is
bleeding, Y left. He returned with a bolo; he planned the
killing. At that particular moment, X was bleeding and in
pain, crying for help/ Y took advantage of his bolo and
superiority in strength, and hacked X on the chest and on
the tummy. Therefore, it is murder.
Insofar as the baby is concerned, the crime committed is
intentional abortion. He knows that the woman is pregnant.
Yet, he hacked the tummy of X. Obviously, there was intent
to kill the fetus inside the womb by inflicting violence on the
said womb. Therefore, the crime committed is the complex
crime of murder with intentional abortion.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
Q: The husband and the wife were having a fight over
financial matter. The said husband lost control of
himself because the wife kept answering back. The
husband stabbed the wife, who was pregnant at that
time. Since the husband stabbed the wife on the
tummy, she fell. Shocked with what he did, he brought
the wife to the hospital. But the wife and the fetus died.
The husband is now being prosecuted for the complex
crime of parricide with intentional abortion. Is he liable
as charged?
A: NO, it is parricide with unintentional abortion.
Supreme Court said it is parricide because the act of
stabbing the wife, although the husband said that he has
no intention to kill as it was during a heated argument, is a
felonious act therefore, he is liable for the resulting felony
– death of the wife. Thus, parricide.
Insofar as the fetus is concerned, Supreme Court said that
absent any further evidence that he has the intention to kill
the baby inside the womb of his very own wife, it would be
unintentional abortion. The act of stabbing happened in a
spur of the moment, in the heated argument. The sad
stabbing was inflicted on the wife. There was no intention
to kill also the said fetus. The fetus died unintentionally.
Therefore, it is parricide with unintentional abortion.
Note:
The penalty is the same, the only difference is the
nomenclature of the crime. It matters in the bar, but
insofar as the penalty, it does not matter because the
penalty will be for parricide, the penalty for the most
serious crime in its maximum period.
ARTICLE 259. ABORTION PRACTICED BY A
PHYSICIAN OR MIDWIFE AND DISPENSING OF
ABORTIVES
Article 259. Abortion practiced by a physician or midwife
and dispensing of abortives. - The penalties provided in
Article 256 shall be imposed in its maximum period,
respectively, upon any physician or midwife who, taking
advantage of their scientific knowledge or skill, shall cause
an abortion or assist in causing the same.
Any pharmacist who shall dispense abortive without a
prescription coming from a physician is liable under this
provision.
It is not required that the abortive be used. The mere act of
dispensing abortive without a prescription coming from a
physician will already make the said pharmacist criminally
liable under Art. 259.
ARTICLE 262. MUTILATION
Article 262. Mutilation. - The penalty of reclusion temporal
to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any person
who shall intentionally mutilate another by depriving him,
108 of 188
either totally or partially, or some essential organ of
reproduction.
Any other intentional mutilation shall be punished by
prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods.
Q: Despite the fact that X and Y are married for 10
years, the husband would still often look at women,
and the wife would always be jealous. The wife has
been hearing rumors that her husband would always
be on dates with different women. One time, the wife
saw it herself. After her grocery, she went to a
restaurant and there she saw her very own husband
embracing another woman. This wife has been
suffering; however, she could not afford to separate
with her husband because she just loves the husband
so much and she wants a family that is complete for
her children.
It is now their tenth-year anniversary. The wife called
the husband to come home. She told him that she will
be preparing his favorite dishes, and the husband
arrived as requested. The husband ate all the food
prepared by the wife. There was also hard liquor on top
of the table. The wife kept on pouring hard drinks on
the husband and the husband kept on drinking. The
wife was not drinking at all.
When the husband was so drunk, that his head was
already down on the table, he could no longer lift up
his head, the said wife tried to bring the husband to
bed. While the husband was lying, the wife took the
knife that she prepared. She opened the pants of his
husband and she cut the penis of her husband.
What crime is committed by the wife?
A: The wife is liable for mutilation.
Under Art. 262, there are two ways of committing
mutilation:
I. By intentionally mutilating another, partially or
totally, of any organ necessary for reproduction.
It is the ovary insofar as the woman is concerned.
It is the penis insofar as the man is concerned.
II. By intentionally mutilating another, totally or
partially, of any other parts of the body.
Mutilation is a crime which requires deliberate intent to cut
off or to severe a part of the body of a person. There must
be the deliberate intent to mutilate a part of the body of a
person. Absent deliberate intent to mutilate a part of the
body of another person, it could be any other crime, but it
is not mutilation.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
In the present case, the said wife is liable for mutilation
because what she cut off is the penis, an organ which is
necessary for reproduction on the part of her husband.
Q: While X and Y were fighting, X pulled out his bolo.
He raised it up and said, “This is your end. I am going
to kill you” He came rushing for Y. y raised his hand in
defense. The bolo landed on the hand, and because of
the sharpness, the said hand was cut and severed
from the body of Y.
What crime is committed by X? Is he liable of
mutilation?
A: NO. There was no deliberate intent on the part of X to
cut off the right hand of Y, his intent was to kill Y. He drew
his bolo walking towards Y saying, “This is your end. I am
going to kill you.” The intention was to kill Y. Therefore, the
crime committed is attempted homicide because the
wound inflicted was not fatal.
DUEL
Article 260. Responsibility of participants in a duel. - The
penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed upon any
person who shall kill his adversary in a duel.
If he shall inflict upon the latter physical injuries only, he
shall suffer the penalty provided therefor, according to their
nature.
In any other case, the combatants shall suffer the penalty
of arresto mayor, although no physical injuries have been
inflicted.
The seconds shall in all events be punished as
accomplices.
Article 261. Challenging to a duel. - The penalty of prision
correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon
any person who shall challenge another, or incite another
to give or accept a challenge to a duel, or shall scoff at or
decry another publicly for having refused to accept a
challenge to fight a duel.
PHYSICAL INJURIES
There are three kinds of Physical Injuries:
1. Serios physical injuries
2. Less serious physical injuries
3. Slight physical injuries
Physical injuries is a formal crime. There is no such thing
as attempted or frustrated physical injuries. Physical
injuries is a crime which is punished based on result or
consequences.
ARTICLE 263. SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES
109 of 188
Article 263. Serious physical injuries. - Any person who
shall wound, beat, or assault another, shall be guilty of the
crime of serious physical injuries and shall suffer:
1. The penalty of prision mayor, if in consequence of the
physical injuries inflicted, the injured person shall become
insane, imbecile, impotent, or blind;
2. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods, if in consequence of the physical
injuries inflicted, the person injured shall have lost the use
of speech or the power to hear or to smell, or shall have
lost an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm, or a leg or shall have
lost the use of any such member, or shall have become
incapacitated for the work in which he was therefor
habitually engaged;
3. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods, if in consequence of the physical injuries
inflicted, the person injured shall have become deformed,
or shall have lost any other part of his body, or shall have
lost the use thereof, or shall have been ill or incapacitated
for the performance of the work in which he as habitually
engaged for a period of more than ninety days;
4. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prision correccional in its minimum period, if the physical
injuries inflicted shall have caused the illness or incapacity
for labor of the injured person for more than thirty days.
If the offense shall have been committed against any of the
persons enumerated in Article 246, or with attendance of
any of the circumstances mentioned in Article 248, the
case covered by subdivision number 1 of this Article shall
be punished by reclusion temporal in its medium and
maximum periods; the case covered by subdivision
number 2 by prision correccional in its maximum period to
prision mayor in its minimum period; the case covered by
subdivision number 3 by prision correccional in its medium
and maximum periods; and the case covered by
subdivision number 4 by prision correccional in its
minimum and medium periods.
The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not be
applicable to a parent who shall inflict physical injuries
upon his child by excessive chastisement.
How committed
1. By wounding;
2. By beating;
3. By assaulting; or
4. By administering injurious substance.
ACTS PUNISHED
I. When the injured person becomes insane,
imbecile, impotent or blind in consequence of the
physical injuries inflicted.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
II. When the injured person:
a. Loses the use of speech or the power to hear
or to smell, or loses an eye, a hand, a foot, an
arm, or a leg, or
b. Loses the use of any such member, or
c. Becomes incapacitated for the work in which
he was theretofore habitually engaged, in
consequence of the physical injuries inflicted.
III. When the person injured:
a. Becomes deformed, or
b. Loses any member of his body, or
c. Loses the use thereof, or
d. Becomes ill or incapacitated for the
performance of the work in which he was
habitually engaged for more than 90 days, in
consequence of the physical injuries inflicted.
IV. When the injured person becomes ill or
incapacitated for labor for more than 30 days (but
not more than 90 days), as a result of physical
injuries inflicted.
The moment it is already more than 30 days, it is
already serious physical injuries.
Note:
The distinction between 30 days and 90 days is only as
to penalty but the moment by reason of injuries
sustained by the offended party, he becomes ill or
incapacitated form the work in which he is habitually
engaged for more than 30 days, it is already serious
physical injuries.
Deformity
The moment by reason of the physical injuries inflicted to
the victim, he became deformed or suffered deformity, you
do not determine the healing period. The healing period
becomes immaterial, what matters is that it causes
deformity on the victim. Regardless of the healing period,
the moment the said physical injuries inflicted causes
deformity to the victim, it is immediately serious physical
injuries.
The offended party is said to have suffered deformity
when:
1. the said injury is located on a visible or
conspicuous part of the body;
2. it would not heal through the natural healing
process; and
3. it causes physical disfigurement on the
appearance of the said offended party.
Circumstances which will Qualify Serious Physical
Injuries
110 of 188
1. When the offended party is related to the offender
as the relatives mentioned in the crime of
parricide.
2. When the act of inflicting serious physical injuries
is attended by any of the qualifying circumstances
under Art. 248 Murder.
ARTICLE 264. ADMINISTERING INJURIOUS
SUBSTANCES OR BEVERAGES.
Article 264. Administering injurious substances or
beverages. - The penalties established by the next
preceding article shall be applicable in the respective case
to any person who, without intent to kill, shall inflict upon
another any serious, physical injury, by knowingly
administering to him any injurious substance or beverages
or by taking advantage of his weakness of mind or
credulity.
ARTICLE 265. LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES
Article 265. Less serious physical injuries. - Any person
who shall inflict upon another physical injuries not
described in the preceding articles, but which shall
incapacitate the offended party for labor for ten days or
more, or shall require medical assistance for the same
period, shall be guilty of less serious physical injuries and
shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor.
Whenever less serious physical injuries shall have been
inflicted with the manifest intent to kill or offend the injured
person, or under circumstances adding ignominy to the
offense in addition to the penalty of arresto mayor, a fine
not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed.
Any less serious physical injuries inflicted upon the
offender's parents, ascendants, guardians, curators,
teachers, or persons of rank, or persons in authority, shall
be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods, provided that, in the case of persons in
authority, the deed does not constitute the crime of assault
upon such person.
Elements of Less Serios Physical Injuries
1. Offended party is incapacitated for labor for 10
days or more (but not more than 30 days), or
needs medical attendance for the same period of
time.
2. The physical injuries must not be those described
in the preceding articles.
Qualifying Circumstances
1. When there is manifest intent to insult or offend the
injured person.
2. When there are circumstances adding ignominy to
the offense.
3. When the victim is the offender’s parents,
ascendants, guardians, curators, or teachers.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
4. When the victim is a person of rank or persons in
authority, provided the crime is not direct assault.
ARTICLE 266. SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES OR
MALTREATMENT
Article 266. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment. -
The crime of slight physical injuries shall be punished:
1. By arresto menor when the offender has inflicted
physical injuries which shall incapacitate the offended
party for labor from one to nine days, or shall require
medical attendance during the same period.
2. By arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 20 pesos and
censure when the offender has caused physical injuries
which do not prevent the offended party from engaging in
his habitual work nor require medical assistance.
3. By arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not
exceeding 50 pesos when the offender shall ill-treat
another by deed without causing any injury.
ACTS PUNISHED
I. Physical injuries which incapacitated the offended
party for labor from 1 to 9 days, or required medical
attendance for the same period.
II. Physical injuries which did not prevent the
offended party from engaging in his habitual work
or which did not require medical attendance.
III. Ill treatment of another by deed by inflicting pain
without causing any injury on the part of the
offended party.
Q: X was walking. Unknown to him, Y was following
him surreptitiously. When X turned on the right corner
of the street, Y immediately hit the back of the head of
X with a dos por dos. Because of the impact, X fell on
the ground. He saw Y rushing and getting out of the
place. X went to the doctor and had a medical
examination. His head did not sustain any injury at all,
both internally and externally.
What crime is committed by Y?
A: Y is liable for slight physical injuries of the third act.
He inflicted pain on the part of the offended party without
causing any injury or any wound. Therefore, it is a form of
slight physical injury – ill treatment of another by deed by
inflicting pain without causing any injury under Art. 266.
Q: X was walking. While he was walking, suddenly, A,
B, and C appeared. A, B, and C were all armed with lead
pipes. They planned the act of injuring X. Their
intention was to injure him and not to kill him. They
wanted to injure him and if possible, to cripple him,
and for him to lose one of his limbs.
111 of 188
The moment A, B, and C appeared, they hit X with a
lead pipe, particularly centering on his right leg. After
seeing that he was already in so much pain, that the
right leg was already so injured, A, B, and C left.
X was brought to the hospital and true enough, he lost
his right leg. What crime/s is/are committed by a, B,
and C?
A: A, B, and C are liable as conspirators for qualified
serious physical injuries.
It is serious physical injuries because X lost a leg.
Circumstances which will Qualify Serious Physical
Injuries
1. When the offended party is related to the offender
as the relatives mentioned in the crime of
parricide.
2. When the act of inflicting serious physical injuries
is attended by any of the qualifying circumstances
under Art. 248 Murder.
In this case, A, B, and C’s act of inflicting serious physical
injuries on X was attended by treachery, one of the
qualifying circumstances in murder. Therefore, it is
qualified serious physical injuries.
Q: The son and the father were having an argument
over business matters. Since the time the father left
the management of the business to his son, the
business incurred losses. Now they are lacking in
funds that the business is about to close, it prompted
an argument between the father and the son. The
father kept on blaming the son; the son answered back
at his father. The father lost control of himself and
slapped the son. The son retaliated. He is stronger
than his father. He repeatedly punched his father on
the face, the chest, the neck. The father was then down
and in serious pain. The said son only stepped when
his mother and sister arrived. He then left and his
father was brought to the hospital. The doctor said
would be needing medical intervention for a period of
two weeks or 14 days. What crime is committed by the
son?
A: The son is liable for qualified less serious physical
injuries. It is less serious physical injuries because by
reason of the injuries inflicted by the son on the father, the
latter would be left needing medical intervention for a
period between 10 to 30 days. In this case, it is two weeks
or 14 days. Therefore, it is less serious physical injuries. It
is qualified because of their relationship as father and son.
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
1. When there is a manifest intent to insult or offend
the injured person;
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
2. When the act of inflicting injuries was coupled by
any acts of ignominy;
3. When the injured person is the offender’s parents,
ascendants, guardians, curators, or teachers; or
4. When the injured person is a person of rank or a
person in authority, provided it will not result in
direct assault.
Q: The wife had long learned that her husband has a
mistress. She wanted to talk to the said mistress to
beg. She looked at the phone of her husband and it
was then that she realized that her husband’s mistress
is her own best friend; it was only then that she
discovered that her best friend who was always with
her is the mistress of her husband. She then called her
best friend, the mistress, to meet and it was there that
she told her she already knows the relationship
between her and her husband. For the sake of
friendship, for the sake of family, the wife begged her
best friend, the mistress, to please leave her husband.
However, the mistress cried and told her that even if
she wanted to, she cannot, because she already loves
the husband more than her life. She then turned down
the request of the wife. They were both sad. The
mistress stood up and said to the wife that she is sorry
such a thing happened to them.
She was already walking out of the restaurant, when
suddenly, the wife tapped the back of the said
mistress. The moment the said mistress turned her
back, the wife sprayed a toxic substance. She was
carrying along a bottle of toxic substance. She
sprayed it all over the mistress’ face, neck, and even
consumed the bottle. The said mistress suffered boils
and burns. She now looks ugly. The doctor said it
would heal within a period of 30 days. However, the
doctor said that, for all her scars to be gone, she would
be needing an expensive plastic surgery which the
said mistress cannot afford.
What crime is committed by the wife?
A: The wife is liable for serious physical injuries.
Although the healing period is only 30 days which amounts
to less serious physical injuries, the fact that the said injury
caused deformity on the part of the said mistress on her
face, her neck, which resulted in physical ugliness,
physical disfigurement of the face of the mistress, you
do not consider the healing period; rather, what you
consider is the fact of deformity. Therefore, the crime
committed is serious physical injuries.
Q: X and Y were fighting. In the course of the said fight,
X boxed Y on the mouth. It was a very strong punch on
the mouth. The two front teeth of Y flew. Y then lost his
two front teeth the moment X punched him right in the
middle of his mouth. He was bleeding. Consequently,
a case of serious physical injuries first brought to the
barangay. There was no settlement, and so the case
112 of 188
was filed by Y against X. During the hearing of the
case, it was time for Y, as private complainant, to
testify. On cross examination, the counsel asked Y,
“Can you smile?” Y then smiled. “O, may ngipin ka na
ah. You already have your teeth back, and you look so
handsome.” Y said, “I had implants, your Honor.”
“That’s permanent now.” Y agreed. He was further
told, “You look more handsome now with the implant.”
After trial on the merits, the judge convicted X of
serious physical injuries. X appealed until the case
went to the Supreme Court. Is X liable for serious
physical injuries?
A: In the case of Ruego v. People, the Supreme Court
ruled in the negative. The said court ruled that the said
case should not have reached the Supreme Court since it
is only a case of serious physical injuries. However, the
said case gave the court the opportunity to revisit a long-
time obsolete doctrine that the moment that it is the two
front teeth that have been lost, it is immediately
serious physical injuries. According to the Supreme
Court, in determining whether or not the loss of a tooth is
serious physical injuries, there must be a fact or
determination during the trial that the loss of the said
tooth resulted in a visible deformity.
In this case, during the trial, it was proven by facts that
there was no visible deformity on the part of Y as he
already has implants. Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled
that it is not serious physical injuries; rather, it is only
slight physical injuries. Even if it visible, and later he had
implants and so deformity has been cured and it is no
longer visible, then it could no longer be considered as
deformity that would give rise to serious physical injuries.
ARTICLE 266-A. RAPE
Article 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. - Rape
is committed:
1) By a person who shall have carnal knowledge of another
person under any of the following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat, 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; and
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
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
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.
2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances
mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of
sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's
mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the
genital or anal orifice of another person.
Article 266-B. Penalty. - Rape under paragraph 1 of the
next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion
perpetua.
Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly
weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be
reclusion perpetua to death.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim
has become insane, the penalty shall become reclusion
perpetua to death.
When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed
by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be
reclusion perpetua to death.
When by reason or on the occasion ofthe rape, homicide
is committed, the penalty shall be death.
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of
rape is committed with any of the following
aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
1) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and
the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian,
relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil
degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the
victim;
2) When the victim is under the custody of the police or
military authorities or any law enforcement or penal
institution;
3) When the rape is committed in full view of the spouse,
parent, any of the children or other relatives within the third
civil degree of consanguinity;
4) When the victim is a religious engaged in legitimate
religious vocation or calling and is personally known to be
such by the offender before or at the time of the
commission of the crime;
113 of 188
5) When the victim is a child below seven (7) years old;
6) When the offender knows that he is afflicted with the
Human Immuno-Deficiency Virus (HIV)/Acquired Immune
Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or any other sexually
transmissible disease and the virus or disease is
transmitted to the victim;
7) When committed by any member of the Armed Forces
of the Philippines or para-military units thereof or the
Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency
or penal institution, when the offender took advantage of
his position to facilitate the commission of the crime;
8) When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the
victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation or
disability;
9) When the offender knew of the pregnancy of the
offended party at the time of the commission of the crime;
and
10) When the offender knew of the mental disability,
emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the
offended party at the time of the commission of the crime.
Rape under paragraph 2 of the next preceding article shall
be punished by prision mayor.
Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly
weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be
prision mayor to reclusion temporal.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim
has become insane, the penalty shall be reclusion
temporal.
When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed
by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be
reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua.
When by reason or on the occasion ofthe rape, homicide
is committed, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua.
Reclusion temporal shall be imposed if the rape is
committed with any of the ten aggravating/ qualifying
circumstances mentioned in this article.
Article 266-C. Effect of Pardon. - The subsequent valid
marriage between the offended party shall extinguish the
criminal action or the penalty imposed.
In case it is the legal husband who is the offender, the
subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the offended party
shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty:
Provided, That the crime shall not be extinguished or the
penalty shall not be abated if the marriage is void ab initio.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
Article 266-D. Presumptions. - Any physical overt act
manifesting resistance against the act of rape in any
degree from the offended party, or where the offended
party is so situated as to render her/him incapable of giving
valid consent, may be accepted as evidence in the
prosecution of the acts punished under Article 266-A."
Rape has been amended by R.A. 8353 and further by R.A.
11648.
THREE KINDS OF RAPE
1. Rape by Carnal Knowledge;
2. Rape by Sexual Assault; and
3. Marital Rape
RAPE BY CARNAL KNOWLEDGE
Elements of Rape by Carnal Knowledge
1. The offender is a man and the offended party is a
woman;
2. The offender had carnal knowledge of the said
woman against her will; and
3. The said act of carnal knowledge is attended by
any of the following circumstances:
a. By using force, threat, 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 16
years of age or is demented, even if
none of the circumstances previously
mentioned is present.
In case of rape by carnal knowledge, the law specifies
who the offender is and who the offended party is. The
offender is always a man, and the victim is always a
woman because it requires carnal knowledge or sexual
intercourse, and the said carnal knowledge is against the
will of the said woman, attended by any of the above-
mentioned circumstances.
RAPE BY SEXUAL ASSAULT
Elements of Rape by Sexual Assault
1. The offender is any person, and the offended party
is also any person;
2. The offender commits any of the following acts of
sexual assault upon the victim:
114 of 188
a. By inserting his penis into another
person’s mouth or anal orifice; or
b. By inserting any instrument or object
into another person’s genital or anal
orifice.
3. The said act of sexual assault is attended by any
of the following circumstances:
a. By using force, threat, 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, even if
none of the circumstances previously
mentioned is present.
In case of rape by sexual assault, the offender can be any
person, and the victim can be any person — a man to a
woman; a man to another man; a woman to a man; or a
woman to another woman.
As early as the case of People v. Bon, kakalabas pa lang
ng R.A. 8353, as amended, the Supreme Court said, if it
is a finger that is inserted in the genital or anal orifice
of the offended party, attended by any of the above-
mentioned circumstances, it is rape by sexual assault. A
finger is within the meaning of an “instrument or object”
insofar as rape by sexual assault is concerned.
MARITAL RAPE
Marital rape occurs when a man (husband) has carnal
knowledge with a woman (wife) by use of force and
violence.
In the case of People v. Jumawan, the Supreme Court said
that the moment the husband penetrates the wife
against the latter’s will by employing force and
violence on the said wife, marital rape is committed.
As early as in that case, the Supreme Court said that a
case of rape by carnal knowledge is a violation of the
dignity of a woman.
Since rape is a violation of the human dignity, it can exist
even in case of marital relationship, the moment the
husband penetrates the wife by means of force and
violence; it is thus a violation of the human dignity of the
said wife.
As studied in Book 1, rape admits only two stages: 1)
attempted rape; or 2) consummated rape. There is no
frustrated rape because the slightest penile penetration
consummates the crime of rape. Slightest penile
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
penetration occurs the moment the penis has touched
the lips or labia of the pudendum of a woman’s genital.
However, this is no longer the case.
PEOPLE v. AGAO
G.R. No. 248048 | 4 October 2022
FACTS: In the en banc case of People v. Efren Agao which
was decided in October 2022, the victim (AAA), a 10-year-
old child, was raped by her stepfather, Efren Agao. The
latter was then charged with two counts of statutory rape
in relation to R.A. 7610.
The trial court convicted Agao as charged. According to
said court, relationship as a qualifying circumstance is not
appreciated because the information alleged that Agao is
AAA’s stepfather; however, the prosecution failed to prove
that the mother of AAA and Agao was legally married.
Therefore, what is present is only a common-law
relationship.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the trial court
with regard to the conviction of Agao.
HELD: The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s
conviction of Agao; however, it modified its decision
to one count of statutory rape, and the second is
simple rape.
The said court said that evidence submitted sufficiently
established that Agao’s erect penis touched the labia of the
victim’s vagina; therefore, it falls within the operative
definition of consummated rape.
CASE DISCUSSION: PEOPLE v. AGAO
This is a very long decision penned by Justice Caguioa. In
this case, the Supreme Court clarifies the parameters
that will distinguish consummated rape from
attempted rape based on the definition of what constitutes
the slightest touch, the slightest penile penetration, that
consummates the crime of rape by sexual intercourse
through penile penetration.
In the decision, the anatomy of the vagina was discussed:
the vulva, the pudendum, the mons pubis, the labia majora,
and the labia minora. Thereafter, the Supreme Court said,
as guided by the anatomical description of a female’s
genitalia, it now reiterates and clarifies that rape of a
female victim by a male person through penile
penetration reaches the consummated stage as soon
as the penis penetrates the cleft of the labia majora,
also known as the vulval or pudendal cleft, or the
fleshy outer lip of the vulva, in even at the slightest
degree. Now it is necessary that the penis reaches the
cleft of the labia majora even in the slightest degree.
The Supreme Court also said that, simply put, the mere
introduction, however slight, into the cleft of the labia
majora by a penis that is capable of penetration,
115 of 188
regardless of whether such penile penetration is
thereafter fully achieved, consummates the crime of
rape. It is therefore necessary that the penis penetrates
the cleft of the labia majora, however minimum. It must
reach the cleft of the labia majora for it to be considered as
consummated rape.
It was further discussed that the mere grazing of the
fleshy portion, not the vulval cleft of the labia majora, will
also constitute only attempted rape and not
consummated rape.
Based on the new en banc decision of the Supreme Court
in People v. Agao, the doctrine laid down is that rape is
consummated only when the erect penis touches the vulval
cleft of the labia majora of a woman’s vagina. Only then will
rape be consummated.
If what the penis touches is not within that area – it did not
reach the vulval cleft of the labia majora – then it is only
rape in its attempted stage.
Prof’s opinion: There were so many dissenting opinions
on this case. If I were a justice, I would also dissent. Ang
daya. Ang hirap na ngayon i-prove ng rape. Biruin mo,
nasa burden na ng victim kung saan umabot ang penis.
Kailangan ma-reach niya yung vulval cleft. Paano niya
(victim) malalaman kung ano ang naabot ng penis? Even
the Chief Justice dissented; many dissented. The best
dissent is that of Justice Leonen as he said that we
retroacted with respect to the definition. Sinabi na nga
natin that rape is a crime against human dignity; it is a
violation of the human dignity of a woman. Now it is hard
to convict rape as the victim has the burden to prove what
part of her vagina was reached by the penis; if it reached
the vulval cleft, the pudendal cleft, if not, it is merely
attempted rape. Read Justice Leonen’s dissent as I agree
100% with his dissent. Although the decision is en banc, I
would not say it is canonical because there are many
dissenters. Later on, it may be overturned; the dissenting
opinion now may become the majority decision. This is
not a good decision. This is not a pro-woman decision.
For me, this is a negative decision.
STATUTORY RAPE
Q: X is a mental retardate. In the entire neighborhood,
all the neighbors knew that X was suffering from
mental retardation. She is already 20 years old but she
has only the mental capacity of a nine-year-old girl.
She is the only child of her parents. Her parents own a
store.
One time, X was playing with dolls. She also had many
candies and chocolates. Her mother was beside the
store, looking after her and manning the store. When
the mother left for a while, Y, one of the people in the
neighborhood – one of the neighbors – approached X
and told her “I see that you love dolls and candies. You
see, if you come with me, I have a room in my house
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
full of candies and dolls. You can have them. You can
choose any doll and any candy that you want and they
will be yours.”
X was so delighted and he went along with Y inside the
latter’s house. Inside the house of Y, Y showed the
dolls and candies to X, and he told X to choose from
the dolls and candies. X chose from the dolls and
candies.
However, Y said, “Before you can bring them home, I
have to do something to you.” Y undressed X, and then
thereafter had carnal knowledge of X. True to his
promise, Y gave to X all the dolls and candies that she
had chosen. Thereafter, X went back to the store.
At that time, the mother was worried. She told X,
“Where have you been? I was looking for you. I just
left for a while, and when I came back, you were
already gone. Where did you go? Why do you have so
many candies and dolls?” When X stood up, the
mother saw blood stains on the dress of her daughter.
The mother inquired, and it was then that the daughter
X narrated to her mother what Y did to her.
Because of this, they went to the DSWD and to the
women’s desk section of the PNP, and a case of
qualified rape was filed against Y. The prosecutor
indicted Y for the crime of qualified rape.
The information alleges that – ‘The undersigned public
prosecutor hereby accuses the abovenamed accused
for the crime of qualified rape for having carnal
knowledge of X, a 20-year-old girl with the mental
capacity of a 9-year-old child. Hence, the sexual
intercourse is against her will.’ It was signed by the
public prosecutor.
Based on the facts, if you were the judge, would you
convict Y as charged of qualified rape?
A: If you were the judge, you should not convict Y of
qualified rape. Under Art. 266-B of the RPC, what will
qualify rape is the fact that the offender knows of the said
victim’s mental incapacity, mental disability at the time of
the commission of the crime and such fact of knowledge is
alleged in the information and proven during trial.
In this case, the mere fact that Y is a neighbor, the law
does not presume that he already knows that X is suffering
from mental retardation. It must be alleged in the
information and it must be proven during trial. Mere
neighbors will not suffice for the law to presume that he
knows that X is suffering from mental retardation at the
time of the commission of the act of rape.
So, as the judge, you cannot convict Y of qualified rape.
Q: Of what crime would you convict Y?
116 of 188
A: In the case of People v. Baay (G.R. No. 220143, 7 June
2017), the Supreme Court said the conviction must be for
simple rape. The basis is the chronological age of the
victim. In this case, X was 20 years old. The Court said it
cannot be statutory rape because the gravamen of
statutory rape is the carnal knowledge of a woman under
12 years of age. Here, the said woman is already 20 years
of age. Therefore, the court convicted the accused of
simple rape based on the victim’s chronological age.
However, in People v. Deniega (G.R. No. 212201, 28 June
2017, Peralta, J.), the Supreme Court said no, the
conviction must be for statutory rape. The basis is the
mental age of the victim. The Court said it is settled that
sexual intercourse with a woman who is suffering from
mental retardation with a mental age below 12 years
old constitutes statutory rape because a person’s
capacity to decide whether to give consent or to
express resistance is determined by her mental age.
So, the Supreme Court said it should be statutory rape
based on the mental age.
In this case, although X is 20 years old, she has the mental
age of a 9-year-old child.
In the case of People v. Rabelas (G.R. No. 253603, 14
June 2021), the Supreme Court finally said that it should
be statutory rape. The basis, according to the Supreme
Court, is the mental age of the victim, not the chronological
age of the victim.
The moment the victim is suffering from mental retardation
and has only the mental capacity of a child under 12 years
of age – the Supreme Court said that sexual intercourse
with a woman who is a mental retardate with a mental age
below 12 years old constitutes statutory rape because
decision-making is a function of the mind. Hence, it should
be statutory rape.
Elements of Statutory Rape
In cases of statutory rape, there are only two elements that
need be proven –
1. First, the fact of carnal knowledge; and
2. Second, that the victim is under sixteen (16) years
old.
The victim, based on law, must be under 12 years of age.
However, Art. 266-A(1)(d) of the RPC has been amended
by R.A. No. 11648. Based on the amendment brought
about by R.A. No. 11648, statutory rape is now committed
when the offender has carnal knowledge of a minor under
16 years old, regardless of consent.
Therefore, now, the elements of statutory rape are now: (1)
the fact of carnal knowledge, and (2) that the victim is
under 16 years old. Regardless of consent, if these two
elements are proven, it is statutory rape.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
Exception to statutory rape
R.A. No. 11648, however, provides an exception to
statutory rape. Statutory rape is committed when the
offender has carnal knowledge of a minor under 16 years
of age, regardless of consent.
XPN: When the difference in age between the parties is
not more than three (3) years and the sexual act is proven
to be consensual, non-abusive, and non-exploitative.
XPN to XPN: When the victim is under 13 years old.
Q: X is 15 years old. She has a boyfriend, Y, who is 21
years old. They love each other, but the mother is
against the girl, and so they cohabited. The mother of
X was looking for X, her only daughter. She learned
that her only daughter was cohabiting with the
boyfriend Y. She tried to look everywhere and she
could not find her daughter – until she got a report that
X and Y were renting an apartment in a particular
place.
Two weeks thereafter, the mother went to the said
place and found her daughter cohabiting with the
boyfriend Y. She forcibly took her daughter. At the
police station, the girl narrated that she voluntarily
went with her boyfriend because she loves her
boyfriend and that they cohabited for a period of two
weeks and that during those two weeks, every night,
they would have sexual intercourse. The girl said she
voluntarily gave herself to the man that she loves.
Is the boyfriend Y liable for any crime?’
A: YES, the boyfriend Y is liable for statutory rape.
Here, the girl is under 16 years old – she is only 15 years
old. The moment the offender has carnal knowledge of a
minor under 16 years old, regardless of her consent, even
if she gave consent, it is already statutory rape. In this
case, the said boyfriend will be liable for 14 counts of
statutory rape because one sexual intercourse equals one
count of rape.
Q: In the same problem, X is 15 years old and the
boyfriend Y is 18 years old. They loved each other, but
the mother of X did not like the man. They cohabited
for two weeks until the mother discovered where they
were cohabiting and the mother forcibly took her
daughter X. The mother brought X to the police and at
the police station, the 15-year-old girl narrated to the
police that they cohabited for two weeks (14 days), and
during those two weeks of cohabitation, she
voluntarily gave herself to her boyfriend Y. They had
sexual intercourse with her consent.
Because of that, the police officers filed 14 counts of
statutory rape against the boyfriend Y. Would the said
cases prosper?
117 of 188
A: NO, the cases will not prosper. It falls under the
exception brought about by R.A. No. 11643 on Art. 266-
A(1)(d) – when the difference in age between the parties
is not more than three (3) years and the sexual act is
proven to be consensual, non-abusive, and non-
exploitative, there is no crime of statutory rape.
In this case, based on the only statement of the girl, she
voluntarily gave herself to her boyfriend. Therefore, the
sexual intercourse was consensual. It is not abusive. It is
non-exploitative. Therefore, the said boyfriend cannot be
charged and cannot be held liable for statutory rape.
Women’s honor doctrine
In case of rape, there is the so-called women’s honor
doctrine.
The women’s honor doctrine in the crime of rape
recognizes the well-known fact that women, especially
Filipino women, would not admit that they have been raped
or would not admit that they have been abused, unless the
abuse had actually happened because it is their natural
instinct to protect their honor.
If there is the women’s honor doctrine insofar as the
offended party/woman is concerned, insofar as the man is
concerned, there is also the sweetheart defense theory.
Sweetheart defense theory
In rape, the sweetheart defense theory must be proven by
compelling evidence in order to lie in favor of the accused.
1. First, it must be proven that the accused and the
victim were indeed lovers.
2. Second, that the victim consented to the alleged
sexual relations.
Only then will the sweetheart defense be considered in
favor of the accused. In many instances, however, the
Supreme Court had denied the sweetheart defense theory
in favor of the accused. Because, the Supreme Court said,
love is not a license for lust. The mere fact that the girl
and the man are lovers, the mere fact that they are
sweethearts, does not automatically mean that the sexual
relation is done with the consent of the girl.
Every act of sexual intercourse equals one count of rape
In the case of People v. Lucena (G.R. No. 190632, 26 Feb.
2014), the Supreme Court said every act of sexual
intercourse equals one count of rape.
SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES ARISING FROM RAPE
Under Art. 266-B, there are special complex crimes that
arise in the crime of rape –
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
1. When by reason or on occasion of rape, homicide
is committed, there is the special complex crime of
rape with homicide.
2. When rape is attempted, and a homicide is
committed by reason or on occasion thereof, there
is the special complex crime with attempted rape
with homicide.
These are the two special complex crimes in rape. It is the
law that combines the crimes and the law prescribes a
particular penalty for the combined crimes.
The special complex crime of rape with homicide is
punished by death.
Whereas, the special complex crime of attempted rape
with homicide is punished by reclusion perpetua to
death.
PEOPLE v. LAOG
G.R. No. 178321 | 5 October 2011
Q: X and Y learned that there is a newly opened
restaurant in the población. And so, X and Y dressed
themselves up and wanted to apply as waitresses,
helpers, or servers in the said restaurant-canteen.
They were walking down the rice fields, wanting to go
to the población.
Suddenly, a man, their long-distant uncle, appeared in
front of the both of them. This man immediately boxed
the two girls. After boxing them, both of them felt
weak. The man then dragged them behind a tree in the
grassy portion of the rice field. There, the man
undressed X, pinned down X, undressed himself, and
went on top of X.
At that particular moment, Y, the other girl, began
shouting, crying, and asking for help. The man stood
up, took his lead pipe, and repeatedly hit the head of Y
until Y died. The moment Y fell lifeless, the man went
back to X, hit X with a lead pipe, then had carnal
knowledge of her. After the carnal knowledge, he also
repeatedly hit X with the lead pipe. Thereafter, he left.
While Y died, X survived. X was able to go to the
authorities. Because of this, the said man was charged
with two crimes: 1) murder for the killing of Y; and 2)
rape for the carnal knowledge done against X with
violence and intimidation.
Are the charges correct?
A: NO. In the case of People v. Laog, the Supreme Court
said he should be convicted of the special complex crime
of rape with homicide. The Supreme Court said the
obvious intent of the accused is to rape X. On the
occasion of the said rape, he has to kill Y because the latter
kept on shouting and asking for help. Since the said act of
killing took place on the occasion of the rape, there is the
118 of 188
special complex crime of rape with homicide which is
punished by death penalty under Art. 266-B.
In the cases of People v. Laog and People v. Villaflores
(G.R. No. 184926, 11 April 2012), the Supreme Court
explained the law’s use of the phrase “by reason or on the
occasion of rape, homicide is committed”.
The Supreme Court said “by reason of rape, homicide
is committed” means the criminal intent of the offender
is to rape the victim, but, by reason of the said rape, he
has to kill the very victim of the rape.
But the law also uses the phrase “on occasion of rape,
homicide is committed.” The phrase “on occasion of
rape, homicide is committed” means that the intent of
the offender is to rape the victim, however, on the
occasion, or on his act of raping the victim, he has to
kill someone. That someone may be another person. It is
immaterial whether that someone is the victim or any
other person – for as long as the said killing took place on
the occasion of the said rape, there is the special complex
crime of rape with homicide.
Q: In an old case, Makati then was just a simple
municipality, not as grand as today. A woman, X, just
got out of the office at almost midnight after working
overtime. She was walking, hoping to get a ride at the
bus station. She passed by this area wherein a
construction is ongoing. She saw three men having a
drinking spree. She did not mind them nor look at
them. She just hurriedly passed by, looking to go to
the bus station to take a ride.
As she was walking, the three men suddenly encircled
her. The three men, A, B and C took off their shirts,
raised it in the air and thereafter all of them jumped on
the said woman. They pinned down the woman, with
each of them forcibly taking off her clothing. Although
naked, the woman saw an opportunity to escape and
she ran away.
However, one of the three men, A, ran after her and
repeatedly stabbed her until she died. What crime is
committed by the three men A, B, and C?
A: In this case, the Supreme Court held the three men
liable for the special complex crime of attempted rape
with homicide.
The Supreme Court said the obvious intent of the three
men was to rape the said woman, and by reason thereof,
they had to kill her because she tried to escape. The Court
said the said men will be liable as conspirators for the
special complex crime of attempted rape with
homicide.
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of
rape is committed with any of the following
aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
1) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and
the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian,
relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil
degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the
victim;
Under Art. 266-B, the law provides that qualified rape is
committed and death penalty shall be imposed when the
victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender
is –
a. A parent;
b. Ascendant;
c. Step-parent;
d. Guardian;
e. Relative by consanguinity or affinity within the
third civil degree; or
f. The common-law spouse of the parent of the
victim.
In this case, the crime committed will be qualified rape and
the penalty is death.
For this kind of qualified rape to be committed, the
Supreme Court said there must be proof beyond
reasonable doubt of the twin qualifying circumstances
of –
1. Minority of the victim; and
2. Relationship of the victim and the offender.
The victim must be under 18 years of age, and the accused
must be her parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian,
relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil
degree, or the common-law spouse of the victim’s parent.
PEOPLE v. CIAL
G.R. No. 191362 | 9 October 2013
Q: X, the accused, was charged with the crime of
qualified rape. The Information alleges that the victim
is a minor under 18 years old, and the said accused
was the common-law spouse of the victim’s mother.
The charge was qualified rape. During the hearing of
the case, however, when the girl was asked of her age
at the time of the rape, and her birthday, and she said
she did not know. Because of this, the judge ordered
the prosecution to present the birth certification of the
girl.
When the girl, on cross-examination, was asked how
she was related to the accused, she said the accused
is her “papa.” When asked, “When you say papa, what
does it mean?” and she said the accused is the
husband of her mother. “Was there a marriage? Was
there a wedding ceremony?” The girl said “yes.”
119 of 188
During the testimony of X, the accused, when asked
how she was related to the girl, he testified that the girl
is his daughter. When asked if there was a wedding
ceremony between the girl’s mother and the accused,
the accused said yes. Should the said accused be
convicted of qualified rape?
A: In the case of People v. Cial, the Supreme Court
downgraded the crime only to simple rape, not
qualified rape. The Supreme Court said a conviction for
qualified rape requires the twin qualifying circumstances of
minority and relationship which must be alleged in the
information and proven during trial beyond reasonable
doubt.
In this case, minority was alleged but it was not proven. It
was not proven beyond reasonable doubt because there
was no evidence as to the age of the girl at the time of the
act of rape.
Insofar as the relationship is concerned, it was also not
proven, according to the Supreme Court. The relationship
alleged in the information was a common-law relationship,
whereas, the relationship proven before the court is a
stepfather-stepdaughter relationship because both of them
stated that a wedding ceremony occurred. Therefore, the
relationship alleged is different from the relationship
proven. Hence, relationship was not proven beyond
reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court then downgraded
the crime from qualified rape to only simple rape.
RULING: The prosecution mentioned "AAA's" Certificate
of Live Birth. Also attached to the Folder of Exhibits marked
as Exhibit "B" is "AAA's" Certificate of Live Birth showing
that "AAA" was born on October 31, 1991. However, upon
closer scrutiny, we note that the said Certificate of Live
Birth was never presented or offered during the trial of the
case.
The prosecution likewise miserably failed to establish
"AAA's" relationship with the appellant. Although the
Information alleged that appellant is the common-law
husband of "AAA's" mother, "AAA"' referred to appellant as
her step-father.
The terms "common-law husband" and "step-father" have
different legal connotations. For appellant to be a step-
father to "AAA," he must be legally married to "AAA's"
mother.
Suffice it to state that qualifying circumstances must be
proved beyond reasonable doubt just like the crime itself.
In this case, the prosecution utterly failed to prove beyond
reasonable doubt the qualifying circumstances of minority
and relationship. As such, appellant should only be
convicted of the crime of simple rape, the penalty for which
is reclusion perpetua.
PEOPLE v. XXX
G.R. No. 247754 | 7 October 2020
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
Q: X was charged with qualified rape. Allegedly, the
victim was a minor. The Information alleges that the
said accused is “regarded by the victim as her
stepfather.” That was the statement in the information
filed by the fiscal. Should the accused be convicted of
qualified rape?
A: NO. The Supreme Court said in this case that, although
prosecution was able to prove the minority of the girl,
it failed to prove the alleged relationship between the
girl and the accused. The use of the phrase “regarded by
the victim as stepfather” in the information does not render
the element of relationship as unambiguous; rather, the
phrase “regarded by the victim as her stepfather” rendered
the element of relationship ambiguous.
The phrase "regarded by the victim as her stepfather"
is not a categorical declaration of the true relationship
between the victim and the accused. Hence, the said
accused cannot be convicted of qualified rape under Art.
266-B.
RULING: The Information used the phrase "regarded by
the victim as her stepfather", which rendered the element
of relationship ambiguous. The term "regarded by the
victim as her stepfather" is not a categorical declaration of
the true relationship between XXX and AAA. Based on this
averment, it is unclear whether XXX was indeed legally
AAA's stepfather, or whether he was only regarded by her
as a stepfather but without the existence of any legitimate
relationship between them. The Information, thus, failed to
distinctly state the element of relationship.
In any event, the relationship of XXX being AAA's
stepfather was not duly proven.
Evidently, with respect to qualified rape, the relationship
between a stepfather and a stepdaughter assumes the
existence of a legitimate relationship, that is, the stepfather
should be legally married to the stepdaughter's mother.
XXX's admission that he is the stepfather of AAA cannot
be considered as conclusive evidence to prove the
relationship because the marriage contract remains to be
the best evidence to prove the fact of marriage between
XXX and BBB. Said admission did not dispense with the
burden of the prosecution to adduce in evidence the
marriage contract itself.
ANTI-CHILD ABUSE LAW (R.A. NO. 7610)
RICALDE v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 211002 | 21 January 2015
FACTS: In People v. Ricalde, the boy was 10 years old
and he has a textmate. The said textmate was invited by
the boy to go to Manila. He was said to be a very distant
relative. When the said man arrived at the port of Manila,
the boy asked her mother to fetch the man. And so, the
120 of 188
mother went to the port of Manila and fetched the man.
Since the man has nowhere to stay in Manila, the man
stayed in the house of the boy and his mother.
While the boy was sleeping, suddenly, the boy felt pain and
was awakened. The boy saw that the penis of the said man
was inserted inside his anal orifice. The penis of the man
was inserted inside his anus. The boy cried. The man
removed his penis from the anus of the boy, and thereafter,
fondled the penis of the boy before allowing the boy to
leave.
The boy went to his mother. The mother came to the sala
and told Ricalde to get out of their house. They went to the
DSWD and to the police. A case of rape by sexual assault
was filed against Ricalde. Is Ricalde liable of rape by
sexual assault?
A: YES. All the elements of rape by sexual assault are
present –
1. The offender is Ricalde and the offended party is
the boy;
2. The said offender inserted his penis into the anal
orifice of the said young boy; and
3. Since the boy is only 10 years old and under 16
years old, therefore, it is rape by sexual assault.
On direct testimony, the boy was able to state that he saw
the penis inserted inside his anus. But, on cross-
examination by the counsel of the accused, the boy said
that this time, he is not sure if the said penis fully
penetrated his anal orifice.
The Supreme Court said it is immaterial. By analogy, in
case of rape by sexual assault, the moment the said
penis touches the anal orifice, there is already rape by
sexual assault. It is not necessary that there be full or
complete penetration of the anal orifice by the said penis
of the accused.
Q: The Court, in this case, convicted Ricalde by rape
with sexual assault in relation to R.A. No. 7610. What
is the purpose? Why is it necessary for the court to
state that it must be in relation to R.A. No. 7610?
A: The reason is, if the conviction is only for rape by sexual
assault, the penalty is only prision mayor. But, if it is rape
by sexual assault in relation to R.A. No. 7610, the
penalty would be reclusion temporal in its medium
period.
Therefore, so as to increase the imposable penalty, it must
be in relation to R.A. No. 7610, considering that the said
offended party is a minor.
CHILD PROSTITUTION AND OTHER SEXUAL ABUSE
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. –
Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or
any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence
of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be
children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to
reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the following:
(a) Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or induce
child prostitution which include, but are not limited to, the
following:
(1) Acting as a procurer of a child prostitute;
(2) Inducing a person to be a client of a child prostitute by
means of written or oral advertisements or other similar
means;
(3) Taking advantage of influence or relationship to procure
a child as prostitute;
(4) Threatening or using violence towards a child to
engage him as a prostitute; or
(5) Giving monetary consideration goods or other
pecuniary benefit to a child with intent to engage such child
in prostitution.
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or
subjected to other sexual abuse: Provided, That when the
victim is under sixteen (16) years of age, the perpetrators
shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 2, for
rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended,
otherwise known as "The Revised Penal Code", for rape,
or lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That
the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under
sixteen (16) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its
medium period; and
(c) Those who derive profit or advantage therefrom,
whether as manager or owner of the establishment where
the prostitution takes place, or of the sauna, disco, bar,
resort, place of entertainment or establishment serving as
a cover or which engages in prostitution in addition to the
activity for which the license has been issued to said
establishment. (As amended by R.A. No. 11648, 04 March
2022)
Under Sec. 5 of R.A. No. 7610, the Anti-Child Abuse Law,
children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or
any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence
of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be
children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.
Under Sec. 5(b), the law provides that those who commit
the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a
child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual
abuse shall be punished.
121 of 188
Sec. 5(b) has been amended by R.A. No. 11648. The
amendment is only qualification. Under Sec. 5(b), those
who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct with a child exploited in prostitution and other
sexual abuse are liable –
1. Provided, that when the victim is under sixteen
(16) years old, the perpetrators shall be
prosecuted for rape or acts of lasciviousness
under the RPC,
2. Provided further, that the penalty for lascivious
conduct when the victim is under sixteen (16)
years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its
medium period.
So, the amendment brought about by R.A. No. 11648 is on
the age of the victim. Before, it was under 12 years, now it
is under 16 years of age.
ATTEMPT TO COMMIT CHILD PROSTITUTION
Section 6. Attempt To Commit Child Prostitution. – There
is an attempt to commit child prostitution under Section 5,
paragraph (a) hereof when any person who, not being a
relative of a child, is found alone with the said child inside
the room or cubicle of a house, an inn, hotel, motel,
pension house, apartelle or other similar establishments,
vessel, vehicle or any other hidden or secluded area under
circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to
believe that the child is about to be exploited in prostitution
and other sexual abuse.
There is also an attempt to commit child prostitution, under
paragraph (b) of Section 5 hereof when any person is
receiving services from a child in a sauna parlor or bath,
massage clinic, health club and other similar
establishments. A penalty lower by two (2) degrees than
that prescribed for the consummated felony under Section
5 hereof shall be imposed upon the principals of the
attempt to commit the crime of child prostitution under this
Act, or, in the proper case, under the Revised Penal Code.
Under Sec. 6 of R.A. No. 7610, there is an attempt to
commit child prostitution when –
1. Any person who is not a relative of the said child
2. is found alone with the said child inside the room
or cubicle of a house, an inn, hotel, motel, pension
house, apartelle or other similar establishments,
vessel, vehicle or any other hidden or secluded
area
3. under circumstances which would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the child is
about to be exploited in prostitution and other
sexual abuse.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
OTHER ACTS OF NEGLECT, ABUSE, CRUELTY OR
EXPLOITATION AND OTHER CONDITIONS
PREJUDICIAL TO THE CHILD'S DEVELOPMENT
Section 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or
Exploitation and Other Conditions Prejudicial to the Child's
Development. –
(a) Any person who shall commit any other acts of child
abuse, cruelty or exploitation or to be responsible for other
conditions prejudicial to the child's development including
those covered by Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603,
as amended, but not covered by the Revised Penal Code,
as amended, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its
minimum period.
(b) Any person who shall keep or have in his company a
minor sixteen (16) years of age or under or who is ten (10)
years or more his junior in any public or private place, hotel,
motel, beer joint, discotheque, cabaret, pension house,
sauna or massage parlor, beach, and/or other tourist or
similar places shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its
maximum period and a fine of not less that Fifty thousand
pesos (P50,000.00): Provided, That this provision shall not
apply to any person who is related within fourth degree of
consanguinity or affinity or any blood recognized by law,
local custom and tradition or acts in the performance of a
social, moral or legal duty.
(c) Any person who shall induce, deliver or offer a minor to
any one prohibited by this Act to keep or have in his
company a minor as provided in the preceding paragraph
shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium
period and a fine of not less than Forty thousand pesos
(P40,000); Provided, however, That should the perpetrator
be an ascendant, stepparent or guardian of the minor, the
penalty to be imposed shall be prision mayor in its
maximum period, a fine of not less than Fifty thousand
pesos (P50,000), and the loss of parental authority over
the minor.
(d) Any person, owner, manager or one entrusted with the
operation of any public or private place of accommodation,
whether for occupancy, food, drink or otherwise, including
residential places, who allows any person to take along
with him to such place or places any minor herein
described shall be imposed a penalty of prision mayor in
its medium period and a fine of not less than Fifty thousand
pesos (P50,000), and the loss of the license to operate
such a place or establishment.
(e) Any person who shall use, coerce, force or intimidate a
street child or any other child to;
(1) Beg or use begging as a means of living;
(2) Act as conduit or middlemen in drug trafficking or
pushing; or
(3) Conduct any illegal activities, shall suffer the penalty of
prision correccional in its medium period to reclusion
perpetua.
122 of 188
For purposes of this Act, the penalty for the commission of
acts punishable under Articles 248, 249, 262, paragraph 2,
and 263, paragraph 1 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the
Revised Penal Code, for the crimes of murder, homicide,
other intentional mutilation, and serious physical injuries,
respectively, shall be reclusion perpetua when the victim is
under twelve (12) years of age. The penalty for the
commission of acts punishable under Article 337, 339, 340
and 341 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal
Code, for the crimes of qualified seduction, acts of
lasciviousness with the consent of the offended party,
corruption of minors, and white slave trade, respectively,
shall be one (1) degree higher than that imposed by law
when the victim is under twelve (12) years age.
The victim of the acts committed under this section shall
be entrusted to the care of the Department of Social
Welfare and Development. (As amended by R.A. No.
11648)
Sec. 10(b) of R.A. No. 7610 has been amended by R.A.
11648.
Based on the amendment brought about by R.A. No.
11648 on Sec. 10 of R.A. No. 7610, the law now punishes
any person who shall keep or have in his company a
minor 16 years of age or under or who is 10 years or
more his junior in any public or private place, hotel, motel,
beer joint, discotheque, cabaret, pension house, sauna or
massage parlor, beach, and/or other tourist or similar
places shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its
maximum period and a fine of not less than Fifty thousand
pesos (P50,000.00).
XPN: When the parties are related within the fourth degree
of consanguinity or affinity or any blood recognized by law,
local custom and tradition or acts in the performance of a
social, moral or legal duty.
Q: X is 22 years old. He was sitting on a bench at
Luneta Park, a public place. While X was there alone,
here comes Y, a 17-year-old sampaguita vendor. Y sat
beside X and he offered X her sampaguita. More than
that, Y offered to X herself at the price of P1,000. While
Y was talking to X, the police arrived. The police
arrested X and charged X under Sec. 10(b) of R.A. No.
7610. Is X liable as charged?
A: NO, X is not liable as charged. Under Sec. 10(b) of
R.A. No. 7610, as amended by R.A. No. 11648, what the
law punishes is any person who shall keep or have in his
company a minor sixteen (16) years old or under or who is
ten (10) years or more his junior in any public or private
place, hotel, motel, etc.
In this case, X is not liable because, first, the said girl Y
was neither kept nor in the company of X. Rather, it was
Y who approached X, who was just sitting at Luneta Park
and then talked to X.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
Another reason is, Y is neither 16 years old nor 10 years
the junior of X. Y is 17 years old and only 5 years younger
than X. Therefore, X cannot be held liable by R.A. No.
7610.
Q: In the same problem, when X, 22 years old, was
seated there, Y went to him and offered her
sampaguita and herself. X accepted the offer of Y and
brought Y in a motel and had sexual intercourse with
her, and thereafter paid her the price of P1,000, the
amount asked by Y. Is X liable under R.A. No. 7610?
A: YES. X is liable under Sec. 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610. All
the elements of Sec. (b) are present –
1. First, X commits the act of sexual intercourse,
2. Next, the said act was performed with Y who is a
child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other
sexual abuse, and
3. Lastly, Y is below 18 years old.
In this case, Y is a child exploited in prostitution and other
sexual abuse because she indulges in sexual intercourse
or lascivious conduct for money, profit, or any other
consideration. She was the one who asked for P1,000,
selling her body to X. Therefore, when X gave in, X became
criminally liable under Sec. 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610.
Section 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or
Exploitation and Other Conditions Prejudicial to the Child's
Development. –
(a) Any person who shall commit any other acts of child
abuse, cruelty or exploitation or to be responsible for other
conditions prejudicial to the child's development including
those covered by Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603,
as amended, but not covered by the Revised Penal Code,
as amended, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its
minimum period.
Q: The mother arrived home from work. It was about
5:30 to 6:00 p.m. She was walking a few distance away
from the house. She could vividly see her 7-year-old
son. Her son was slapped by the 12-year-old son of the
neighbor. She saw her son fall on the ground. The
mother was shocked. She was running, and at that
particular moment, the 12-year-old son of the neighbor
collared her 7-year-old son and thereafter boxed the
chest of her son twice. Her son was crying.
The mother came rushing. When the mother came to
the scene, she immediately held the shirt of the 12-
year-old boy, slapped the boy two times, and pushed
the said son of the neighbor. She told the son of the
neighbor, “You are so big for my son. Why did you do
this to my son?” And the mother carried her 7-year-old
child inside the house in order to give some
medication for the injuries sustained by the boy.
123 of 188
The son of the neighbor told his parents what
happened. The parents were mad at the mother. The
said mother slapped their 12-year-old son and
thereafter pushed him down on the ground. By reason
thereof, the said parents of the 12-year-old boy filed a
case of violation of R.A. No. 7610 against the said
mother for allegedly physically abusing their 12-year-
old son by slapping his face and pushing him down to
the ground. Is the woman liable as charged for
violation of R.A. No. 7610?
A: Starting with the case of Bongalon v. People (2013),
and thereafter in the cases of Jabalde v. People (2016),
Calaoagan v. People (2019) and henceforth, the Supreme
Court said the laying of hands against a child, when
done at the spur of the moment and in anger, cannot
be deemed as an act of child abuse under Sec. 10(a) of
R.A. No. 7610 absent the essential element of intent to
debase, degrade, or demean the intrinsic worth and
dignity of the said child as a human being.
In this case, the mother saw her son being bullied. It
happened at the spur of the moment. She was filled with
anger. At that precise moment, when she slapped the
neighbor’s son, when she pushed the neighbor’s son, it
cannot be said that she has the intent to debase, degrade,
or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the said 12-
year-old neighbor’s son. It happened at the spur of the
moment and it only shows the mother’s care and love and
concern for the safety of her own child who was only 7
years old.
Therefore, in this case, the said mother cannot be held
liable for child abuse under R.A. No. 7610.
Instead, the said mother should be held liable only for
slight physical injuries.
BONGALON v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 169533 | 20 March 2013
FACTS: Jayson and Roldan, his older brother, both
minors, joined the evening procession for the Santo Niño
at Oro Site in Legazpi City. When the procession passed
in front of the petitioner Bongalon’s house, the latter's
daughter Mary Ann Rose, also a minor, threw stones at
Jayson and called him "sissy". Bongalon confronted
Jayson and Roldan and called them names like "strangers"
and "animals".
Bongalon then struck Jayson at the back with his hand,
and slapped Jayson on the face. He then went to the
brothers' house and challenged Rolando, their father, to a
fight, but Rolando did not come out of the house to take on
Bongalon.
RULING: Bongalon’s acts did not constitute child abuse.
The records did not establish beyond reasonable doubt
that his laying of hands on Jayson had been intended to
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
debase the "intrinsic worth and dignity" of Jayson as a
human being, or that he had thereby intended to humiliate
or embarrass Jayson.
The records showed the laying of hands on Jayson to have
been done at the spur of the moment and in anger,
indicative of his being then overwhelmed by his fatherly
concern for the personal safety of his own minor daughters
who had just suffered harm at the hands of Jayson and
Roldan. With the loss of his self-control, he lacked that
specific intent to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic
worth and dignity of a child as a human being that was so
essential in the crime of child abuse.
Considering that Jayson's physical injury required five to
seven days of medical attention, the petitioner was liable
for slight physical injuries.
CALAOAGAN v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 222974 | 20 March 2019
FACTS: At around 12:00 midnight on October 31, 2004,
they were on their way home to Barangay Poblacion,
Rosales, Pangasinan, when they encountered petitioner
Calaoagan accompanied by two persons. Calaoagan,
seemingly annoyed by AAA and BBB, brought AAA near
the church and hit AAA's right shoulder with a stone. BBB
followed petitioner and AAA, which prompted petitioner to
punch BBB on the right cheek.
Meanwhile, Calaoagan alleged that he and his two
companions passed by a group of persons which included
AAA and BBB. The group shouted "Hoy!" at them, which
impelled him to shout back "Hoy!" at the group. Thereafter,
AAA and BBB's group started hurling stones at him and his
companions, which made them run to petitioner's house.
RULING: The Court finds that the prosecution did not
present any iota of evidence to show petitioner's intent to
debase, degrade, or demean the intrinsic worth of the child
victim. The records do not show that petitioner's act of
hitting the victims had been intended to place the latter in
an embarrassing, shameful, and demeaning situation.
There was no indication that petitioner had any specific
intent to humiliate and degrade AAA and BBB.
On the contrary, the Court finds that petitioner inflicted the
injuries in the heat of argument. AAA and BBB claim that
it was petitioner's group that first annoyed the former's
group; while petitioner claims that it was AAA and BBB's
group that initiated the shouting match. Nevertheless, it is
clear that the altercation between AAA, BBB, and petitioner
only occurred when their groups met on the street without
any prior confrontation.
As observed in the cases of Bongalon, Jabalde, and
Escolano, when the infliction of physical injuries against a
minor is done at the spur of the moment, it is imperative for
the prosecution to prove a specific intent to debase,
degrade, or demean the intrinsic worth of the child;
124 of 188
otherwise, the accused cannot be convicted under Sec. 10
(a) of R.A. No. 7610.
Verily, as the prosecution in this case failed to specify any
intent to debase, degrade, or demean the intrinsic worth of
AAA and BBB, petitioner cannot be held criminally liable
under Sec. 10 (a) of R.A. No. 7610.
Nonetheless, even if BBB was still a minor, the Court
affirms that petitioner is guilty of the crime of slight physical
injuries in Criminal Case No. 4878-R because the
prosecution failed to prove the specific intent to debase,
degrade or demean the intrinsic worth of the child.
Petitioner's act of hitting BBB resulted in the latter's injuries
requiring medical attendance for one (1) to nine (9) days,
which is within the definition of slight physical injuries.
ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR
CHILDREN ACT (R.A. NO. 9262)
Q: X and Y had been living together for two years. They
have been cohabiting for two years. They were renting
an apartment. It used to be a happy cohabitation until
X told Y, “I want out of the relationship.” X went into
the room and packed her things. She wanted to get out
of the said apartment that the both of them were
renting. After X packed her clothing, Y was there
standing at the door of the apartment. Y told X, “You
cannot leave. We made a pact that we will be together
until the end. I cannot allow you to leave. You have to
fulfill your promise that you will not leave.” However,
X was firm. She said, “I want out of the relationship. I
no longer love you.”
Upon hearing those words, Y became very mad. Y
slapped X two times and thereafter pushed her. Y even
tried to strangle the neck of X. X fell and was crying
aloud. When her luggage had fallen and her clothing
was out, she picked them up, placed them again inside
the luggage and thereafter, for the second time, tried
to leave the house. However, Y was still at the doorstep
and Y pushed her so hard she fell again on the floor
and while X was down on the floor, Y kept on hurting
her.
Because of the pain, X shouted aloud. Upon hearing
these loud shouts of Y, X left the place. The moment Y
left, X hurriedly packed up her things and got out of
the said apartment. X filed a case for violation of R.A.
No. 9262 against Y before the Office of the Public
Prosecutor. When Y filed the counter-affidavit, Y
stated that R.A. No. 9262 will not lie against her
because she too is a woman. Theirs is a lesbian
relationship. According to her, R.A. No. 9262 will only
lie against a man, but not against a woman like her.
R.A. No. 9262 does not apply to lesbian relationships.
Is Y’s argument meritorious?
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
A: Y’s argument has no merit. Under R.A. No. 9262,
Violation Against Women and their Children, refers to any
act or series of act committed by any person against:
1. A woman who is:
a. his wife;
b. a former wife;
c. with whom that person has or had a sexual or
dating relationship;
d. with whom he has a common child; or
2. her child whether legitimate or illegitimate within or
without the family abode
which resulting or slightly to resulting physical, sexual,
psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse. In the
case of Garcia v. Drilon, the Supreme Court said, Violence
Against Women and their Children may also be committed
against a woman with whom has or had sexual
relationship. The law used the phrase “any person against
a woman”. Supreme Court said, the use of the gender-
neutral word “any person,” encompasses even lesbian
relationships. Hence, there is no merit to the contention
that R.A No. 9262 would apply only to a man as the culprit.
So, in the said case, the Supreme said, whether the
offender is a man or a woman, it is immaterial. What is only
required is the relationship, the connection between the
said woman victim and the said offender accused. They
must be related by marriage, former marriage, or in a
sexual or dating relationship, or with whom they had a
child.
Q: X and Y are married. X is an American Citizen while
Y is the Filipino wife. They separated because Y, the
wife, was having an extramarital affair. So, the
American husband left her. Their child was with the
said woman. Since then, Y has been verbally,
physically, and psychologically abusing their
daughter. The said woman was into drugs. The said
American husband could not take it anymore. So, he
filed a petition for the issuance of a Temporary and
Permanent Protection Order against Y.
Can a father apply for a Protection and Custody Order
under R.A. No. 9262 on behalf of his daughter against
the daughter’s very own mother? Can a woman be the
accused in R.A. No. 9262? Can the said protection
order be issued against the woman in R.A. No. 9262?
A: YES. The Supreme Court said YES in the case of
Knutson v. Judge Flores, en banc, G.R. No. 239215, July
12, 2022. (Recently uploaded last February 06, 2023)
In the said case, the Supreme Court said, R.A. No. 9262
allows the father of the offended party to apply for a
Protection and Custody Order. So, the father is allowed to
apply on behalf of the offended child. The reasoning given
by the Supreme Court in this en banc case are:
125 of 188
First, Section 9 of R.A. No. 9262 which expressly allows
parents or guardians of the offended party to file a petition
for protection order does not qualify which parent of the
victim may apply. Therefore, even a father, as a parent, is
not disqualified from filing such petition of protection order
in favor of his aggrieved child.
Second, R.A. No. 9262 may cover a situation wherein the
mother committed violent and abusive acts against her
own child. The Supreme Court said, under Section 3(a)
which defines “violence against women and their children,”
in addition to that, the World Health Organization said,
violence against children includes all forms of violence
against people under 18 years, whether perpetrated by
parents, caregivers, peers, romantic partners, or strangers.
Therefore, the Supreme Court said, very clearly, mothers
may be the offenders under R.A. No. 9262.
Prof: This is en banc. But, just like recent en banc cases,
there are many dissenting opinions – even the Chief
Justice dissented. I agree with the dissent because VAWC
is in favor of the woman and the child. You can file against
that woman any other case but it would not fall under R.A.
No. 9262. But, en banc is en banc. Majority is majority. So,
yes, a father can apply on behalf of the child a Temporary
Protection and Custody Order against the mother of the
child herself.
Q: X and Y are married. Y learned that X was having an
extramarital affair with Z. Y filed a case of violation of
Section 5(i), Psychological Violence under R.A. No.
9262 against X. Is X liable as charged for violation of
Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262?
A: YES. In the case Araza v. People, XXX v. People,
Supreme Court said, the accused husband is liable for
violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 for having an
extramarital affair thereby causing psychological violence,
emotional distress on the part of the said wife.
Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 penalizes psychological
violence inflicted against the woman and their children.
SECTION 5. Acts of Violence Against Women and Their
Children. - The crime of violence against women and their
children is committed through any of the following acts:
(i) Causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or
humiliation to the woman or her child, including, but not
limited to, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, and
denial of financial support or custody of minor children of
access to the woman's child/children.
Elements of Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262
1. The offended party is a woman and/or her child;
2. The woman is either –
a. The wife
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
b. Former wife of the offender
c. With whom the offender has or had a
sexual or dating relationship or
d. With whom the offender has a common
child; and
3. The offender causes on the woman and/or her
child mental or emotional anguish; and
4. The anguish is caused through acts of
psychological violence.
And under Section 3(c) of R.A. No. 9262, the law defines
psychological violence as acts or omissions causing or
likely to cause mental or emotional suffering of the victim
such as but not limited to intimidation, harassment,
stalking, damage to property, public ridicule or humiliation,
repeated verbal abuse and mental infidelity. Therefore,
marital infidelity is one of the acts or omissions punished
as producing psychological violence under Section 3(c) of
R.A. 9262.
So, in this case, the offender, the accused husband, for
having an extramarital affair with another woman, can be
held liable of Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262. Psychological
violence is the means employed by the husband. The
emotional anguish, mental suffering which are the effects
brought about emotional distress on the part of the said
woman, the wife.
Q: X and Y are husband and wife. X, the husband was
having an extramarital affair. However, the said
extramarital affair was happening in a foreign land, not
in the Philippines. The wife learned about it. The wife
felt emotional pain, mental distress. She had sleepless
nights and was always crying. So, she filed a
complaint of violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262
against the husband in the Philippines even if the illicit
relationship is happening in a foreign land. May a
complaint for psychological violence under R.A. No.
9262 be filed in the Philippines?
A: YES. In the case of AAA v. BBB, Supreme Court said,
even if the alleged extramarital affair causing the wife
mental and emotional anguish is committed abroad – in a
foreign land – the Philippine Courts have jurisdiction.
Because what R.A. No. 9262 criminalizes is not the marital
infidelity per se, but the psychological violence causing
mental and emotional suffering on the wife who is in the
Philippines.
Further, the SC said, if you will look at Section 7 of R.A.
No. 9262, the acts of violence against women and their
children may manifest as transitory or continuing
crimes. Therefore, since they are transitory or continuing
crimes, even if the marital affair was happening abroad, the
126 of 188
psychological pain, emotional distress, mental pain was
being felt by the said wife in the Philippines. Therefore,
Philippine Courts will have jurisdiction.
Q: X and Y are husband and wife. They have been in a
long-time bf/gf relationship. Thereafter, they got
married. Just six months from their marriage, the
husband has to go to Brunei for work. In order to go to
a foreign land, they needed P80,000.00 or more as
placement fee. But they do not have the said money.
What they did, they borrowed money from one of their
sponsors – one of their ninang. The husband promised
that he will be sending money to the wife as payment
for the said money that they borrowed.
When the husband was there in Brunei, he was able to
send money to the wife here in the Philippines. In fact,
the amount of money sent to the wife was more or less
P70,000.00. So, konting konti na lang mababayaran na
yung utang. Then suddenly, the husband stopped
sending money to the wife in payment to the obligation
to the ninang. The husband stopped giving support to
the wife. The wife felt embarrassed to their ninang. Not
only that, according to the wife, she suffered mental
and emotional anguish. She was denied financial
support due her. So, she felt embarrassed, humiliated
from the people in the neighborhood. Hence, the said
wife filed a case for violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. No.
9262 against the said husband for bringing upon her
psychological violence.
In his testimony, the husband said that, yes at first, he
has been sending money. However, he failed to do so
after because the place where he was working was
razed by fire. He also met an accident and needed
money for hospitalization. He has not yet found a job.
According to him, he is very dependent from other
people for monetary considerations. He really has no
money to send to his wife here in the Philippines.
Is the said husband liable under Section 5(i) of R.A. No.
9262?
A: NO, the husband is not liable. Under Section 5(i) of
R.A. No. 9262, the law considers as violence against
women and their children those acts which cause mental
and emotional anguish, public ridicule, or humiliation to the
woman or her child.
In the case of Acharon v. People, en banc, the Supreme
Court said, Acharon is not liable for violation of Section 5(i),
Psychological Abuse. Likewise, he cannot be held liable
for Section 5(e), Economic Abuse of R.A. No 9262. Section
5(i) and Section 5(e) are acts mala in se and not acts mala
prohibita even if R.A. No. 9262 is a violation of special
penal law. Since Section 5(i) (Psychological Violence) and
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
Section 5(e) (Economic Abuse) are acts mala in se, there
must be concurrence of both, the actus reus and mens rea
to constitute a crime. It is not enough for a woman to
experience mental and emotional anguish for her partner
to deny her financial support that is legally due her.
In order for the said man to be criminally liable under
Section 5(i) in so far as it deals denial of financial support,
there must be evidence on record that, the accused
willfully and consciously withheld financial support
legally due to the said woman for the purpose of inflicting
upon her mental and emotional anguish. In other words,
there must be the concurrence of the mens rea and actus
reus. The actus reus is the willful denial of support and
means rea is the intention, why did he willfully deny
support? Because his intention is to inflict mental and
emotional anguish to the said wife.
In this case, the man, Acharon, was able to prove that he
did not willfully and consciously withheld financial support
legally due to the wife for the purpose of inflicting mental
and emotional anguish upon her. It just so happened
because he too, runs out of funds while he was in a foreign
land. Therefore, SC said, Acharon is not liable under R.A.
No. 9262.
CALINGASAN v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 239313 | 15 February 2022
The case of Acharon v. People, en banc (2021) was
repeated in the case of Calingasan v. People (2022).
In this case, X and Y are husband and wife. They were
both seafarers. They got married in Manila. After a year,
the wife gave birth to a son. Their marriage was marred
with frequent quarrels until the husband could not take it
anymore. The husband left the conjugal house. The
husband resigned from his work as a seafarer and left the
Philippines and migrated to Canada together with his
family. The wife and the child were here in the Philippines.
At first, Y had been giving support to the son. However, he
stopped giving support some time in 2009. According to
the wife, her husband in Canada found another woman.
Because of that, because of the willful denial of financial
support legally due her, she and her child had been
suffering from mental and emotional anguish. So, she filed
a case for violation of Section 5(i) under R.A. No. 9262
against the husband.
The defense of the husband is that, he stopped giving
support because while in Canada, he was convicted of
sexual assault. He was incarcerated – placed behind bars.
When he was released from prison, he lost his job and
could not find any. According to him, until now, until the
time he has no job, he merely depended on his family, his
siblings in Canada for support. Hence, according to him,
although he wanted to give support to his child in the
127 of 188
Philippines, he could not send any money because he too
is financially dependent on his siblings.
FIRST ISSUE: Is Calingasan liable for violation of
Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262?
SC: NO. The Supreme Court cited Acharon. In the case of
Acharon v. People, en banc, the Supreme Court clarified
that failure or inability to provide financial support per se is
not a criminal act punished under Section 5(i) of R.A. No.
9262. What Section 5(i) punishes is the act of inflicting
psychological violence against women and their children
by willfully and consciously denying them the legal support
due them.
In this case, Supreme Court said, Calingasan cannot be
held liable because he was able to prove that while in
Canada, he was charged with sexual assault, imprisoned,
and lost his job. Definitely, he doesn’t have the money.
Calingasan did not deliberately denied his wife and his son
financial support for the purpose of causing them mental
and emotional anguish. He failed to give support due to
circumstances beyond his control.
SECOND ISSUE: If Calingasan is not liable under
Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262, can he be held liable
under Section 5(e) for Economic Abuse?
SC: NO. In the case of Melgar v. People, and Reyes v.
People, the Supreme Court applied the variance doctrine
that an accused can be convicted of Section 5(e) instead
of Section 5(i) as long as the denial or deprivation of
financial support by the accused has been established by
the prosecution. According to the Supreme Court, Section
5(e) specifically penalizes the deprivation of financial
support by itself even in the absence of psychological
violence. So, in these two cases of Melgar v. People and
Reyes v. People, the SC said, Section 5(e) is necessarily
included in Section 5(i) when it comes to denial of support.
Therefore, if the husband cannot be convicted under
Section 5(i), then he can be convicted under Section 5(e)
based on the variance doctrine.
Supreme Court, however said that, these decision in
Melgar v. People and Reyes v. People, has already been
abandoned by the Supreme Court in the case of Acharon
v. People. In the case of Acharon and Calingasan, the SC
clarified that Section 5(e) and Section 5 (i) of R.A. No. 9262
penalized two distinct crimes. Section 5(i) punishes the
willful infliction of psychological violence upon the woman
and her child by denying them the financial support legally
due them. On the other hand, Section 5(e) penalizes the
deprivation of financial support for the purpose of
controlling or restricting the woman of her child’s
movement or conduct. Therefore, Section 5(i) and
Section 5(e) punishes different acts. Hence, the
variance doctrine cannot and will not apply. In this
case, the SC again acquitted Calingasan.
ANTI-HAZING LAW
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
R.A. No. 8049, as amended by R.A. No. 11053 totally
banned or prohibited hazing in the Philippines. What is only
allowed would be initiation rites without any form of
violence involved.
In the case of Dungo v. People, Supreme Court said, the
crime of hazing is malum prohibitum and not mala in se.
The act of hazing itself is not inherently immoral or wrong
but the law deems the same to be an act against public
policy and public morals and therefore, it must be
prohibited. Therefore, criminal intent is immaterial in the
crime of hazing. Good faith is immaterial. Therefore, you
cannot raise as defense in the crime of hazing that the
offenders had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as
that committed.
ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS ACT
Q: X was caught by the police in the act of offering
sexual services of two girls. Both girls were 17 years
old. X was offering them to the customers for
P2,000.00 each. These two girls consented to the illicit
transaction because they need money to feed their
families. When X was caught, X is now prosecuted for
the crime of qualified trafficking in persons under R.A.
No. 9208, as amended.
However, X countered that she cannot be held
criminally liable for qualified trafficking in persons
under R.A. No. 9208. She should be acquitted of the
crime charged because according to her, these two
minors were not caught in the act of engaging sexual
intercourse with their customers. Therefore,
according to her, she cannot be held liable for
qualified trafficking in persons, Is X’s argument
meritorious?
A: NO, X argument has no merit. Under Section 4(e) of
R.A. No. 9208, as amended, the law punishes the act of
maintaining or hiring a person to engage in prostitution or
pornography. Therefore, the exploitation of minors either
through prosecution or through pornography is what is
explicitly prohibited. The crime of trafficking in persons is
consummated even if there is no sexual intercourse
ongoing between the said minor trafficked and the
customer. The mere act of transaction already
consummates the crime. The two minors’ acquiescence,
approval, or consent to the illicit transaction is not even
considered as a circumstance which will lower the penalty
because they are minors, they cannot give their own.
Q: X is 14 years old. X had a misunderstanding with
her mother. Medyo napagalitan ng nanay. So, she ran
from home. X stayed in the house of her friend. While
X was staying, living in the house of her friend, X met
Y. Y asked X, “You are beautiful. Do you want to earn
money? You can earn easy money by having sexual
intercourse with customers. I can find customers for
you. You can have money if you will allow me to find a
128 of 188
customer for you.” Since X was in need of money, X
agreed.
The next day, Y went back to X and told the latter that
he already found a customer for her. X dressed up and
thereafter, Y brought X to the said customer. X had
sexual intercourse with the said customer and
thereafter, the said customer gave X P2,000.00. The
moment X accepted the P2,000.00 from the customer,
X gave the share of Y P600.00. What crime is
committed by Y?
A: In the case of Brozoto v. People, G.R. No. 233420, April
28, 2021, the Supreme Court said, Y committed two crimes
– Qualified Trafficking in Persons under R.A. No. 9208,
as amended and Violation of Section 5(a) of R.A. No.
7610.
Y is liable for Qualified Trafficking in Persons under R.A.
No. 9208, as amended because the gravamen of the crime
of trafficking is the act of recruiting or using, with or without
consent, a fellow human being for purposes of sexual
exploitation. In this case, Y recruited X for the purpose of
prostitution and it is qualified because X is a minor.
Y is also liable for violation of Section 5(a) of R.A. No. 7610
because Y acted as a procurer of a child prostitute. Y
exploited X in prostitution when he procured and found a
customer to engage in a sexual intercourse with X for a fee
and for which Y was given a share in the amount of
P600.00. Therefore, the said accused is liable for two
crimes.
Q: X is 24 years old while Y is 14 years old. Y has a
crush on X, the 24-year-old man. X learned that this girl
has a crush on him. So, he began sending her
messages on Facebook Messenger. Then X courted Y.
Y answered X and they become lovers/sweethearts.
The relationship between X and Y was discovered by
the mother. The mother disapproved because her
daughter was too young. The mother hot very mad of
this relationship and told her daughter to stop seeing
the said man. The mother has the habit of looking at
the social media account of her daughter. Until one
time the mother read the conversation between her
daughter and X. The said man was coaching Y to send
him photos of her breasts and vagina to which Y did.
When X asked her to undress herself and to take
photos of her breasts and vagina, Y did and sent these
photos to X.
When the mother discovered these, X was charged
with violation of Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610 and
Child Pornography in relation to R.A. No. 10175 or the
Cybercrime Act. Is X liable as charged?
A: In this case of Cadajas v. People, G.R. No. 247348,
November 16, 2021, the RTC acquitted Cadajas for
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
violation of R.A. No. 7610 but convicted him of Child
Pornography in relation the Anti-Cyber Crime Act.

The Supreme Court convicted Cadajas as charged. SC

said, based on the photographs and conversations in the
Facebook Messenger account, it was evident that Cadajas
obtained these photos from the girl by inducing the girl to
send her these photos of her private parts.

The photos and conversations in the FB Messenger

account were obtained and used as evidence against
Cadajas. These, according to the SC, cannot be
considered as fruit of the poisonous tree because fruits of
the poisonous tree will only apply if the persons who
obtained it are police officers or agents of the State. Here,
they were obtained by the mother. Hence, SC said,
Cadajas’ right to privacy has not been violated.

The photos were obtained because Cadajas himself gave

his password to his girlfriend Y. Considering that he was
the one who gave the password to his girlfriend, his act in
effect, Cadajas’ authorized the girl to access the same.
Therefore, he waived his right to privacy.

Supreme Court said, he is liable for Child Pornography

defined and penalized under R.A. No. 9775, as amended
because child pornography is classified as a crime mala in
se and not mala prohibita. The intent of Cadajas to abuse
the girl and engage in child pornography by inducing her to
exhibit her breast and vagina is evident. SC said, Cadajas,
being 24 years old, is one with mental maturity and should
have known that it is not only illegal but inherently wrong
for the minor to show him her private parts. Therefore,
Cadajas is liable for violation of the Child Pornography Act.

Since the same was done through the use of a computer

system, the penalty for Child Pornography shall be one
degree higher if it is in relation to the Anti Cyber Crime Act.
And since the penalty for Child Pornography under R.A.
No. 9775 is reclusion temporal in its maximum period and
a fine of P1 Million – P2 Million, the penalty to be imposed
on Cadajas would be the indivisible penalty of reclusion
perpetua.

Note:
It is always a degree higher if it is done through the
computer system.

129 of 188
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
TITLE NINE:
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND
SECURITY
CHAPTER ONE: CRIMES AGAINST LIBERTY
ARTICLE 267. KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL
DETENTION
Article 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. - Any
private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in
any other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death:
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more
than three days.
2. If it shall have been committed simulating public
authority.
3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted
upon the person kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill
him shall have been made.
4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor,
except when the accused is any of the parents, female or
a public officer.
The penalty shall be death penalty where the kidnapping
or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting
ransom from the victim or any other person, even if none
of the circumstances above-mentioned were present in the
commission of the offense.
When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the
detention or is raped, or is subjected to torture or
dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be
imposed."
Elements of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention
1. The offender is a private individual;
2. He kidnaps or detains another or in any other
manner depriving him of his liberty;
3. The said kidnapping or detention is without legal
ground; and
4. The said kidnapping or detention is attended by
any of the following circumstances –
a. when the kidnapping or detention shall
have lasted for more than 3 days;
b. if it is committed by simulating public
authority;
c. if any serious physical injuries have been
inflicted on the person kidnapped or
130 of 188
detained or threats to kill him have been
made; or
d. if the person kidnapped or detained is a
female, a public officer, or a minor.
The offender in Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention
is a private person.
Q: Can a public officer commit the crime?
A: YES. In the case of People v. Borja, the SC said yes. A
public officer who detains a person for the purpose of
extorting ransom cannot be said to be acting in an official
capacity. Public officials may be prosecuted under Article
267 of the RPC Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention
if they act in their private capacity. The offender is a private
person or a public officer acting in his private capacity.
The following circumstances will make the said illegal
detention serious in nature:
1. when the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted
for more than 3 days;
2. if it is committed by simulating public authority;
Example: pretending to be a public officer,
pretending to be a police officer, pretending to be
PDEA agents.
3. if any serious physical injuries have been inflicted
on the person kidnapped or detained or threats to
kill him have been made; or
4. if the person kidnapped or detained is a female, a
public officer, or a minor.
The moment the person kidnapped or detained is a female,
a public officer, or a minor, it is always and always serious
illegal detention.
You remove all of these circumstances, the crime
committed is Slight Illegal Detention under Article 268.
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
1. When the kidnapping or detention is for the
purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any
other person; or
2. When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence
of the kidnapping or detention or raped or is
subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts.
The maximum penalty prescribed by law shall be the one
imposed, that is DEATH PENALTY.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
Ransom refers to any consideration given in exchange for
the liberty of a person. It can be money or anything. The
amount is immaterial. Even if it is only P10.00. If without
the said P10.00, the victim held captive will not be
released, then the P10.00 will be considered as ransom.
There is no such thing as miniscule amount insofar as
ransom is concerned. For as long as it is dependent on the
release of a person held captive it is considered as
ransom.
Under Article 267 last par., we have Composite Crimes or
Single Indivisible Offense. This is brought about by the
amendment made by R.A. No. 7659 or the Heinous Crimes
Law. Under the last paragraph of Article 267, when the said
victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the kidnapping
or detention or raped or is subjected to torture or
dehumanizing acts, maximum penalty, death shall be the
one imposed.
When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the
kidnapping or detention, we have the Special Complex
Crime or the Single Indivisible Offense or the Composite
Crime of Kidnapping with Homicide or Kidnapping and
Serious Illegal Detention with Homicide or Kidnapping
with Murder or Kidnapping with Serious Illegal
Detention with Murder.
When the said victim is killed or dies as a consequence of
the kidnapping or detention, or is raped, or subjected to
torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty will be
imposed.
When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the
detention, we have the special complex crime/single
indivisible offense/composite crime of:
1. Kidnapping with homicide or kidnapping and
serious illegal detention with homicide; or
2. Kidnapping with murder or kidnapping and
serious illegal detention with murder.
If the victim is raped, it is kidnapping and serious illegal
detention with rape.
These are considered as special complex crimes
(composite crimes). It is the law, through the amendment
brought by R.A. 7659 that combined these crimes and
brought about the penalty described which is death.
However, in order for these special complex crimes
(composite crimes or single indivisible offenses) to arise, it
is necessary that the very victim of the kidnapping or
detention must be the victim of the killing or rape, as the
case may be.
- If it is another person who is not the victim of
kidnapping or the detention, then the said act of
killing or rape shall constitute a separate and
distinct charge.
131 of 188
Q: X was kidnapped. The accused kidnapped X.
Thereafter, the accused was asking the family for
ransom. However, even before ransom was paid, the
accused already killed the victim.
What crime is committed by the said accused?
A: The said accused is liable for kidnapping for ransom.
It is kidnapping for ransom because he detained X for the
purpose of extorting ransom from the parents. It is not
necessary that ransom be paid. It suffices that the purpose
of the offender is to extort ransom from the victim or the
family. He killed the victim.
PEOPLE v. DIONALDO
G.R. No. 207949 July 23, 2014 Perlas Bernabe J:
FACTS: At around 8 o'clock in the morning of May 16,
2003, Roderick Navarro dropped his brother Edwin
Navarro off at the Health Is Wealth Gym in Caloocan City.
Thirty minutes later, he received a text message from
another brother who told him that Edwin had been
kidnapped. Three (3) men, later identified as Armando,
Renato, and Mariano, forcibly dragged a bloodied Edwin
down the stairway of the gym and pushed him inside a dark
green Toyota car. Upon receiving the message, Roderick
immediately reported the incident to the police. On the
same day, he received a phone call from Edwin’s
kidnappers who threatened to kill Edwin if he should report
the matter to the police. The next day, Roderick received
another call from the kidnappers, who demanded the
payment of ransom money in the amount of
₱15,000,000.00. Roderick told them he had no such
money, as he only had ₱50,000.00. Eventually, the
kidnappers agreed to release Edwin in exchange for the
amount of ₱110,000.00.
Meanwhile, a team had been organized to investigate the
kidnapping of Edwin. An employee at the Health Is Wealth
Gym confessed to PO3 Acebuche that he was part of the
plan to kidnap Edwin, as in fact he was the one who tipped
the accused off on the condition that he will be given a
share in the ransom money. Rodolfo gave information on
the whereabouts of his cohorts, leading to their arrest. In
the early morning of the following day or on June 13, 2003,
the PACER team found the dead body of Edwin at
Batangas, which Roderick identified.
Thus, accused-appellants as well as Virgilio were charged
in an Information for the special complex crime of
Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention.
ISSUE: Are accused-appellants are guilty of the crime of
Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention.
HELD: YES. The appeal is devoid of merit, but the
Supreme Court ruled that the crime the appellants
committed does not merely constitute Kidnapping and
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
Serious Illegal Detention, but that of the special complex
crime of Kidnapping for ransom with homicide. This is in
view of the victim’s (i.e., Edwin’s) death, which was (a)
specifically charged in the Information, and (b) clearly
established during the trial of this case. Notably, while this
matter was not among the issues raised before the Court,
the same should nonetheless be considered in accordance
with the settled rule that in a criminal case, an appeal, as
in this case, throws open the entire case wide open for
review, and the appellate court can correct errors, though
unassigned, that may be found in the appealed judgment.
CASE DISCUSSION: PEOPLE V. DIONALDO
In the case of People v. Dionaldo [G.R. No. 207949, July
23, 2014], the Supreme Court said that the proper
nomenclature of the crime is Kidnapping for Ransom
with Homicide. The purpose was to extort ransom, and
the victim was killed.
If the victim is a woman, the proper nomenclature is
Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention for Ransom
with Homicide.
It is not necessary that ransom be paid or that ransom be
communicated, because it suffices that the purpose of the
kidnapping is to extort ransom from the victim or any
member of his family.
Q: X was kidnapped by Y. He was brought to Y’s
hideout. Y called the family, asking for ransom.
However, even before the ransom came, Y shot X
because there were police around the area—
apparently, when Y called X’s family, the family
contacted the police officers, and the police officers
were able to determine the place where Y brought X.
When Y saw the police officers, he began fighting with
each of one of them. One of the police officers, in an
attempt to enter the hideout, was shot by Y. The police
officer died before the other police officers were able
to arrest Y.
What crime/crimes is/are committed by Y?
A: Insofar as victim X is concerned, the crime committed is
kidnapping for ransom with homicide. The purpose of
Y is to extort ransom from the family of X. In the course of
his detention, Y killed the victim.
Insofar as the police officer who was killed is concerned, it
shall constitute a separate and distinct charge. It shall not
be absorbed because the police officer who was shot by Y
is not the victim of the kidnapping. For the special complex
crime to arise, it is necessary that the victim of the killing
must be the very victim of the kidnapping. Here, the police
officer was not the victim in the kidnapping and therefore,
his killing will give rise to a separate and distinct charge of
Qualified Direct Assault with Homicide.
132 of 188
It is Qualified Direct Assault with Homicide because the
police officer is an agent of a person in authority and he
was assaulted by Y at the time of the performance of his
official functions.
Thus, there will be two separate and distinct charges to be
filed against Y.
Q: The accused kidnapped three children and their
yaya. The purpose of the accused was to extort
ransom from the family—the parents of the three
children. Upon payment of the ransom, the children
were released. However, the accused was arrested.
The accused was charged with the crime of
Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention for Ransom.
Is the charge correct?
A: NO. The charge is wrong. The proper charge should be
four counts of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention for Ransom.
The victims were three children and their yaya. It was
ransom because the purpose of the accused was to extort
ransom from the parents of the victims. It must be four
counts because there are four victims of the kidnapping for
the purpose of extorting ransom.
PEOPLE V. ARANETA
G.R. No. 250980 March 15, 2022 INTING, J.:
FACTS: Accused-appellant was charged with Kidnapping
for Ransom under Article 267 of the RPC, together with his
co-accused. It was alleged in the information that they had
kidnapped Vinz Sermonia (11 years old), Klevwelt
Sermonia (11 years old), Genritz Sermonia (9 years old)
and Eulalia Cuevas and thereafter demanded ransom
money in exchange for the release of the four kidnapped
victims to the damage and prejudice of the victims who
were rescued by the parents of the three children.
After trial, the RTC found all of the accused, except for
Navanes, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense
charged in the Information. The RTC ruled that the criminal
and civil liability of Navanes had been extinguished by his
death after arraignment and prior to the promulgation of the
Judgment. The CA likewise denied their appeal.
Accused-appellant Araneta filed an appeal before the SC.
However, the SC subsequently received a letter from CTS
Supt Albert C. Manalo that accused-appellant died on
March 10, 2021.
ISSUES:
1) Did accused-appellant’s death pending appeal
extinguish his criminal and civil liability arising from the
criminal liability (YES)
2) Was there any defect in the Information?(YES)
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
HELD:
1) YES. This is pursuant to Art. 89 of the RPC.
Nevertheless, SC ruled that there are pertinent matters
in the case, other than the effects of accused-
appellant's death pending appeal, which require the
Court's discussion.
2) YES. There should only be one (1) offense in one (1)
Information; however, the defect in the Information may
be waived by the accused by his failure to question it.
For the guidance of the bench and the bar, the Court
deemed it proper to discuss the defect in the
Information involved in the case. Notably, the accused
were charged in one (1) Information with the
kidnapping of the Sermonia children and Eulalia
Cuevas (Cuevas). The Information in effect provides
that the accused conspired to commit four (4) counts of
Kidnapping for Ransom.
The rule is that there should be only one (1) offense in one
(1) Information. Otherwise, the Information would be
defective such that the accused may move for the quashal
of the Information and raise such defect. However, if the
accused fails to file a motion to quash the Information, he
is deemed to have waived the right to question the defect.
CASE DISCUSSION: ARANETA V. PEOPLE
In the case of Araneta v. People [G.R. No. 250980, March
15, 2022], the Supreme Court said that the proper charges
should be four counts of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention for Ransom.
Q: X was attending a party. She then felt the need to
buy candies. X went out, and she bought candies. She
was already walking back to the party; however, before
she was able to enter the place, Y stopped his jeepney
and placed his strong arms against the neck of X. At
knifepoint, he told X to go with him. X had no recourse
but to go to the jeepney where she was tied by Y.
They went from one place to another. In every place, Y
would have carnal knowledge with X. X was raped 27
times.
When Y was arrested, he was charged with Kidnapping
and Serious Illegal Detention and 27 counts of rape.
Are the charges correct?
A: NO. The charge should only be one. It should be
Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention with Rape.
Since it is a special complex crime, regardless of the
number of times the victim had been raped, there is only
one single indivisible offense of kidnapping and serious
illegal detention with rape.
133 of 188
In this case, the obvious intent of the man was to detain
the woman. This intent was shown by the fact that he
forcibly took the woman, boarded her in a jeepney, and
they went from one place to another. The obvious intent
was to detain the woman for the number of times that he
held her in captive. In doing so, he raped the woman.
Therefore, it will only be one single indivisible offense of
Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention with rape, and
not Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention along with
different counts of rape.
Q: The mother was doing her laundry. She could see
her six-year old daughter playing together with other
children. Thereafter, someone went to the daughter by
the name of W. W told the girl, “Do you want to come
with me? I have candies and chocolates with me.” The
six year old girl went with W. W brought the girl in his
house and had carnal knowledge with her for two
times. Thereafter, W gave her chocolates and candies.
Meanwhile, the mother was looking for her daughter.
She called on her husband, “Nawawala ang anak
natin.” They went to the police, they looked for her
everywhere but they could not find the girl. They slept.
The mother was crying.
In the early morning, loud knocks were heard on their
door. When they opened the door, it was their
daughter. The girl was crying and there were blood
stains on her clothing. The girl narrated what W did to
her. The mother went to the police station, and
thereafter the said man W was arrested.
W was charged with the special complex crime of
Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention with Rape.
Is the charge correct?
A: NO. It should be two counts of Qualified Rape. The
victim of the rape is under seven years of age, under Art.
266-B.
In a case, the Supreme Court said that obviously, the intent
of the man is not to detain the girl. The intent of the man is
to rape her. Since the victim is under seven (7) years of
age, it is qualified under Art. 266-B. Since the man raped
her twice, it will be two counts of Qualified Rape and not
the special complex crime of Kidnapping and Serious
Illegal Detention with Rape.
Note:
What you should determine is the intent of the accused.
In this case, obviously the intent of the accused is to rape
the girl. He allowed the girl to go home the following
morning. No intent to detain—the intent was only to rape
the girl. Hence, it is two counts of qualified rape under Art.
266-B penalized by death. But since there is no death
penalty, it must be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
ARTICLE 268. SLIGHT ILLEGAL DETENTION
Article 268. Slight illegal detention. - The penalty of
reclusion temporal shall be imposed upon any private
individual who shall commit the crimes described in the
next preceding article without the attendance of any of
circumstances enumerated therein.
The same penalty shall be incurred by anyone who shall
furnish the place for the perpetration of the crime.
If the offender shall voluntarily release the person so
kidnapped or detained within three days from the
commencement of the detention, without having attained
the purpose intended, and before the institution of criminal
proceedings against him, the penalty shall be prision
mayor in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not
exceeding seven hundred pesos.
Elements of Slight Illegal Detention
1. The offender is a private individual.
2. He kidnaps or detains another, or in any other
manner deprives him of his liberty.
3. The act of kidnapping or detention is illegal.
4. The crime is committed without the attendance of
any of the circumstances enumerated in Art. 267.
It has the same elements as Kidnapping and Serious
Illegal Detention except that the elements or
circumstances that make the illegal detention serious are
absent. Thus:
a. It did not last for more than three (3) days.
b. It is not committed by simulating public authority.
c. It does not bring about serious physical injuries or
threats on the part of the victim.
d. The victim is not a female, a public officer, or a
minor.
In case of Slight Illegal Detention under Art. 268, if the
kidnapper immediately released the kidnapped victim
voluntarily and spontaneously, such immediate release will
be considered as a privileged mitigating circumstance. The
penalty will be lowered from reclusion temporal to prision
mayor.
Requisites for Privileged Mitigating Circumstance to
apply
Before the immediate release of the victim may mitigate
the criminal liability of the offender, it is necessary that:
134 of 188
1. The offender voluntarily releases the person so
kidnapped or detained within three days from the
commencement of the detention;
2. Without having attained the purpose intended; and
3. Before the institution of the criminal proceedings
against him.
Note:
The penalty is lower by one degree. All the requisites
mentioned must concur.
If these three are present, the release of the kidnapped
victim in slight illegal detention is a privileged mitigating
circumstance.
[Articles 269-274 were skipped during lecture. The
following are lifted from previous notes.]
ARTICLE 269. UNLAWFUL ARREST
Article 269. Unlawful arrest. - The penalty of arresto
mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be
imposed upon any person who, in any case other than
those authorized by law, or without reasonable ground
therefor, shall arrest or detain another for the purpose of
delivering him to the proper authorities.
Elements of Unlawful Arrest
1. Offender arrests or detains another person.
2. The purpose of the offender is to deliver him to
proper authorities.
3. The arrest or detention is not authorized by law or
there is no reasonable ground therefor.
Note:
No period of detention is fixed by law in Art. 269, but
the motive of the offender is controlling:
1. If his purpose is to deliver him to the proper
authorities and file a case against him without
legal ground – Unlawful Arrest.
2. If his intent is to detain – Arbitrary Detention.
ARTICLE 270. KIDNAPPING AND FAILURE
TO RETURN A MINOR
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.
Elements of Kidnapping and Failure to Return a Minor
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
1. Offender is entrusted with the custody of a minor
person (whether over or under 7 years but less
than 21 years of age);
2. He deliberately fails to restore the minor to his
parents or guardians.
ARTICLE 271. INDUCING A MINOR TO ABANDON HIS
HOME
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.
Elements of Inducing a Minor to Abandon His Home
1. A minor is living in the home of his parents or
guardian or persons entrusted with his custody.
2. Offender induces said minor to abandon such
home.
Note:
The crime will arise even if the child has not yet left the
house of the parents or guardians. Mere inducement
with intent to cause damage will suffice.
Penalty for Parents in Arts. 270 and 271
If the crimes in Arts. 270 (Kidnapping and Failure to Return
a Minor) and 271 (Inducing a Minor to Abandon his Home)
are committed by the father or mother of the minor, the
penalty is only arresto mayor.
ARTICLE 272. SLAVERY
Article 272. Slavery. - The penalty of prision mayor and a
fine of not exceeding 10,000 pesos shall be imposed upon
anyone who shall purchase, sell, kidnap or detain a human
being for the purpose of enslaving him.
If the crime be committed for the purpose of assigning the
offended party to some immoral traffic, the penalty shall be
imposed in its maximum period.
Elements of Slavery
1. The offender purchases, sells, kidnaps or detains
a human being.
2. The purpose of the offender is to enslave such
human being.
135 of 188
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE
If the purpose of the offender is to assign the offended
party to some immoral traffic (prostitution), the penalty is
higher.
ARTICLE 273. EXPLOITATION OF CHILD LABOR
Article 273. Exploitation of child labor. - The penalty of
prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods
and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon
anyone who, under the pretext of reimbursing himself of a
debt incurred by an ascendant, guardian or person
entrusted with the custody of a minor, shall, against the
latter's will, retain him in his service.
Elements of Exploiting Child Labor
1. Offender retains a minor in his service.
2. It is against the will of the minor.
3. It is under the pretext of reimbursing himself of a
debt incurred by an ascendant, guardian or any
person entrusted with the custody of the child.
ARTICLE 274. SERVICES RENDERED UNDER
COMPULSION IN PAYMENT OF DEBT
Article 274. Services rendered under compulsion in
payment of debt. - The penalty of arresto mayor in its
maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum
period shall be imposed upon any person who, in order to
require or enforce the payment of a debt, shall compel the
debtor to work for him, against his will, as household
servant or farm laborer.
Elements of Services Rendered Under Compulsion in
Payment of Debt
1. Offender compels a debtor to work for him, either
as household servant or farm laborer.
2. It is against the debtor’s will.
3. The purpose is to require or enforce payment of a
debt.
ARTICLE 275. ABANDONMENT OF PERSON IN
DANGER AND ABANDONMENT
OF ONE'S OWN VICTIM
Article 275. Abandonment of person in danger and
abandonment of one's own victim. - The penalty of arresto
mayor shall be imposed upon:
1. Anyone who shall fail to render assistance to any person
whom he shall find in an uninhabited place wounded or in
danger of dying, when he can render such assistance
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
without detriment to himself, unless such omission shall
constitute a more serious offense.
2. Anyone who shall fail to help or render assistance to
another whom he has accidentally wounded or injured.
3. Anyone who, having found an abandoned child under
seven years of age, shall fail to deliver said child to the
authorities or to his family, or shall fail to take him to a safe
place.
ACTS PUNISHED
I. Failing to render assistance to any person two
whom the offender found in an uninhabited place
wounded or in danger of dying when he can render
such assistance without detriment to himself,
unless such omission shall constitute a more
serious offense.
Elements
1. The person wounded or dying is found in
an uninhabited place.
2. The giving of help would not
detrimental to himself.
3. He failed to render help.
II. Failing to render help or assistance to another
whom the offender has accidentally wounded or
injured.
III. Failing to deliver a child under seven (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.
Q: In bar review during pandemic, a question was
raised to me. X is suffering from covid. She could not
breathe. The family brought X from one hospital to
another. 19 hospitals, she was refused admission as
all were in full capacity and there were no more beds
where X can be placed.
The family was able to make a call to Juan. They found
Juan in Pampanga. While they were on their way to
Pampanga through the NLEX, X died on the car.
The family was very mad. The family filed a case for
Abandoment of Persons in Danger against the 19
hospitals who refused admission to X.
Can they be charged?
A: NO. The first circumstance would not apply. The first
circumstance is failing to render assistance to any person
two whom the offender found in an uninhabited place
wounded or in danger of dying. It is necessary that it is the
accused who found the victim inadvertently. That is the
situation. He saw the victim, he did not help the victim.
In this case, it was the family who brought the victim to the
numerous hospitals. Abandonment of persons will not
apply because it is necessary that it was the accused who
chanced upon the victim in an uninhabited place, in
danger, wounded and dying and he failed to render
assistance when he can render it without detriment to
himself.
Q: One early morning, X was jogging. There was a
woman in the sea crying for help. She was drowning.
X was a celebrated swimmer, a medalist in swimming.
Upon seeing the woman whom he knew to be living in
the shore, X ignored her. He continued jogging and
hurriedly left.
Meanwhile, fishermen in the area saw the woman. She
was already floating, dying. The fishermen took her
and gave her first aid and with God’s grace, she
survived.
Is X liable for abandonment of persons in danger
under Art. 275?
be
A: YES. The said woman was dying, drowning, asking for
help. It is in an uninhabited place as it happened in the wee
hours of the morning and no one was there. He is a
medalist and a celebrated swimmer. He can render his
assistance but he failed to give help.
Therefore, he can be held liable for abandonment of
persons in danger under Art. 275.
Q: X came from a party. He was tipsy as he had some
liquor. He was feeling sleepy. He was driving
recklessly. He did not see the woman crossing the
pedestrian lane. He hit and bumped the said woman,
who died. He alighted from his car. Instead of giving
help/administering first aid/bringing to the hospital
the woman because he saw people rushing towards
her, he left the scene, increasing his speed. He was
afraid he’d be ganged up by the people.
Later, he was arrested based on the testimony of the
people who were able to take his plate number. He was
charged with the Office of the Public Prosecutor of two
crimes: (1) Reckless Imprudence resulting in Homicide
under Art. 365; and (2) Violation of Art. 275-
Abandonment of Persons In Danger.
Will both cases prosper?
A: YES. Reckless imprudence is a culpable felony.
Abandonment of persons in danger is an intentional felony.
After he killed the woman by means of his reckless
imprudence because of negligence, he deliberately failed
to administer the first aid which was within his means to
give. Because of that, he can be held liable for intentionally
136 of 188
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
and deliberately failing to render assistance to the woman
whom he accidentally injured.
Both crimes can prosper according to the Supreme Court
because one is based on negligence and the other is
based on intent.
Illustration of Art. 275, Third Act
You found a child abandoned under seven (7) years of
age. Any person has the obligation to bring the said child
to a safe place. If the child cannot be brought to the parents
or public authorities, at least, you have to bring the child to
a safe place. Otherwise, the said person can be held liable
under Art. 275 for such act of failing to bring a child to a
safe place.
[Arts. 276- 279 were skipped during lecture.]
ARTICLE 276. ABANDONING A MINOR
Article 276. Abandoning a minor. - The penalty of arresto
mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be
imposed upon any one who shall abandon a child under
seven years of age, the custody of which is incumbent
upon him.
When the death of the minor shall result from such
abandonment, the culprit shall be punished by prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods; but if the
life of the minor shall have been in danger only, the penalty
shall be prision correccional in its minimum and medium
periods.
The provisions contained in the two preceding paragraphs
shall not prevent the imposition of the penalty provided for
the act committed, when the same shall constitute a more
serious offense.
Elements of Abandoning a Minor
1. Offender has the custody of the child.
2. Child is under 7 years of age.
3. He abandons such child.
4. He has no intent to kill the child when the latter is
abandoned.
Abandoning a minor is committed by any person who has
been entrusted with the custody of a child under 7 years of
age and he abandons the said child permanently,
deliberately, and consciously with no intent to kill the said
child.
The penalty will be qualified if death resulted from the said
abandonment or when the safety of the child has been
placed in danger.
Q: A OFW mother left her newly born child inside a
garbage bin of an aircraft/airplane. Later, she has
been arrested.
137 of 188
What crime is committed by the said mother?
A: The crime committed is Abandoning a Minor under Art.
276.
The mother is in custody of the child and she deliberately
or and consciously abandoned her child without the intent
to kill. Obviously, there was no intent to kill because she
could have killed the said child, but she did not-- she placed
her child inside a garbage can in the restroom of an aircraft.
There was no intent to kill; therefore, the crime committed
is Abandoning a Minor under Art. 276.
ARTICLE 277. ABANDONMENT OF MINOR BY
PERSON ENTRUSTED WITH HIS CUSTODY;
INDIFFERENCE OF PARENTS
Article 277. Abandonment of minor by person entrusted
with his custody; indifference of parents. - The penalty
of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall
be imposed upon anyone who, having charge of the
rearing or education of a minor, shall deliver said minor to
a public institution or other persons, without the consent of
the one who entrusted such child to his care or in the
absence of the latter, without the consent of the proper
authorities.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon the parents who
shall neglect their children by not giving them the education
which their station in life require and financial conditions
permit.
ACTS PUNISHED
1. Abandonment of a child by a person entrusted with
his custody
It is committed by any person who, having
entrusted with the living and education of a minor,
shall deliver a minor to a public institution or other
persons without the consent of the person who
entrusted such minor to the care of the offender or,
in his absence, without the consent of the proper
authorities.
2. Indifference of parents
It is committed by any parent who neglects any of
his children by not giving them the education which
their station in life requires and financial capability
permits.
ARTICLE 278. EXPLOITATION OF MINORS
Article 278. Exploitation of minors. - The penalty of prision
correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine
not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon:
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
1. Any person who shall cause any boy or girl under sixteen
years of age to perform any dangerous feat of balancing,
physical strength, or contortion.
2. Any person who, being an acrobat, gymnast, rope-
walker, diver, wild-animal tamer or circus manager or
engaged in a similar calling, shall employ in exhibitions of
these kinds children under sixteen years of age who are
not his children or descendants.
3. Any person engaged in any of the callings enumerated
in the next paragraph preceding who shall employ any
descendant of his under twelve years of age in such
dangerous exhibitions.
4. Any ascendant, guardian, teacher or person entrusted
in any capacity with the care of a child under sixteen years
of age, who shall deliver such child gratuitously to any
person following any of the callings enumerated in
paragraph 2 hereof, or to any habitual vagrant or beggar.
If the delivery shall have been made in consideration of any
price, compensation, or promise, the penalty shall in every
case be imposed in its maximum period.
In either case, the guardian or curator convicted shall also
be removed from office as guardian or curator; and in the
case of the parents of the child, they may be deprived,
temporarily or perpetually, in the discretion of the court, of
their parental authority.
5. Any person who shall induce any child under sixteen
years of age to abandon the home of its ascendants,
guardians, curators, or teachers to follow any person
engaged in any of the callings mentioned in paragraph 2
hereof, or to accompany any habitual vagrant or beggar.
ACTS PUNISHED
1. Causing any boy or girl under 16 to engage in any
dangerous feat of balancing, physical strength or
contortion, the offender being any person.
2. Employing children under 16 years of age who are
not the children or descendants of the offender in
exhibitions of acrobat, gymnast, rope walker,
diver, or wild animal tamer, the offender being an
acrobat, etc., or circus manager or person
engaged in any of said callings.
3. Employing any descendants under 12 years of age
in dangerous exhibitions enumerated on the next
preceding paragraph, the offender being engaged
in any of the said callings.
4. Delivering a child under 16 years of age
gratuitously to any person if any of the callings
enumerated in paragraph 2, or to any habitual
vagrant or beggar, the offender being an
ascendant, guardian, teacher, or a person
138 of 188
entrusted in any capacity with the care if such
child.
5. Including any child under 16 years of age to
abandon the home of its ascendants, guardians,
curators or teachers to follow any person entrusted
in any of the callings mentioned in paragraph 2 or
to accompany any habitual vagrant or beggar, the
offender being any person.
These acts are considered as exploitation of minors
because these acts endanger the life and safety, the
growth and development of the minors. (Usually, these
involve circus.)
Note:
If the delivery of the said child is on the basis of a
consideration, compensation or money, the penalty will
be QUALIFIED.
Mere act of delivering the child gratuitously under 16
years of age means that the crime is already
committed.
ARTICLE 280. QUALIFIED TRESPASS TO
DWELLING
Article 280. Qualified trespass to dwelling. - Any private
person who shall enter the dwelling of another against the
latter's will shall be punished by arresto mayor and a fine
not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
If the offense be committed by means of violence or
intimidation, the penalty shall be prision correccional in its
medium and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding
1,000 pesos.
The provisions of this article shall not be applicable to any
person who shall enter another's dwelling for the purpose
of preventing some serious harm to himself, the occupants
of the dwelling or a third person, nor shall it be applicable
to any person who shall enter a dwelling for the purpose of
rendering some service to humanity or justice, nor to
anyone who shall enter cafes, taverns, inn and other public
houses, while the same are open.
Elements of Qualified Trespass to Dwelling
1. Offender is a private individual.
2. He enters the dwelling of another.
3. Such entry is against the latter’s will.
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE
If the offense is committed by means of violence or
intimidation, it is qualified trespass to dwelling.
Re: First element
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
In case of trespass to dwelling, the offender is a private
person. As we have studied, if the offender is a public 2. The entrance is made while either of them is
officer, the crime committed is Violation of Domicile uninhabited.
under Art. 128.
3. The prohibition to enter must be manifest, yet the
Note, that trespass to dwelling may be committed by a offender enters.
public officer if the said public officer was acting in his
private capacity. Thus, if the public officer is acting in his 4. The trespasser has not secured the permission of
private capacity and he enters the dwelling of another the owner of the caretaker thereof.
against the owner’s will, he may be held liable for trespass
to dwelling. TRESPASS TO DWELLING V. TRESPASS TO
PROPERTY
Re: Third element
TRESPASS TO TRESPASS TO
When you say “entry”, it must be done against the will of DWELLING PROPERTY
the owner. There is either a prohibition or opposition to The offender is a private
enter, which can be express or implied: person, or a public officer The offender is any
acting in his private person.
1. Express – there is a sign board that says “Do not capacity.
enter.” The place entered into is The place entered into is
2. Implied – door is closed. inhabited. uninhabited.
The prohibition to enter
CASES TO WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS The prohibition to enter is
must be manifest or
ARTICLE ARE NOT APPLICABLE express or implied.
evident.
The offender enters
Even if a person enters the dwelling of another against the closed premises or fenced
latter’s will, there is no trespass to dwelling if the entry is The offender enters the
estate without securing
done under any of the following circumstances: dwelling against the will of
the permission of the
the owner.
owner or caretaker
1. If the entry to another’s dwelling is made for the thereof.
purpose of preventing some serious harm to
himself, the occupants of the dwelling or a third ARTICLE 282. GRAVE THREATS
person.
Article 282. Grave threats. - Any person who shall
2. If the purpose of the entry is to render service to threaten another with the infliction upon the person, honor
humanity or justice. or property of the latter or of his family of any wrong
amounting to a crime, shall suffer:
3. If the place where the entrance is made is a café,
tavern, inn and other public houses while the same 1. The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by
are open. law for the crime be threatened to commit, if the offender
shall have made the threat demanding money or imposing
In these instances, there is no act of trespassing. any other condition, even though not unlawful, and said
offender shall have attained his purpose. If the offender
ARTICLE 281. OTHER FORMS OF TRESPASS shall not have attained his purpose, the penalty lower by
two degrees shall be imposed.
Article 281. Other forms of trespass. - The penalty
of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or If the threat be made in writing or through a middleman, the
both, shall be imposed upon any person who shall enter penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period.
the closed premises or the fenced estate of another, while
either or them are uninhabited, if the prohibition to enter be 2. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding
manifest and the trespasser has not secured the 500 pesos, if the threat shall not have been made subject
permission of the owner or the caretaker thereof. to a condition.

This is also known as Trespass to Property. ACTS PUNISHED

Elements of Other Forms of Trespass/ Trespass to
Property
1. The offender enters the closed premises or the
fenced estate of another.
1. By threatening another with the infliction upon his
person, honor or property or that of his family of
any wrong amounting to a crime coupled with the
demand of money or the imposition of any other

139 of 188
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
condition, even though not unlawful, the offender
having attained his purpose.
Elements
a. The offender threatens another person
with the infliction upon the latter’s person,
honor or property or upon that of the
latter’s family, of any wrong.
b. That such wrong amounts to a crime.
c. That there is a demand for money or that
any other condition is imposed, even
though not unlawful.
d. That the offender attains his purpose.
2. By threatening another with the infliction upon his
person, honor or property or that of his family of
any wrong amounting to a crime, coupled with the
demand of money or the imposition of any
condition, the offender not having attained his
purpose.
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 demand of money or the
imposition of a condition.
Elements
a. The offender threatens another person
with the infliction upon the latter’s person,
honor or property or upon that of the
latter’s family, of any wrong.
b. That such wrong amounts to a crime.
c. That such threat is not subject to a
condition.
ARTICLE 283. LIGHT THREATS
Article 283. Light threats. - Any threat to commit a wrong
not constituting a crime, made in the manner expressed in
subdivision 1 of the next preceding article, shall be
punished by arresto mayor.
Elements of Light Threats
1. Offender makes a threat to commit a wrong.
2. The wrong does not constitute a crime.
3. There is demand for money or that other condition
is imposed, even though not unlawful.
140 of 188
4. The offender has attained his purpose or, that he
has not attained his purpose.
The crime is Light Threats when the offender threatens to
commit a wrong to another which does not amount to a
crime but is always coupled with the demand of money or
imposition of any other condition, whether lawful or
unlawful.
GRAVE THREATS LIGHT THREATS
The wrong threatened to The wrong threatened to
be committed always be committed will not
amounts to a crime. amount to a crime.
The threat may or may not It is always subject to a
be subject to a demand of demand of money or the
money or imposition of imposition of any other
any other condition. condition.
Essence of Threat
The essence of grave threats or light threats is intimidation,
a future harm or future wrong. It is not immediate, but in
the future. This is why under Art. 282, grave threats can be
committed not only personally but also in writing or through
a middleman/third person.
If threat is committed in writing or through a middle
man under Art. 282
Under Art. 282, if the threat is committed in writing or
through a middle man, the penalty is qualified because the
wrong threatened to be committed is not now; not
impending to happen, but in the future.
If a person is charged with grave threats or light threats,
we have the so-called bond for good behavior:
Article 284. Bond for good behavior. - In all cases falling
within the two next preceding articles, the person making
the threats may also be required to give bail not to molest
the person threatened, or if he shall fail to give such bail,
he shall be sentenced to destierro.
The judge will require the person to post a bond for good
behavior to ensure that he will not make good the threats
he made to the intended victim. If he failed to do so, he will
be sentenced to destierro.
ARTICLE 285. OTHER LIGHT THREATS
Article 285. Other light threats. - The penalty of arresto
menor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding 200
pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person who, without being included in the provisions
of the next preceding article, shall threaten another with a
weapon or draw such weapon in a quarrel, unless it be in
lawful self-defense.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
2. Any person who, in the heat of anger, shall orally
threaten another with some harm (not)* constituting a
crime, and who by subsequent acts show that he did not
persist in the idea involved in his threat, provided that the
circumstances of the offense shall not bring it within the
provisions of Article 282 of this Code.
3. Any person who shall orally threaten to do another any
harm not constituting a felony.
*Note: The word “not” is enclosed in parenthesis because
the inclusion of that word in par. 2, Art. 285 is a mistake.
(Reyes, Criminal Law Book II, [2008])
ACTS PUNISHED
1. By threatening another with a weapon or drawing
such weapon in the course of a quarrel, unless it
be done in lawful self-defense.
2. By orally threatening another in the heat of anger
with some harm amounting to a crime but without
the offender persisting in the idea involved in his
threat.
3. By orally threatening another to do some wrong
which does not constitute a felony.
Note:
Other Light Threats is only a light felony. The penalty is
only arresto menor.
Q: X called Y. X told Y, “Sige. Sige. Ituloy mo yang
gagawin mong yan. Ituloy mo yan at papatayin kita.”
Thereafter, X banged down the phone. Y, startled at the
statement given to him by Y, was afraid. Y was mad,
so he filed a case for Grave Threats against X.
Is X liable for Grave Threats?
A: YES. X is liable for Grave Threats.
Under Art. 282, Grave Threats is committed by any person
who shall threaten another with the infliction upon his
person, honor, or property or that of his family of any wrong
amounting to a crime.
The Supreme Court has said in a case that the crime of
Grave Threats is consummated as soon as the threats
come to the knowledge of the person being threatened.
In this case, the moment Y came to know of X’s threats,
the moment that X communicated his threats to Y, even
though via phone call, the crime of Grave Threats is
already consummated.
Therefore, Y can charge X of Grave Threats and X can be
convicted of Grave Threats because it is consummated as
soon as the threats come to the knowledge of the person
threatened.
141 of 188
Q: X and Y are living in apartments right next to each
other. The three children of X—A, B, and C were
bullying the child of Y, W. They were throwing upon
the girl sachets of ketchup. Because of that, W, the
daughter of Y, went inside. She was crying. She told Y
that those three children were bullying her.
Y was mad. She got out. When she saw the three
children, the three children still threw ketchup sachets
towards her. No respect at all. Y, very mad, told the
children, “Ipapakagat ko kayo sa aso ko.” Thereafter,
she went inside.
The three children of X – A, B, and C – informed their
parents of Y’s statements against them. As a result, Y
was charged with Violation of R.A. 7610 because
allegedly, the statements made by her on the children
debase, degrade, and demean the intrinsic worth and
the dignity of the minor children as human beings.
Is she liable as charged?
A: NO.
In the case of Escolano v. People, the SC said that
Escolano (who is Y in the problem given) is not liable for
Violation of R.A. 7610. The SC said that the act of the
accused in shouting invectives against the children does
not constitute child abuse under R.A. 7610. Based on the
facts, there is no intent on the part of the said woman to
debase, demean or degrade the intrinsic worth and dignity
of the three children as human beings. Rather, those acts
of shouting invectives can be considered as an act done
by the woman in the heat of anger. It cannot be considered
as child abuse. In fact, the said woman only stated those
words because her intent was to stop the children from
their unruly behavior. She did not even persist as she did
not let the dog bite the children.
Thus, SC said that it is not violation of R.A. 7610, but
rather violation of Art. 285—Other Light Threats, by
orally threatening another in the heat of anger with some
harm amounting to a crime without the offender persisting
in the idea involved in the threats. She did not persist in the
idea of releasing the dogs and having them bite the
children. Hence, it is only Other Light Threats.
ESCOLANO v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 226991 December 10, 2018
FACTS: Private Complainants A, B and C, all minors, got
three ketchup sachets from their refrigerator and threw it at
accused's daughter, but hit accused instead. Accused
threatened to release her dogs to bite said children,
something the complainants reported to their mother, D.
When D confronted the accused, the latter hurled
expletives, went inside her house and allegedly came out
with a bolo, telling D, "Basta bumaba kayo dito lahat,
papatayin ko kayo lahat. Tatagain ko kayo."
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
An Information was filed thereafter, charging accused for
violating R.A. 7610, for making hacking gestures with a
Bolo and uttering insults and invectives at private
complainants which "debases, demeans and degrades the
intrinsic worth and dignity of the said minors as human
beings."
The RTC convicted the accused of said crime, and upon
appeal. The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision.
ISSUE: Does the acts of the accused constitute Child
Abuse under R.A. 7610?
HELD: NO. Accused had no intention to debase the
intrinsic worth and dignity of the private complainant. It was
rather an act carelessly done out of anger.
1. Accused’s utterances against complainants were
made because there was provocation from the
latter, when they were throwing ketchup sachets at
accused's daughter. Evidently, her statements and
the threat to "ipahabol" and "ipakagat sa aso" were
all said out of frustration or annoyance. Accused
merely intended that the children stop their unruly
behavior.
2. The prosecution failed to present any iota of
evidence to prove her intention to debase,
degrade or demean the child victims. The record
does not show that her act of threatening the
complainants was intended to place the latter in an
embarrassing and shameful situation before the
public.
3. When complainants threw ketchup sachets at
accused, it was only at that moment that she
hurled invectives against them. After accused had
uttered those words, it was not shown that she
continued her slurs. It was only when D confronted
accused that the latter uttered profanities,
particularly, ''putang ina mo" and made hacking
gestures with a bolo. It must also be emphasized
that the alleged hacking gestures and the
expression "'putang ina mo" were not specifically
directed to the children; rather, these were made
against D, their mother.
The circumstances surrounding the incident proved that
accused's act of uttering invectives against the minors A,
B, and C was done in the heat of anger. Only the crime of
other light threats were committed in the present case.
COERCION
If the wrong threatened to be committed on the offended
party is immediate, personal and impending to happen,
the crime committed is coercion.
ARTICLE 286. GRAVE COERCIONS
142 of 188
Article 286. Grave coercions. - The penalty of arresto
mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be
imposed upon any person who, without authority of law,
shall, by means of violence, prevent another from doing
something not prohibited by law, or compel him to do
something against his will, whether it be right or wrong.
If the coercion be committed for the purpose of compelling
another to perform any religious act or to prevent him from
so doing, the penalty next higher in degree shall be
imposed.
There are two kinds of coercion:
1. Preventive coercion – when the offender, by
means of violence, threat or intimidation, prevents
another from doing an act not prohibited by law.
He prevents another from doing a lawful act.
2. Compulsive coercion – when the offender compels
another to do an act against his will, whether it be
right or wrong, by means of violence, threat or
intimidation.
No one can compel another to anything, to do any act,
regardless if it is right or wrong, if it is against the will of
that other person. No one can place the law in his hands.
Even if it is a lawful act, you cannot force a person to do it.
Otherwise, you are liable for grave coercion.
GRAVE THREATS V. GRAVE COERCION
GRAVE THREATS GRAVE COERCION
The wrong threatened to The wrong threatened to
be committed is in the be committed is direct,
future. personal, immediate and
imminent.
It can be committed in It cannot be committed in
writing or through a writing or through a middle
middle man. man. It must always be
personal.
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
1. If the coercion is committed in violation of the
exercise of the right of suffrage.
2. If the coercion is committed to compel another to
perform any religious act.
3. If the coercion is committed to prevent another
from performing any religious act.
ARTICLE 287. LIGHT COERCIONS
Article 287. Light coercions. - Any person who, by means
of violence, shall seize anything belonging to his debtor for
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
the purpose of applying the same to the payment of the
debt, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its
minimum period and a fine equivalent to the value of the
thing, but in no case less than 75 pesos.
Any other coercions or unjust vexations shall be punished
by arresto menor or a fine ranging from 5 pesos to 200
pesos, or both.
Elements of Light Coercions
1. The offender must be a creditor.
2. He seizes anything belonging to his debtor.
3. The seizure of the thing be accomplished by
means of violence or a display of material force
producing intimidation.
4. The purpose of the offender is to apply the same
to the payment of the debt.
Under 2nd paragraph of Art. 287:
Unjust Vexation – any human conduct, although not
capable of producing harm or material injury, that annoys
or vexes an innocent person.
MADERAZO v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 165065 September 26, 2006 Callejo, Sr.
FACTS: Medaria Verutiao had been the lessee of a stall in
the Biliran public market with a monthly rental of P200.00.
She was allowed to finish the construction of the market
stall with the permission of the Municipal Mayor and
Treasurer. Municipal Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1984,
provides that, to facilitate the development of the public
market, in the absence of adequate government finance,
construction by private parties of buildings and other
structures for commercial purposes may be allowed and
the expenses thereof shall be reimbursed to the builder by
applying 50% to the monthly rentals when occupied for
business. She spent P24,267.00 for the construction of the
market stall, however, she was not reimbursed by the
Municipality. After the construction, she then opened the
stall for business. She paid the rent for the whole year of
1992 but did not pay the rentals in 1993. In 1995, the
Municipality partially paid her P10,000.00 other total
expenses in the construction of the market stall. However,
considering that she had not been fully reimbursed of her
expenses for the construction of the stall, she did not pay
her rent.
Subsequently, she and her husband received a letter-order
from Mayor Melchor Maderazo, directing her to vacate the
stall within twenty-four (24) hours because of her failure to
pay the rentals for the stall and that the lease contract had
been cancelled. Mayor Maderazo padlocked the leased
premises. The locks were opened on the authority of the
Mayor. The contents of the market stall were inventoried
by Victor Maderazo and taken to the police station for
safekeeping. While these were being undertaken, Verutiao
was in her farm about 4 to 5 kilometers away from the
143 of 188
market stall. She considered the act of the Mayor as a
political harassment, given that her husband was then a
candidate for councilor under the ticket of the opposition;
and that she was a leader of the opposing party.
ISSUE: Whether or not the party accused is guilty of the
crime of unjust vexation.
HELD: YES, except for Seniforo Perido. Although
Verutiao was not at her stall when it was unlocked, and the
contents thereof taken from the stall and brought to the
police station, the crime of unjust vexation was
nevertheless committed. For the crime to exist, it is not
necessary that the offended party be present when the
crime was committed by said petitioners. It is enough that
the private complainant was embarrassed, annoyed,
irritated, or disturbed when she learned of the overt acts of
the petitioners. Indeed, by their collective acts, petitioners
evicted Verutiao from her stall and prevented her from
selling therein, hence, losing income from the business.
Verutiao was deprived of her possession of the stall from
January 21, 1997.
CASE DISCUSSION: MADERAZO V. PEOPLE
In Maderazo v. People, Medaria Verutiao was renting a
stall in the public market. She failed to pay the rent. At the
time, Mayor Maderazo went to the public market. Verutiao
was not there. Mayor made inspection, and he saw
Verutiao’s stall. Since Verutiao, based on the mayor’s list,
has not yet paid rentals, Mayor Maderazo ordered the said
stall of Verutiao to be padlocked. He and his body guards
left.
Thereafter, Mayor Maderazo returned with his bodyguards
and ordered the body guards to re-open the stall of
Verutiao that they had already padlocked. After opening it,
the mayor told his bodyguards to bring all of its contents to
the police station.
When Verutiao learned about this, she was very mad.
What crime is committed by Mayor Maderazo? The SC
said that Mayor Maderazo is liable for unjust vexation, a
form of light coercion under Art. 287.
The SC said that although Verutiao was not in her stall,
unjust vexation was still committed because she was
embarrassed, annoyed, irritated, and disturbed when she
learned of the acts done by the Mayor. Mayor Maderazo
had no right, without judicial intervention or order, to oust
Verutiao from her stall and had all her merchandise be
transported and placed to the police station. In doing so,
the said woman suffered damages because she lost her
merchandise. The mayor, no matter how high his position
was, had no right to take the law into his hands and deprive
the woman of possession of her stall.
- You go through the normal procedure. You file the
proper ejectment case. You cannot force the said
person to leave the place without an order coming
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
from the court. You cannot place the law into your
hands. Otherwise, you will be criminally liable.
[Arts. 288-292 were not discussed during lecture.]
ARTICLE 288. OTHER SIMILAR COERCIONS;
(COMPULSORY PURCHASE OF MERCHANDISE AND
PAYMENT OF WAGES BY MEANS OF TOKENS.)
Article 288. Other similar coercions; (Compulsory
purchase of merchandise and payment of wages by means
of tokens.) - The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging
from 200 to 500 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any
person, agent or officer, of any association or corporation
who shall force or compel, directly or indirectly, or shall
knowingly permit any laborer or employee employed by
him or by such firm or corporation to be forced or
compelled, to purchase merchandise or commodities of
any kind.
The same penalties shall be imposed upon any person
who shall pay the wages due a laborer or employee
employed by him, by means of tokens or objects other than
the legal tender currency of the laborer or employee.
Other similar coercions is committed:
1. By forcing or compelling directly or indirectly or
knowingly permitting the forcing or compelling any
employee or laborer to buy merchandise or
commodities from the said employer.
Elements
a. The offender is any person, agent or
officer of any association or corporation.
b. He or such firm or corporation has
employed laborers or employees.
c. He forces or compels, directly or indirectly,
or knowingly permits to be forced or
compelled, any of his or its laborers or
employees to purchase merchandise or
commodities of any kind from him or from
said firm or corporation.
2. By paying the wages due to the laborer or
employees by any tokens or object other than the
legal tender currency of the Philippines unless to
be requested by the said employee or laborer.
Elements
a. The offender pays the wages due a
laborer or employee employed by him by
means of tokens or objects.
b. Those tokens or objects are other than the
legal tender or currency of the Philippines.
144 of 188
c. Such employee or laborer does not
expressly request that he be paid by
means of tokens or objects.
ARTICLE 289. FORMATION, MAINTENANCE AND
PROHIBITION OF COMBINATION OF CAPITAL OR
LABOR THROUGH VIOLENCE OR THREATS
Article 289. Formation, maintenance and prohibition of
combination of capital or labor through violence or
threats. - The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not
exceeding 300 pesos shall be imposed upon any person
who, for the purpose of organizing, maintaining or
preventing coalitions or capital or labor, strike of laborers
or lock-out of employees, shall employ violence or threats
in such a degree as to compel or force the laborers or
employers in the free and legal exercise of their industry or
work, if the act shall not constitute a more serious offense
in accordance with the provisions of this Code.
Elements of Formation, Maintenance and Prohibition
of Combination of Capital or Labor through Violence
or Threats
1. The offender employs violence or threats, in such
a degree as to compel or force laborers or
employers in the free and legal exercise of their
industry or work.
2. The purpose is to organize, maintain or prevent
coalitions of capital or labor, strike of laborers or
lockout of employers.
ARTICLE 290. DISCOVERING SECRETS THROUGH
SEIZURE OF CORRESPONDENCE
Article 290. Discovering secrets through seizure of
correspondence. - The penalty of prision correccional in its
minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding
500 pesos shall be imposed upon any private individual
who in order to discover the secrets of another, shall seize
his papers or letters and reveal the contents thereof.
If the offender shall not reveal such secrets, the penalty
shall be arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500
pesos.
The provision shall not be applicable to parents, guardians,
or persons entrusted with the custody of minors with
respect to the papers or letters of the children or minors
placed under their care or study, nor to spouses with
respect to the papers or letters of either of them.
Elements of Discovering Secrets through Seizure of
Correspondence
1. Offender is a private individual or even a public
officer not in the exercise of his official function.
2. He seizes the papers or letters of another.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
1. The offender is a person in charge, employee or
3. The purpose is to discover the secrets of such workman of a manufacturing or industrial
another person. establishment.

4. The offender is informed of the contents of the
papers or letters seized.
Qualifying Circumstance
When the offender reveals the contents of such paper or
letters to another person, the penalty is qualified.
2. The manufacturing or industrial establishment has
a secret of the industry which the offender has
learned.
3. The offender reveals such secrets.
4. That prejudice is caused by the owner.

When Art. 290 is not applicable Note:

Art. 290 is not applicable to parents, guardians or persons
entrusted with the custody of minors placed under their
care and custody, nor to spouses with respect to the
papers or letters of either of them.
Note:
This Article does not require that the offended party be
prejudiced.
Revealing the secrets is not an element of the offense.
Prejudice is an essential element under this Article.
Art. 292 does not state the time of the revelation of the
industrial secrets. Therefore, the employee or workman
who revealed the secrets of the industry of his
employer, after having been dismissed or separated
from the establishment, may be held liable under this
Article. What is important is that he was an employee
or workman of the manufacturing or industrial
establishment when he learned the secrets.

ARTICLE 291. REVEALING SECRETS WITH ABUSE

OF OFFICE

Article 291. Revealing secrets with abuse of office. - The

penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500
pesos shall be imposed upon any manager, employee, or
servant who, in such capacity, shall learn the secrets of his
principal or master and shall reveal such secrets.

Elements of Revealing Secrets with Abuse of Office

1. The offender is a manager, employee, or servant.

2. He learns the secrets of his principal or master in

such capacity.

3. He reveals such secrets.

Note:
Damage is not necessary under this Article.

ARTICLE 292. REVELATION OF INDUSTRIAL

SECRETS

Article 292. Revelation of industrial secrets. - The penalty

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

Elements of Revelation of Industrial Secrets

145 of 188
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
TITLE TEN:
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
ARTICLE 293. WHO ARE GUILTY OF ROBBERY
Article 293. Who are guilty of robbery. - Any person who,
with intent to gain, shall take any personal property
belonging to another, by means of violence or intimidation
of any person, or using force upon anything shall be guilty
of robbery.
Elements of Robbery
1. That there be unlawful taking.
2. The thing taken is a personal property belonging
to another.
3. The act of taking is done with intent to gain.
4. The act of taking is done with either violence
against or intimidation of persons or by means of
force upon things.
It is necessary, for the crime of robbery to arise, that the
thing unlawfully taken is a personal property belonging to
another person. The law requires that there must be intent
to gain. If the thing the offender has taken is his own
property, not belonging to another, it cannot be said that
he was ignited by intent to gain.
Note:
It is necessary that the subject of the unlawful taking
must belong to another person because the law
requires that there was, on the part of the offender,
intent to gain.
There are two ways of committing robbery:
1. Violence Against or Intimidation of Persons under
Art. 294.
2. Force upon Things under Art. 299 and Art. 302.
Q: Police Officer X alighted from the bus. The moment
he alighted, he was approached by three men – A, B,
and C. The three men declared a hold-up, a robbery.
Thereafter, one of the men, B, immediately snatched
and took away the bag of Police Officer X. To defend
himself, police officer X informed, told the truth to A,
B, and C according to policer officer X “Police ako”.
So police officer X informed A, B, and C, that he is a
police officer. Nevertheless, A, B, and C did not sign.
The statement of police officer x that he is a police
officer did not stop A, B, and C, and A, B, and C even
told police offierXX “Anong police police, walang
police police sa amin.” and then thereafter they tried
to stab police officer X. However police officer X was
146 of 188
able to evade the thrust. Thereafter, B and C both of
them punched and kicked police officer X. Police
officer X wanting to defend himself, took out his
service pistol and fired at the feet of A, B and C,
because of that A, B, and C ˆ, A, B, and C quickly fled
pagbabarilin yung paa nila di naman pinataaman yung
ground pinatama dun sa paa. A, B, and C quickly fled.
In fleeing, in getting out of the scene, A, B, and C left
their knives and the bag of police officer X that they
are taking, so naiwan yung bag. A case of robbery was
filed against A, B, and C and they were charged of as
as conspirators for the crime of robbery.
When they were prosecuted for robbery, A, B, and C
argued that they cannot be liable for robbery they
should be acquitted because the element of robbery is
animus lucrandi or intent to gain is absent. According
to them, they failed to take the bag, they left the bag,
therefore it shows there is no intent to gain, there is no
animus lucrandi. Is the defense meritorious? or/are A,
B, and C liable as conspirators for the crime of
robbery?
A: A, B, and C are liable as conspirators for the crime
of robbery. All elements of robbery are present. First,
there is unlawful taking of the bag of police officer X. The
bag belongs to officer X, obviously the act of taking was
done with intent to gain, and the taking was done by them,
because they were able to complete the act of taking
because they punched him and one even thrust a knife at
him.
The argument raised by the three accused has no merit.
The moment A, B, and, C unlawfully took the bag of police
officer X the moment they had already taken the said bag,
the crime of robbery is already consummated, and it is
immaterial that X for the said police officer was able to
subsequently recover the bag forcibly taken from him when
the three robbers fled in fear and they dropped the bag.
The said circumstance that they left the bag out of fear
does not preclude the presence of intent to gain/animus
lucrandi. The said animus lucrandi/intent to gain is
presumed from the forceful taking of the bag. Therefore,
they are liable for the crime of robbery.
There are two kinds of robbery, robbery with violence
against or intimidation of persons, intimidation of any
person under Article 294, and the other is one robbery by
use of force upon things.
ARTICLE 294. ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE AGAINST
OR INTIMIDATION OF PERSONS; PENALTIES
Article 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation
of persons; Penalties. - Any person guilty of robbery with
the use of violence against or intimidation of any person
shall suffer:
1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by
reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of
homicide shall have been committed.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
2. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period
to reclusion perpetua when the robbery shall have been
accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation, or if by
reason or on occasion of such robbery, any of the physical
injuries penalized in subdivision 1 of Article 263 shall have
been inflicted; Provided, however, that when the robbery
accompanied with rape is committed with a use of a deadly
weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be
reclusion perpetua to death (As amended by PD No. 767).
3. The penalty of reclusion temporal, when by reason or on
occasion of the robbery, any of the physical injuries
penalized in subdivision 2 of the article mentioned in the
next preceding paragraph, shall have been inflicted.
4. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to
reclusion temporal in its medium period, if the violence or
intimidation employed in the commission of the robbery
shall have been carried to a degree clearly unnecessary
for the commission of the crime, or when the course of its
execution, the offender shall have inflicted upon any
person not responsible for its commission any of the
physical injuries covered by subdivisions 3 and 4 of said
Article 23.
5. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum
period to prision mayor in its medium period in other cases.
(As amended by R. A. 18).
Under Article 294, robbery with violence against or
intimidation of any persons may be committed, we have
different acts punishes robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons.
The following acts constitute robbery with violence against
or intimidation of persons:
1. When by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the
crime of homicide is committed.
2. When robbery is accompanied by rape or
intentional mutilation or arson.
3. When by reason or on occasion of such robbery,
any of the physical injuries resulting in insanity,
imbecility, impotency or blindness is inflicted.
4. When by reason or on occasion of robbery, any of
the physical injuries resulting in the loss of the use
of speech or the power to hear or to smell, or the
loss of an eye, a hand, foot, an arm, or a leg or the
loss of the use of any such member or incapacity
to go to work in which the injured person is thereto
habitually engaged is inflicted.
5. If violence or intimidation employed in the
commission of the robbery is carried to a degree
clearly unnecessary for the commission of the
crime.
147 of 188
6. When in the course of its execution, the offender
shall have inflicted upon any person not
responsible for the commission of the robbery any
of the physical injuries in consequence of which
the person injured becomes deformed or loses any
other member of his body or loses the use thereof
or becomes ill or incapacitated for the performance
of the work in which he is habitually engaged for
more than 90 days or the person injured becomes
ill or incapacitated for labor for more than 30 days.
7. If violence employed by the offender does not
cause any of the serious physical injuries defined
in Article 263, or if the offender employs
intimidation only.
ACTS PUNISHED:
1. Robbery with Homicide;
2. Robbery with Rape,
3. Robbery with Intentional Mutilation,
4. Robbery with Arson
5. Robbery with Serious Physical Injuries
6. Robbery with Unnecessary Violence, and
7. Simple Robbery.
These are the acts punishes robbery with violence against
or intimidation of persons under Article 294.
When by reason or an occasion of robbery, the crime of
homicide is committed, we have the special complex crime
of robbery with homicide. In the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide, the original criminal design of the
offenders to commit robbery, and the said act of killing may
take place before, during, or after the commission of
robbery. The intent to rob must precede the taking of
human. For as long as the original criminal intent is to rob,
the homicide or killing may take place before, during, or
after the robbery. It is immaterial that death supervene by
mere accident because the use of the word homicide is in
its generic sense. Homicide includes all kinds of killing,
murder, parricide, even accidental death. The use of the
word homicide is in its generic sense.
It is also immaterial if the victim of the homicide is one of
the robbers. The felony would still be robbery with
homicide. Insofar as the special complex crime of robbery
with homicide is concerned, the principle behind the
special complex of robbery with homicide would apply also
to the special complex of robbery with rape, robbery with
intentional mutilation, robbery with arson, robbery with
serious physical injuries, for as long as the original criminal
intent of the offender is to rob, the rape, the intentional
mutilation, the arson, the infliction of serious physical
injuries may be committed immediately prior to, during, or
after the commission, for as long as the original criminal
intent was to rob. So, they just have the same principle,
that’s why it is a special complex crime.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
In the special complex crime of robbery with rape,
regardless of the number of times the victim had been
raped, there is only one single indivisible offense of
robbery with rape. Regardless of the number of victim’s
rape, there is only one single indivisible offense of robbery
with rape.
Note:
It is important for you to know the sequence of events,
the sequence of robbery with violence against, or
intimidation of persons under Art. 294.
You have to know that the sequence are:
1. Robbery with Homicide;
2. Robbery with Rape;
3. Robbery with Intentional Mutilation
4. Robbery with Arson;
5. Robbery with Serious Physical Injuries;
6. Robbery with Unnecessary Violence; and
7. Simple Robbery
Why is it necessary for you to know these sequence?
Because if in the commission of the crime of robbery, there
is killing, there is rape, there is infliction of serious physical
injuries, you do not charge robbery with rape, you do not
robbery with homicide, rape, and serious physical injuries.
The crime to be charged is only the special complex crime
of robbery with homicide because it is the first in sequence,
the first in hierarchy under Art. 294. The said act of rape,
the said act of inflicting serious physical injuries are merely
absorbed in the said special complex crime. So what is
material would be the sequence under Art. 294, and not
the sequence of the acts committed by the said offender.
Q: X was on his way home after work from office. To
get home, she will be passing by this little bit dark
eskinita. As she was walking towards home, a man
appeared by the name of Y. The man was holding an
ice pick and told X, “Holdup to. Your bag or your life?”,
and X gave the bag. After X gave her bag to said
holdaper, X was about to ran away, however, the
holdaper immediately got hold of her neck. The
holdaper placed his strong arms on the neck,
thereafter covered her mouth with another hand, and
then thereafter she was drugged inside a vacant
house. The said woman was punched a number of
times, pinned down, undressed, and had carnal
knowledge. After the man had carnal knowledge of
her, the man took on his clothings and then thereafter
left together with the bag of X. What crime is
committed by the man?
A: The man is liable for special complex crime of
Robbery with Rape. The original criminal intent was to rob
obviously. “Give me your bag, your bag or your life?”,
Obviously the intent was to rob, and by reason on the
occasion thereof, what did he do? He raped the said
woman. Therefore, the crime committed is the special
complex crime of Robbery with Rape.
148 of 188
Q: Let us add facts, so, she was going home. X is going
home. The man appeared, “holdup ito, your bag, or
your life?, the woman gave her bag, however, the said
man placed his arms around the woman and brought
her in a secluded place, and there, the said man raped
X. After the rape, the man was about to leave but the
man realized “may ilaw, nakita niya ang mukha ko”.
The man was afraid since X saw his face, X would
definitely report it to the authorities. To prevent X from
reporting him to the authorities before leaving, the
said man repeatedly stabbed X until X died. Thereafter,
the man left with the bag of X. What crime/s is/are
committed by the said man?
A: The man is liable for the special complex crime of
Robbery with Homicide. The original criminal intent was
to rob. During the act of robbery, by reason of the occasion
thereof, what did he do? He raped the woman, and then he
killed the woman. Although the act of rape was committed
ahead the act of killing, since based on the sequence
under Art. 294, robbery with homicide is ahead of robbery
with rape, the crime to be charged is Robbery with
Homicide, and the act of rape is simple absorbed in the
special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide.
Q: X was on her way home. While she was on her way
home to the eskinita, a man appeared. The man
immediately covered her mouth, and after covering her
mouth, the man brought her to a secluded place,
punched her a number of times and then pinned her
down, and the man had carnal knowledge. X was
crying. The man stood up. When the man was about to
leave, because of the light, the man saw the jewelry of
the said woman, and the man immediately grabbed the
necklace. Thereafter, as the man was taking off the
watch, X tried to prevent the man, and so she was
crying and trying to push the man in order to prevent
the said man from getting her watch. Because of this,
the man got mad because of the fight being put up by
X. The man repeatedly stabbed X until X died.
Thereafter, he was able to get the watch and the other
personal belongings. What crime/s is/are committed
by the said accused?
A: What was the original criminal intent? To rape. He
covered the mouth, punched the woman, brought the
woman to a secluded place, undressed the woman, and
had carnal knowledge of her. Therefore, the original
criminal intent was to Rape. After the rape, what did he do?
He saw the jewelries. He wanted the jewelries. Upon
seeing the jewelries, he was already taking the watch, the
woman put up a fight, refused her watch to be taken, and
so she stabbed the said woman. Therefore, we have the
special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide.
(Rape ata dapat pero iba lang nasabi ni Prosec.)
These are two separate and distinct charges. The act of
rape which was the original criminal intent cannot be
absorbed by the special complex crime of robbery with
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
homicide because the original criminal intent was to rape,
and as an afterthought, upon seeing the jewelries, he
wanted the jewelries, in order to take it, he has to kill the
woman, and so we have another crime, the special
complex crime of Robbery with Homicide.
Q: X was on her way home. A man appeared. The man
covered her mouth, punched her, brought her in a
secluded place, and committed carnal knowledge.
After the carnal knowledge, the man realized that when
he was about to leave, X saw his face. He might be
reported. The man before leaving, stabbed the woman
to death. After killing X, the man was about to leave but
saw the bag of X beside her. The man took the bag,
and thereafter left. What crime(s) is/are there
committed by the said man?
A: The man is liable for the special complex crime of
rape with homicide and separate and distinct crime of
theft.
The original criminal intent is to rape. The man punched
the woman, pinned the woman down, undressed the
woman, and had carnal knowledge of the said woman.
After the rape, afraid that he will be reported, he killed the
woman. Therefore, we have the special complex crime
of rape with homicide under Article 266-B.
After the rape, as an afterthought, he saw the bag and took
the bag. Therefore, there is a separate and distinct
charge of theft. It is not robbery, but theft, because at the
time that he took the bag, he has already killed the woman,
because afraid that the woman would report the said act,
therefore, we have two crimes, rape with homicide, a
special complex crime, and a separate and distinct
charge for the crime of theft.
Q: X entered the house of Y wanting to rob. Upon
seeing the wife of Y, he asked Y “Where’s your?”
husband?”. The wife said “My husband is not here.”
And so what the said man did, X tied the wife. After
tying the wife, X ransacked the house, took valuables
inside the house. Thereafter, he heard someone
arriving, “That is your husband, that is Y”, the wife said
“No”. What X did, he hid behind the door, he was
armed with a knife and stood still, waiting for Y to get
inside. The moment Y got inside, X repeatedly stabbed
him, until Y died. What crime(s) is/are committed by X?
A: X is liable for the special complex crime of robbery
with homicide.
What was X’s original intent? To rob. In the course of the
said robbery, he was to kill Y. Therefore, we have the
special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
Is there treachery? Can you appreciate treachery in this
special complex crime of robbery with homicide? Yes,
treachery exists in this case. The moment X heard that
Y is about to enter, he hid behind the door. He deliberately
149 of 188
and consciously adopted the use and means he will use in
order to kill Y. He waited for Y. The moment Y arrived, he
repeatedly stabbed him. Therefore, there was treachery,
and treachery can be appreciated even in the special
complex crime of robbery with homicide.
Although robbery with homicide is classified as a crime
against property under Title 10, treachery can be
appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance if the
victim of the homicide is killed treacherously. The
aggravating circumstance of treachery shall be
appreciated ONLY insofar as the killing/homicide is
concerned; hence, it is merely a generic aggravating
circumstance because there's no such crime as robbery
with murder. It is only robbery with homicide with the
generic aggravating circumstance of treachery if the killing
is done treacherously.
Q: Police officer X was on his mobile patrol. In front of
him was a jeepney. “Parang may nangyayari sa
jeepney na iyan ah, parang nagkakagulo sa jeepney na
iyan”. True enough. On the said jeepney, three men, A,
B, and C boarded the said jeepney and upon boarding
the said jeepney, A, B, and C, announced that this is
a holdup. “Give us your valuables, give us your cash”
A, B, and C at knifepoint were telling the passengers
of said jeepney to give to them their valuables, and
indeed they gave to them their valuables.
However, one of the hold uppers immediately saw
police officer X and told the driver to stop. When the
drive stopped and after A, B, and C alighted, but there
were already Police officer X. Police officer X tried to
arrest them. However, since C refused to be arrested,
C pulled out a home-made gun. Police officer X saw it,
he was about to be shot, so he he tried to grapple for
the possession of the firearm. While police officer
grappled for the possession of the said gun, in the
process, the gun fired. As a result, one of the robbers,
C died. The moment C died, police officer X arrested
the two other robbers. The two other robbers, A and B,
were charged with a special complex crime of robbery
with homicide.
A and B argued they cannot be charged and held liable
for the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide. According to A and B, they have nothing to
do with the killing of our fellow robber C. “He is our
friend. It was the police officer who fired a shot at him
when they grappled for the possession of the gun. It
cannot be said that we are the one who killed our
friend”. Therefore if ever they are held liable, they
contend that they should only be liable for the crime of
robbery and not the special complex crime of robbery
with homicide. Is the argument of A and B
meritorious?
A: No, the argument of A and B has no merit.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
The crime committed by A and B would be the special
complex crime of robbery with homicide. In the case of
Casabuena v. People, the Supreme Court said that the law
provides, under Article 294, any person guilty of robbery
with the use of violence against or intimidation OF ANY
PERSON shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death when by reason or on occasion of the said robbery,
the crime of homicide shall have been committed. The
Supreme Court said that the use of the phrase “any
person” is all-inclusive, including any one of the
robbers themselves. Therefore, it is immaterial who is
killed. Whether a robber himself is one of those killed, still,
it is the special complex of crime of robbery with homicide
because of the all-inclusive phrase “any person”.
Q: What if, same problem, so there was this jeepney.
Police officer X was patrolling, and he was staying
behind the said jeepney, and Police officer X noticed
“Parang may holdapan dun ah, maingay.” True
enough because A, B, and C flagged down the
jeepney, and the moment A, B, and C boarded the said
jeepney, A, B, and C, at knifepoint announced “This is
a holdup. Give us your valuables.” However, before
any of the passengers were able to give the valuables,
one of the hold uppers C immediately announce to A
and B “May pulis, may pulis”, And so, they were all in
panic, they were all afraid. Because of that, they told
the driver to stopped. When the driver stopped, A and
B alighted without taking anything from the
passengers.
However, he moment they alighted, police officer X
was there and tried to arrest them but of them C tried
to put up a fight, C pulled out his gun, tried to fire at
police officer X. They grappled for the possession of
the gun. In the course thereof, the gun fired, killing C,
one of the hold uppers. Police officer X arrested A and
B. Thereafter, A and B were charged with the special
complex crime of attempted robbery with homicide,
under Article 297.
A and B argued that they couldn't be charged with a
special complex crime of attempted robbery with
homicide because according to them, they are not the
ones liable for the death of their friend C, it was that
police officer. They have nothing to do with the death,
with the killing of their friend. Therefore, if ever they
should be liable, it should only be for attempted
robbery and not for the special complex crime of
attempted robbery with homicide under Article 297. Is
the argument of A and B correct? Is it meritorious?
A: Yes, the argument raised by A and B is meritorious.
The reason is Article 297 has a different wordings from
Article 294. Under Article 297, the law provides that when
by reason or on occasion of an attempted or frustrated
robbery, a homicide is committed, the person guilty of such
offenses shall be punished by a reclusion temporal in its
maximum period to reclusion perpetua. Again, the law
says, “the person guilty of such offenses.” Therefore, for
150 of 188
an offender to become liable for the special complex
crime of attempted robbery with homicide, it is
necessary that he must be guilty of such offenses OF
BOTH attempted robbery and homicide.
In this case, A & B have nothing to do with the killing of
their fellow robber. It was in the course of the struggle with
the police officer that the said robber died. Therefore, they
can only be held liable for attempted robbery, NOT with a
special complex crime of attempted robbery with homicide.
Article 297 has a different wordings/phrases from Article
294.
Q: What if the passengers were on the said jeepney,
and while the passengers were on the said jeepney,
here comes five men A, B, C, D, and E. Five men
boarded the said jeepney and said “holdup ito”, and
they were pointing their knives. The passengers gave
their valuables to the hold uppers. After the
passengers gave their valuables to the said hold
uppers, the hold uppers immediately jumped outside
the said jeepney but they were later arrested (A, B, C,
D and E) What crime are they liable of?
A: The said men are liable for the crime of robbery in
band. When more than three armed malefactors shall
have acted together in the commission of a robbery, it is
robbery in band under Article 296. In this case, since we
have five armed men, based on the facts, they were armed
with knives in the commission of the crime of robbery,
therefore, they are liable for the crime of robbery in band.
Q: There is this canteen. X, a cashier, and Y, one the
helpers in the said canteen. X told Y “You go to the
market. You buy some vegetables.” When Y left, the
cashier was the only one in the said canteen.
Here comes A and B. A, and B ordered food. While X
was preparing the food, A approached X and poked a
knife while B closed the door of the canteen.
Thereafter, B took the cash from the drawer. Thereafter
A forcibly brought X inside the bathroom and raped
her. After A had raped the said woman X, B followed
and raped X by means of force. After both A and B
raped X, on their way out of the canteen, they saw the
bags of X and Y placed on a table, and took the bags
of X and Y.
When A and B were arrested, they were charged with
two crimes. They were charged with a special complex
crime of robbery with rape, and the crime of theft. Are
they liable, separate, and distinct for the crime of theft
for taking the bags on their way out OR is it absorbed
in the special complex crime of robbery with rape?
A: In this case, A and B shall be liable as conspirators
for the special complex crime of robbery with rape. It
is evident based on the facts that the main objective of A
and B is to rob the canteen, and they accomplished that by
poking a knife at X to threaten her. The robbery was
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
accompanied by rape because it's an afterthought. A and
B took turns in raping X inside the said restroom and on
their way out, they also took the bags of X and Y. A and
B's act of taking the said bag of X and Y on their way out
will not constitute a separate and distinct charge of simple
theft. This act of taking the bag is but constituent acts
of the special complex crime of robbery with rape
because they are brought about by the same criminal
resolution which is to rob the canteen. Therefore, the
crime committed is only the crime of robbery with rape.
The Supreme Court said that the crime of robbery with
rape is a continued crime. Therefore, although there is a
series of acts, only one crime is committed and that is the
special complex crime of robbery with rape. A and B's act
of taking the bag of X and Y is only a consequence of the
original intent which is to rob the eatery.
ARTICLE 295. ROBBERY WITH PHYSICAL INJURIES,
COMMITTED IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE AND BY A
BAND, OR WITH THE USE OF FIREARM ON A
STREET, ROAD OR ALLEY.
Article 295. Robbery with physical injuries, committed in
an uninhabited place and by a band, or with the use of
firearm on a street, road or alley. - If the offenses
mentioned in subdivisions three, four, and five of the next
preceding article shall have been committed in an
uninhabited place or by a band, or by attacking a moving
train, street car, motor vehicle or airship, or by entering the
passenger's compartments in a train or, in any manner,
taking the passengers thereof by surprise in the respective
conveyances, or on a street, road, highway, or alley, and
the intimidation is made with the use of a firearm, the
offender shall be punished by the maximum period of the
proper penalties.
In the same cases, the penalty next higher in degree shall
be imposed upon the leader of the band.
ARTICLE 296. DEFINITION OF A BAND AND
PENALTY INCURRED BY THE MEMBERS THEREOF
Article 296. Definition of a band and penalty incurred by
the members thereof. - When more than three armed
malefactors take part in the commission of a robbery, it
shall be deemed to have been committed by a band. When
any of the arms used in the commission of the offense be
an unlicensed firearm, the penalty to be imposed upon all
the malefactors shall be the maximum of the
corresponding penalty provided by law, without prejudice
of the criminal liability for illegal possession of such
unlicensed firearms.
Any member of a band who is present at the commission
of a robbery by the band, shall be punished as principal of
any of the assaults committed by the band, unless it be
shown that he attempted to prevent the same.
151 of 188
ARTICLE 297. ATTEMPTED AND FRUSTRATED
ROBBERY COMMITTED UNDER CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES.
Article 297. Attempted and frustrated robbery committed
under certain circumstances. - When by reason or on
occasion of an attempted or frustrated robbery a homicide
is committed, the person guilty of such offenses shall be
punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to
reclusion perpetua, unless the homicide committed shall
deserve a higher penalty under the provisions of this Code.
ARTICLE 298. EXECUTION OF DEEDS BY MEANS OF
VIOLENCE OR INTIMIDATION
Article 298. Execution of deeds by means of violence or
intimidation. - Any person who, with intent to defraud
another, by means of violence or intimidation, shall compel
him to sign, execute or deliver any public instrument or
documents, shall be held guilty of robbery and punished by
the penalties respectively prescribed in this Chapter.
ROBBERY BY THE USE OF FORCE UPON THINGS
AND ROBBERY BY USE OF FORCE UPON THINGS
COMMITTED IN A PRIVATE BUILDING OR IN AN
UNINHABITED PLACE.
The other kind of robbery is under Art. 299, robbery by the
use of force upon things, and under Art. 302. Robbery by
the use of force upon things under Art. 299, we have
robbery in a public building, in an inhabited house, or
robbery in an edifice devoted to worship.
ARTICLE 299. ROBBERY IN AN INHABITED HOUSE
OR PUBLIC BUILDING OR EDIFICE DEVOTED TO
WORSHIP
Article 299. Robbery in an inhabited house or public
building or edifice devoted to worship. - Any armed person
who shall commit robbery in an inhabited house or public
building or edifice devoted to religious worship, shall be
punished by reclusion temporal, if the value of the property
taken shall exceed 250 pesos, and if:
(a) The malefactors shall enter the house or building in
which the robbery was committed, by any of the following
means:
1. Through a opening not intended for entrance or egress.
2. By breaking any wall, roof, or floor or breaking any door
or window.
3. By using false keys, picklocks or similar tools.
4. By using any fictitious name or pretending the exercise
of public authority.
Or if -
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
(b) The robbery be committed under any of the following
circumstances:
1. By the breaking of doors, wardrobes, chests, or any
other kind of locked or sealed furniture or
receptacle;
2. By taking such furniture or objects to be broken or forced
open outside the place of the robbery.
When the offenders do not carry arms, and the value of the
property taken exceeds 250 pesos, the penalty next lower
in degree shall be imposed.
The same rule shall be applied when the offenders are
armed, but the value of the property taken does not exceed
250 pesos.
When said offenders do not carry arms and the value of
the property taken does not exceed 250 pesos, they shall
suffer the penalty prescribed in the two next preceding
paragraphs, in its minimum period.
If the robbery be committed in one of the dependencies of
an inhabited house, public building, or building dedicated
to religious worship, the penalties next lower in degree
than those prescribed in this article shall be imposed.
ARTICLE 300. ROBBERY IN AN UNINHABITED
PLACE AND BY A BAND
Article 300. Robbery in an uninhabited place and by a
band.- The robbery mentioned in the next preceding
article, if committed in an uninhabited place and by a band,
shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty
provided therefor.
ARTICLE 301. WHAT IS AN INHABITED HOUSE,
PUBLIC BUILDING OR BUILDING DEDICATED TO
RELIGIOUS WORSHIP AND THEIR DEPENDENCIES
Article 301. What is an inhabited house, public building or
building dedicated to religious worship and their
dependencies. - Inhabited house means any shelter, ship
or vessel constituting the dwelling of one or more persons,
even though the inhabitants thereof shall temporarily be
absent therefrom when the robbery is committed.
All interior courts, corrals, waterhouses, granaries, barns,
coach-houses, stables or other departments or inclosed
places contiguous to the building or edifice, having an
interior entrance connected therewith, and which form part
of the whole, shall be deemed dependencies of an
inhabited house, public building or building dedicated to
religious worship.
Orchards and other lands used for cultivation or production
are not included in the terms of the next preceding
152 of 188
paragraph, even if closed, contiguous to the building and
having direct connection therewith.
The term "public building" includes every building owned
by the Government or belonging to a private person not
included used or rented by the Government, although
temporarily unoccupied by the same.
ARTICLE 302. ROBBERY IN AN UNINHABITED
PLACE OR IN A PRIVATE BUILDING
Article 302. Robbery is an uninhabited place or in a private
building. - Any robbery committed in an uninhabited place
or in a building other than those mentioned in the first
paragraph of Article 299, if the value of the property taken
exceeds 250 pesos, shall be punished by prision
correccional if any of the following circumstances is
present:
1. If the entrance has been effected through any opening
not intended for entrance or egress.
2. If any wall, roof, floor or outside door or window has been
broken.
3. If the entrance has been effected through the use of
false keys, picklocks or other similar tools.
4. If any dorm, wardrobe, chest or by sealed or closed
furniture or receptacle has been broken.
5. If any closed or sealed receptacle, as mentioned in the
preceding paragraph, has been removed even if the same
to broken open elsewhere.
When the value of the property taken does not exceed 250
pesos, the penalty next lower in degree shall be imposed.
In the cases specified in Articles 294, 295, 297, 299, 300,
and 302 of this Code, when the property taken is mail
matter or large cattle, the offender shall suffer the penalties
next higher in degree than those provided in said articles.
Under Article 302, it is robbery by use of force of upon
things committed in a private building or in an uninhabited
place.
Both three acts of robbery by use of force of upon things
are the same, whether it is under Article 299 or Article 302.
They only differ in the place where the crime is committed.
Under Article 299, it is in an inhabited house, inhabited
place, public building, or edifice devoted to worship. Under
Article 302, it is in a private building, or it is in an
uninhabited home.
Whether it is under Article 299 or Article 302, the following
acts are punished by robbery by use of force upon
things:
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
I. Whenever the offenders have entered the
premises of another where personal property were
taken through an opening not intended for
entrance or egress by breaking any wall, roof,
floor, or window; By using picklocks, false keys, or
other similar means; By using a fictitious name or
pretending the exercise of public authority.
II. When the offender entered the premises of
another without unlawful entry. Once inside, they
employed violence by breaking any closed or
sealed receptacle, door, wardrobe, or chest in
order to get the things inside with the intent to
keep.
III. When the offender was able to gain entry without
use of force upon things or was able to enter
without unlawful entry. Once inside, he did not
employ force in breaking any closed or sealed
receptacle. Instead, he took the closed or sealed
receptacle outside where force has to be
employed in order to take the things inside the said
closed or sealed receptacle or chest.
These are the three ways of committing robbery by use of
force upon things whether under Article 299 or Article 302.
Supreme Court said, outside this, it is theft not robbery.
Q: X needed money. X saw this house and the window
was open. According to X, he can easily enter and rob
the said house as the window was opened. What X did,
he looked around, since the window was open, he
climbed the house and entered the house passing
through the window. Thereafter, he was able to get
inside. At the sala of the house, he immediately saw
gadgets (laptops, cellphones), and so X took all the
laptops, the different cellphones and placed it inside
his backpack. Thereafter, X left. However, X was
arrested by the police and taken to the police station.
At the police station, he was frisked. The backpack
was taken. When the police officers opened the
backpack, they saw the cellphones, the laptops. The
police officer also a picklock among the laptops, the
cellphones.
After the investigation, the police officer filed two
cases against the said person of X. They filed a case
of robbery by use of force upon things under Article
299. They also filed a case of illegal possession of
picklocks under Article 204. Are the charges correct?
If you were the public prosecutor, would you indict X
as charged by the police?
A: The charges are correct. There is robbery by use of
force upon things under Article 299 because X entered
the dwelling of Y through an opening that was not intended
for entrance or egress - through the window. The said
window is not intended for entrance or egress. Therefore,
X is liable for violation of Article 299, first act, the entry was
done unlawfully. Robbery by use of unlawful entry, by
153 of 188
passing through an opening that was not intended for
entrance or egress, by passing through an opened
window.
A picklock was seen in his possession. A picklock is an
object which is designed to be used for robbery, for the act
of taking. As he could not give any lawful justification,
therefore, he should also be charged and be liable for
illegal possession of picklocks under Article 302.
Q: Same problem. X was in need of money. X saw the
house of Y. Upon seeing the house of Y, he decided to
go around “Oh, it’s so close” He tried to get inside, he
doesn’t know how to get inside. Then, he took out his
picklock and used the said picklock to open the front
door. With the use of the said picklock, he was able to
gain entry inside the house and took the valuables, the
gadgets, cell phones, laptops, and then he went out by
passing through the main door. He was arrested by the
police. His bag was confiscated, the gadgets that he
had taken from the house of Y were seen as well as the
picklock that he used in gaining entry. After
investigation, the police officers filed two cases
against him. The police officers filed a case of violation
of Article 299, robbery by use of force upon things, and
a case of violation of Article 204, illegal possession of
picklocks. Are the charges correct?
A: The charges are wrong. The crime to be charged is
only one crime, which is the violation of Article 299,
robbery by use of force upon things.
He entered an inhabited place, the dwelling of one, and the
entry is done by using picklocks, false keys, or other similar
means. The way to gain unlawful entry is by means of the
picklock. Since the picklock was the very means he
used to gain entry, it will not constitute a separate and
distinct charge. It is simply absorbed under Article
299, robbery by use of force upon things under the first
act: unlawful entry by using a picklock. Therefore, the
said fact that he was found in possession of the picklock is
simply absorbed.
Q: A, B, C & D, all armed, entered the house of E by
breaking the doorknob in front of the house. Once
inside, A told D to get out of the house to serve as
lookout. A, B, & C started ransacking the house. After
A, B, & C were almost done ransacking the house, E,
the owner of the house, arrived. When A saw E, the
owner of the house, A punched him. Thereafter, they
left. The owner of the house suffered slight physical
injuries. What crime(s) is/are committed by A, B, C, &
D?
A: A, B, C, & D, are liable for the complex crime of
robbery in an inhabited house by a band and under
Article 299, complex with robbery, with violence
against or intimidation of persons under Article 294,
paragraph 5.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
In the case of Napolis v. C.A., which is cited by the A: They committed the crime of brigandage or highway
Supreme Court in the case of Fransdilla v. People, the robbery under PD 532.
Supreme Court said that you have to complex Article 294,
paragraph 5, with Article 299, if both elements of the Q: What if A, B, C, D, and E learned that W won in the
crimes are present. lotto. They also heard some rumors that W will be
going to the bank tomorrow to withdraw money and he
In the problem given, A, B, C, and D were all armed, and will be buying something. Thereafter, A, B, C, D, and E
they entered the house of E by breaking the doorknob at formed this group, they hired a van, and they waited
the front door, and then they took valuables. This is outside the house of W. The moment W got out of his
robbery by use of force upon things under Article 299. house and boarded an owner type jeepney driven by
However, after they ransacked the house, when the owner his brother. They passed along the highway and went
arrived, one of the robbers, A, inflicted slight physical to the bank, unknown to them, they were being
injuries on the owner of the house. That act constituted followed by A, B, C, D, and E. After they withdrew
simple robbery under Article 294, paragraph 5. Therefore, money from the bank, on their way back to the house
you complex it. passing by the highway, A, B, C, D, and E overtook
their car and thereafter, at knife point, they took the
Note: money withdrawn from the bank. What crime is
It is not a special complex crime, it is a complex crime committed by A, B, C, D, and E?
under Article 48.
A: A, B, C, D, and E are liable for brigandage or highway
In the case of Napolis v. C.A., and in the case of Fransdilla robbery under Article 306.
v. People, the Supreme Court said when the elements of
both provisions of Article 294, paragraph 5, simple robbery, Q: Where lies the difference between Highway
and Article 299, robbery by use of force upon things is Robbery or Brigandage under Article 306 versus
present, the crime is a complex crime, which calls for the Highway Robbery or Brigandage under PD 532.?
imposition of the penalty for the most serious offense in its
maximum period, and that is violation of Article 299. ARTICLE 306 P.D. 532
The mere formation of the There must be an actual
As a rule, Article 294 is graver, more serious than Article band of robbers, for any of commission of the crime of
299 because in Article 294, there is killing/homicide, the purposes mentioned, robbery along a Philippine
intentional mutilation, arson, serious physical injuries, will already give rise to a highway for the crime to
except in paragraph 5. Paragraph 5, it is only through crime. arise.
intimidation and slight or less serious physical injuries, it is Requires that there must No requisite as to the
known as simple robbery. be at least 4 armed number of men or
malefactors. perpetrators of the crime.
Article 294, as a rule, absorbs Article 299. However, not if Even one man can commit
what accompanies Article 299 is only simple robbery. highway robbery on a
Because if what accompanies Article 299 is only simple Philippine highway.
robbery, Article 299 has a graver penalty of reclusion The offenders have a The offenders committed
temporal. Therefore, in order to impose on the accused the particular, predetermined, the highway robbery
graver penalty, the most serious offense, the penalty for or preconceived victim. indiscriminately against
the most serious offense, Supreme Court said, you have any persons who would
to complex, simple robbery, Article 294 paragraph 5, with, pass by the Philippine
Article 299, robbery by use of force upon things. highway. There is no
preconceived victim.
Q: A, B, C, D, and E formed this band of robbers and Any person who aids, Any person who aids,
their intent was to commit robbery along the highways abets, or protects the abets, or protects the
of Pampanga. Every day they would position brigands or takes brigands or takes
themselves along the highways of Pampanga, they possession of the possession of the
would flag down vehicles. and then they will rob. One proceeds of brigandage proceeds of brigandage
time, A, B, C, D, and E positioned themselves and they are liable under Article shall be liable as
saw a bus along the highways of Pampanga. They 307. accomplices under PD
flagged down the bus and after entering the bus they 532.
announced a holdup. They took all the valuables of the
passengers and even the earnings of the bus driver In the first problem, A, B, C, D, and E formed this band of
and conductor of the bus, they took everything. robbers for the purpose of committing highway robbery and
Thereafter, they left. But A, B, C, D, and E were indeed they committed robbery indiscriminately on any
arrested. What crime did they commit? person passing on the highway of Pampanga. No
predetermined or particular victim.

154 of 188
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
In the second problem, A, B, C, D, and E has a particular
victim. They formed that group only for purpose of robbing
the said man who won in the lotto. Not to commit highway
robbery indiscriminately. Therefore, they are liable under
Article 306, RPC for Highway Robbery or Brigandage.
Q: X flagged down a jeepney and boarded the same. X
sat next to a woman who was wearing a necklace. The
moment the jeepney stopped at the red light, X
grabbed the necklace of the woman and thereafter
jumped out of the jeepney. X was arrested and was
charged with the crime of Simple Robbery under
Article 294 (5) - If violence or intimidation employed in
the commission of the robbery is carried to a degree
clearly unnecessary for the commission of the crime.
Is X liable as charged?
A: In the case of Del Rosario v. People, the Supreme Court
said NO. The Supreme Court said that the distinguishing
element between Robbery and Theft is the use of violence
or intimidation as a means of taking a person’s property. If
it is present, the crime is Robbery. If it is absent, the crime
is Theft.
In this case the accused grabbed the necklace of the
woman. The Supreme Court said that the fact the necklace
was grabbed and the fact that the information filed against
the accused stated that the necklace was grabbed does
not automatically mean that force attended the act of
taking.
The Supreme Court said, “grabbed” means to take or seize
by a sudden motion or grasp, to take hastily. It does not
suggest of violence or physical force in the act of taking. It
only refers to the suddenness of the act of taking or
suddenness of the act of seizing. But it cannot be equated
with employment of violence or force. Therefore, absent
any showing that the said victim sustained less serious or
slight physical injuries, then it will only be the kind of Theft
and not Simple Robbery under Article 294 (5).
DEL ROSARIO v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 235739 | 22 July 22 2019
FACTS: Charlotte and Kim flagged down a jeepney going
to G-Mall. Roxan and Edwin also boarded the same
jeepney. Upon reaching Quirino Street, Kim saw Edwin
giving a signal to Roxan. Thereafter, Roxan snatched the
necklace of Charlotte, disembarked from the jeepney, and
ran away. Edwin also disembarked. Charlotte shouted.
Later on, they learned that Roxan was apprehended.
ISSUE: Is the crime of Robbery committed?
HELD: NO, the crime committed by Edwin was theft.
The distinguishing element between the crimes of robbery
and theft is the use of violence or intimidation as a means
of taking the property belonging to another; the element is
present in the crime of robbery and absent in the crime of
theft.
155 of 188
In the case of People vs. Dela Cruz, the court ruled that
when the complainant herself merely testified that the
offender snatched her shoulder bag, without saying that
such offender used violence, intimidation, or force in
snatching her shoulder bag, the snatching of the shoulder
bag constitutes the crime of theft, not robbery. In the case
of Ablaza v. People, the Court clarified that 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.
ARTICLE 308. THEFT
Article 308. Who are liable for theft. - Theft is committed
by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence
against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things,
shall take personal property of another without the latter's
consent.
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 object of the damage caused by him; and
3. Any person who shall enter an inclosed 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.
Just like robbery, theft is committed by any person who,
shall unlawfully take the personal property of another
without the consent of the owner, with intent to gain.
However, in case of robbery there is the presence of
violence against or intimidation of persons or use of force
upon things, while in theft there is no violence against or
intimidation of persons or use of force upon things.
In case of Theft there is NO:
1. Violence employed;
2. Intimidation employed;
3. Force employed;
Theft under Article 308 may also be committed by some
other persons.
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 the owner thereof;
2. Any person who, after having maliciously
damaged the property of another, shall remove or
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
make use of the fruits or objects of the damage
caused by him; and
3. Any person who shall enter the fenced or
enclosed estate or field of another 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 fruits, cereals, or
any other forest or farm products.
NOTE: The definition is almost the same as robbery. The
difference lies in the case of robbery where there is
violence or intimidation of persons and use of force upon
things, while in theft, there is no violence, intimidation
against persons or force upon things.
Q: X alighted from the jeepney. He was opening the gate
of the house; he saw a wallet. He picked up the wallet and
it seemed bulky. He opened the wallet and saw that it
contained many paper bills. He brought the said wallet
inside the house and called his wife. Together with his wife,
X opened the wallet and discovered that it contained
P10,000.00. The wife said that she has been long praying
for money and told X not to return the wallet. X did not
return the said wallet even if they saw the ID of the owner
inside the wallet. The owner of the wallet was an employee
of a BPI bank in another town. Despite knowledge of the
BPI ID, the address of the company, X kept the wallet and
the money to himself. What crime is committed by X?
A: X is liable for the crime of Theft under Article 308.
He found this lost property and is obligated by law to return
the same to the owner or at least to the authorities. Failing
to do so, he becomes liable for theft.
Q: What if in the same problem, X instead of getting
inside the house, flagged down a jeepney. Because X
is an honest man, he went to the nearest police station.
He told the officers that he found the wallet at the gate
of his house. He opened the wallet but did not get
anything and he saw the name of the owner of the said
wallet. The owner of the wallet is an employee of BPI
but it is located in another town. X further said that
since the BPI branch was located far from their town,
he cannot personally return the wallet, he is
surrendering the wallet to the police officer. After
surrendering the wallet, X left the police station. Once
the police officer opened the wallet, he saw the
P10,000.00 peso bills and the company ID which
contained the address of the company and place of
work of the owner of the wallet. The police officer
became interested in the wallet and its contents. Thus,
he did not return the wallet and instead he took the
contents of the wallet for his personal benefit. What
crime is committed by police officer?
A: He is liable for Theft under Article 308.
PEOPLE v. PANTE
G.R. No. 218969 | 18 January 2021
156 of 188
FACTS: Dawson Word lost his bundle of money of around
$4,550 and P27,000 when he alighted from his vehicle
upon arriving home. The following morning, a bakery
worker noticed a bundle of money lying on the ground near
Word’s car.
Meanwhile, one of Pante’s co-accused who was riding his
bike outside also noticed the bundle of money and picked
it up.
That same morning, Word realized that his money was
missing. He did not find the same despite a thorough
search. With the help of his landlord, Word learned that
Pante’s minor co-accused picked up the bundled money
near his car. Word then sought the help of the police in the
recovery of his money. Upon investigation, it was found
that Pante’s minor co-accused was indeed the finder of the
money.
The police headed to the residence of the minor and found
the bundle of money. The accused minor likewise admitted
finding the same and sharing the money with his cousin,
also a minor, and to Pante.
Portion of the money and the things bought with Word’s
money were returned to Word. And all the persons who
shared the money were all prosecuted for the crime of theft
against Word.
ISSUE: Is Pante liable for Theft?
HELD: YES. Under Article 308, par. 2 (1) of the RPC
(Revised Penal Code), theft is also committed by one’s
failure to deliver lost property to its owner or local
authorities. In this kind of theft, it is essential to prove: 1)
the finding of lost property; 2) the failure of the finder to
deliver the same to the local authorities or its owner.
In the case at bar, both the trial court and the appellate
court found that the prosecution witnesses were able to
prove that Word lost his bundled money after alighting from
his car, and such fact was corroborated by the prosecution
witness who testified that he positively saw the accused
minor pick up the bundle of money under Word’s car.
Anent Pante’s argument that he cannot be convicted for
theft because he is not the finder of the lost property, the
SC was not persuaded.
The question of whether criminal appropriation of found
property can be committed by a person other than the one
by whom the property is first found has been lengthily
discussed and answered in an older case which in sum
states: “One who receives property from the finder thereof
assumes, in legal contemplation, by voluntary substitution,
as to the property and the owner, the relation occupied by
the finder, placing himself in the finder’s stead. In such a
case, whether the person taking the property is guilty must
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
be determined on the same principles that govern in the
case of the actual finder.”
In fine, a “finder” under Article 308, par. 2 (1) of the RPC is
not only limited to the actual finder of the lost property,
since the gist of the offense is the furtive taking and
misappropriation of the property found.
The rationale for the “finder in law” concept is not difficult
to fathom. It is precisely to protect the owner of the lost
property in the event the lost property is transferred from
one individual to another and to prevent the “finder in law”
from escaping liability by claiming that he was not the
actual finder thereof but was merely entrusted custody
thereof by someone who had no intention to appropriate
the same.
CASE DISCUSSION: PEOPLE v. PANTE
The Supreme court said, the word “finder” under Article
308 (1), RPC is NOT limited to actual finder of the lost
property, because the gist of the offense, is the furtive
taking and the misappropriation of the thing found.
In the said case of Pante v. People, the word, a foreigner
is counting his money inside his car, he alighted from his
car, his dollars fell out, and then he left. The said dollars
were found by the miners working for Pante. They saw it
and brought the money to Pante, who told the boys not to
return it but to divide it among themselves. Pante used his
share to buy appliances. But later, what they did was
discovered. Pante was charge with the crime of theft. His
defense was that he was not the actual finder.
The Supreme Court said, although the accused was not
the actual finder, it cannot be disputed that this accused
knew that the said money does not belong to the said two
miner workers of him. The said money was only found on
the street.
In the problem, the said police officer, although he was not
the actual finder, it was X who was the actual finder, he
knew that the said wallet was only found by the said
person. Therefore, since the said wallet was surrendered
to him, he has the obligation to return the wallet to the
owner thereof. Although he was not the actual finder,
he is considered to be the finder in law. The moment
the said wallet was given to him. He is now under obligation
to return the wallet to the owner. When he failed to deliver
the wallet to the actual owner, then he failed to return the
lost property to its rightful owner. Then he is the one liable
for theft under Article 308.
Q: X was very mad at the dog of Y. One midnight, X
killed the dog of Y. After killing the dog of Y, he
brought it to his house and he cooked it, savoring it as
pulutan. What crime is committed by X?
A: X is liable for theft. After having caused damage on the
property of Y, the owner of the dog, he removed and made
157 of 188
use of the fruits of the object of the damage caused by him.
Hence, X is liable for the crime of theft.
ARTICLE 309. PENALTIES
Article 309. Penalties. - Any person guilty of theft shall be
punished by:
1. The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium
periods, if the value of the thing stolen is more than 12,000
pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, but if the value
of the thing stolen exceeds the latter amount the penalty
shall be the maximum period of the one prescribed in this
paragraph, and one year for each additional ten thousand
pesos, but the total of the penalty which may be imposed
shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in
connection with the accessory penalties which may be
imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this
Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or
reclusion temporal, as the case may be.
2. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods, if the value of the thing stolen is more
than 6,000 pesos but does not exceed 12,000 pesos.
3. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods, if the value of the property stolen is more
than 200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos.
4. Arresto mayor in its medium period to prision
correccional in its minimum period, if the value of the
property stolen is over 50 pesos but does not exceed 200
pesos.
5. Arresto mayor to its full extent, if such value is over 5
pesos but does not exceed 50 pesos.
6. Arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if
such value does not exceed 5 pesos.
7. Arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, if the
theft is committed under the circumstances enumerated in
paragraph 3 of the next preceding article and the value of
the thing stolen does not exceed 5 pesos. If such value
exceeds said amount, the provision of any of the five
preceding subdivisions shall be made applicable.
8. Arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not
exceeding 50 pesos, when the value of the thing stolen is
not over 5 pesos, and the offender shall have acted under
the impulse of hunger, poverty, or the difficulty of earning
a livelihood for the support of himself or his family.
ARTICLE 310. QUALIFIED THEFT
Article 310. Qualified theft. - The crime of theft shall be
punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees than
those respectively specified in the next preceding article, if
committed by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of
confidence, or if the property stolen is motor vehicle, mail
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
matter or large cattle or consists of coconuts taken from
the premises of the plantation or fish taken from a fishpond
or fishery, or if property is taken on the occasion of fire,
earthquake, typhoon, volcanic erruption, or any other
calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance. (As
amended by R.A. 120 and B.P. Blg. 71. May 1, 1980).
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
1. When theft is committed by a domestic servant;
2. When the theft committed with grave abuse of
confidence;
3. When the thing or property taken is a (a) motor
vehicle, (b) mail matter, or (c) large cattle;
4. When the thing or property taken consists of
coconuts taken from the premises of the
plantation;
5. When the property stolen is taken from a
fishpond or fishery;
6. When property is stolen on the occasion of fire,
earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any
other calamity, vehicular accident, or civil
disturbance.
Any of these circumstances will qualify the crime of theft.
Just one of these circumstances will qualify for the crime
of theft.
The Supreme Court said, domestic servant is separated
from grave abuse of confidence by the disjunctive word
OR. Therefore, the moment the person who took the
personal property of another is a domestic servant, it is
immediately qualified theft. There is no need to prove
that in the act of taking there is grave abuse of confidence.
Because domestic servant is separated from the word
grave of abuse of confidence by the disjunctive word OR.
Therefore, they are separate and distinct.
The accused, X is the domestic servant in the house of Y
and Z. Y and Z have to go out for 2 days. They have to go
to Baguio to attend some meetings. X, who has been with
them for more than 2 years and whom they trusted, told X
that they would be gone for 2 days and not to accept
anyone inside. When X was alone inside the house, X
received a phone call from her mother, who told her that
her father was in the hospital and needed an operation and
needed a big amount of money. The mother was telling X
that she should bring to their house all her savings. But X
said she has not much savings and upon looking at her
bag, she only has a few peso bills. X called her boyfriend
and asked him if she could borrow money. The boyfriend
said he doesn’t have money; he does not have work so
how could he have money. The boyfriend told X, “You want
money? There is money in the house, everything is in the
158 of 188
house.” So, because of that, X got an idea. She told her
boyfriend to go to the house and when he arrived, the
security guard refused entry of the boyfriend based on the
instruction of owner Y. X came out and talked to the guard,
and the guard let the boyfriend in. The three of them talked
with one another. Thereafter when X entered the house,
she allowed the boyfriend and the security guard to enter.
Whilst inside, the three of them took all valuables inside the
house. Since X knew the key to the vault, she took the key
and took everything inside the vault. They divided it among
the three of them. What crime or crimes are committed
by X, her boyfriend, and the security guard?
A: X is liable for Qualified Theft being the domestic
servant of the owner Y and Z. Just the mere fact that she
is the domestic servant, theft is already in its qualified form.
X’s boyfriend is liable for Simple Theft under Article 308.
The act committed by the boyfriend is not attended by any
of the qualifying circumstances under Article 310.
The security guard hired by Y and Z to guard the house
and who was given instruction to not let anyone inside,
would be liable for Qualified Theft under the second act.
The act of taking by the security guard is done with grave
abuse of confidence.
The Supreme Court said that in case of Theft, there is
grave abuse of confidence in the act of taking when the
offender and the said offended party who is the owner of
the property, has a relationship of guardianship,
dependency, and vigilance between them.
In this case there is a relationship of guardianship,
dependency, and vigilance between the owners Y and Z
and the security guard. The guard was hired by the couple
to protect their house, to ensure that there will be no
robbery or theft. However, he was one who took the
personal things inside. There was grave abuse of
confidence. He violated the trust reposed on him on
the things he is supposed to guard. Therefore, it is
Qualified Theft.
ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT
If the thing taken is a motor vehicle, then the crime
committed is carnapping. It is a violation of R.A. No. 10883.
PEOPLE v. CARIÑO
G.R. No. 232624 | 9 July 2018
In the case of People v. Cariño, the Supreme Court said,
carnapping is the robbery or theft of a motorized vehicle.
The taking of the motor vehicle is deemed complete the
moment the offender gains possession of the said motor
vehicle, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the
same. Intent to gain or animus lucrandi, being an
internal state of the mind, is presumed from the unlawful
taking of the motor vehicle. The Supreme Court said, in
case of carnapping, actual gain is irrelevant, what is
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
material is intent to gain. The term “gain” is not limited to
pecuniary benefit, it also includes benefit which may arise,
which may be derived, which may be expected from the
use of the said motor vehicle taken. Therefore, the mere
use of the motor vehicle, which is taken without the owner’s
consent, without asking permission from the owner already
constitutes the crime of theft, because there is already
intent to gain.
Q: X and Y has to go to Japan to attend a meeting for
a period of 1 week. It was Friday. Before leaving, X and
Y called their helpers and drivers. X and Y told Z, the
driver assigned for their children, “Z, you have to make
sure that you are going to bring our children to school,
wait for them, and bring them back to the house. Never
fail in your task.” Z replied, “Yes.” Thereafter, X and Y
left. That Friday Z brought the children to school and
after school hours brought back the children to the
house. When Z was already parking the van in the
garage, Z took notice of a new car brought by his boss,
X. Z looked inside the car, it was a new sports car.
When Z held the door, to his surprise, he noticed that
it was not locked. Z saw the ignition key inside the car.
Z sat in the said car and with the use of the said
ignition key, he moved the said car out of the garage,
he called his girlfriend and told her that for the
weekend, they would be having a road trip. Z used the
newly bought sports car of his master X and went on
a road trip with his girlfriend from Friday evening to
Sunday night. Come Sunday night, after bringing his
girlfriend back home to her house, Z brought back the
car to the garage. A week thereafter, the owner of the
car X came back. Upon entering the garage, he was so
shocked. He has never used his newly bought sports
car, yet, the tires were already full of mud and dirt. He
inquired and realized what Z did, he took the car for a
road trip and returned it Sunday night. X filed a case
for carnapping under R.A. No. 10883 against Z. Is Z
liable as charged?
A: YES, Z is liable as charged. All the elements for
carnapping under R.A. No. 10883 are present.
First, that there be actual taking of motor vehicle. Here, Z
took the motor vehicle of X, the new sports car.
Second, the said motor vehicle must belong to another
person. Here, the motor vehicle belongs to the master, X.
Third, the act of taking the motor vehicle must be done with
intent to gain. In this case, the act of taking the motor
vehicle was done with intent to gain, there is animus
lucrandi. It is an internal act, the intent to gain is presumed
from the unlawful taking of the said motor vehicle.
Last element, the said taking is done without the consent
of the owner or by violence or intimidation or use of force
upon things. Here, the said act of taking the motor vehicle
was done without the consent of the master X. Therefore,
159 of 188
all the elements of carnapping are present. Z is liable for
carnapping.
Q: Z argued that he returned the vehicle. He only used
the sports car from Friday to Sunday. Therefore, there
was no intent to gain. Is Z correct?
A: NO. Intent to gain is NOT limited to pecuniary benefit. It
includes any benefit which may be derived or expected
from the act of taking. The mere use of the motor vehicle
for a road trip already gave gain on the part of Z. Therefore,
his act is attended with intent to gain. All the elements of
carnapping are present. Z is liable for carnapping under
R.A. No. 10883.
PENALTIES UNDER R.A. NO. 10883
Under R.A. No. 10883, if the act of carnapping is
committed without the consent of the owner, but without
violence against or intimidation of persons, the penalty is
20 years and 1 day to 30 years.
If the act of taking or carnapping is done with violence or
intimidation of persons, or by force upon things, the penalty
is 30 years and 1 day to 40 years.
If on the occasion of the said act of carnapping, the owner,
the driver, or the occupant of the motor vehicle is killed or
dies or is raped, the penalty is life imprisonment. Despite
the killing or the rape committed against the owner, driver,
or occupant of the motor vehicle, the crime committed is
carnapping under R.A. No. 10883, but the penalty is life
imprisonment (maximum penalty). Hence, it becomes a
non-bailable offense.
UNTALAN v. PEOPLE
FACTS: Justice Oswaldo Agcaoili owned a Toyota Hiace.
When he woke up, his Hiace was no longer in the garage.
Thus, Justice Agcaoili reported that his car was missing.
The police officers looked for the said car. Until the police
officers went to the house of Untalan, the former driver of
Justice Agcaoili, located in Cavite. The police officers
found the Toyota Hiace parked in the house of Untalan. A
case was filed against Untalan for carnapping. Is Untalan
guilty as charged?
RULING: YES. All the elements of carnapping are
present.
First, it is undisputed that the said car, the Toyota Hiace,
belongs to CA Justice Oswaldo Agcaoili. He reported it to
the police as missing from his garage where it was parked
the night before.
Second, Untalan, the former driver of Justice Agcaoili, was
found in possession of the said subject vehicle in Bacoor,
Cavite by the police operatives. They found the vehicle 3
days after it was reported as missing and Untalan could not
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
give any explanation or justification why the car was found
in his house.
Third, Untalan had intent to gain which is presumed from
the unlawful taking of the said motor vehicle. The Supreme
Court said, actual gain is immaterial, it is irrelevant. What
is important is that the act of taking was done with intent to
gain and the said intent to gain of Untalan is presumed
from the taking of the motor vehicle without permission of
Justice Agcaoili.
Lastly, the said taking was done without the consent of
Justice Agcaoili, the complainant. Therefore, all the
elements are present.
P.D. 533 - ANTI-CATTLE RUSTLING LAW
If the thing taken is large cattle, the crime committed is
Cattle Rustling under P.D. 533 or the Anti-Cattle Rustling
Law.
CATTLE RUSTLING
The act of taking any large cattle by any means, method,
or scheme, without the consent of the owner, caretaker, or
overseer thereof, with or without intent to gain, with or
without violence against or intimidation of persons or use
of force upon things. If the thing taken is large cattle, the
act committed is a violation of P.D. 533, the Anti-Cattle
Rustling Law.
The Supreme Court said that cattle rustling is NOT malum
prohibitum. Although cattle rustling is punished by P.D.
533, a special law, it is a crime malum in se because it is
an amendment to Article 310 and Article 309 of the
RPC. Under Sec. 10 of P.D. 533, it is expressly provided
that P.D. 533 amends Art. 309 and 310 of the RPC such
that when the thing taken is large cattle, it is cattle rustling,
this is an amendment to Article 310 or Qualified Theft.
If in the act of committing cattle rustling, the offender kills
or inflicts injuries on the owner, caretaker, or overseer, the
said killing or infliction of force and injury will simply
be absorbed by violation of P.D. 533 because cattle
rustling is committed with violence against or intimidation
against persons. The act of killing is within the meaning of
violence employed in the said act of taking.
Cattle rustling also includes the killing of a large cattle or
taking it as a meat or hide without the consent of the owner
or raiser. (Culled from PN 2020)
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
If the thing was taken on occasion of calamities,
earthquake, fire, typhoon, volcanic eruption, even during a
vehicular accident or any civil disturbance, the act
committed is qualified.
ESTAFA
160 of 188
There are four articles on Estafa:
a. Article 315 involving Estafa or Swindling;
b. Article 316 for other forms of swindling;
c. Article 317 swindling of a minor;
d. Article 318 for other deceits.
Whatever be the kind of Estafa, there are two general
elements present.
Two General Elements Of Estafa:
1. That the offender defrauded another by abuse
of confidence or by means of deceit;
2. That damage or prejudice which is capable of
pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended
party or to a third person.
As to the first element, it does not necessarily mean that
there must always be deceit. In lieu of deceit, Estafa can
be committed by means of abuse of confidence.
As to the second element, it is necessary that there must
be damage or prejudice caused to the offended party or to
a third person. Moreover, it is necessary that the said
damage or prejudice is capable of pecuniary estimation
because the penalty is dependent on the amount of the
damage caused.
Whatever be the kind of Estafa, there must always be the
presence of these two elements.
ARTICLE 315. SWINDLING OR ESTAFA AS AMENDED
BY R.A. NO. 10591
There are three kinds of Estafa under Article 315.
THREE KINDS OF ESTAFA UNDER ARTICLE 315
I. Estafa with Unfaithfulness or Abuse of
Authority - Article 315 (1);
II. Estafa by Means of False Pretenses or
Fraudulent Acts Executed Prior to or
Simultaneously with the Commission of the
Crime - Article 315 (2);
III. Estafa Through Fraudulent Means - Article
315 (3).
I. ESTAFA WITH UNFAITHFULNESS OR ABUSE OF
CONFIDENCE
1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:
(a) By altering the substance, quantity, or quality or
anything of value which the offender shall deliver by virtue
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
of an obligation to do so, even though such obligation be
based on an immoral or illegal consideration.
(b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of
another, money, goods, or any other personal property
received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for
administration, or under any other obligation involving the
duty to make delivery of or to return the same, even though
such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond;
or by denying having received such money, goods, or other
property.
(c) By taking undue advantage of the signature of the
offended party in blank, and by writing any document
above such signature in blank, to the prejudice of the
offended party or of any third person.
THREE PUNISHABLE ACTS:
a) By altering the substance, quantity, or quality or
anything of value which the offender shall deliver
by virtue of an obligation to do so, even though
such obligation be based on an immoral or illegal
consideration.
Elements of Article 315(1)(a)
1. That the offender has an onerous
obligation to deliver something of value,
even though such obligation is based on
an immoral or illegal consideration.
2. The said offender alters its substance, its
quantity, or its quality.
3. Damage or prejudice is caused to the
offended party.
For as long as the offender has the onerous
obligation to deliver something of value to another
person, he should not alter its quantity, its quality,
or its substance. Any alteration would bring about
a violation of Estafa under Article 315 (1)(a).
Note that under Article 315 (1)(a), it can either be
based on legal or illegal consideration. The law
does not take into consideration that it must
always be legal. Even if the consideration is
immoral or illegal, still, estafa is committed if there
is an alteration or substitution.
b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice
of another, money, goods, or any other personal
property received by the offender in trust or on
commission, or for administration, or under any
other obligation involving the duty to make delivery
of or to return the same, even though such
obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a
bond; or by denying having received such money,
goods, or other personal property.
161 of 188
Elements of Article 315(1)(b)
1. That money, goods, or other personal
property be received by the offender in
trust, or on commission, or for
administration, or under any other
obligation involving the duty to make
delivery of or to return the same;
2. That there be misappropriation or
conversion of the said money, goods, or
personal property by the person who
received it;
3. That such misappropriation or conversion
resulted to the prejudice of the offended
party.
4. That there be demand for the return of the
said money, good, or personal property.
As to the first element, for Estafa to arise under
Article 315 (1)(b) it is necessary that when the
offended party gave the said money, goods, or
personal property to the offender, and when the
offender received the said money, goods, or
personal property from the offended party, what
was received by him and what was delivered by
him was not only the physical or material
possession of the said property but both the
physical and material possession and juridical
possession of the said property.
Juridical Possession is a possession in the
concept of an owner. If only the actual or material
possession is transferred to him, upon receipt of
the said money, goods, or other personal property
and the same is misappropriated by him, the crime
committed is Theft or Qualified Theft and NOT
Estafa.
For Estafa to arise it is necessary that both physical or
material possession and juridical possession has been
received by the offender upon receipt of the money, goods,
or other personal property.
Q: X went to Y and told him, “Y I lost my job and I heard
that you are allowing your jewelry to be sold on
commission basis. Would you entrust me to sell your
jewelry? You know me to be a good person, we used
to work for the same company.” After much
consideration, Y agreed and entrusted some of his
jewelry and allowed X to sell it on commission basis.
X chose the jewelries and Y listed the jewelries X had
chosen. Y said, “All of these cost P300,000.00. You can
sell these on a commission basis. You can decide on
how much you would charge as commission over the
cost of the jewelries as long as you will return the
jewelries if unsold or give me the cost of the same
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
(sale). Based on our agreement you may sell these
jewelries on commission basis for a period of 30 days.
After 30 days, you have to return to me the jewelry you
have failed to sell, and you have to remit to me the
proceeds and cost of the jewelry minus your
commission.” Thereafter, Y gave the chosen jewelry to
X.
After a month lapsed, Y was waiting for X to return the
jewelry unsold or to remit the proceeds of the sale, but
no X arrived in the house. Thus, Y gave X a call saying,
“The 30th day was yesterday, where are the jewelries?
Where are the proceeds from the sale of the jewelry?”
X replied, “Yes, I was about to go to your house
yesterday and today, but I have an important visitor.
Expect me to be there tomorrow. I have already sold
all the jewelry. I would be giving to you the exact
amount of P300,000.00 having subtracted my
commission from the total sales.” Y said that he would
be waiting for X. The following day, Y waited for the
arrival of X, but he did not arrive. Y gave X another call,
but X would no longer pick up the phone. Y sent
messages through text messages and social media
accounts, but X did not reply.
Y is mad so he filed a case for Estafa under Article 315-
1(b) – Estafa through Misappropriation or Conversion
against X. X’s defense was that Y’s case will not lie
against him because he did not receive any formal
written demand from Y. Is X liable for the crime of
Estafa?
A: X is liable for the crime of estafa under Article 315-
1(b) because all the elements are present.
First, Y delivered the said jewelry to X. When Y delivered
the said jewelries to X for sale on commission basis, what
Y transferred to X was not only the material or physical
possession of the said jewelry but also the juridical
possession of the said jewelry. For a period of one (1)
month, X has a better right over the said jewelries than that
of the owner Y. Therefore, what has been transferred to
him was juridical possession.
Second, X misappropriated the said jewelry. He failed to
return the said jewelry and the proceeds of the sale.
Third, this prejudiced Y in the amount of P300,000. The
first three (3) elements were present but the contention of
X is that the fourth element is not present as there was no
demand. He did not receive any demand letter.
The Supreme Court said that under Article 315-1(b),
demand may come in any form. It is not required under
Article 315-1(b) that demand be a formal written demand.
Demand may come in any form. In fact, according to the
Supreme Court, demand is not necessary if there is a clear
and convincing evidence that the accused already
misappropriated, appropriated, or converted the said
money, goods, or personal property.
162 of 188
In this case, it is evident that X already misappropriated the
said jewelry. Therefore, demand is not even necessary.
Under Article 315-1(b), demand is immaterial whether it is
in writing, via phone call, or personal. There is no requisite
that is should be in a formal written demand.
Q: X was the principal in an elementary school. He was
asked by the head of school, aside from being the
principal, to receive the matriculation fees paid by the
students. He was entrusted to receive these
matriculation fees. Thus, the parents were paying to
the said principal. Thereafter, the principal failed to go
to work. When he failed to go the work, the
management of the school tried to conduct an audit on
the money that he has received and it was discovered
that he did not remit to the school all the matriculation
fees that he received and collected from the parents
and the students. Although the said offender is
obligated and instructed to forward all payments to the
school, he failed to do so and went on leave of
absence. Because of that, he was charged with the
crime of Estafa under Article 315-1(b). Is the charge
correct?
A: NO, the charge is wrong. The proper charge should
be is Qualified Theft. It is not estafa under Article 315-1(b).
In this case, X aside from being principal, was merely
designated as the temporary custodian of the said school
matriculation fees. What was given to X was only the
physical and material possession of the said school
matriculation fees. He was the one who collected the said
fees and he was obligated to remit it to the school
authorities. Therefore, being the temporary custodian,
what he acquires is only the physical or material
possession of the said unremitted funds and not the
juridical possession of the said unremitted funds. Hence,
the crime committed is not Estafa, the crime committed is
Qualified Theft.
Q: The mother went to a store that sells secondhand
laptops. The store owner saw her and asked her what
he can do for her. The mother told him that she needs
two (2) secondhand laptops. The storeowner showed
here around and told her that they have a policy in their
store that she can choose the laptop that she wants
and bring it home for trial purposes. However, she has
to return it within seven (7) days if she is not buying it.
If she fails to return it within seven (7) days, then it
means she is buying it and she needs to pay the price.
Thus, the mother chose two (2) laptops, and she
brought them home. The seven-day trial period lapsed
and she did not return the laptops. The owner of the
store called her and asked where are the laptops or the
money. The mother said that she is going to give the
laptops back. However, days passed, the laptops were
not returned and no money were paid. Because of this,
the owner of the store filed a case of Estafa under
Article 315-1(b) – Estafa through Misappropriation or
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
Conversion against the said mother. Is the said woman
liable as charged?
A: NO, the woman is not liable. The first element is
absent.
Under the first element, it is necessary that when the said
laptop was transferred to the mother, what has been
transferred would be the juridical possession of the said
property. Hence, she has the obligation to remit, to give
back, and to return the said laptop to owner of the store.
Based on their agreement, if the laptop was returned within
seven (7) days, she is not buying it; if the laptop was not
returned after seven (7) days, it means that she is buying
it and she has to pay it. Seven (7) days have lapse and
she did not return the laptop. Therefore, what has been
transferred to her is not only the juridical and material
possession of the laptop but ownership of the laptop. She
was already deemed to have bought the laptop based on
the agreement. Therefore, the obligation of the mother to
return the laptop is not criminal in nature but civil in nature
to pay for the value of the said laptop because what was
transferred to her was already the ownership of the laptop
upon the lapse of seven (7) days.
c) By taking undue advantage of the signature of the
offended party in blank, and by writing any
document above such signature in blank, to the
prejudice of the offended party or of any third
person.
Elements of Article 315(1)(c)
1. The paper with the signature of the
offended party is in blank;
2. Offended party delivered it to the offender;
3. Above the signature of the offended party,
a document is written by the offender
without authority to do so;
4. The document so written creates a liability
of, or causes damage to, the offended
party or any third person.
II. ESTAFA BY MEANS OF FALSE PRETENSES OR
FRAUDULENT ACTS EXECUTED PRIOR TO OR
SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE COMMISSION OF
FRAUD (ART. 315 [2])
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or
fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud:
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to
possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit,
agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means
of other similar deceits.
163 of 188
(b) By altering the quality, fineness or weight of anything
pertaining to his art or business.
(c) By pretending to have bribed any Government
employee, without prejudice to the action for calumny
which the offended party may deem proper to bring against
the offender. In this case, the offender shall be punished
by the maximum period of the penalty.
(d) By post-dating a check, or issuing a check in payment
of an obligation when the offender therein were not
sufficient to cover the amount of the check. The failure of
the drawer of the check to deposit the amount necessary
to cover his check within three (3) days from receipt of
notice from the bank and/or the payee or holder that said
check has been dishonored for lack of insufficiency of
funds shall be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting
false pretense or fraudulent act. (As amended by R.A.
4885, approved June 17, 1967.)
(e) By obtaining any food, refreshment or accommodation
at a hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house, lodging house,
or apartment house and the like without paying therefor,
with intent to defraud the proprietor or manager thereof, or
by obtaining credit at hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding
house, lodging house, or apartment house by the use of
any false pretense, or by abandoning or surreptitiously
removing any part of his baggage from a hotel, inn,
restaurant, boarding house, lodging house or apartment
house after obtaining credit, food, refreshment or
accommodation therein without paying for his food,
refreshment or accommodation.
In order for estafa to arise, it is necessary that the act of
false pretense must be simultaneous with the act of
deprivation. Were it not for the false pretense on the part
of the offender, the offended party would not have parted
with his money, goods, or other personal property. Thus, it
is necessary that the false pretense must be in
concomitance or simultaneous with the act of deprivation.
Otherwise, estafa is not committed.
FIVE PUNISHABLE ACTS:
a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to
possess power, influence, qualifications, property,
credit, agency, business or imaginary
transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.
That is the false pretense that must be in
concomitance with the act of deprivation.
Q: X learned that A, B, and C wanted to work in a
foreign land. So, X went to the boarding house of A, B,
and C and represented to them that he has a
recruitment and placement agency that can bring them
to work in Canada. Because of the good words coming
from X, A, B, and C believed. X said that it is only
possible if all of them will give the amount of Php
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
50,000 pesos as placement fee, inclusive of
everything. According to X, A, B, and C will not do
anything, everything will be handed to them and the
only thing that X will say to them was the date of their
departure from the Philippines. Since A, B, and C
believed X, they gave him Php 50,000 each. However,
X did not come back to the said boarding house and
A, B, and C never left the Philippines. What crime/s
may be filed against X?
A: X may be charged of Estafa by means of False
Pretense under Article 315-2(a) and he may also be
charged with Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale.
X is liable of Estafa by means of False Pretense under
Article 315-2(a) because were it not for his false
representation that he has the placement and recruitment
agency that can bring A, B, and C to work in Canada, A, B,
and C would not have parted with their Php 50,000. The
false pretense was simultaneous with the act of defrauding
A, B, and C. Therefore, X will be liable for Estafa by means
of False Pretense under Article 315-2(a).
X is liable for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale. In Illegal
Recruitment in Large Scale, if illegal recruitment is
committed against three (3) or more persons, the offender
shall be liable for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale.
Q: In the same problem, when X did not anymore
return to the boarding house, A, B, and C tried to
search and went to the POEA website and found that
X’s recruitment and placement agency is legal and that
X indeed has a legitimate recruitment and placement
agency. They were asking themselves how come he
did not return to fulfill his promise to them that they
will be able to go and work in Canada. A, B, and C filed
a case of Estafa by means of False Pretense against X.
Is X liable as charged despite the fact that he has
indeed a legitimate, valid, and registered recruitment
and placement agency?
A: YES, X is still liable. It is immaterial whether X has a
valid and legitimate recruitment and placement agency.
The fact is were it not for his false pretense or
representation that he can bring A, B, and C to work in
Canada, the three persons would not have parted with their
hard-earned Php50,000. It is immaterial whether his
recruitment agency is licensed or registered.
SYNDICATED ESTAFA
Elements of Syndicated Estafa
1. Any act of Estafa under Article 315 or 316 is
committed;
2. It is committed by group of five (5) persons acting
as a syndicate;
3. The defraudation consists in the misappropriation
of money contributed by the stockholders or
members of the corporation, rural banks,
164 of 188
cooperatives, "samahang nayon(s)", or farmers'
associations, or of funds solicited by
corporations/associations from the general public.
Q: A, B, C, D, and E graduated from college and they
all come from wealthy family and wanted to put up an
investment corporation. A, B, C, D, and E combined
their funds and they put up their investment
corporation. But for the company to grow and stay,
they needed investors. Thus, they tried to look for
investors. They went to this Barangay wherein they
know that many people have already retired. With the
help of the Barangay Captain, they said that they
needed an audience to invite the people to invest in
their newly formed corporation. The Barangay Captain
obliged to their request and the Barangay Captain
gathered their constituents.
On that day, A, B, C, D, and E went in the covered court
and discussed their newly formed investment
corporation to the constituents of the Barangay
Captain. They guaranteed them immediate return of
the amount of investment and 50% net profits/interest
on the amount invested, telling the people that no bank
on earth can give them such interest, only them
because they have the funds. Because of their good
words, 21 constituents of the Barangay Chairman
invested in the said corporation. They were given
certificate of investments, and after being given such,
these people were also given postdated cheques,
representing their 50% proceeds of the investment.
However, on the maturity date of the said cheques,
these 21 people deposited their cheques to the bank
but were dishonored. They sent the notice of dishonor
to A, B, C, D, and E, but the said notice of dishonor was
returned to sender because of wrong address. What
crime/s should be filed against A, B, C, D, and E?
A: A, B, C, D, and E should be charged with 21 counts
of syndicated estafa. All the elements of syndicated
estafa are present.
First element, that the offender committed any of the acts
of Estafa under Article 315 or Article 316. In this case, A,
B, C, D, and E committed estafa under Article 315-2(a) -
Estafa by means of False Pretense. Were it not for their
good words and promises, the 21 people would not have
parted with their money. Therefore, the false pretense was
in concomitance with the act of deprivation.
Second element, the offender must be a syndicate
consisting of five (5) or more persons. They are five
persons, the law deems that they are a syndicate.
Third element, the deprivation must consist in the
misappropriation of money contributed by
stockholders/members of corporation, rural bank, farmer’s
association, or money solicited by corporation or
association from the general public. In this case, these
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
money were solicited from the general public, the 21
persons.
Q: In the same problem, A, B, C, D, and E formed this
corporation. They used their funds, they formed their
investment corporation, and the next target is they
have to have their investors. They could not find any,
they tried to look in the internet, until they found this
person in the name of W. W just won in the lotto and
everyone on social media knew it because he posted
his video saying that he won in the lotto. A, B, C, D,
and E knew their target. They went to the house of W
and enticed W to invest in their corporation. W was
enticed and so he invested. Since W won Php 200
million, W invested Php 50 million. True enough, the
postdated cheques representing the 50% proceeds of
of the Php 50 milion were issued. Because of that, W
was enticed to invest more so he increased his
investment to Php 100 million. Again, the postdated
cheques representing the 50% proceeds of the Php 50
million was a good check. W craved for more and he
invested his entire lotto winnings amounting to Php
200 million. When he deposited the cheques
representing the profits, the cheque bounced. He sent
notice of dishonor to A, B, C, D, and E. However, the
said notice of dishonor was returned to the sender. He
then filed a case of Syndicated Estafa against A, B, C,
D, and E. Are A, B, C, D, and E liable for syndicated
estafa?
A: NO. A, B, C, D, and E are not liable for syndicated estafa
because the thrd element of such crime is absent.
The first element is present, the offenders committed any
of the acts of estafa under Article 315 and Article 316, is
present. In this case, A, B, C, D, and E committed estafa
under Article 315-2(a).
Second element, the offender must be consisting of five (5)
or more persons, which in this case is present.
The third element, that the said money or deprivation must
consist in misappropriation solicited by the corporation or
association from the general public, is absent.
In Hao v. People, the Supreme Court said that one victim,
one offended party is not a representative of the general
public. Therefore, the Supreme Court downgraded the
crime to Estafa under Article 315-2(a) - Estafa by means
of False Pretense. It is not syndicated estafa because if the
victim is only one, the Supreme Court said that such victim
does not represent the general public.
b) By altering the quality, fitness, or weight of
anything pertaining to his art or business.
c) By pretending to have bribed a Government
employee.
d) By postdating a check or issuing a check in
payment of an obligation when the offender had no
165 of 188
funds in the bank or his funds deposited therein
were not sufficient to cover the amount of the
check.
Elements of Article 315(2)(d)
1. That a check has been drawn or
postdated in payment of an obligation
contracted at the time of the issuance of
the check;
2. That the said check has no sufficient
funds; and
3. The said check was dishonored, and the
payee sustains damage.
In order to constitute Estafa under Article 315-2(d),
it is necessary that the act of postdating, the act of
issuing a check in payment of an obligation must
be the efficient cause of the deprivation. It should
be either prior to or simultaneous with the act of
deprivation. The false pretense in the issuance of
the check must be either prior to or simultaneous
with the act of deprivation. Otherwise, Estafa
under Article 315-2(d) will not lie against the said
accused.
Q: X bought materials from Y. Y said that he can only
sell materials on cash basis. X said that he has no
cash. Thus, Y said that he cannot sell to him. But X was
persistent and told Y that although he has no cash, he
has a postdated check and gave Y his word that the
check will be funded on its maturity date. Y believed
the words of X so he took the postdated check and
gave X the materials needed. On the maturity date of
the check, when Y deposited the check, the check
bounced. Y sent a notice of dishonor to X. Despite
receipt of the notice of dishonor, X didn’t make good
of the check. Despite the lapse of three (3) banking
days, X did not make good of the check. What case/s
may Y file against X?
A: Y can file the cases of Estafa by Postdating a Check
under Article 315-2(d) and violation of B.P. 22. There is
Estafa by postdating a check under Article 315-2(d)
because the said act of false pretense in issuing a check
which has no funds is prior to or simultaneous with the act
of deprivation. Were it not for X’s assurance to Y that the
check will be funded, Y will not get the check and give the
materials to X. Therefore, Estafa by Postdating a Check
under Article 315-2(d) is committed.
Likewise, a violation of B.P. 22 is committed. The said
postdated checks was issued to Y and the said check
bounced and was dishonored when it was deposited.
Therefore, X is liable for violation of B.P. 22.
Q: X obtained a loan from Y. X issued a postdated
check. After a month, when Y deposited the check, the
check bounced. Y sent a notice of dishonor to X,
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
despite the lapse of three (3) days, despite the lapse of
five (5) banking days, X failed to make good of the While notice of dishonor is not an element of the said
check. What crime is committed by X? What case/s crimes, it is material because it is only upon receipt of the
may Y file against X? same that the drawer is given the chance to make good on
the check. If the drawer made good on the check within 3
A: Y can only file one case against X and that is or 5 days, as the case may be, the drawer is not liable for
violation of B.P. 22. This time, there is no estafa by Estafa or BP 22.
postdating a check because if a check was issued in
payment of a pre-existing obligation, it cannot be said that BOUNCING CHECKS LAW (B.P. 22)
the false pretense in the issuance of the check is
simultaneous with the act of deprivation. Estafa by
Postdating a check will not apply if the check is issued in ACTS PUNISHED
payment of a pre-existing obligation because the false
pretense is no longer simultaneous with the act of I. Making or drawing and issuance of a check knowing
deprivation. at the time of the issue that the offender does not
have sufficient funds in the bank.
ESTAFA BY POSTDATING A CHECK v. B.P. 22
The drawer of the check knew that at the time of
ESTAFA BY the issuance of the check, he has no funds in the
POSTDATING A B.P. 22 bank.
CHECK
II. The failing to give sufficient funds are credit with
The check was issued Liability occurred even in
concurrently, reciprocally payment of a pre-existing the drawee bank such that when the check presented
in payment of the obligation. within the period of 90 days from the date appearing
exchanged consideration. on the check, it was dishonored by the bank.
Damage and deceit are Damage and deceit are
At the time of the issuance of the check, the drawer
essential elements. immaterial.
has funds in the bank, however, the crime will arise
Crime against property. Crime against public
interest. because he failed to make good the check or he
The drawer is given three The drawer of the check is failed to keep such sufficient funds to the said
(3) days from the receipt given five (5) banking drawee bank within the period of 90 days such that
of notice of dishonor to days to make good of the when the check was deposited within 90 days, it
make good of the check. check. was dishonored by the drawee bank.
Malum in se Malum prohibitum
Q: X went to Y. X has an obligation to Y so he issued a
In case of Estafa under Article 315-1(b) – Estafa through postdated check in favor of Y. Y opened his drawer and
Misappropriation or Conversion, demand may come in any Y placed the check inside. Y is a busy man so he forgot
about the check. 152 days thereafter, he remembered
form – formal written demand, oral demand, phone
demand, messages demand. that he has a check stashed in his drawer. Y
immediately took the check and went to the bank to
deposit the check. However, the check was
However, in case of violation of B.P. 22, there must be
dishonored by the drawee bank, it was account closed.
evidence that accused received a formal written demand
coming from the said private offended party. It is necessary Because of this, Y sent a notice of dishonor to X. X
for the accused to receive a formal written demand coming received it and didn’t mind it. Y sent a second notice
from the private complaint because it is upon receipt by the of dishonor to X and a written formal demand letter. X
didn’t mind it and said that Y cannot file a case of
drawer of the check of the said formal written demand
violation of B.P. 22 against him because if ever he
saying that his check has been dishonored that the 5 days
closes the account, if ever the check bounced, it is
begin to run. It is from the date of receipt that he is given
five (5) banking days by the law within which to make good because of Y. X said that he kept the funds for a period
a check. If he failed to make good a check, five (5) of 90 days, but Y deposited it beyond 90 days.
banking days from the time he received this notice of Therefore, the fault is on Y. Is the argument of X
dishonor, then he becomes liable for violation of B.P. meritorious?
22. If within the five (5) banking days, he made
A: No, the argument of X is not meritorious. Even if Y
arrangements in order to pay the check, violation of B.P.
22 will not lie against him. failed to deposit the check within 90 days, for as long as
the check was deposited within 180 days before the check
becomes a stale check and the check bounced because of
DEMAND: Unlike in Art. 315 1(b) where demand may be
in any form, demand in estafa by postdating a check and insufficient funds, because of account closed, the drawer
in BP 22, demand, notice of dishonor, must always be in can still be liable for violation of B.P. 22. The 90-day period
writing. in the law is only for the prima facie presumption of
insufficiency of funds. If the check was deposited within 90

166 of 188
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
days and the check bounced, the law presumes the drawer
of the check knows that he has no funds in the bank.
There is that prima facie presumption of knowledge of
insufficiency of funds. But the prosecution can prove that
knowledge of insufficiency of funds through other means
or form, even if the check was deposited beyond 90 days
for as long it is not yet a stale check and it bounced, there
is still violation of BP 22.
PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF KNOWLEDGE OF
INSUFFICIENCY OF FUNDS
The making, drawing, and issuance of a check payment of
which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient
funds in or credit with such bank, when presented within
ninety (90) days from the date of the check, shall constitute
prima facie knowledge of insufficiency of funds.
Therefore, for the prima facie of knowledge of
insufficiency of funds to arise, the following are the
elements or the requisites:
1. The check must be deposited within 90 days
from the date appearing on the check;
2. That the drawer of the check received a notice
of dishonor either from the bank or from the
payee or holder of the check;
3. The drawer of the check failed to make good
of the check within 5 banking days.
No prima facie knowledge of insufficiency of funds
1. The drawer of the check received a notice of
dishonor within five (5) days, he deposited the
amount in the bank to cover the check, there will
arise no prima facie evidence of knowledge of
insufficiency of funds;
2. Within five (5) banking days, he went to the bank
and made arrangement for the amount necessary
to cover the check.
PENALTIES, SC-A.C. No. 12-2000
It is stated in SC-A.C. No. 12-2000 that in lieu of
imprisonment, the penalty to be imposed in violation of BP
22 should only be fine, that is, if based on the facts and
circumstances of the offense and the offender, the check
was issued in good faith or under mere mistake of fact
without any taint of negligence. SC said that the
appropriate penalty should be fine in lieu of imprisonment.
Because of this SC-AC No. 12-2000, many MTC judges
thought that imprisonment is no longer a penalty for
violation of BP 22. They thought that now, the penalty for
violation of BP 22 is only fine. Because of this
misunderstanding on the part of MTC judges, the SC has
167 of 188
to issue another administrative circular, the SC-A.C. No.
13-2001 in order to clarify SC-A.C. No. 12-2000.
SC-A.C. No. 13-2001
The SC made the following clarifications:
1. The SC-A.C. No. 12-2000 does not remove
imprisonment as an alternative penalty for
violation of BP 22. Therefore, imprisonment is still
a penalty for violation of BP 22.
2. What SC-A.C. No. 12-2000 only establishes is a
rule of preference on the imposition of the penalty
such that if the offender acted in good faith or
under mere mistake of fact without any taint of
negligence, the appropriate penalty is fine in lieu
of imprisonment.
3. The SC said if the penalty imposed by the court is
fine only, and the said offender or drawer of the
check is insolvent to pay the fine, then there is no
legal obstacle for the imposition of subsidiary
imprisonment under Art. 39 of Book I of RPC.
In case of violation of BP 22, the Supreme Court issued
Administrative Circulars 12-2000 and 13-2001 because
when the SC first issued it, the MTC Judges for cases
involving violation of B.P. 22, regardless of the amount,
thought that they can no longer impose penalty of
imprisonment, that they can only impose the penalty of
fine.
Thus, the SC issued the next circular, SAC-AC. 13-2001.
According to the SC, the said circulars does not intend to
erase imprisonment as an alternative penalty in case of
violation of BP 22. Imprisonment remains to be a
penalty in violation of BP 22.
What they are saying is that in the administrative circular,
there is a rule of preference in the imposition of penalty
such that when the drawer of the check acted in good faith,
under clear mistake of fact, instead of imprisonment, the
judge may impose a fine. The SC established that there
is only a rule of preference in the imposition of penalty
but imprisonment remains to be a penalty in case of
violation of BP 22. Fair enough, the SC does not have the
power to erase imprisonment as a penalty. Only congress
has that power, not the SC.
e) By obtaining any food, refreshment or
accommodation at a hotel, inn, restaurant,
boarding house, lodging house, or apartment
house and the like without paying therefor, with
intent to defraud the proprietor or manager thereof,
OR by obtaining credit at a hotel, inn, restaurant,
boarding house, lodging house, or apartment
house by the use of any false pretense, OR by
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
abandoning or surreptitiously removing any part of
his baggage from a hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding
house, lodging house or apartment house after
obtaining credit, food, refreshment or
accommodation therein without paying for his
food, refreshment or accommodation.
III. ESTAFA THROUGH FRAUDULENT MEANS (ART.
315 [3])
3. Through any of the following fraudulent means:
(a) By inducing another, by means of deceit, to sign any
document.
(b) By resorting to some fraudulent practice to insure
success in a gambling game.
(c) By removing, concealing or destroying, in whole or in
part, any court record, office files, document or any other
papers.
ACTS PUNISHED
a) By inducing another, by means of deceit, to sign
any document;
b) By resorting to some fraudulent practice to insure
success in a gambling game; and
c) By removing, concealing, or destroying, in whole
or in part, any court record, office files, document,
or any other papers.
ARTICLE 316. OTHER FORMS OF SWINDLING
Article 316. Other forms of swindling. - The penalty of
arresto mayor in its minimum and medium period and a
fine of not less than the value of the damage caused and
not more than three times such value, shall be imposed
upon:
1. Any person who, pretending to be owner of any real
property, shall convey, sell, encumber or mortgage the
same.
2. Any person, who, knowing that real property is
encumbered, shall dispose of the same, although such
encumbrance be not recorded.
3. The owner of any personal property who shall wrongfully
take it from its lawful possessor, to the prejudice of the
latter or any third person.
4. Any person who, to the prejudice of another, shall
execute any fictitious contract.
5. Any person who shall accept any compensation given
him under the belief that it was in payment of services
168 of 188
rendered or labor performed by him, when in fact he did
not actually perform such services or labor.
6. Any person who, while being a surety in a bond given in
a criminal or civil action, without express authority from the
court or before the cancellation of his bond or before being
relieved from the obligation contracted by him, shall sell,
mortgage, or, in any other manner, encumber the real
property or properties with which he guaranteed the
fulfillment of such obligation.
OTHER FORMS OF SWINDLING CAN BE COMMITTED
BY THE FOLLOWING:
a) Any person who, pretending to be owner of any
real property, shall convey, sell, encumber or
mortgage the same.
b) Any person, who, knowing that real property is
encumbered, shall dispose of the same, although
such encumbrance be not recorded.
c) The owner of any personal property who shall
wrongfully take it from its lawful possessor, to the
prejudice of the latter or any third person.
d) Any person who, to the prejudice of another, shall
execute any fictitious contract.
e) Any person who shall accept any compensation
given him under the belief that it was in payment
of services rendered or labor performed by him,
when in fact he did not actually perform such
services or labor.
f) Any person who, while being a surety in a bond
given in a criminal or civil action, without express
authority from the court or before the cancellation
of his bond or before being relieved from the
obligation contracted by him, shall sell, mortgage,
or, in any other manner, encumber the real
property or properties with which he guaranteed
the fulfillment of such obligation.
ARTICLE 317. SWINDLING A MINOR
Article 317. Swindling a minor. - Any person who taking
advantage of the inexperience or emotions or feelings of a
minor, to his detriment, shall induce him to assume any
obligation or to give any release or execute a transfer of
any property right in consideration of some loan of money,
credit or other personal property, whether the loan clearly
appears in the document or is shown in any other form,
shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor and a fine of a sum
ranging from 10 to 50 per cent of the value of the obligation
contracted by the minor.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
ARTICLE 318. OTHER DECEITS
Article 318. Other deceits. - The penalty of arresto mayor
and a fine of not less than the amount of the damage
caused and not more than twice such amount shall be
imposed upon any person who shall defraud or damage
another by any other deceit not mentioned in the preceding
articles of this chapter.
Any person who, for profit or gain, shall interpret dreams,
make forecasts, tell fortunes, or take advantage of the
credulity of the public in any other similar manner, shall
suffer the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding
200 pesos.
Who is liable?
a) Any person who, for profit or gain, shall interpret
dreams, make forecasts, tell fortunes, or take
advantage of the credulity of the public in any other
similar manner;
b) If the offender commits any act of swindling, any
act of deprivation not punishable under Art. 315,
316 and 317, it is punishable under Art. 318 –
Other Deceits.
ARTICLE 319. REMOVAL, SALE OR PLEDGE OF
MORTGAGED PROPERTY
Article 319. Removal, sale or pledge of mortgaged
property. - The penalty or arresto mayor or a fine
amounting to twice the value of the property shall be
imposed upon:
1. Any person who shall knowingly remove 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 the execution of the mortgage,
without the written consent of the mortgagee, or his
executors, administrators or assigns.
2. Any mortgagor who shall sell or pledge 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 hereof in the office of the Register of
Deeds of the province where such property is located.
ARTICLE 320. DESTRUCTIVE ARSON
Arson is the malicious destruction of the property by means
of fire.
TWO KINDS OF ARSON:
1. Destructive arson; or
2. Simple Arson under PD 1613.
169 of 188
The classification of Arson into destructive and simple
arson is based on the character and location of the
property burned regardless of the value of the property.
Whatever the kind of arson, there are two general
elements of arson.
General Elements of Arson:
1. Corpus delicti, which is a fire by reason of criminal
agency.
2. The identity of the accused as the one responsible
for the fire.
PEOPLE v. MALNGAN
G.R. No. 170470 | 26 September 2006
The Supreme Court said there is no complex crime of
arson with homicide even if in the course of burning the
house, property, dwelling, building of another, someone is
killed. The reason given by the Supreme Court is that
Article 320 of the Revised Penal Code, with respect to
destructive arson, and PD 1613, with respect to simple
arson, provide only one penalty for the commission of
arson whether considered as destructive or simple when
death results. According to the Supreme Court, arson is
itself the end and the death is simply a consequence.
Therefore, there is no complex crime of arson with
homicide.
Under Article 320 in case of destructive arson, the law
provides that if as a consequence of the commission of
any of the acts constituting arson, death results,
the mandatory penalty of death shall be imposed.
On the other hand, under Sec. 5 of PD 1613, simple arson,
the law provides that if by reason of or on the occasion of
the arson death results, the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua
to death shall be imposed.
Therefore, very clear, whether it is destructive arson or
simple arson, if death results by reason of the destructive
arson or simple arson, a complex crime will not arise, the
said death is simply absorbed, its effect is only to increase
the imposable penalty. Reason is arson is itself the end
and death is simply the consequence.
If a crime results by means of fire, you have to know
the intent of the offender. If the house is burned because
the offender intended to destroy the property of another,
and in the course thereof someone is killed inside without
the knowledge of the offender, the crime committed is
arson – simple arson, destructive arson and the fact of
death is simply absorbed.
If, however, the intent of the offender is to kill the victim
who is inside his house, in order to kill him, he burned the
house, the crime committed is murder because the killing
is done by means of fire.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
The SC cited the third example, if the offender killed the
victim, and after killing the victim the said offender brought
the deceased body of the victim inside the house and set
the house on fire to conceal the said act of killing, there are
two crimes committed: one is murder for having killed the
victim and the other one is arson for burning the house
after placing the deceased victim in order to conceal the
crime.
These are the three examples given by the SC in the case
People vs. Malngan wherein the SC said that it depends
on the intent of the said offender as to what is the crime
committed.
PEOPLE v. SORIA
G.R. No. 248372 | 27 August 2020
In People vs. Soria (2020), penned by our very own former
CJ Diosdado Peralta, when the house was burned and a
helper who was sleeping inside was burned to death, the
accused is liable for arson with homicide. But he did not
state the reason why it is arson with homicide. He just
stated in the end the accused is liable for arson with
homicide but there is no explanation why it is arson with
homicide. So I will still stay in the En Banc case of People
vs. Malngan that the crime committed is arson, only that
the penalty is increased, the said death is simply absorbed,
the effect is only to increase the imposable penalty.
PEOPLE v. PUGAL
G.R. No. 229103 | 15 March 2021
Q: There is this grocery store licensed to sell
firecrackers and pyrotechnics. The sons of the owner,
brothers A and B were manning the store, and
suddenly here comes X and Y. X and Y arrived on
board a motorcycle. When X and Y arrived, X remained
seated on the motorcycle, while Y went inside the
store. X, who remained outside seated on the
motorcycle, lighted the fuse of a mother rocket or
kwitis. Tereafter, X threw the said kwitis on the other
firecrackers at display on the said store. Because of
that, the said store exploded. The said store was
totally raged by fire and the owner by the name of C
was killed inside .
What crime/s is/are committed by X?
A: In the case of People v. Pugal 2021, the Supreme court
said that the crime committed is Destructive Arson.
SC: Under Art. 320 of the RPC, as amended by RA 7659,
the law punishes as destructive arson the malicious
burning of things, whether public or private, including a
storehouse or factory of inflammable or explosive materials
by any person.
In arson, the corpus delicti is proof of the fire’s occurrence
and the offender’s criminal intent.
170 of 188
In this case, X’s intent to burn the said store is evident by
his act of throwing the kuwitis and thereafter, throwing it on
the firecrackers on display at the store. Obviously, X
intended to burn the store, resulting to the death of its
owner. Thus, the crime committed is destructive arson.
Q: X went to the rest house of Y, his mortal enemy. X
wanted to get even with Y. To get even with Y, he
decided to burn down the rest house of Y. X poured
gasoline on the walls of the rest house of Y. However,
when X was about to light the match, Z, the caretaker
arrived. Hence, X, upon seeing Z, immediately fled. He
failed to burn the rest house.
X was charged with frustrated arson. Is the charge
correct?
A: NO. A charge of frustrated arson is improper because
the crime of arson has no frustrated stage – it is either
consummated or attempted.
Arson is consummated when any part of the property has
been burned. Arson is attempted when the burning was
stopped or prevented due to some cause or accident other
than the offender’s spontaneous desistance.
In this case, X was stopped from burning the rest house of
Y by the arrival of Z, the caretaker. Therefore, the crime
committed by X is attempted arson, and NOT frustrated
arson.
ARTICLE 327. MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
Article 327. Who are liable for malicious mischief. - Any
person who shall deliberately cause the property of
another any damage not falling within the terms of the next
preceding chapter shall be guilty of malicious mischief.
Under Art. 327, any person who shall deliberately cause
the property of another any damage not constituting arson
shall be guilty of malicious mischief.
Malicious mischief is a crime which requires deliberate
intent because the law says “deliberately cause”.
Therefore, there must be a deliberate intent on the part of
the offended party to damage the property of another. If
there is no deliberate intent, then the crime committed
cannot be malicious mischief.
Elements of Malicious Mischief
1. That another property was damaged;
2. That the damage was deliberately caused;
3. That the damage does not constitute the crime of
arson.
Just like mutilation, malicious mischief requires deliberate
intent.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
ARTICLE 328. SPECIAL CASES OF MALICOUS
MISCHIEF
Article 328. Special cases of malicious mischief. - Any
person who shall cause damage to obstruct the
performance of public functions, or using any poisonous or
corrosive substance; or spreading any infection or
contagion among cattle; or who cause 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, shall be
punished:
1. By prision correccional in its minimum and medium
periods, if the value of the damage caused exceeds 1,000
pesos;
2. By arresto mayor, if such value does not exceed the
abovementioned amount but it is over 200 pesos; and
3. By arresto menor, in such value does not exceed 200
pesos.
ACTS PUNISHED
1. Causing damage to obstruct the performance of
public functions;
2. Using any poisonous or corrosive substance;
3. Spreading any infection or contagion among
cattle;
4. Causing damage to the property of the National
Museum or National Library, or to any archive or
registry, waterworks, road, promenade, or any
other thing used in common by the public.
ARTICLE 329. OTHER MISCHIEFS
Article 329. Other mischiefs. - The mischiefs not included
in the next preceding article shall be punished:
1. By arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods,
if the value of the damage caused exceeds 1,000 pesos;
2. By arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if
such value is over 200 pesos but does not exceed 1,000
pesos; and
3. By arresto menor or fine of not less than the value of the
damage caused and not more than 200 pesos, if the
amount involved does not exceed 200 pesos or cannot be
estimated.
ARTICLE 330. DAMAGE AND OBSTRUCTION TO
MEANS OF COMMUNICATION
Article 330. Damage and obstruction to means of
communication. - The penalty of prision correccional in its
medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon any
person who shall damage any railway, telegraph or
telephone lines.
171 of 188
If the damage shall result in any derailment of cars,
collision or other accident, the penalty of prision mayor
shall be imposed, without prejudice to the criminal liability
of the offender for the other consequences of his criminal
act.
For the purpose of the provisions of the article, the electric
wires, traction cables, signal system and other things
pertaining to railways, shall be deemed to constitute an
integral part of a railway system.
ARTICLE 331.
Article 331. Destroying or damaging statues, public
monuments or paintings. - Any person who shall destroy or
damage statues or any other useful or ornamental public
monument shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its
medium period to prision correccional in its minimum
period.
Any person who shall destroy or damage any useful or
ornamental painting of a public nature shall suffer the
penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200
pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment, in the
discretion of the court.
ARTICLE 332. PERSONS EXEMPT
FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Article 332. Persons exempt from criminal liability. - No
criminal, but only civil liability, shall result from the
commission of the crime of theft, swindling or malicious
mischief committed or caused mutually by the following
persons:
1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by
affinity in the same line.
2. The widowed spouse with respect to the property which
belonged to the deceased spouse before the same shall
have passed into the possession of another; and
3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-
law, if living together.
The exemption established by this article shall not be
applicable to strangers participating in the commission of
the crime.
Q: X was charged with the complex crime of Estafa
through Falsification of Public Document. Before
arraignment, X moved for the dismissal of the case.
According to X, the private complainant in this case,
Y, is his very own father. Further, his relationship with
the private complainant, being his very own father, is
an absolutory cause under Art. 332 in the crime of
estafa. Therefore, X moved that the crime of estafa
through falsification of public document filed against
him by his very own father be dismissed.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
If a stranger conspired with the relatives, the said
If you were the judge, would you grant or deny X’s stranger will not be absolved because relationship is
motion to dismiss? personal to the relative.

A: The said motion to dismiss must be denied. X’s When you say spouses, it does not only mean those who
argument has no merit. are legally married. It includes mistresses, concubines,
and paramours.
Art. 332 provides for absolutory cause in the crimes of
theft, swindling, and malicious mischief. However, Art. 332 When you say ascendants and descendants, it even
limits the responsibility of the offender to civil liability only includes step-parents because according to the law, the
in these crimes and free him from criminal liability if they purpose is to ensure harmony in the family.
are related to each other. So, no criminal liability, but only
civil liability shall result from the commission of the crimes
of theft, swindling, and malicious mischief by and among
the:

1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or

relatives by affinity in the same line.

2. The widowed spouse with respect to the property

which belonged to the deceased spouse before
the same shall have passed into the possession of
another; and

3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and

sisters-in-law, if living together.

Relationship is an absolutory cause in theft, swindling, and

malicious mischief. Therefore, the said offender-relative
only obtains civil liability and he is free from criminal
liability.

However, in the case of Intestate Estate of Manolita

Gonzales vda. De Carungcong vs. People, the Supreme
Court said that it is settled that the coverage of Art. 332 is
strictly and exclusively limited to the felonies stated therein
– theft, swindling, and malicious mischief. It does NOT
apply if these crimes are complexed with another
crime such as in this case, estafa through falsification of
public document.

Applying the same in the present case, since the case filed
by the father against the son is estafa through falsification
of public document, since estafa is already complexed with
falsification of public documents which is a crime against
public interest, then the absolutory cause under Art. 332
will no longer lie in his favor.

Note:
The purpose of Art. 332 providing an absolutory cause
is to ensure harmony in the family.

Q: What about Qualified Theft, will the absolutory

cause under Art. 332 apply?

A: YES. It is not complexed; it is only qualified by

circumstances under Art. 310. But still, it is not complexed.
It is still theft, only in its qualified form.

172 of 188
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
TITLE ELEVEN:
CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY
ARTICLE 333. ADULTERY
Article 333. Who are guilty of adultery. - Adultery is
committed by any married woman who shall have sexual
intercourse with a man not her husband and by the man
who has carnal knowledge of her knowing her to be
married, even if the marriage be subsequently declared
void.
Adultery shall be punished by prision correccional in its
medium and maximum periods.
If the person guilty of adultery committed this offense while
being abandoned without justification by the offended
spouse, the penalty next lower in degree than that provided
in the next preceding paragraph shall be imposed.
In adultery, the offended party is the husband. The
offenders are the legally married woman and her
paramour.
Only the legal husband can file the case because
adultery is a private crime. Therefore, it cannot be
prosecuted by the state de oficio. There must be a
complaint coming from the complainant, the legal husband.
Q: What if the paramour did not know that the woman
with who he had sexual intercourse is a married
woman? Will it absolve him from criminal liability?
Does it mean that he shall no longer be charged in
court?
A: NO, he should be charged in court. Otherwise, the
case will not prosper.
In filing the case, the husband must include the paramour
of the wife. If it is only the wife, the case will not prosper
because there must be two in the crime of adultery. Thus,
the husband must include both his wife and her paramour.
If it so happened that the other man that the woman is a
married woman, it is a matter of defense on the part of the
said man. It must be proven in court that he lacks
knowledge that this woman is a married woman. If he is
able to prove that he lacks knowledge that this woman is
married, then he will be acquitted of the crime of adultery
and only the said legally married woman will be convicted
of adultery.
Adultery is a formal crime
Adultery is a formal crime; it has no attempted and
frustrated stages. It is punished only in the consummated
stage. Adultery is consummated upon the carnal union
173 of 188
between a married woman and another man not being her
husband.
ARTICLE 334. CONCUBINAGE
Article 334. Concubinage. - Any husband who shall keep
a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, or shall have sexual
intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a
woman who is not his wife, or shall cohabit with her in any
other place, shall be punished by prision correccional in its
minimum and medium periods.
The concubine shall suffer the penalty of destierro.
Elements of Concubinage
1. That the offender must be a married man;
2. That he committed any of the following acts:
a. Keeping 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.
3. As regards the woman, she must know him to be
married.
In case of concubinage, the offended party is the wife. The
offenders are the husband and the concubine.
Only the wife can file the case because it is private crime.
The state cannot de oficio prosecute the offenders. There
must be a complaint coming from the private offended
party, the wife.
Just like in the case of adultery, it the concubine lacks
knowledge that this man is a married man, that is a matter
which must be proven in court. But the said concubine
must be included in the charge, and she has to prove by
evidence that she lacks knowledge that this man is a
married man. If she is able to prove by clear and convincing
evidence that she is innocent, then she shall be acquitted
of the crime charged, and only the husband must be held
liable.
Note:
The penalty for a concubine is destierro only, not
imprisonment.
ARTICLE 335. RAPE
[Rape is amended by RA 2632 and RA 4111, and is now
included under Title VIII Crimes against Persons]
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
Two Kinds of Acts of Lasciviousness
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
1. Acts of Lasciviousness under Circumstances of
Rape (Art. 336)
2. Acts of Lasciviousness under Circumstances of
Seduction (Art. 339)
ARTICLE 336. ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
Article 336. Acts of lasciviousness. - Any person who shall
commit any act of lasciviousness upon other persons of
either sex, under any of the circumstances mentioned in
the preceding article, shall be punished by prision
correccional.
Elements of Acts of Lasciviousness under the
Circumstance of Rape
1. Offender commits any act of lasciviousness or
lewdness.
2. Acts of lasciviousness is committed against a
person of either sex.
3. 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 16 years
of age or is demented.
Under this article, the offender can be any person.
ARTICLE 339. ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS WITH THE
CONSENT OF THE OFFENDED PARTY
Article 339. Acts of lasciviousness with the consent of the
offended party. - The penalty of arresto mayor shall be
imposed to punish any other acts of lasciviousness
committed by the same persons and the same
circumstances as those provided in Articles 337 and 338.
In this case, the victim is always a woman because the
victim in seduction is always a woman.
The acts of lasciviousness must be committed under
circumstances of:
1. Abuse of authority
2. Abuse of confidence
3. By means of deceit
Which are the manners of committing seduction.
SEDUCTION, as amended by RA 11648
Two Kinds of Seduction
174 of 188
1. Qualified Seduction
2. Simple Seduction
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 have carnal knowledge of
any of the persons and under the circumstances described
therein.
In Art. 337, the amendment is on the age of the victim. The
victim now is sixteen (16) and over but under eighteen (18)
years of age. Before RA 11648, the minor was over twelve
(12) but not under eighteen (18).
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.
The amendment is again on the age of the victim.
Elements of Seduction
1. That the offended party is a minor who is sixteen
(16) and over but under eighteen (18) years.
2. That the offender had sexual intercourse with the
minor.
3. That the minor who is sixteen (16) and over but
under eighteen (18) years allowed the carnal
knowledge.
4. That there was:
a. Abuse of authority, abuse of confidence,
or abuse of relationship, in case of
qualified seduction; or
b. Means of deceit, in case of simple
seduction.
Whether it is qualified seduction or simple seduction, for
the crime to arise, there must be the element of sexual
intercourse or carnal knowledge. Without sexual
intercourse or carnal knowledge, there is no crime of
seduction.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
It is only seduction, and not rape, because in cases of
qualified seduction and simple seduction, the carnal
knowledge was allowed by the minor.
In case of qualified seduction, the sexual intercourse was
allowed by the minor because there was:
1. Abuse of authority;
2. Abuse of confidence; or
3. Abuse of relationship
In the case of simple seduction, the said woman allowed it
because of deceit.
Under Art. 338 simple seduction, deceit usually comes in
the form of a broken promise of marriage.
The man wanted to have carnal knowledge with this
girl who is 17 years old. The man promised to marry
the girl if she would have carnal knowledge with him.
In just a few months, the girl will be 18 years old. So,
the girl gave herself to the said man.
She was deceived by the said man. Despite the fact
that she was already 18, the said marriage never took
place.
The crime committed is Simple Seduction.
In qualified seduction or simple seduction, the sexual
intercourse is allowed by the minor. The minor must be
sixteen (16) and over but under eighteen (18) years
because if it is under sixteen (16), even if it is allowed by
the minor, the man is liable for rape already.
If the minor is sixteen (16) and over but under eighteen
(18), it will be seduction if there is no force employed. If
there was force employed, then it is still rape.
ARTICLE 340. CORRUPTION OF MINORS
Article 340. Corruption of minors. - Any person who shall
promote or facilitate the prostitution or corruption of
persons underage to satisfy the lust of another, shall be
punished by prision mayor, and if the culprit is a pubic
officer or employee, including those in government-owned
or controlled corporations, he shall also suffer the penalty
of temporary absolute disqualification.
ARTICLE 341. WHITE SLAVE TRADE
Article 341. White slave trade. - The penalty of prision
mayor in its medium and maximum period shall be
imposed upon any person who, in any manner, or under
any pretext, shall engage in the business or shall profit by
prostitution or shall enlist the services of any other for the
purpose of prostitution (As amended by Batas Pambansa
Blg. 186.)
ARTICLE 342. FORCIBLE ABDUCTION
175 of 188
Article 342. Forcible abduction. - The abduction of any
woman against her will and with lewd designs shall be
punished by reclusion temporal.
The same penalty shall be imposed in every case, if the
female abducted be under twelve years of age.
Forcible abduction is the abduction, the carrying away, the
taking away of a woman against her will. At the outset,
there is lewd design on the part of the man.
Elements of Forcible Abduction
1. Person abducted is any woman, regardless of her
age, civil status, or reputation.
2. Abduction is against her will.
3. Abduction is with lewd designs.
Sexual intercourse is NOT an element
If in the crime of seduction, sexual intercourse or carnal
knowledge is an element, without which seduction will not
arise, in the crime of forcible abduction as well as
consented abduction, carnal knowledge or sexual
intercourse is not an element.
Since it is not an element, therefore, if after abducting the
said woman, the said offender would have carnal
knowledge of the said woman, a crime of rape will result.
Q: X has a long-time crush on Y. He courted Y but he
was turned down. X is a jeepney driver. About 6:00 in
the afternoon, his jeepney passed by the route of the
house of Y. He saw Y in the doorstep of the house. X
immediately parked his jeepney, rushed towards the
house of Y, and forcibly carried away Y against her
will. At the outset, there was lewd design on the part
of X.
X brought Y inside a secluded place in the middle of
the farm. There, he tied Y and thereafter, gave her food
to eat. That very same night, X began touching Y until
he was undressing her. X had carnal knowledge of Y,
and she was trying to put up a fight. However, X
successfully had carnal knowledge of Y against her
will, by means of force and violence.
The next day, again the man had carnal knowledge of
the said woman. On the third day, again, the man had
carnal knowledge of the woman. On the fourth day,
again, the man had carnal knowledge of the said
woman.
Every time the said man would leave, the woman
would try to escape until finally, she was successful of
getting out of the said place. He narrated to the police
what happened to her. Thereafter, the said accused
was arrested and charged with a number of crimes,
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
Forcible Abduction under Art. 342 and 4 counts of
Rape.
If you were the public prosecutor, would you indict X
as charged by the police?
A: NO, you have to file only four cases: 1) complex crime
of forcible abduction with rape; 2) 2nd act of rape on
the 2nd day; 3) 3rd act of rape on the 3rd day; and 4) 4th
act of rape on the 4th day.
If by reason of the forcible abduction, after abducting the
said woman, the said offender would have raped or would
have carnal knowledge of the woman against her will, by
means of force, threat, and intimidation, the said first act of
rape will be complexed with the crime of forcible abduction
because the said forcible abduction is a necessary means
to commit the first act of rape.
The succeeding acts of rape will no longer be complexed.
It will already constitute separate and distinct charges.
So, in this case, the first act of rape will be complexed with
forcible abduction, and the succeeding different acts of
rape will constitute separate crimes of rape.
Q: Same problem. X saw Y and upon seeing the said
girl, X abducted, carried away the girl against her will.
At the outset, there was lewd designs. He placed the
girl in a secluded place in the middle of the farm.
That very same night, he tried to molest the girl. He
tried to have carnal knowledge of the said girl. The girl
fought very hard until she was able to grab a piece of
wood. She used the wood to hit the man and thereafter,
she jumped outside.
She went to the police and narrated her story. Two
cases were filed against the man, forcible abduction
under Art. 342 and attempted rape. Are the charges
correct?
A: NO. It should only be forcible abduction. If in the act
of forcible abduction, the offender tried to have carnal
knowledge of the said victim, but it was not consummated
act of rape, the said attempted act to rape the victim is
merely absorbed by the crime of forcible abduction. This is
because attempted rape is simply a manifestation of the
lewd design element of forcible abduction. Hence, if rape
is not consummated, it is simply absorbed by forcible
abduction. There cannot be a separate and distinct
charge. Moreso, there cannot be a complex crime.
ARTICLE 343. CONSENTED ABDUCTION
Article 343. Consented abduction. - The abduction of a
virgin over twelve years and under eighteen years of age,
carried out with her consent and with lewd designs, shall
be punished by the penalty of prision correccional in its
minimum and medium periods.
176 of 188
Q: While X was doing the grocery, here comes Y, the
enemy of her husband. Y passed by onboard his van.
Y saw X and said, “Asawa yun ng aking kalaban ah.”
So, Y parked his vehicle and rushed towards X. He
carried away X, brought her inside his van, and
brought her in a room inside his house.
He intended to detain X for a month so that his enemy
will look for his wife. He wanted to get even – to give
his enemy sleepless nights looking for the wife.
On the second day of captivity, Y become so
interested with X that he had carnal knowledge with
the wife, X. The following day, again, Y had carnal
knowledge of X, as well as the day after that, until X
was able to escape.
What crime/s should be filed against Y?
A: Y should be charged of only one crime and that is, the
single and indivisible offense, the composite crime, the
special complex crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention with Rape.
It is kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape
because in this case, at the outset, the intent of the
offender is to detain the said woman so that the husband
of the woman, his enemy will have sleepless nights looking
for the wife.
Even if the offender committed multiple acts of rape, it will
simply be absorbed by the said indivisible and single
offense.
Q: Same problem. After Y abducted X intending to
detain X for a month to get even at the husband of X,
he got so interested on X. he tried to have carnal
knowledge of X, but the latter put up a fight. She was
able to grab a piece of wood which she used against
Y. She hit Y and she was able to run away and escape.
The police filed two case: kidnapping and serious
illegal detention and the other is attempted rape. Are
the charges correct?
A: YES. To bring about the special complex crime of
kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape, rape
must be consummated. If rape is merely attempted, it will
constitute a separate and distinct charge.
FORCIBLE ABDUCTION WITH RAPE v. KIDNAPPING
AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION WITH RAPE
KIDNAPPING AND
FORCIBLE ABDUCTION
SERIOUS ILLEGAL
WITH RAPE
DETENTION WITH RAPE
It is a complex crime under It is a special complex
Art. 48. The forcible crime. It is the law which
abduction is a necessary
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
means to commit the act of combines the crime under
rape. Art. 267. 3. In every case to support the offspring.
At the outset, there was At the outset, the intent of
lewd design on the part of the offender is to detain The adulterer and the concubine in the case provided for
the offender. the woman kidnapped. in Articles 333 and 334 may also be sentenced, in the
If there are multiple acts of All acts of multiple rapes same proceeding or in a separate civil proceeding, to
rape done on the victim, will be absorbed by the indemnify for damages caused to the offended spouse.
the first act of rape is single indivisible offense of
complexed with forcible kidnapping and serious Article 346. Liability of ascendants, guardians, teachers,
abduction; and the illegal detention with rape. or other persons entrusted with the custody of the offended
succeeding acts of rape party. - The ascendants, guardians, curators, teachers and
will constitute different any person who, by abuse of authority or confidential
counts of rape. relationships, shall cooperate as accomplices in the
Rape must be Rape must be perpetration of the crimes embraced in chapters, second,
consummated. If rape is consummated. If rape is third and fourth, of this title, shall be punished as principals.
merely attempted, it is merely attempted, it will
simply absorbed by constitute a separate and Teachers or other persons in any other capacity entrusted
forcible abduction distinct charge. with the education and guidance of youth, shall also suffer
because it is simply a the penalty of temporary special disqualification in its
manifestation of the lewd maximum period to perpetual special disqualification.
design element of forcible
abduction. Any person falling within the terms of this article, and any
other person guilty of corruption of minors for the benefit of
PROVISIONS RELATIVE TO PRECEDING CHAPTERS another, shall be punished by special disqualification from
OF TITLE ELEVEN filling the office of guardian.

Article 344. Prosecution of the crimes of adultery,

concubinage, seduction, abduction, rape and acts of
lasciviousness. - The crimes of adultery and concubinage
shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by
the offended spouse.

The offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution

without including both the guilty parties, if they are both
alive, nor, in any case, if he shall have consented or
pardoned the offenders.

The offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of

lasciviousness, shall not be prosecuted except upon a
complaint filed by the offended party or her parents,
grandparents, or guardian, nor, in any case, if the offender
has been expressly pardoned by the above named
persons, as the case may be.

In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness

and rape, the marriage of the offender with the offended
party shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the
penalty already imposed upon him. The provisions of this
paragraph shall also be applicable to the co-principals,
accomplices and accessories after the fact of the above-
mentioned crimes.

Article 345. Civil liability of persons guilty of crimes against

chastity. - Person guilty of rape, seduction or abduction,
shall also be sentenced:

1. To indemnify the offended woman.

2. To acknowledge the offspring, unless the law should

prevent him from so doing.

177 of 188
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
TITLE TWELVE:
CRIMES AGAINST
THE CIVIL STATUS OF PERSONS
ARTICLE 347. SIMULATION OF BIRTHS
Article 347. Simulation of births, substitution of one child
for another and concealment or abandonment of a
legitimate child. - The simulation of births and the
substitution of one child for another shall be punished by
prision mayor and a fine of not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
The same penalties shall be imposed upon any person
who shall conceal or abandon any legitimate child with
intent to cause such child to lose its civil status.
Any physician or surgeon or public officer who, in violation
of the duties of his profession or office, shall cooperate in
the execution of any of the crimes mentioned in the two
next preceding paragraphs, shall suffer the penalties
therein prescribed and also the penalty of temporary
special disqualification.
ACTS PUNISHED
I. Simulation of births
Simulation of birth- takes place when the woman
pretends to be pregnant when in fact she is not
and on the day of the delivery, takes the child of
another as her own.
• If the simulation is done in the birth
certificate, the crime committed is
simulation of birth.
• If the simulation is done in any other
document aside from birth certificate, the
crime committed is falsification of a
public or private document as the case
may be.
II. Substitution of a child with another
III. Concealing or abandoning any legitimate child
with intent to cause such child to lose its civil
status.
ARTICLE 348. USURPATION OF CIVIL STATUS
Article 348. Usurpation of civil status. - The penalty of
prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall
usurp the civil status of another, should he do so for the
purpose of defrauding the offended part or his heirs;
otherwise, the penalty of prision correccional in its medium
and maximum periods shall be imposed.
ARTICLE 349. BIGAMY
178 of 188
Article 349. Bigamy. - The penalty of prision mayor shall
be imposed upon any person who shall contract a second
or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has
been legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has
been declared presumptively dead by means of a
judgment rendered in the proper proceedings.
TWO WAYS OF COMMITTING
1. A legally married spouse contracts a second or
subsequent marriage with another without the first
marriage being legally dissolved.
2. When the said legally married spouse contracts a
second or subsequent marriage before the absent
spouse has been presumed dead.
Elements of Bigamy
1. That the offender is legally married;
2. That the first marriage has not been legally
dissolved, or the absent spouse has not yet been
presumed dead by a judicial proceeding;
3. The offender contracts a second or subsequent
marriage; and
4. The second or subsequent marriage has all the
requisites for the validity of a marriage.
Q: X and Y are married. It was a happy marriage for five
(5) years until the said wife discovered that his
husband was having an affair. Not only that, she
realized that the said husband is already married to
another woman, Z.
After finding evidence as to the fact of marriage
between Y and Z, the wife filed a case for bigamy
against the said husband. In the said case of bigamy
against the said husband, the husband said that he
cannot be held liable for bigamy.
According to the husband, the first marriage was null
and void. According to the husband, his marriage with
X is null and void because of want of marriage license.
If you were the judge and the defense of the accused
was that he was able to prove that the marriage was
null and void, should you convict or acquit the said
accused?
A: If you were the judge, you should render a judgment of
acquittal based on the case of Pulido v. People.
In the case of Pulido v. People, en banc, the Supreme
Court declared that proof that the first marriage is a void ab
initio marriage is a valid defense in a criminal prosecution
for bigamy even without obtaining a judicial declaration of
absolute nullity of marriage.
There is no need to present or to prove in said court that
the said first marriage has been legally dissolved.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
Provided, the said accused can prove that the said first
marriage is void ab initio.
PULIDO v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 220149 | 27 July 2021
FACTS: Luisito Pulido was then 16 years old when he
married his teacher, Nora, 22 years old. It was only a civil
wedding ceremony in Cavite. They lived happily. However,
come 2007, Luisito stopped going home. Nora tried to
investigate and discovered that her husband, Luisito, has
entered into a marriage with another woman, Rowena.
Upon further investigation by Nora, she discovered, based
on the marriage certificate, that the wedding ceremony
between her Luisito and Rowena took place in front of a
priest, a reverend. Although at the time of the second
marriage he was married to Nora, he stated in the marriage
certificate that he was single.
Nora filed a case of bigamy against both Luisito and
Rowena.
In the said case, Luisito argued that he cannot be held
liable for bigamy because both his first and second
marriages, with Nora and Rowena, are null and void.
According to him, his marriage with Nora was null and void
because there was no valid marriage license. According to
him, his marriage to Rowena is null and void because there
was no wedding ceremony. The truth, according to him,
was that there was no marriage solemnized by the priest.
There was no marriage ceremony.
On the other hand, Rowena argued that she cannot be
held liable for bigamy because at the time she married
Luisito, she did not know that Luisito is a married man. She
only came to know that Luisito is a married man in 2007,
when Nora filed the case. Thus, according to her, she is
innocent as at the time she married Luisito, she lacks
knowledge that this man is a married man.
After trial on the merits, the trial court convicted Luisito of
bigamy, but acquitted Rowena.
RULING: Luisito is acquitted.
For the longest time, without the first marriage being legally
dissolved (without the judicial declaration of the absolute
nullity of the first marriage), the said second marriage is a
bigamous marriage. That has always been the decision of
the Supreme Court because according to the Supreme
Court, the law does not leave it to the parties to decide
whether the first marriage is null and void. Only the court
can declare it.
SC: It is the opportune to revisit and reexamine an earlier
ruling that a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of
marriage issued by a trial court is required before a prior
void ab initio marriage may be considered as a valid
defense in a prosecution for bigamy.
179 of 188
After careful scrutiny of law and jurisprudence, it is now
time to abandon its earlier ruling. The Supreme Court, now,
holds that void ab initio marriage is a valid defense in a
prosecution for bigamy even without a judicial declaration
of absolute nullity. Hence, a judicial declaration of absolute
nullity of either the first or second marriage obtained by the
accused is a valid defense in bigamy.
A judicial declaration of absolute nullity is no longer
necessary to prove a void ab initio marriage and
subsequent marriages in bigamy.
In the latter part of the decision, the Supreme Court wanted
to make itself clear so, it made a summary.
To summarize, the parties are not required to obtain a
judicial declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage in
the first and second marriage in order to raise it as a
defense in a bigamy case. The rule applies in all marriages
celebrated whether under the New Civil Code or under the
Family Code. Art. 40 of the Family Code did not amend Art.
349 of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, it did not deny the
accused the right to collaterally attack the validity of a void
ab initio marriage in a criminal prosecution for bigamy.
Right there in the bigamy case, he can prove and.
Collaterally attack the said marriage.
However, this applies only in a void ab initio marriage. If
the first marriage is merely voidable, the accused cannot
interpose an annulment decree as a defense in the criminal
prosecution for bigamy because the voidable first marriage
is considered valid and subsisting when the second
marriage was contracted. The crime of bigamy is therefore,
consummated when the second marriage was celebrated
during the subsistence of the voidable first marriage.
Q: Would your answer be the same, would you acquit
the accused, would you apply the Pulido ruling if the
marriage was said to be null and void by reason of
psychological incapacity?
A: NO. In the case of Tenebro v. CA, en banc, the
Supreme Court said that subsequent judicial declaration of
nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological
incapacity does not retroact to the date of the celebration
of the marriage insofar as the Philippine penal laws are
concerned. Therefore, an individual who conducts a
second or a subsequent marriage during the subsistence
of a valid marriage is liable for bigamy, notwithstanding the
declaration that the said marriage is void ab initio on the
ground of psychological incapacity.
Q: X and Y were married in Davao based on the
religious rights of Iglesia ni Cristo. After X and Y got
married in 1988, they had 2 children. In 2005, X told the
wife, Y, “I have to go to Tagum to find a job.” So, X
went to Tagum and left his family in Davao. Until later,
Y discovered that her husband X was cohabiting with
Z in Tagum. Based on further investigation, Y learned
that X and Z were married in 2005 before a judge. So
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
angry, so hurt, Y filed a case of bigamy against X and
Z. In the said bigamy case, the defense of X and Z is
that, although it is true that they got married while X’s
marriage with Y was still subsisting, they cannot be
held liable because they both converted to Islam prior
to their marriage. Their defense is that both of them are
already Muslim.
After trial on the merits, the RTC convicted X and Z of
bigamy; thereafter, the CA affirmed the conviction of
bigamy. What is the Supreme Court’s ruling? Are X
and Z guilty of bigamy or are X and Z, as parties to a
civil marriage who converted to Islam and
subsequently married under the Muslim Code,
exempted from criminal liability?
A: In the case of Malaki v. People, the Supreme Court
upheld the finding of guilt of X and Z.
As a general rule, married Muslims cannot marry
another. As an exception, the male Muslim may do so if
1) he can deal with the women with equal
companionship and just treatment as enjoined by the
Islamic Code; and 2) if the wife consented to the second
marriage OR in case the wife refuses to give consent, the
Shari’ah Court gives permission.
and Y even if he knew that X and Y are both men and
under our laws, marriage between two men or two
women is not yet allowed. What crime or crimes is/are
committed by X and Y, and minister Z?
A: X and Y are liable for illegal marriage, whereas
minister Z is liable for performance of illegal marriage
ceremony under Art. 352.
Illegal marriage is committed when the contracting
parties know that they lack the essential elements for
a valid marriage, and yet they still entered the
marriage.
Here, X and Y knew that they are both men, and under
Philippine jurisdiction, it is not yet allowed now. Although
there are proposals in the Congress, it is not yet enacted
into law. Therefore, such marriage is not yet valid in
Philippine jurisdiction.
As to minister Z, it is settled that a minister authorized to
solemnize marriages but performs an illegal wedding
ceremony, can be held liable under Art. 352.

It does not automatically mean that when you are a

Muslim, you can already marry another, as it is in violation
of our civil laws. However, a Muslim man may do so if he
can prove that he can treat all his wives equally, in
companionship, and in everything. It is also important that
the wife consented; or if she refuses, there is the consent
coming from the Shari’ah Court.

In this case, the Supreme Court said the wife was the one
who filed the case against the said husband and second
wife. Therefore, the said wife did not consent. It stated that
the consent of the first wife or the permission of the
Shari’ah Court is condition sine qua non to the
subsequent marriage. The wife’s knowledge of the
impending subsequent marriage is essential and may
not be waived.

Here, Y, the wife, lacks knowledge. In fact, she was the

one who filed the case because she was so hurt.
Therefore, both the accused X and Z are liable for the
crime of bigamy.

ARTICLE 352. PERFORMANCE OF ILLEGAL

MARRIAGE CEREMONY

Article 352. Performance of illegal marriage ceremony. —

Priests or ministers of any religious denomination or sect,
or civil authorities who shall perform or authorize any illegal
marriage ceremony shall be punished in accordance with
the provisions of the Marriage Law.

Q: X and Y got married. The solemnizing officer was

minister Z. Minister Z solemnized the marriage of X

180 of 188
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
TITLE THIRTEEN:
CRIMES AGAINST HONOR
THREE KINDS OF DEFAMATION
1. Written Defamation (Libel)
2. Oral Defamation (Slander)
3. Defamation through Actions (Slander by Deed)
ARTICLE 353. LIBEL
Article 353. Definition of libel. — A libel is public and
malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real
or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or
circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or
contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the
memory of one who is dead.
Elements of Libel
1. There must be a defamatory imputation of a crime,
vice, or defect, whether real or imaginary;
2. The said imputation must be malicious;
3. There must be publicity of the said defamatory
imputation; and
4. The victim must be identified.
First element. Insofar as the defamatory imputation is
concerned, it is immaterial whether it is real or not, for as
long as there is the intent to defame.
Under the second element, it is important that there is
malice.
Third element, it is important that it is published. The
element of publicity is satisfied the moment a third
person has read the said libelous article or has heard
the said libelous statement. The basis is: Has a third
person read the libelous article or heard the libelous
statement, even if the offended party has not yet
read/heard it?
The last element requires that the victim must be
identifiable. However, it is not required that the victim be
named, or be identified in detail. It suffices that any
person reading the said malicious article can pinpoint
him. If a third person can pinpoint the offended party as
the subject of the said defamatory statement, then the
identity element is satisfied.
LASTIMOSA v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 233577 | 05 December 2022
FACTS: Governor Gwendolyn Garcia of Cebu filed a case
of libel against Leo Lastimosa, a columnist in a newspaper
181 of 188
of general circulation in Cebu. Lastimosa has a regular
opinion column in The Freeman titled ‘ARANGKADA’. In
the said column, he published an article titled “SI DOLING
KAWATAN” (DOLING THE THIEF). Lastimosa’s defense
was that he cannot be held liable for libel since the last
element of identifiability is absent. ‘Doling’ does not refer
to Gov. Gwendolyn; rather, that the article was merely a
work of fiction in a third-person narrative form.
The RTC of Cebu convicted Lastimosa; thereafter, the CA
affirmed the conviction.
RULING: The Supreme Court acquitted Lastimosa of
the crime of libel.
According to the said court, the first element is present.
The imputation in the article titled ‘SI DOLING KAWATAN’
is defamatory. In the said article, the character of ‘Doling’
is someone described as a cruel and arrogant person, and
a thief. Therefore, it pertains to a crime.
The second element is also present because the law itself
presumes the presence of malice due to its defamatory
nature.
The third element is also present. There was the element
of publicity since Lastimosa does not deny writing and
publishing the said article in the newspaper The Freeman.
However, the fourth and last element of libel is absent. The
element of identifiability of the person defamed is absent.
As a rule, to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the
victim, the person defamed, is identifiable, although it
is not necessary that he be named. Here, the element of
identifiability of the person defamed can be easily complied
with when the writing in question names the said person.
However, if the said writing does not name the person, it is
necessary that the third person can identify him as the one
being defamed; he must be able to pinpoint him as the
subject of the defamatory article or statement.
In this case, the Supreme Court said that Gov. Gwendolyn
was not explicitly referred to in the article as ‘Doling
Kawatan’. The element of identifiability of the person
defamed was based solely on the witness’ testimony.
According to the witness, when he read the article, in his
belief, Gov. Gwendolyn was the subject based on the
auditory similarities between ‘Doling’ and ‘Gwendolyn’.
However, the same witness also testified that he lacks
knowledge that the other descriptions therein of ‘Doling’
pertains to Gov. Gwendolyn.
As ruled by the Supreme Court, the similarities in how
‘Doling’ and ‘Gwendolyn’ sound when pronounced cannot,
in itself and standing alone, be made the basis for
establishing the link between the character ‘Doling’ in the
article and Gov. Gwendolyn. Therefore, Lastimosa was
acquitted of the crime of libel because of the absence of
the fourth element on the identifiability of the person
defamed.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
ARTICLE 354. REQUIREMENT FOR PUBLICITY
Article 354. Requirement for publicity. — Every
defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even
if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for
making it I shown, except in the following cases:
1. A private communication made by any person to another
in the performance of any legal, moral, or social duty; and
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
proceedings, or of any other act performed by public
officers in the exercise of their functions.
The material element in libel is malice.
Under Art. 354, every defamatory imputation is presumed
by law to have malice, to be malicious. This is known as
malice in law. It is the law that presumes the presence of
malice, even if it is true, if there is no good intention, no
justifiable motive on the part of the author of the article or
statement. An exception to this is the so-called privilege
communications.
EXAMPLES OF PRIVILEGE COMMUNICATIONS
1. A private communication made by any person to
another in the performance of any legal, moral, or
social duty; and
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 proceedings, or
of any other act performed by public officers in the
exercise of their official functions.
KINDS OF PRIVILEGE COMMUNICATIONS
1. Absolute Privilege Communication – one which
is totally not actionable, such that, totally you
cannot file a case of libel against a person if there
is absolute privilege communication.
Ex. 1) A witness on the witness stand stating
libelous accusations against another person, such
witness cannot be prosecuted for libel as it is an
absolute privilege communication made during a
judicial proceeding. 2) A lawyer answering a
pleading for a case. In the said case, he stated
some libelous statements pertaining to the
contract, to the case. It is an absolute privilege
communication; thus, the said lawyer cannot be
charged with the crime of libel.
182 of 188
2. Conditional or Qualified Privilege
Communication – the offender or author can be
charged; however, the burden to prove malice
lies on the said private complainant or the
person allegedly defamed. If the said person and
the prosecution failed to prove malice on the part
of the author, then it would be an acquittal. This
time, the law would not presume malice. This is
known as malice in fact. It is malice which must
be proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable
doubt; failure to do so, it would be an acquittal.
TWO KINDS OF MALICE
1. Malice in law – presumed by law for every
defamatory statement;
2. Malice in fact – cannot be presumed by law;
rather, it must be proven by the private
complainant and the prosecution beyond
reasonable doubt.
TULFO v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 187113 | 11 January 2021
FACTS: Raffy Tulfo has a column in Abante Tonite titled
‘Shoot to Kill’ where he covers stories. In one article, he
was allegedly maligning Atty. Carlos So of the Bureau of
Customs, as he said: “Itong si Atty. Carlos na ‘to ay may
modus operandi sa NAIA. Pinapabantayan niya, pinapa-
alerto niya, ang lahat ng kargamentong dumadating,
pumapasok sa NAIA, ng mga broker. Bago mailabas ng
mga broker, hihingan muna niya ng malaking lagay. Isa
siyang buwaya sa NAIA, itong si Atty. Carlos So ng Bureau
of Customs. Dahil dito, nag strike ang mga broker sa laki
ng hinihingi ni Atty. Carlos So bago mailabas ang mga
kargamento.” In essence, that was the statement of Tulfo
in his column.
Atty. So then filed a case of libel against Tulfo. The defense
of Tulfo that he cannot be held liable for libel since it is
considered as a qualified privilege communication as it
pertains to the performance of the official function of a
public officer.
HELD: The Supreme Court acquitted Tulfo.
Based on the said articles, it is evident that they are within
the purview of qualified privilege communications. These
articles, columns, relate to Atty. So’s exercise of his official
functions at the Bureau of Customs. These are matters of
public interest which the citizenry ought to know, and which
are subject to closer scrutiny by the members of the media,
as they are the sentinels of the public.
The Supreme Court also said that Tulfo reported on the
alleged illegal activities of Atty. So in the exercise of his
public functions. The comments he made in the said
column were done in the exercise of his freedom of
expression and freedom of the press.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
Q: X sent a defamatory letter to Y. Y said, “My
goodness! This letter contains many malicious
imputations against me.” Y was very mad. He then
filed a case of libel against X. During the prosecution
for libel, to show proof of the malicious imputations in
the said letter, Y presented a machine copy of the said
letter. Y did not present the original copy of the said
letter. Can there be conviction for libel?
A: NO. In the case of Maglasang v. People, it was ruled
that the best evidence rule (now original document
rule) is necessary in the crime of libel. Proof of the letter
is necessary to bring about a conviction for libel based on
the best evidence rule. The said rule requires that the
original letter where the said libelous statements are stated
must be presented as evidence in court. Photocopies are
not acceptable.
MAGLASANG v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 248616 | 12 January 2021
CASE DISCUSSION: MAGLASANG v. PEOPLE
In this case, the Supreme Court said that the best evidence
rule, now the original document rule, applies in cases of
libel. The purpose is to ensure that the exact contents of a
writing are brought before the court to protect any
misleading inferences resulting from intentional or
unintentional introduction of certain portions of a larger set
of writings.
Mere photocopies will not suffice to bring about a
conviction of a crime of libel. It is necessary that one must
present the said original copy of the letter allegedly
containing the malicious statements.
ARTICLE 355. LIBEL MEANS BY WRITING OR
SIMILAR MEANS
Article 355. Libel means by writing or similar means. — A
libel committed by means of writing, printing, lithography,
engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical
exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar
means, shall be punished by prision correccional in its
minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from 200
to 6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to the civil action which
may be brought by the offended party.
The penalty for libel is prision correccional in its
minimum and medium period.
CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT OF 2012
Under Sec. 4(c) of R.A. 10175 or the Anti-Cybercrime
Law, cyber libel or online libel is the unlawful or
prohibited acts of libel as defined under Art. 355 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed through a
computer system or any other similar means which
may be devised in the future.
183 of 188
Online libel is just like libel under Art. 355; only, it is
committed, instead of through radio, phonograph, or
writing, among others, through a computer system or any
other similar means which may be devised in the future.
DISINI v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE
G.R. No. 203335 | 18 February 2014
FACTS: The Philippine Congress enacted R.A. 10175 or
known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 which
seeks to protect individuals from crimes or unlawful acts
that can be committed through the internet. While it is
admitted that the use of the internet or cyberspace gives
access to research, advertisements, business, inquiries,
and connection with a greater number of audiences, it is
also an instrument to commit crimes which the law itself is
trying to prevent and regulate.
Petitioners in these consolidated cases, contended that
this law violated certain constitutional rights thus praying
that it be declared void and unconstitutional.
The Temporary Restraining Order issued on October 9,
2012, is extended for 120 days, pending resolution of the
case.
ISSUE: Whether or not several provisions of the
Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 violated freedom of
expression and privacy
HELD: YES. Out of the 21 sections in the Cybercrime Law
challenged by the petitioners, the Supreme Court
declared three (3) provisions void for being
unconstitutional, to wit Secs. 4(c)(3), Sec. 12, and Sec. 19.
The Court in Sec. 4(c)(3) placed great weight in the
protection of commercial speech; it ruled that unsolicited
advertisements are legitimate forms of expression. It ruled
that there is no basis to the claim that the presence of
unsolicited commercial communications or spam tend to
slow down the efficiency of computers, as well as its
storage and is considered as a nuisance to the users.
Commercial speech is afforded protection in this case,
further stating that people have the right to read one's
email, and the denial of such constitutes violation of
freedom of expression.
It is noted that these messages form part of the freedom of
speech, and were never considered as nuisance, some
people may even be interested in the ads, as long as the
people have the right of option whether to open the mail or
not.
CASE DISCUSSION: DISINI v. SECRETARY OF
JUSTICE
The Supreme Court ruled that online libel is
constitutional only with respect to the original author
of the post; however, it is void with respect to others
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
who simply received it, reacted to it, or liked it.
Therefore, all those who received, reacted to it, or liked or
even shared it, are not liable.
Q: X posted on Facebook, “Si Y ay magnanakaw.
Madaming nakulimbat.” Maraming nag comment, nag
like, at nag share. Who can be charged with cyber
libel?
A: Only X can be charged with cyber libel. All those who
liked, commented, or shared cannot be held liable. It is only
constitutional with respect to the original author of the said
post, but void with respect to others who simply received,
read, and/or reacted to it.
Q: What court has jurisdiction over libel cases?
A: It is the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC shall
have jurisdiction over any violations of libel, whether
ordinary libel or online libel. Under Art. 260 of the Revised
Penal Code and Sec. 21 of R.A. 10175. Thus, whether it is
online libel or ordinary libel, it is only the RTC that will have
jurisdiction over cases involving libel.
Q: X wrote an article against a high-ranking PNP
general, Y, accusing the latter of amassing huge
wealth by engaging in kidnap for ransom activities.
The said article was published in a leading newspaper,
Manila Bulletin, as well as in its online news platform.
When Y and his family read it, he felt maligned, and his
family as well felt embarrassed. Y wanted to file cases
against X, and so he filed two cases against X: 1) libel
under Art. 355 of the Revised Penal Code because it
was published on Manila Bulletin; 2) and cyber libel
under R.A. 10175 because it was also published
online. Will both cases prosper? Can X be prosecuted
for both crimes of libel — online label and ordinary
libel — based on the same facts and circumstances?
A: The Supreme ruled in the negative. If said libelous
material published in print is again posted online or
vice versa, that identical material cannot be subject of
two separate libel cases. The two crimes — one a
violation of Art. 355 of the Code, and the other, a violation
of Sec. 4(c)(4) R.A. 10175 — involved the same elements.
In fact, they are one and the same offense.
Online libel is not a new crime as it is already punished
under Art. 355. It merely establishes the computer
system as another means of publication. Therefore,
charging the offender under both laws would be
against the principle of double jeopardy.
According to the Supreme Court, it is clear that online libel
is just the same as ordinary libel under Art. 355. The
difference only lies in the fact that there is a different mode
of committing it which is through a computer system.
Prof’s opinion: Kung ganun, bakit nila ginigiit na ang
prescriptive period for libel ay hindi one year? Kaya
184 of 188
nagtataka ako. Sa totoo lang, gustong-gusto ko nang
makarating ang Ressa case sa Supreme Court. Gustung-
gusto ko nang mag decide ang Supreme Court sa Ressa
case para, once and for all, malaman na kung ano ba ang
tunay na prescriptive period ng online libel. Maliwanag sa
decision ng Supreme Court sa Disini v. Secretary of
Justice and other decisions na online libel is nothing new,
it is just like ordinary libel under Art. 355. How come they
are insisting that there is a different prescriptive period,
when, under Art. 90 of the Revised Penal Code, the law
expressly provides that libel and similar offenses
prescribe in one year.
Hindi ako Maka-Ressa ha kaya lang ang ginigiit ko ay mali
talaga yung prescriptive period (of cyber libel) kasi para sa
akin one year. For me, ordinary libel and online libel are
just one and the same; therefore, both should prescribe in
one year. However, the RTC judge that convicted Ressa,
as well as the CA, used Art. 90 because the penalty now
is prision mayor, which is already considered as an
afflictive penalty, then the prescriptive period would
already be 15 years. I really want the case to be already
ruled by the Supreme Court as I am insisting it is only one
year. It could be 15 years, but still, I still insist.
ARTICLE 356. THREATENING TO PUBLISH AND
OFFER TO PRESENT SUCH PUBLICATION FOR A
COMPENSATION
Article 356. Threatening to publish and offer to present
such publication for a compensation. — The penalty of
arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to 2,000 pesos, or both,
shall be imposed upon any person who threatens another
to publish a libel concerning him or the parents, spouse,
child, or other members of the family of the latter or upon
anyone who shall offer to prevent the publication of such
libel for a compensation or money consideration.
ARTICLE 357. PROHIBITED PUBLICATION OF ACTS
REFERRED TO IN THE COURSE OF OFFICIAL
PROCEEDINGS
Article 357. Prohibited publication of acts referred to in the
course of official proceedings. — The penalty of arresto
mayor or a fine from 20 to 2,000 pesos, or both, shall be
imposed upon any reporter, editor, or manager, or a
newspaper, daily, or magazine, who shall publish facts
connected with the private life of another and offensive to
the honor, virtue, and reputation of said person, even
though said publication be made in connection with or
under the pretext that it is necessary in the narration of any
judicial or administrative proceedings wherein such facts
have been mentioned.
ARTICLE 358. SLANDER
Article 358. Slander. — Oral defamation shall be punished
by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its minimum period if it is of a serious and
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
insulting nature; otherwise, the penalty shall be arresto
menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos.
The other kind of defamation is oral defamation.
1. Grave Slander – it is insulting and serious in
nature; or
2. Simple Slander
The same is true in case of slander by actions or slander
by deed.
ARTICLE 359. SLANDER BY DEED
Article 359. Slander by deed. — The penalty of arresto
mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its
minimum period or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos
shall be imposed upon any person who shall perform any
act not included and punished in this title, which shall cast
dishonor, discredit, or contempt upon another person. If
said act is not of a serious nature, the penalty shall be
arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos.
Slander by deed refers to the commission of acts with the
intent to blemish the credit and reputation of another
person. It does not refer to the use of words.
1. Grave Slander by Deed – it is serious and
insulting in nature;
2. Simple Slander by Deed
ARTICLE 360. PERSONS RESPONSIBLE
Article 360. Persons responsible. — Any person who shall
publish, exhibit, or cause the publication or exhibition of
any defamation in writing or by similar means, shall be
responsible for the same.
The author or editor of a book or pamphlet, or the editor or
business manager of a daily newspaper, magazine or
serial publication, shall be responsible for the defamations
contained therein to the same extent as if he were the
author thereof.
The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of
written defamations as provided for in this chapter, shall be
filed simultaneously or separately with the court of first
instance of the province or city where the libelous article is
printed and first published or where any of the offended
parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the
offense: Provided, however, That where one of the
offended parties is a public officer whose office is in the
City of Manila at the time of the commission of the offense,
the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the
City of Manila, or of the city or province where the libelous
article is printed and first published, and in case such
public officer does not hold office in the City of Manila, the
action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the
185 of 188
province or city where he held office at the time of the
commission of the offense or where the libelous article is
printed and first published and in case one of the offended
parties is a private individual, the action shall be filed in the
Court of First Instance of the province or city where he
actually resides at the time of the commission of the
offense or where the libelous matter is printed and first
published: Provided, further, That the civil action shall be
filed in the same court where the criminal action is filed and
vice versa: Provided, furthermore, That the court where the
criminal action or civil action for damages is first filed, shall
acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts: And,
provided, finally, That this amendment shall not apply to
cases of written defamations, the civil and/or criminal
actions which have been filed in court at the time of the
effectivity of this law.
Preliminary investigation of criminal action for written
defamations as provided for in the chapter shall be
conducted by the provincial or city fiscal of the province or
city, or by the municipal court of the city or capital of the
province where such action may be instituted in
accordance with the provisions of this article.
No criminal action for defamation which consists in the
imputation of a crime which cannot be prosecuted de oficio
shall be brought except at the instance of and upon
complaint expressly filed by the offended party. (As
amended by R.A. 1289, approved June 15, 1955, R.A.
4363, approved June 19, 1965).
ARTICLE 361. PROOF OF THE TRUTH
Article 361. Proof of the truth. — In every criminal
prosecution for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to
the court and if it appears that the matter charged as
libelous is true, and, moreover, that it was published with
good motives and for justifiable ends, the defendants shall
be acquitted.
Proof of the truth of an imputation of an act or omission not
constituting a crime shall not be admitted, unless the
imputation shall have been made against Government
employees with respect to facts related to the discharge of
their official duties.
In such cases if the defendant proves the truth of the
imputation made by him, he shall be acquitted.
ARTICLE 362. LIBELOUS REMARKS
Article 362. Libelous remarks. — Libelous remarks or
comments connected with the matter privileged under the
provisions of Article 354, if made with malice, shall not
exempt the author thereof nor the editor or managing editor
of a newspaper from criminal liability.
ARTICLE 363. INCRIMINATING INNOCENT PERSON
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
Article 363. Incriminating innocent person. — Any person
who, by any act not constituting perjury, shall directly
incriminate or impute to an innocent person the
commission of a crime, shall be punished by arresto
menor.

Elements of Incriminating Innocent Person

1. The offender performs an act;

2. The said he directly incriminates or imputes to an

innocent person the commission of a crime; and

3. The said act does not constitute perjury.

It is necessary that it must not be made on an affidavit,

because if it is through an affidavit, it will be perjury.

ARTICLE 364. INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR

Article 364. Intriguing against honor. — The penalty of

arresto menor or fine not exceeding 200 pesos shall be
imposed for any intrigue which has for its principal purpose
to blemish the honor or reputation of a person.

186 of 188
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
TITLE FOURTEEN:
QUASI-OFFENSES
ARTICLE 365. IMPRUDENCE AND NEGLIGENCE
Article 365. Imprudence and negligence. — Any person
who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which,
had it been intentional, would constitute a grave felony,
shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum
period to prision correccional in its medium period; if it
would have constituted a less grave felony, the penalty of
arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods shall be
imposed; if it would have constituted a light felony, the
penalty of arresto menor in its maximum period shall be
imposed.
Any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence,
shall commit an act which would otherwise constitute a
grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its
medium and maximum periods; if it would have constituted
a less serious felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its
minimum period shall be imposed.
When the execution of the act covered by this article shall
have only resulted in damage to the property of another,
the offender shall be punished by a fine ranging from an
amount equal to the value of said damages to three times
such value, but which shall in no case be less than twenty-
five pesos.
A fine not exceeding two hundred pesos and censure shall
be imposed upon any person who, by simple imprudence
or negligence, shall cause some wrong which, if done
maliciously, would have constituted a light felony.
In the imposition of these penalties, the court shall exercise
their sound discretion, without regard to the rules
prescribed in Article sixty-four.
The provisions contained in this article shall not be
applicable:
1. When the penalty provided for the offense is equal to or
lower than those provided in the first two paragraphs of this
article, in which case the court shall impose the penalty
next lower in degree than that which should be imposed in
the period which they may deem proper to apply.
2. When, by imprudence or negligence and with violation
of the Automobile Law, to death of a person shall be
caused, in which case the defendant shall be punished by
prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but without
malice, doing or falling to do an act from which material
damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of
precaution on the part of the person performing of failing to
perform such act, taking into consideration his employment
187 of 188
or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition
and other circumstances regarding persons, time and
place.
Simple imprudence 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.
The penalty next higher in degree to those provided for in
this article shall be imposed upon the offender who fails to
lend on the spot to the injured parties such help as may be
in this hand to give. (As amended by R.A. 1790, approved
June 21, 1957).
Q: Are reckless imprudence, simple imprudence,
simple negligence crimes by themselves or are they
merely means of committing a felony?
A: As ruled in Ivler v. Modesto, the Supreme Court said
that they are crimes by themselves. It is settled that they
are crimes by themselves and not merely means of
committing a felony.
IVLER v. MODESTO
G.R. No. 172716 | 17 November 2010
FACTS: Jason Ivler committed a hit-and-run against
another car. The husband in the other car died, but the wife
survived, sustaining only slight physical injuries. Ivler then
was arrested by the police. After investigation, two cases
were filed against him: 1) reckless imprudence resulting in
slight physical injuries sustained by the wife; and 2)
reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and damage to
property because of the death of the husband and the total
damage caused on the car.
Since the wife is alive, the charge of reckless imprudence
resulting in slight physical injuries is only for inquest
purposes. As such, there is no need for preliminary
investigation. On that very day, the case for reckless
imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries was filed
before the MeTC. The other case on the reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide and damage to property
requires preliminary investigation because the husband
died and there was a need to assess the value of the
damages to the car. Ivler was then at the fiscal’s office for,
more or less, 60 days.
Meanwhile, the case for reckless imprudence resulting in
slight physical injuries filed before the MeTC was set for
arraignment. During arraignment, Ivler, as per the advice
of his counsel, pleaded guilty. Thereafter, the judge
convicted him as charged.
After a month or two, here comes the other case for
reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and damage to
property filed before the same court against Ivler. The
counsel of Ivler filed a motion to quash on the ground of
double jeopardy. According to him, double jeopardy arises
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets
because Ivler has already been prosecuted and convicted
for the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in slight
physical injuries. Therefore, he can no longer be
prosecuted and convicted of another crime arising from the
very same reckless imprudence; otherwise, double
jeopardy arises. The said motion to quash was denied by
the lower court and it went up to the Supreme Court.
HELD: The Supreme Court dismissed the case. It is
settled in jurisprudence that reckless imprudence, simple
imprudence, and simple negligence are crimes by
themselves; they are not merely means of committing a
felony.
Here, since Ivler has already been convicted of reckless
imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries, he can no
longer be prosecuted and convicted of another crime
arising from the very same reckless imprudence;
otherwise, the double jeopardy rule will be violated. You
cannot prosecute another person for two crimes based on
the same imprudence, negligence. Kailangan pagsamahin
sa isang reckless imprudence case.
However, after that, there had been other Supreme Court
decisions saying that reckless imprudence, simple
imprudence, or simple negligence are only means of
committing a felony. But here comes the en banc case of
Morales v. People:
overturn the other en banc decisions. But now, Morales is
affirming Ivler.
Q: X attended a party. He was now on his way home.
While X was driving recklessly along the highway, his
Toyota Hiace hit a Chevrolet car which entered the
intersection. As a result, Y who was driving the
Chevrolet car sustained serious physical injuries,
while his three friends, A, B, and C, suffered slight
physical injuries. The car was damaged and the
amount of damages was 150,000 pesos. What is the
proper charge against X?
A: Based on the decision of the Supreme Court in Morales
v. People en banc affirming Ivler v. Modesto, the proper
charge against X is reckless imprudence resulting in
multiple physical injuries and damage to property due
to the serious physical injuries sustained by Y and the
slight physical injuries sustained by his friends, A, B, and
C, as well as the damage to the car.
The Ivler doctrine which was affirmed by the Supreme
Court in Morales states that Art. 48 on the complexity of
crimes does not apply to quasi-offenses such as reckless
imprudence. There shall be no splitting of charges under
Art. 365. Only one information shall be filed regardless of
number or severity of the consequences of the imprudent
or negligent act.

MORALES v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 240337 | 04 January 2022

FACTS: The two vehicles in this case collided with one

another. The accused then was charged with reckless
imprudence resulting in multiple physical injuries and
damage to property.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that the accused is

liable for reckless imprudence resulting in multiple
physical injuries and damage to property.

In Ivler v. Modesto, it was emphasized that simple and

reckless imprudence are distinct, specific crimes,
separately defined and penalized under the penal laws.
Just like in Ivler, the Supreme Court then declared that Art.
48 on the complexity of crimes is not applicable in
quasi-offenses. As such, the said court forbids the
complexing of a single quasi-crime by breaking it resulting
in separate offenses. The rule is now laid down: There can
be no splitting of charges under Art. 365. Only one
information shall be filed, regardless of the number or
severity of the consequences of the imprudent or
negligent act.

CASE DISCUSSION: MORALES v. PEOPLE

The Supreme Court affirmed its decision in Ivler v.

Modesto. It ruled that, finally, it is now time to affirm the
Ivler case. Although it was a better decision, it cannot

188 of 188