Criminal law 2

REVISED PENAL CODE

ACT No. 3815
(Passed: December 8, 1930)
Effectivity: January 1, 1932

While the Revised Penal Code took effect on January 1, 1932, it was enacted on December 8, 1930 and signed the same day.

Laws amending or repealing provisions of the rpc

Art. 39 of the RPC (Original Version)

"Art. 39. Subsidiary penalty. If the convict has no property with which to meet the fine mentioned in paragraph 3 of the next preceding article, he shall be
subject to a subsidiary personal liability at the rate of one day for TWO PESOS AND FIFTY CENTAVOS (Php2.50)

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 5465: April 21,1969

AN ACT AMENDING ARTICLE 39 OF ACT NO. 3815 (REVISED PENAL CODE) INCREASING THE RATE PER DAY OF SUBSIDIARY PENALTY FROM
TWO PESOS AND FIFTY CENTAVOS TO EIGHT PESOS.

"Art. 39. Subsidiary penalty. If the convict has no property with which to meet the fine mentioned in paragraph 3 of the next preceding article, he shall be
subject to a subsidiary personal liability at the rate of one day for each EIGHT PESOS (Php8.00)…

RA 10159 : Approved: April 10, 2012

AN ACT AMENDING ARTICLE 39 OF ACT NO. 3815, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED PENAL CODE

"Art. 39. Subsidiary Penalty. – If the convict has no property with which to meet the fine mentioned in paragraph 3 of the next preceding article, he shall be
subject to a subsidiary personal liability at the rate of one day for each amount equivalent to the highest minimum wage rate prevailing in the Philippines at
the time of the rendition of judgment of conviction by the trial court, subject to the following rules:

Article 155. Alarms and scandals.

The penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding P200 pesos shall be imposed upon: 1.xxx 2.xxx

RA 10951

Duterte approves heavier fines for crimes

Sep 01, 2017 - 10:31 AM. The President signs into law amendments to the Revised Penal Code which impose heavier fines for crimes and higher values for
property used as basis for penalties

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10951, August 29, 2017

AN ACT ADJUSTING THE AMOUNT OR THE VALUE OF PROPERTY AND DAMAGE ON WHICH A PENALTY IS BASED, AND THE FINES IMPOSED
UNDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ACT NO. 3815, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS "THE REVISED PENAL CODE", AS
AMENDED

Example; "ART. 155. Alarms and scandals.- The penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding Forty thousand pesos (P40, 000) shall be imposed upon:

EFFECTS OF RA NO. 10951 TO THE REVISED PENAL CODE

In the 2014 case of Lito Corpuz versus People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 180016, 29 April 2014, the Supreme Court turned the spotlight on the perceived
injustice brought about by the range of penalties that the courts continue to impose on crimes committed today, based on the amount of damage measured
by the value of money eighty years ago. As shown in the explanatory note of Senate Bill No. 14 that became RA No. 10951, the Corpuz case was used as a
basis of adjusting the amount involved, value of the property or damage on which the penalty is based and the fine under the Revised Penal Code.

TIMES 200 FORMULA

The minimum wage rate on January 1, 1932, the date of effectivity of the Revised Penal Code is two pesos and fifty centavos (P2.50). However, in 2017, the
year when RA No. 10951 was enacted, the minimum wage rate reached more than five hundred pesos (P500.00). In sum, the minimum wage in 2017 is two
hundred (200) fold higher than in 1932. Hence, RA No. 10951 has adjusted the amount involved, value of the property or damage on which the penalty is
based and the fine under the Revised Penal Code by multiplying them by 200. For example, light penalty of fine under Article 26 of the Revised Penal Code
is less P200.00. RA No. 10951 adjusted this amount by multiplying P200.00 by 200. The product of this multiplication is P40,000.00. Hence, light penalty of
fine under Article 26 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA No. 10951 is less P40,000.00.

PROSPECTIVE AND RETROACTIVE EFFECT

In addition to imprisonment, treason is punished Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code by a fine of not exceeding P20,000. RA No. 10951 has adjusted this
amount by multiplying P20,000 by 200. The product of this multiplication is P4,000,000. Thus, the penalty of fine for treason under Article 114 of the Revised
Penal Code as amended by RA No. 10951 is P4,000,000. Since this increased amount of fine is not favorable to the accused, RA No. 10951 must be given
a prospective effect.

PROSPECTIVE AND RETROACTIVE EFFECT

Under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for malversation involving the amount of more than P22,000 is reclusion temporal in its maximum
period to reclusion perpetua. RA No. 10951 has adjusted this amount by multiplying P22,000 by 200. The product of this multiplication is 4,400,000. Thus,
the penalty for malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA No. 10951 involving the amount of more than P4,400,000 is
reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua. Since this rule increasing the amount as a basis of imposing a graver penalty is favorable to
the accused, RA No. 10951 must be given a retroactive effect.

TIMES 100 FORMULA

It applies to the value of property upon which the penalty is based.

Example:

Theft: 12,000.00 (100) = Php1,2000,000.00

RAPE

Republic Act (RA) 8353, otherwise known as the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, expanded the definition of the crime of rape in the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and
reclassified it as a crime against persons instead of as a crime against chastity.

As a crime against persons, the law no longer considers rape as a private crime.

Thus, anyone who knows of the crime may file a case on the victim’s behalf, and prosecution may continue even if the victim decides to forgive the offender
and/or decide not to pursue the complaint.
RA 8353: Approved: September 30, 1997

There are two kinds of rape:

rape through sexual intercourse and

rape through sexual assault.

In both crimes, the sexual intercourse or sexual assault is made without consent of the victim.

Sexual consent of a child under 12 years of age, demented person or person deprived of reason is not recognized by the law.

Rape through sexual intercourse

which is commonly denominated as “organ rape” or “penile rape”, is committed by a man by having carnal knowledge with a woman. Rape through sexual
intercourse is not a gender-free crime. The offender in this crime must be a man, while the victim must be a woman.

Three kinds of rape by sexual assault

(1) instrument or object rape, which is committed by inserting an instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person;

(2) rape through oral intercourse, which is committed by inserting his penis into another person’s mouth; and

(3) rape through sodomy, which is committed by inserting his penis into another person’s anal orifice.

In rape through sexual assault, the gender of the offender and the victim is not material. That is why this crime is called “gender-free rape.”

Raping a transgender

Having sexual intercourse through force with a gay, who underwent gender reassignment, is not rape through sexual intercourse since the victim is not a
woman.

Female gender of the victim is an element of this crime.

Neither instrument or object rape is committed since the offender used his penis, and not an instrument or object, in committing the crime, and the opening
made through surgery to resemble the appearance of a vagina is not within the contemplation of the words “genital or anal orifice”.

Nor rape through oral intercourse or sodomy is committed because such surgical orifice is not a mouth or anal orifice. Hence, the crime committed is acts of
lasciviousness
People vs. Victorino Reyes (G.R. No. 173307 July 17, 2013)

FACTS: At around 7:00 p.m., AAA and her 9-year-old sister, BBB, had watched television at his house just across the street from their house. Only Reyes
and his two sons, aged seven and five, were the other persons in the house, for his wife had gone to another barangay to sell refreshments. By 9:00 p.m.,
AAA and BBB rose to go home, but as they were leaving, Reyes suddenly pulled AAA into the store attached to the sala of his house. He told her in the
dialect: Umaykan ta agiyyot ta. (Come here and let us have sex). Alarmed by what his words denoted, AAA struggled to free herself from him. BBB went to
her succor by pulling her away from him, but his superior strength prevailed. BBB could only cry as he dragged AAA into the store. BBB was left outside the
store crying. Inside the store, Reyes kissed AAA and mashed her breasts. He threatened her: If you will shout, I will kill you. He pulled down her long pants
and panties below her knees, took out his penis, grabbed her by the waist, and used his body to anchor her back to a nearby table. She fought back by
boxing and pushing him away, but her efforts were futile. He twice tried to pry open her legs, but she strained hard to close them. On the second attempt,
however, her effort was not enough to prevent him from pulling her legs apart, and he then thrust his penis into her vagina and made push and pull
movements. Although his penis achieved only a slight penetration of her vagina, he succeeded in satisfying his lust, as confirmed later on when CCC, the
mother of the victim, found semen on AAA’s panties.

As the text of the law itself shows, the breaking of the hymen of the victim is not among the means of consummating rape. All that the law required is that
the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman under the circumstances described in the law. By definition, carnal knowledge was "the act of a man having
sexual bodily connections with a woman." This understanding of rape explains why the slightest penetration of the female genitalia consummates the crime.

More specifically, the presence of the swelling in AAA’s labia majora was an indication of the penetration by the erect penis of the labia majora of the
accused. As such, there was sufficient factual foundation for finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape, for, as the Court explains in People v.
Teodoro.

THERES IS NO CRIME OF FRUSTRATED RAPE;

ONLY FRUSTRATED RAPIST

People vs Campuhan (GR No. 129433, March 30, 2000)

That on May 27, 1997, Primo Campuhan was convicted guilty of statutory rape and sentenced by the court a quo to the extreme penalty of death.

The conviction was based on the statements of Ma. Corazon Pamintuan, the mother of the victim Chrystel, saying that on April 25, 1996, she found the
accused kneeling down on his 4-year old daughter with his pants down and “forcing his penis into Chrystel’s vagina”. However, the accused kept his
innocence and contested that Pamintuan’s statements were not credible for the latter has ill will against him.The records reviewed failed to show the proof
whether Primo’s penis was able to penetrate Chrystel’s vagina. Failure to prove such penetration, even the slightest one, cannot be considered
consummated rape, however, only attempted rape, if not acts of lasciviousness.

Also, there were no physical signs of injuries on the witness’ body to conclude a medical perspective that a penetration has taken place. In rape cases, it is
important that a valid testimony and medical certificate complements each other, for relying alone on testimonial evidence may create unwarranted or
mischievous results. It is necessary to carefully establish a proof that the penis, in reality, entered the labial threshold of the demale organ to accurately
conclude that the rape was consummated.

The decision of the court on convicting Campuhan guilty of statutory rape is MODIFIED. Hence, convicted of ATTEMPTED RAPE instead.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 11648,

Approved: March 04, 2022

RA 11648, an act providing for stronger protection against rape and sexual exploitation and abuse, amended RA 8353 of 1997 by raising the age of sexual
consent from 12 to 16 years to further shield minors from rape and other acts of sexual abuse.

Section 1. Article 266-A (1)(d) of Act No. 3815, otherwise known as "The Revised Penal Code," as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 known as "The Anti-
Rape Law of 1997," is hereby further amended to read as follows

"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:

OLD: “by a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances.
PEOPLE vs. VICTOR BORMEO, G.R. No. 91734. March 30, 1993.
CRIMINAL LAW; STATUTORY RAPE; CARNAL KNOWLEDGE, DEFINED. — Carnal knowledge has been defined as the act of a man having sexual bodily
connections with a woman; sexual intercourse. An essential ingredient thereof is the penetration of the female sexual organ by the sexual organ of the male.
In cases of rape, however, mere proof of the entrance of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum or lips of the female organ is sufficient to constitute a
basis for conviction. In this jurisdiction, when a man has carnal knowledge of a woman who is under twelve (12) years of age, as in the case of Raylin,
statutory rape is committed. Punished under the Revised Penal Code, its elements are: 1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman and (2) that
such act is committed when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age

CARNAL KNOWLEDGE Definition & Legal Meaning

Definition & Citations: The act of a man in having sexual bodily connection with a woman. Carnal knowledge and sexual intercourse held equivalent
expressions. Noble v. State, 22 Ohio St. 541. From very early times, in the law, as in common speech, the meaning of the words “carnal knowledge” of a
woman by a man has been sexual bodily connection ; and these words, without more, have been used in that sense by writers of the highest authority on
criminal law, when undertaking to give a full and precise definition of the crime of rape, the highest crime of this character. Com. v. Squires, 97 Mass. 61.

carnal knowledge noun car·nal knowledge ˈkär-nəl- : an act of especially illegal sexual intercourse whoever has carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and
against her will—District of Columbia Code Annotated also : the crime of committing such an actwas charged with carnal knowledge of a juvenile

12th (now 16TH) birth day

If a virgin is abducted with lewd designed by her boyfriend with her consent on her 12th birthday, there is doubt whether the crime committed is forcible
abduction or consented abduction.

In Article 342 of the Revised Penal Code, the consenting victim in forcible abduction must be under 12 years of age.

In Article 343 of the Code, the victim in consented abduction must above 12 years of age. Since the woman is exactly 12 years of age when the abduction
was committed, she is neither under nor above 12 years of age.

Settled is the rule in case of doubt, the accused should be convicted of the lesser crime. Since the penalty for consented abduction is lighter than that for
forcible abduction, the accused should be held liable for former. The phrase “above twelve (12) years of age” should be interpret as “twelve 12 years of age
and above”.

Carnapping under Republic Act No. 10883

Republic Act No. 10883, or otherwise known as the New Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016 (RA 10883) is a law which punishes carnapping in the Philippines.

As defined under this law, motor vehicle refers to any vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular power using the public highways.

Note that the following are not embraced in the definition of a motor vehicle under the law and thus cannot be the subject of carnapping, to wit: road rollers,
trolley cars, street sweepers, sprinklers, lawn mowers, bulldozers, graders, forklifts, amphibian trucks, and cranes if not used on public highways; vehicles
which run only on rails or tracks; and tractors, trailers and traction engines of all kinds used exclusively for agricultural purposes

RA 10883 punishes the crime of carnapping which refers to the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter’s consent
(in the form of QUALIFIED THEFT) or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things (in the form of Robbery)

People of the Philippines vs. Garcia and Bernabe, G.R. No. 138470, 1 April 2003

The Supreme Court has ruled in the case of People of the Philippines vs. Garcia and Bernabe, G.R. No. 138470, 1 April 2003, that it does not matter if the
person from whom the motor vehicle was taken is not the owner thereof. What is simply required is that the property taken does not belong to the offender.

Penalty for Carnapping

When the carnapping is committed without violence against or intimidation of persons, or force upon things, the imprisonment shall be for a period not less
than twenty (20) years and one (1) day but not more than thirty (30) years.

When the carnapping is committed by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or force upon things, the imprisonment shall be for a period not
less than thirty (30) years and one (1) day but not more than forty (40) years

Take note that when the owner, driver, or occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle is killed or raped in the commission of the carnapping, the penalty of life
imprisonment shall be imposed.

Is carnapping bailable?The right to bail can be availed of provided the evidence of guilt is not strong. Bail shall be denied when the evidence of guilt is strong
in the following instances: when charged with carnapping; when the crime of carnapping is committed by criminal groups, gangs or syndicateswhen
carnapping is committed by means of violence or intimidation of any person or persons or forced upon things when the owner, driver, passenger or occupant
of the carnapped vehicle is killed or raped in the course of the carnapping.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ATTEMPTED CARNAPPING

In July 17, 2016, RA No. 10883, which repealed RA No. 6539, was enacted. Carnapping is now punishable under this new law. RA No. 10883 has not
adopted the technical nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code whether the crime is simple carnapping or carnapping with homicide or rape.
In other words, this law sponsored by Senator Grace Poe has adopted the American penal system.

Since RA No. 10883 did not borrow the penalties from the Revised Penal Code, Article 6 in relation to Article 51 of the Code on attempted felony cannot be
applied for carnapping. Thus, the crime of carnapping has no attempted stage. In sum, if an incident similar of the Del la Cruz case happens, the offender
should be prosecuted and convicted of the crime of “attempted qualified theft.”

CRIMES COVERED BY RECTIFICATION OF SIMULATED BIRTH (RA 11222:Feb. 21, 2019)

Simulation of birth is committed by any person who shall simulate birth for another. (Article 347)

Simulation of birth is the tampering of the civil registry making it appear in the birth records that a certain child was born to a person who is not his/her
biological mother, causing such child to lose his/her true identity and status. (Section 3 of R.A. No. 8552 or the Domestic Adoption Law; Section 3 of RA No.
11222) Any person who shall cause the fictitious registration of the birth of a child under the name of a person who is not his/her biological parent shall be
guilty of simulation of birth under Section 21 (b) of R.A. No. 8552 or under Article 347 of the Revised Penal Code.

Complex concept of simulation of birth

Physician or surgeon who, in violation of the duties of his profession, shall cooperate in the execution of simulation of births is liable under Article 347 of the
Revised Penal Code.

If the birth of the child is simulated by the doctor for the purpose of selling, trading or dealing with the child, the crime committed is attempted child trafficking
or attempted trafficking in person.

Simulation of birth of a child by a doctor, nurse, hospital or clinic employee or midwife for the purpose of child trafficking is constitutive of the crime of
attempted child trafficking under Section 8 of RA No. 7610.

Simulating a birth for the purpose of selling the child is attempted trafficking in person under Section 4-A of RA No. 9208 as amended by RA No. 10364.

If after the simulation of birth, the child is delivered to the buyer or child trafficker, the crime committed is child trafficking.
Engaging in trading and dealing with children such as buying and selling or barter is constitutive of the crime of child trafficking under Section 7 of RA No.
7610.If the trafficker bought the child, whose birth was simulated, for prostitution, pornography, slaver, force labor, or removal of organ, the crime committed
is qualified trafficking in person.

Transfer by giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person for the purpose of exploitation
constitutes trafficking in person under Section 4 in relation to Section 3 of RA No. 9208.

The fact that the trafficked person is a child is a qualifying circumstance under Section 6 thereof.

Rectification

Under Section 4 of RA No. 11222, the person, who simulated birth certificate, can rectified it by filing a petition for adoption with an application for the
rectification of the simulated birth record within ten (10) years from the effectivity of this law. Adoption is allowed even if the person to be adopted is already
an adult. The person, who simulated the birth of a child, and those who cooperated in the execution of such simulation, shall not be criminally, civilly, or
administratively liable for such act subject to the following conditions:

1. The simulation of birth happens prior to the effectivity of RA No. 11222;

2. The simulation of birth was made for the best interest of the child;

3. The child has been consistently considered and treated by such person or persons as her, his, or their own daughter or son;

Upon consummation of the crime of simulation of birth, the responsible persons immediately incur criminal liability.

However, such criminal liability shall be extinguished by rectification of the birth record though adoption under RA No. 11222.

In sum, rectification of birth record is a new mode of extinguishing criminal liability arising from simulation of birth.

What is cyber libel law?

Defamation by electronic means Under Article 20 of the Cyber Crime Law it is an offence to insult others or have attributed to them an incident that may
make them subject to punishment or contempt by others using a computer network or any information technology means.

Act No. 10175

The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, officially recorded as Republic Act No. 10175, is a law in the Philippines approved on September 12, 2012. ...
Among the cybercrime offenses included in the bill are cybersquatting, cybersex, child pornography, identity theft, illegal access to data and libel.

Libel under the 1930s Revised Penal Code (RPC) prescribes only in 1 year, meaning, you can be sued for libel only within a year of publication. The
disputed Rappler article was published May 2012, which means complainant Wilfredo Keng had the right to sue only until May 2013. After Rappler corrected
a typo in the story in February 2014, Keng then had the chance to sue until February 2015. But Keng filed the complaint only in October 2017. The
cybercrime law was silent on the prescription period of cyber libel. To be able to charge Ressa and Santos, the DOJ found the pre-war Act 3326, which lays
out a general rule of prescription periods for special laws like the cybercrime law.

Libel under RPC is punishable by up to 6 years, but the cybercrime law imposed a penalty one degree higher, which raised cyber libel's penalty to up to 12
years.

Act 3326 says that if special laws have penalties exceeding 6 years, crimes prescribe in 12 years.

CYBER LIBEL

Supreme Court Ruling

On February 18, 2014, The Supreme Court ruled the online libel provision of the act to be constitutional, although it struck down other provisions, including
the ones that violated the provisions on double jeopardy.

HEINOUS CRIMINAL IS ENTITLED TO GOOD CONDUCT ALLOWANCE

RA No. 10952 amended Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code on credit of preventive imprisonment and Article 97 on good conduct allowance. Portion of
Article 29 provides:

“Provided, finally, That recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees and persons charged with heinous crimes are excluded from the coverage of this Act.”

This afore-quoted proviso is found in Article 29. Hence, this proviso on exclusion of heinous crimes merely qualifies the provision under Article 29 on good
conduct allowance pertaining to preventive imprisonment, and not Article 97 on good conduct allowance on the imprisonment by final judgement. In sum,
one, who committed a heinous crime, is not entitled to the good conduct allowance on the preventive imprisonment under Article 29; but he is still entitled to
good conduct allowance on imprisonment by final judgment under Article 97.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10655

July 28, 2014

AN ACT REPEALING THE CRIME OF PREMATURE MARRIAGE UNDER ARTICLE 351 OF ACT NO. 3815, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED
PENAL CODE

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10158 March 27, 2012

AN ACT DECRIMINALIZING VAGRANCY, AMENDING FOR THIS PURPOSE ARTICLE 202 OF ACT NO. 3815, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS
THE REVISED PENAL CODE

Republic Act 11862: Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2022

SEC. 21. Repealing Clause. – Article 202 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 10158, is deemed repealed XXX

Article 202. Vagrants and prostitutes; Penalty. - The following are vagrants:

1. Any person having no apparent means of subsistence, who has the physical abilityto work and who neglects to apply himself or herself to some lawful
calling;

2. Any person found loitering about public or semi-public buildings or places or trampling or wandering about the country or the streets without visible means
of support;

3. Any idle or dissolute person who ledges in houses of ill fame; ruffians or pimps and those who habitually associate with prostitutes;

4. Any person who, not being included in the provisions of other articles of this Code, shall be found loitering in any inhabited or uninhabited place belonging
to another without any lawful or justifiable purpose;

5. Prostitutes. For the purposes of this article, women who, for money or profit, habitually indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to
be prostitutes.
 CRIMES AGAINST PERSON
ELEMENTS OF MURDER (ART. 248 RPC)

1. A person was killed;

2. Accused killed him;

3. The killing was attended by any of the following qualifying circumstances –

a. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid or armed men, or employing means to waken the defense, or of
means or persons to insure or afford impunity;

b. In consideration of a price, reward or promise;

c. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, by
means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin;

d. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone,
epidemic, or any other public calamity;

e. With evident premeditation;

f. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.

Homicide is qualified to murder if any of the qualifying circumstances under Article 248 is present.

It is the unlawful killing of a person not constituting murder, parricide or infanticide.

In murder, any of the following qualifying circumstances is present:

(1) Treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, aid or armed men, or employing means to waken the defense, or of means or persons to
insure or afford impunity;

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof that
tend directly and especially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

In People v. Pugay and Samson, 167 SCRA 439,

there was a town fiesta and the two accused were at

the town plaza with their companions. All were uproariously happy, apparently drenched with drink. Then, the group saw the victim, a 25 year
old retard walking nearby and they made him dance by tickling his sides with a piece of wood. The victim and the accused Pugay were friends and, at
times, slept in the same place together. Having gotten bored with their form of entertainment, accused Pugay went and got a can of gasoline and poured it
all over the retard. Then, the accused Samson lit him up, making him a frenzied, shrieking human torch. The retard died.

DECISION

It was held that Pugay was guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence.

Samson only guilty of homicide, with the mitigating circumstance of no intention to commit so grave a wrong.

There was no animosity between the two accused and the victim such that it cannot be said that they resort to fire to kill him. It was merely a part of their
fun making but because their acts were felonious, they are criminally liable.

People of the Philippines vs. Buensuceso 132 SCRA 143.

Facts: Jose BUENSUCESO, Rodolfo AGUILAR, Condrado IZON, and Ernesto JOSON, all members of the police force of Dinalupihan, Bataan were
convicted of Murder.

Between 5pm and 6 pm of 21 April 1967, Patrolman Aguilar and Pariseo Tayag were conversing as they were walking towards the municipal building. Pat.
Aguilar was trying to take fan knife of Tayag, but could not take it because Tayag prevented him from taking it. At the suggestion of Pat. Aguilar, Tayag
readily agreed to go to the office of the chief police.

When they arrived in the said office, a heated argument took place between the two. Arising from the latter’s refusal to give his fan knife to the former. Chief
of Police Adriano Canlas arrived and inquired what the trouble, was all about. Pat. Aguilar answered that the two of them (Aguilar and Canlas ) had been
cursed by Tayag. Tayag asserted that he did not curse them, but that Aguilar was trying to force him to give up his knife. Thereafter, Tayag hurriedly left the
office, he was followed by Pat. Aguilar. After having gone out of the building, Pat. Aguilar fired his gun upward. Hearing the shot, Tayag turned about, then
retreated backwards until he reached the fence of plaza.

When Tayag was near the wooden fence about a knee high,Pat. Aguilar aimed his gun at the former and fired, hitting him above the right knee. Tayag
continued to run toward his house followed by dela Cruz without a gun. Pat. Mallari, carrying a gun, went to the waiting shed to intercept Tayag. Pat. Aguilar
followed Mallare in the shed and they took opposite sides of road. Then there were several successive gun shots.

After the commotion, Tayag was seen lying prostrate near the back of a jeep parked at the corner of Rizal and San Juan Streets, about 60 meters away
from the municipal building. Pat. Dela Cruz took the knife from Tayag and gave it to Pat. Jose Buensuceso,who at the precise moment had his revolver
tucked in its holster, Pat. Condrado Izon and Pat. Ernesto Jose were also seen in immediate vicinity of the crime.

Issue: Whether or not accused were guilty of murder.

Held: Yes.

Rationale: The victim was already retreating backward when Aguilar fired his revolver making the victim completely defenseless. Notwithstanding that he
was already hit and wounded, and possibly immobilized, he was still subjected to successive shot as shown by the wounds that he had received, even at his
back. Certainly, the means employed by the accused- appellants tended directly and specially to insure the execution of the crime without risk to
themselves.

The killing of the victim was aggravated by abuse of superior strength as shown by the number of assailants, which circumstance, however, is absorbed by
treachery.

SC further held that where victims died from several wounds inflicted by different persons and it is not known which person inflicted the mortal wound, all of
them are liable for victim’s death under theory of conspiracy.

Article 249. Homicide

Elements

1. A person was killed;

2. Offender killed him without any justifying circumstances;

3. Offender had the intention to kill, which is presumed;

4. The killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide or infanticide.

Distinction between homicide and physical injuries:

In attempted or frustrated homicide, there is intent to kill.

In physical injuries, there is none. However, if as a result of the physical injuries inflicted, the victim died, the crime will be homicide because the law
punishes the result, and not the intent of the act

The following are holdings of the Supreme

Court with respect to the crime of homicide:

(1) Physical injuries are included as one of the essential elements of frustrated homicide.

(2) If the deceased received two wounds from two persons acting independently of each other and the wound inflicted by either could have
caused death, both of them are liable for the death of the victim and each of them is guilty of homicide

(3) If the injuries were mortal but were only due to negligence, the crime committed will be serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence as
the element of intent to kill in frustrated homicide is incompatible with negligence or imprudence.

(4) Where the intent to kill is not manifest, the crime committed has been generally considered as physical injuries and not attempted or
frustrated murder or homicide.

(5) When several assailants not acting in conspiracy inflicted wounds on a victim but it cannot be determined who inflicted which would which caused
the death of the victim, all are liable for the victim’s death.

Note that while it is possible to have a crime of homicide through reckless imprudence, it is not possible to have a crime of frustrated homicide through
reckless imprudence.

Article 251. Death Caused in A Tumultuous Affray

Elements

1. There are several persons;

2. They do not compose groups organized for the common purpose of assaulting and attacking each other reciprocally;

3. These several persons quarreled and assaulted one another in a confused and tumultuous manner;

4. Someone was killed in the course of the affray;

5. It cannot be ascertained who actually killed the deceased;

6. The person or persons who inflicted serious physical injuries or who used violence can be identified

Tumultuous affray simply means a commotion in a tumultuous and confused manner, to such an extent that it would not be possible to identify who the killer
is if death results, or who inflicted the serious physical injury, but the person or persons who used violence are known.

It is not a tumultuous affray which brings about the crime; it is the inability to ascertain actual perpetrator. It is necessary that the very person who
caused the death can not be known, not that he can not be identified. Because if he is known but only his identity is not known, then he will be charged for
the crime of homicide or murder under a fictitious name and not death in a tumultuous affray. If there is a conspiracy, this crime is not committed.

To be considered death in a tumultuous affray, there must be:

(1) a quarrel, a free-for-all, which should not involve organized group; and

(2) someone who is injured or killed because of the fight.

As long as it cannot be determined who killed the victim, all of those persons who inflicted serious physical injuries will be collectively answerable for the
death of that fellow.

The Revised Penal Code sets priorities as to who may be liable for the death or physical injury in tumultuous affray:

(1) The persons who inflicted serious physical injury upon the victim;

(2) If they could not be known, then anyone who may have employed violence on that person will answer for his death.

(3) If nobody could still be traced to have employed violence upon the victim, nobody will answer. The crimes committed might be disturbance of
public order, or if participants are armed, it could be tumultuous disturbance, or if property was destroyed, it could be malicious mischief.

The fight must be tumultuous. The participants must not be members of an organized group. This is different from a rumble which involves organized
groups composed of persons who are to attack others. If the fight is between such groups, even if you cannot identify who, in particular, committed
the killing, the adverse party composing the organized group will be collectively charged for the death of that person.

If a fight ensued between 20 Sigue-Sigue Gang men and 20 Bahala-Na- Gang men, and in the course thereof, one from each group was killed, the crime
would be homicide or murder; there will be collective responsibility on both sides. Note that the person killed need not be a participant in the fight.

Article 252. Physical Injuries Inflicted in A Tumultuous Affray

Elements

1. There is a tumultuous affray;

2. A participant or some participants thereof suffered serious physical injuries or physical injuries of a less serious nature only;

3. The person responsible thereof can not be identified;

4. All those who appear to have used violence upon the person of the offended party are known.

If in the course of the tumultuous affray, only serious or less serious physical injuries are inflicted upon a participant, those who used violence upon the
person of the offended party shall be held liable.

In physical injuries caused in a tumultuous affray, the conditions are also the same. But you do not have a crime of physical injuries resulting from a
tumultuous affray if the physical injury is only slight. The physical injury should be serious or less serious and resulting from a tumultuous affray. So
anyone who may have employed violence will answer for such serious or less serious physical injury.
If the physical injury sustained is only slight, this is considered as inherent in a tumultuous affray. The offended party cannot complain if he cannot
identify who inflicted the slight physical injuries on him.

Article 246. Parricide

Elements

1. A person is killed;

2. The deceased is killed by the accused;

3. The deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or the
legitimate spouse, of the accused.

This is a crime committed between people who are related by blood. Between spouses, even though they are not related by blood, it is also
parricide

The relationship must be in the direct line and not in the collateral line.

The relationship between the offender and the offended party must be legitimate, except when the offender and the offended party are related as
parent and child.

If the offender and the offended party, although related by blood and in the direct line, are separated by an intervening illegitimate relationship, parricide can
no longer be committed. The illegitimate relationship between the child and the parent renders all relatives after the child in the direct line to be
illegitimate too.

The only illegitimate relationship that can bring about parricide is that between parents and illegitimate children as the offender and the offended
parties.

A is the parent of B, the illegitimate daughter. B married C and they begot a legitimate child D. If D, daughter of B and C, would kill A, the
grandmother, the crime cannot be parricide anymore because of the intervening illegitimacy. The relationship between A and D is no longer legitimate.
Hence, the crime committed is homicide or murder.

Since parricide is a crime of relationship, if a stranger conspired in the commission of the crime, he cannot be held liable for parricide. His participation would
make him liable for murder or for homicide, as the case may be. The rule of conspiracy that the act of one is the act of all does not apply here because of
the personal relationship of the offender to the offended party.

A spouse of B conspires with C to kill B. C is the stranger in the relationship. C killed B with treachery. The means employed is made known to A and A
agreed that the killing will be done by poisoning.

As far as A is concerned, the crime is based on his relationship with B. It is therefore parricide. The treachery that was employed in killing Bong will only be
generic aggravating circumstance in the crime of parricide because this is not one crime that requires a qualifying circumstance.

But that same treachery, insofar as C is concerned, as a stranger who cooperated in the killing, makes the crime murder; treachery becomes a qualifying
circumstance.

In killing a spouse, there must be a valid subsisting marriage at the time of the killing. Also, the information should allege the fact of such valid marriage
between the accused and the victim.

People of the Philippines vs. Jumawan 116 SCRA 739

Facts: Rodolfo Magnaye was married on 26 January 1974 to Presentacion Jumawan. Presentacion Jumawan Magnaye left the conjugal home and stayed
with her sister Sebastiana Jumawan. Rodolfo Magnaye, on the other hand, went and stayed with his mother.

Between 5:00 and 6:00 o’ clock in the afternoon of 19 June 1976 Rodolfo Magnaye was dressing up and told her mother that he was going to the public
market because his wife asked him to fetch her because they are going to talk about their lives. He left home at about 6:00 o’ clock.

Before reaching the slaughter house Rodolfo was killed by Jumawans. Francisco Jumawan is the father of his co-accused, namely, Cesario Jumawan,
Manuel Jumawan and Presentacion Jumawan (Rodolfo’s wife).

Issue: Whether the wife of victim Presentacion was guilty of parricide.

People of the Philippines vs. Jumawan 116 SCRA 739

Held: No.

Rationale: Presentacion should have been accused of parricide but as it is, since her relationship to the deceased is not alleged in the information, she, like
the others, can be convicted of murder only qualified by abuse of superior strength.

Although not alleged in the information, relationship as an aggravating circumstance should be assigned against the appellants. True, relationship is
inherent in parricide, but Presentacion stands convicted of murder. And as to the others, the relationships of father-in-law and brother-in-law aggravate the
crime

Article 247. Death or Physical Injuries Inflicted under Exceptional Circumstances

Elements

1. 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. 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;

3. He has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his wife or daughter, or that he or she has not consented to the infidelity of the other
spouse.

Two stages contemplated before the article will apply

(1) When the offender surprised the other spouse with a paramour or mistress. The attack must take place while the sexual intercourse is going
on. If the surprise was before or after the intercourse, no matter how immediate it may be, Article 247 does not apply. The offender in this situation only
gets the benefit of a mitigating circumstance, that is, sufficient provocation immediately preceding the act.

(2) When the offender kills or inflicts serious physical injury upon the other spouse and/or paramour while in the act of
intercourse, or immediately thereafter, that is, after surprising.

PEOPLE v. OYANIB 354 SCRA 196 (2001)

Facts: Manolito Oyanib & Tita Oyanib were legally married. Years thereafter they separated. Tita had affairs w/ other men. Manolito reminded her that they
were still legally married, but Tita still continued with her affairs.
One day, Manolito came to see Tita to inform her of a meeting w/ their son’s school... regarding their son’s failed subject. He then came upon Tita and his
paramour, Jesus Esquierdo, having sex w/ the latter on top of the other w/ his pants down to his knees.

Upon seeing him, Jesus kicked Manolito and Manolito immediately stabbed Jesus. Tita left the room, got a Tanduay bottle and hit Manolito with it in the
head. Tita then stabbed Manolito in the arm with the broken Tanduay bottle. This angered Manolito and he stabbed Tita as well.

Thereupon, Edgardo, owner of the house where Tita was staying entered the room. Manolito hid but later gave himself up.

He was found guilty of homicide and parricide and was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 6 month, 1 day to 6 yrs of prision correccional as minimum
to 6 yrs 1 day to 8 yrs of prision mayor as maximum and to pay P50K civil indemnity and costs for the death of Jesus and to reclusion perpetua, to pay P50K
and costs for the death of his wife Tita.

He appealed, admitting the killings but arguing that he killed them both under the exceptional circumstance provided in A247 RPC

Issue: WON he’s entitled to the exceptional privilege under RPC 247

Held: YES.

He invoked Art. 247, RPC as an absolutory and an exempting cause. “An absolutory cause is present where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of
public policy and sentiment there is no penalty imposed.”

Having admitted the killing, it is incumbent upon accused to prove the exempting circumstances to the satisfaction of the court in order to be relived of any
criminal liability.

RPC A247 prescribes the ff essential elements for such defense:

That a legally married person surprises his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person;

That he kills any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter; and

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.

People of the Philippines vs. Abarca 155 SCRA 735

Facts: Khingsley Paul Koh and the wife of the accused Jenny, had illicit relationship. The illicit relationship apparently began while the accused was in
Manila reviewing for 1983 Bar Examination. His wife was left in Tacloban, Leyte.

The accused arrived at his residence at around 6:00 o’clock in the afternoon. Upon reaching home, the accused found his wife and Khingsley in the act of
sexual intercourse. When the wife and Koh noticed the accused, the wife pushed her paramour and got revolver. The accused who was then peeping above
the built-in cabinet in their room jumped and ran away.

The accused got M-16 rifle, and went back to his house. His wife and Koh were not there. He proceeded to “mah-jong session” as it was the hangout of
Khingsley Koh and found him playing mah-jong. He fired him 3 times with his rifle. Koh was hit. Arnold and Lina Amparado who were occupying a room
where Koh was playing were also hit. Khingsley Koh died instantaneously and Arnold was hospitalized. His wife, Lina Amparado was also treated in the
hospital as she was heat by bullet fragment.

The trial court found the accused guilty of the complex crime of murder with double frustrated murder.

The Solicitor General however recommends that Article 247 of the RPC should be applied defining death under exceptional circumstances, complexed with
double frustrated murder.

Issue: Whether or not Abarca was covered by privileged under Art.247 of the RPC.

Held: Yes.

Rationale: Article 247 prescribes the following elements: 1.) that a legally married person surprises his spouse in the act of sexual intercourse with another
person. 2.) that he kills any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter. These elements are present in this case.

Though quite a length of time, about one hour, had passed between the time accused discovered his wife having sexual intercourse with the victim and the
time the later was shot, the shooting must be understood to be the continuation of the pursuit of the victim by the accused appellant. The RPC in requiring
that the accused “shall kill any of them or both...immediately” after surprising his spouse in the act of sexual intercourse, does not say that he should commit
the killing instantly thereafter. It only requires that the death caused be the proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the accused after chancing upon
his spouse in the basest act of infidelity. But the killing should have been actually motivated by the same blind impulse, and must not have been influenced
by external factors. The killing must be direct by-product of the accused rage. Art.247, not being punishable act, cannot be qualified by either aggravating or
mitigating or other qualifying circumstances. Thus, the court cannot accordingly appreciate treachery in this case.

On the liability of Abarca for the physical injuries suffered by the Amparados, Abarca did not have the intent to kill the Amparado couple. Although as a rule,
one committing an offense is liable for the consequences of his act that presupposes that the act done amounts to felony. In the case at bar, Abarca was not
committing murder when he discharged his rifle upon deceased. Inflicting death under exceptional circumstances is not murder. The court cannot therefore
hold Abarca liable for frustrated murder for injuries suffered by Amparados.

Article 255. Infanticide

Elements

1. A child was killed by the accused;

2. The deceased child was less than 72 hours old.

This is a crime based on the age of the victim. The victim should be less than three days old.

The offender may actually be the parent of the child. But you call the crime infanticide, not parricide, if the age of the victim is less than three days old. If
the victim is three days old or above, the crime is parricide.

An unmarried woman, A, gave birth to a child, B. To conceal her dishonor, A conspired with C to dispose of the child. C agreed and killed the child B by
burying the child somewhere.

If the child was killed when the age of the child was three days old and above already, the crime of A is parricide. The fact that the killing was done to
conceal her dishonor will not mitigate the criminal liability anymore because concealment of dishonor in killing the child is not mitigating in parricide.

If the crime committed by A is parricide because the age of the child is three days old or above, the crime of the co- conspirator C is murder. It is
not parricide because he is not related to the victim.

If the child is less than three days old when killed, both the mother and the stranger commits infanticide because infanticide is not predicated on the
relation of the offender to the offended party but on the age of the child. In such a case, concealment of dishonor as a motive for the mother to have the
child killed is mitigating.

People vs. Bandian, 63 Phil. 530, [No. 45186] (Sept. 30, 1936)
FACTS: Accused went to a thicket to respond to the call of nature. When she emerged from the thicket, her clothes was stained with blood, staggering and
showing signs of not being able to support herself. Her neighbor came to her aid and brought her home. They found a body of a new-born baby in the thicket
where the accused had gone few moments ago. Accused claimed it was hers. The physician declared that the accused gave birth in her own house;
thereafter, threw her child into the thicket to kill it. The trial court gave credit to his opinion and charged the accused with infanticide.

ISSUE: Whether or not accused is guilty of infanticide.

No. Accused is not guilty of infanticide. The court ruled that infanticide to be punishable, must be committed wilfully or consciously, or at least it must be
result of a voluntary, conscious and free act or omission. Even in cases where said crimes are committed through mere imprudence, the person who
commits them, under said circumstances, must be in the full enjoyment of his mental faculties, or must be conscious of his acts, in order that he may be held
liable.

The evidence certainly does not show that the accused, in causing her child's death in one way or another, or in abandoning it in the thicket, did so wilfully,
consciously or imprudently. Accused was not aware of her childbirth, or if she was, it did not occur to her or she was unable to take her child from the thicket
where she had given it birth due to her debility or dizziness, which causes may be considered lawful or insuperable to constitute the seventh exempting
circumstance so as not to leave it abandoned and exposed to the danger of losing its life.

Article 262 Mutilation

Acts punished

1. Intentionally mutilating another by depriving him, either totally or partially, of some essential organ for reproduction;

Elements

1. There be a castration, that is, mutilation of organs necessary for generation, such as the penis or ovarium;

2. The mutilation is caused purposely and deliberately, that is, to deprive the offended party of some essential organ for reproduction.

2. Intentionally making other mutilation, that is, by lopping or clipping off any part of the body of the offended party, other than the essential organ for
reproduction, to deprive him of that part of his body.

Mutilation is the lopping or clipping off of some part of the body.

The intent to deliberately cut off the particular part of the body that was removed from the offended party must be established. If there is no intent
to deprive victim of particular part of body, the crime is only serious physical injury.

The common mistake is to associate this with the reproductive organs only. Mutilation includes any part of the human body that is not susceptible to grow
again.

If what was cut off was a reproductive organ, the penalty is much higher than that for homicide.

This cannot be committed through criminal negligence.

Article 263. Serious Physical Injuries How committed

1. By wounding;

2. By beating;

3. By assaulting; or

4. By administering injurious substance

In US v. ANDRES VILLANUEVA
[ GR No. 10606, Sep 11, 1915 ]

the accused, while conversing with the offended party, drew the latter’s bolo from its scabbard. The offended party caught hold of the edge of the blade
of his bolo and wounded himself. It was held that since the accused did not wound, beat or assault the offended party, he can not be guilty of serious
physical injuries.

What are serious physical injuries?

They are when the injured person, in consequence of the physical injuries inflicted;

(1) becomes insane, imbecil, impotent or blind (Prision Mayor- 6y1D to 12Y)

(2)(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; (Prision Correcional
Med to Max- 2Y4M1D to 6Y)

(3)(a) becomes deformed; or

(b) loses any other 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; (6M1D to 4Y2M)

(4) becomes ill or incapacitated for labor for more than 30 days (but must not be more than 90 days). (Arresto Mayor Max to Prision Coreccional Min or
6M1D TO 2Y4M)

NOTE:

In physical injuries, there must no be intent to kill, otherwise the crime is frustrated/attempted murder or homicide as the case may be.

The crime of physical injuries is a crime of result because under our laws the crime of physical injuries is based on the gravity of the injury sustained. So this
crime is always consummated,

If the act does not give rise to injuries, you will not be able to say whether it is attempted slight physical injuries, attempted less serious physical
injuries, or attempted serious physical injuries unless the result is there.

The reason why there is no attempted or frustrated physical injuries is because the crime of physical injuries is determined on the gravity of the injury. As
long as the injury is not there, there can be no attempted or frustrated stage thereof.

Classification of physical injuries:

(1) Between slight physical injuries and less serious physical injuries, you have a duration of one to nine days if slight physical injuries;

or 10 days to 20 days if less serious physical injuries. Consider the duration of healing and treatment.

The significant part here is between slight physical injuries and less serious physical injuries. You will consider not only the healing duration of the injury
but also the medical attendance required to treat the injury.

So the healing duration may be one to nine days, but if the medical treatment continues beyond nine days, the physical injuries would already qualify
as less serious physical injuries. The medical treatment may have lasted for nine days, but if the offended party is still incapacitated for labor beyond nine
days, the physical injuries are already considered less serious physical injuries.

(2) Between less serious physical injuries and serious physical injuries, you do not consider the period of medical treatment. You only
consider the period when the offended party is rendered incapacitated for labor.

If the offended party is incapacitated to work for less than 30 days, even though the treatment continued beyond 30 days, the physical injuries are only
considered less serious because for purposes of classifying the physical injuries as serious, you do not consider the period of medical treatment. You only
consider the period of incapacity from work.

(3) When the injury created a deformity upon the offended party, you disregard the healing duration or the period of medical treatment
involved. At once, it is considered serious physical injuries.

So even though the deformity may not have incapacitated the offended party from work, or even though the medical treatment did not go beyond nine days,
that deformity will bring about the crime of serious physical injuries.

Deformity requires the concurrence of the following conditions:

(1) The injury must produce ugliness;

(2) It must be visible;

(3) The ugliness will not disappear through natural healing process.

Illustration:

Loss of molar tooth – This is not deformity as it is not visible.

Loss of permanent front tooth – This is deformity as it is visible and permanent.

Loss of milk front tooth – This is not deformity as it is visible but will be naturally replaced.

QUESTION

The offender threw acid on the face of the offended party. Were it not for timely medical attention, a deformity would have been produced on the face of the
victim. After the plastic surgery, the offended party was more handsome than before the injury.

What crime was committed?

In what stage was it committed?

ANSWER

The crime is serious physical injuries because the problem itself states that the injury would have produced a deformity. The fact that the plastic surgery
removed the deformity is immaterial because in law what is considered is not the artificial treatment but the natural healing process.

In a case decided by the Supreme Court, accused was charged with serious physical injuries because the injuries produced a scar. He was convicted
under Article 263 (4). He appealed because, in the course of the trial, the scar disappeared. It was held that accused can not be convicted of serious
physical injuries. He is liable only for slight physical injuries because the victim was not incapacitated, and there was no evidence that the medical
treatment lasted for more than nine days.

Serious physical injuries is punished with higher penalties in the following cases:

(1) If it is committed against any of the persons referred to in the crime of parricide under Article 246;

(2) If any of the circumstances qualifying murder attended its commission.

Thus, a father who inflicts serious physical injuries upon his son will be liable for qualified serious physical injuries.

Article 264. Administering Injurious

Substances or Beverages

Elements

1. Offender inflicted upon another any serious physical injury;

2. It was done by knowingly administering to him any injurious substance or beverages or by taking advantage of his weakness of mind or
credulity;

3. He had no intent to kill.

Article 265. Less Serious Physical

Injuries

Matters to be noted in this crime

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.

Qualified as to penalty

1. A fine not exceeding P 500.00, in addition to arresto mayor, shall be imposed for less serious physical injuries when –

a. There is a manifest intent to insult or offend the injured person; or

b. There are circumstances adding ignominy to the offense.

2. A higher penalty is imposed when the victim is either –

a. The offender’s parents, ascendants, guardians, curators or teachers; or

b. Persons of rank or person in authority, provided the crime is not direct assault.

If the physical injuries do not incapacitate the offended party nor necessitate medical attendance, slight physical injuries is committed.

But if the physical injuries heal after 30 days, serious physical injuries is committed under Article 263, paragraph 4.

Article 266. Slight Physical Injuries and

Maltreatment

Acts punished

1. Physical injuries incapacitated the offended party for labor from one to nine days, or required medical attendance during the same period;

2. Physical injuries which did not prevent the offended party from engaging in his habitual work or which did not require medical attendance;

3. Ill-treatment of another by deed without causing any injury.

This involves even ill-treatment where there is no sign of injury requiring medical treatment.

Slapping the offended party is a form of ill- treatment which is a form of slight physical injuries.

But if the slapping is done to cast dishonor upon the person slapped, the crime is slander by deed. If the slapping was done without the intention of casting
dishonor, or to humiliate or embarrass the offended party out of a quarrel or anger, the crime is still ill-treatment or slight physical injuries

Article 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed

Elements under paragraph 1

1. Offender is a man;

2. Offender had carnal knowledge of a woman;

3. Such act is accomplished under any of the following circumstances:

a. By using force or intimidation;

b. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;

c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; or

d. When the woman is under 12 years of age or demented.

Republic Act No. 8353 (An Act Expanding the Definition of the Crime of Rape, Reclassifying the Same as A Crime against Persons, Amending for
the Purpose the Revised Penal Code) repealed Article335 on rape and added a chapter on Rape under Title 8.

Classification of rape

(1) Traditional concept under Article 335

– carnal knowledge with a woman against her will. The offended party

is always a woman and the offender

is always a man.

(2) Sexual assault - committed with an instrument or an object or use of the penis with penetration of mouth or anal orifice.

The offended party or the offender can either be man or woman, that is, if a woman or a man uses an instrument on anal orifice of male, she or he can be
liable for rape.

Rape is committed when a man has carnal knowledge of a woman under the following circumstances: (SEXUAL INTERCOURSE)

(1) Where intimidation or violence is employed with a view to have carnal knowledge of a woman;

(2) Where the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;

(3) Where the rape was made possible because of fraudulent machination or abuse of authority; or

(4) Where the victim is under 12 years of age, or demented, even though no intimidation nor violence is employed.

Sexual assault is committed under the following circumstances:

(1) Where the penis is inserted into the anal or oral orifice; or

(2) Where an instrument or object is inserted into the genital or anal orifice.

Prior to the amendment of the law on rape, a complaint must be filed by the offended woman. The persons who may file the same in behalf of the
offended woman if she is a minor or if she was incapacitated to file, were as follows: a parent; in default of parents, a grandparent; in default or grandparent,
the judicial guardian.

Since rape is not a private crime anymore, it can be prosecuted even if the woman does not file a complaint.

Under Article 266-C, the offended woman may pardon the offender through a subsequent valid marriage, the effect of which would be the extinction of
the offender’s liability. Similarly, the legal husband may be pardoned by forgiveness of the wife provided that the marriage is not void ab initio.

Obviously, under the new law, the husband may be liable for rape if his wife does not want to have sex with him. It is enough that there is indication of any
amount of resistance as to make it rape

INCESTUOUS RAPE

Incestuous rape was coined in Supreme Court decisions. It refers to rape committed by an ascendant of the offended woman. In such cases, the force and
intimidation need not be of such nature as would be required in rape cases had the accused been a stranger.

Conversely, the Supreme Court expected that if the offender is not known to woman, it is necessary that there be evidence of affirmative resistance put up
by the offended woman. Mere “no, no” is not enough if the offender is a stranger, although if the rape is incestuous, this is enough.

The new rape law also requires that there be a physical overt act manifesting resistance, if the offended party was in a situation where he or she is
incapable of giving valid consent, this is admissible in evidence to show that carnal knowledge was against his or her will.

THERE IS NO FRUSTRATED RAPE…

ONLY FRUSTRATED RAPIST

People of the Philippines vs. Orita 184 SCRA 105

Facts: In early morning of March 20, 1983, Cristina arrived at her boarding house. Her classmates had just brought her home from a party. Shortly after her
classmates had left, she knocked at the door of her boarding house. All of sudden, somebody held her and poked a knife to her neck. She then recognized
Orita a Philippine Constabulary Soldier who was a frequent visitor of another boarder.

Orita dragged complainant upstairs. When they reached the 2nd floor, he commanded her to look for a room. With the batangas knife still poked to her
neck, they entered complainant’s room. Orita ordered Cristina to lie down on the floor and mounted her. He made her hold his penis and insert it her vagina.
She followed his order as he continued to poke the knife to her. At said position, however, appellant could not fully penetrate her. Only a portion of his penis
entered her as she keeps moving. Orita commanded the complainant to mount him. Only small part of his penis was inserted into her vagina. In this position
complainant manage to escape. She ran the next room and jumped to the window. Still naked, she darted to the municipal building where she seeks for the
help of policemen.

RTC found Orita guilty of frustrated rape.

Issue: Whether or not frustrated rape was proper.

Held: No.

Rationale: Clearly in the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has carnal knowledge of his victim, he actually attains his purpose and, from that
moment also all essential elements of the offense have been accomplished. Nothing more is left to be done by the offender, because he has performed the
last act necessary to crime. Thus, the felony is consummated. In long line of cases, the uniform rule is that for the consummation of rape, perfect penetration
is not essential. Any penetration of the female organ by male organ is sufficient to warrant conviction.

Ernia ruling where the court found the offender guilty of frustrated rape was already a stray decision.

People v. Campuhan (2000):

The mother of the 4-year-old victim caught the houseboy Campuhan in the act of almost raping her daughter.

The hymen of the victim was still intact. However, since it was decided in People v. Orita that entry into labia is considered rape even without rupture and full
penetration of the hymen.

A question arises whether what transpired was attempted or consummated rape.

Held: There was only attempted rape. Mere touching of external genitalia by the penis is already rape. Touching should be understood as inherently part
of entry of penis penetration and not mere touching, in the ordinary sense, of the pudendum. Requires entry into the labia, even if there be no rupture of the
hymen or laceration of the vagina, to warrant a conviction for consummated rape. Where entry into the labia has not been established, the crime amounts to
an attempted rape. The prosecution did not prove that Campuhan’s penis was able to penetrate victim’s vagina because the kneeling position of the
accused obstructed the mother’s view of the alleged sexual contact. The testimony of the victim herself claimed that penis grazed but did not penetrate her
organ.