RE: REPORT ON LAW PROVISIONS &

JURISPRUDENCE
I. PHYSICAL INJURIES

Article 263
SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES
HOW COMMITTED:

1.
2.
3.
4.

Wounding
Beating
Assaulting
Administering injurious substances

ACTS PUNISHED - What are serious physical injuries:

1. Injured person becomes insane, imbecile, impotent or blind

2. Injured person
a. loses the use of speech or the power to hear or to smell, loses an eye, a hand, foot, arm
or leg
b. loses the use of any such member
c. becomes incapacitated for the work in which he had been habitually engaged
3. Injured person
a.
b.
c.
d.
4.

becomes deformed
loses any other member of his body
loses the use thereof
becomes ill or incapacitated for the performance of the work in which he had been
habitually engaged in for more than 90 days

Injured person becomes ill or incapacitated for labor for more than 30 days (but not more
than 90 days)

Article 265
LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES
ELEMENTS:

1.

That the 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.

That the physical injuries must not be those described in the preceding articles

Circumstances qualifying the offense:

a. when there is manifest intent to insult or offend the injured person
b. when there are circumstances adding ignominy to the offense
c. when the victim is either the offenders parents, ascendants, guardians, curators or teachers
d. when the victim is a person of rank or person in authority, provided the crime is not direct
assault

Article 266
SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES
3 KINDS:

1. That which incapacitated the offended party for labor from 1-9 days or required medical
attendance during the same period
2. That which did not prevent the offended party from engaging in his habitual work or which
did not require medical attendance (ex. Black-eye)
3. Ill-treatment of another by deed without causing any injury (ex. slapping but without
causing dishonor)
II. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
TRESSPASS TO DWELLING AS CRIME

Article 280
TRESPASS TO DWELLING
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a private person.
2.

That he enters the dwelling of another.

3.

That such entrance is against the latters will.

QUALIFYING circumstance:
-

if the offense is committed by means of violence or intimidation

DWELLING AS AN AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE

Dwelling (Morada)
(1) Building or structure, exclusively used
for rest
and comfort.Thus, in the case of People v.
Magnaye, a combination of a house and a
store, or a market stall where the victim
slept is not a dwelling.
(2) This is considered an AC because in
certain
cases, there is an abuse of confidence
which
the offended party reposed in the offender
by opening the door to him.
(3) Dwelling need not be owned by the
offended party.
(4) It is enough that he used the place for
his
peace of mind, rest, comfort and privacy.
(5) Dwelling should not be understood in
the
concept of a domicile: A person has more
than one dwelling. So, if a man has so
many
wives and he gave them places of their
own,
each one is his own dwelling. If he is killed
there, dwelling will be aggravating,
provided that he also stays there once in a
while.
(6) If a crime of adultery was committed.
Dwelling was considered aggravating on
the part of the paramour. However, if the
paramour was also residing in the same
dwelling, it will not be aggravating.
(7) The offended party must not give
provocation. (People v. Ambis).
(8) When a crime is committed in the
dwelling
of the offended party and the latter has
not
given provocation, dwelling may be
appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance. Provocation in the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling
must

be:
(a) given by the offended party
(b) sufficient, and
(c) immediate to the commission of the
crime.(People v. Rios, 2000)
(9) It is not necessary that the accused
should
have actually entered the dwelling of the
victim to commit the offense: it is enough
that the victim was attacked inside his
own
house, although the assailant may have
devised means to perpetrate the assault.
(People v. Ompaid, 1969)
(10) Dwelling includes dependencies, the
foot of
the staircase and the enclosure under the
house. (U.S. v. Tapan)
Basis: Greater perversity of the offender
as shown by
the personal circumstances of the
offended party and
the place of the commission of the crime.
People vs. Taoan: Teachers, professors,
supervisors of
public and duly recognized private
schools, colleges
and universities, as well as lawyers are
persons in
authority for purposes of direct assault
and simple
resistance, but not for purposes of
aggravating
circumstances in paragraph 2, Article 14.
People v. Tao (2000):Dwelling cannot be
appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance in this
case because the rape was committed in
the ground
floor of a two-story structure, the lower
floor being
used as a video rental store and not as a
private

place of abode or residence.

People v. Arizobal (2000): Generally,
dwelling is
considered inherent in the crimes which
can only be
committed in the abode of the victim,
such as
trespass to dwelling and robbery in an
inhabited
place. However, in robbery with homicide
the authors
thereof can commit the heinous crime
without
transgressing the sanctity of the victim's
domicile. In
the case at bar, the robbers demonstrated
an
impudent disregard of the inviolability of
the victims'
abode when they forced their way in,
looted their
houses, intimidated and coerced their
inhabitants
into submission, disabled Laurencio and
Jimmy by
tying their hands before dragging them
out of the
house to be killed.

Dwelling is not aggravating in the

following cases:
(1) When both offender and offended
party are
occupants of the same house (U.S. v.
Rodriguez),
and this is true even if offender is a
servant of
the house. (People v. Caliso)
(2) When the robbery is committed by the
use of
force things, dwelling is not aggravating
because it is inherent. (U.S. v. Cas). But
dwelling
is aggravating in robbery with violence or
intimidation of persons because this
class or
robbery can be committed without the
necessity
of trespassing the sanctity of the offended
partys house. (People v. Cabato)
(3) In the crime of trespass to dwelling, it
is inherent
or included by law in defining the crime.
(4) When the owner of the dwelling gave
sufficient
and immediate provocation. (Art. 14
par. 3)

ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE OR UNGRATEFULNESS AS AGGRAVATING

(a) Abuse of confidence (Abuso de
confianza)
(1) That the offended party had trusted
the
offender.
(2) That the offender abused such trust by
committing a crime against the offended
party.
(3) That the abuse of confidence
facilitated the
commission of the crime.
(a) The confidence between the offender
and
the offended party must be immediate
and
personal.
(b) It is inherent in malversation (Art. 217),
qualified theft (Art. 310), estafa by
conversion or misappropriation (Art. 315)
and qualified seduction. (Art. 337).
(b) Obvious ungratefulness

(1) That the offended party had trusted

the
offender;
(2) That the offender abused such trust by
committing a crime against the offended
party;
(3) That the act be committed with
obvious
ungratefulness.
(a) The ungratefulness must be obvious:
(1)
manifest and (2) clear.
(b) In a case where the offender is a
servant, the
offended party is one of the members of
the
family. The servant poisoned the child. It
was held that abuse of confidence is
aggravating. This is only true, however, if
the servant was still in the service of the
family when he did the killing. If he was
driven by the master out of the house for

some time and he came back to poison

the
child, abuse of confidence will no longer
be
aggravating. The reason is because that
confidence has already been terminated
when the offender was driven out of the
house.
People v. Arrojado (2001):For the
aggravating
circumstance of abuse of confidence to
exist, it is

essential to show that the confidence

between the
parties must be immediate and personal
such as
would give the accused some advantage
or make it
easier for him to commit the criminal act.
The
confidence must be a means of facilitating
the
commission of the crime, the culprit taking
advantage of the offended party's belief
that the
former would not abuse said confidence.

ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH AS AGGRAVATING

To TAKE ADVANTAGE of superior strength
means
(a) to use purposely excessive force
(b) out of proportion to the means of
defense
available to the person attacked.
Superiority may arise from
(a) aggressors sex, build, weapon or
number
(b) as compared to that of the victim (e.g.
accused
attacked an unarmed girl with a knife; 3
men
stabbed to death the female victim).
No advantage of superior strength when
(a) one who attacks is overcome with
passion and
obfuscation or
(b) when quarrel arose unexpectedly and
the fatal
blow was struck while victim and accused
were
struggling.
Versus by a band:
In the circumstance of abuse of superior
strength,
what is taken into account is
(a) not the number of aggressors nor the
fact that
they are armed
(b) but their relative physical might vis-vis the
offended party
Means Employed to Weaken Defense
This circumstance is applicable only
(a) to crimes against persons and

(b) sometimes against person and

property, such as
robbery with physical injuries or homicide.
Note: The means used must not totally
eliminate
possible defense of the victim, otherwise
it will fall
under treachery
Basis: Means employed in the commission
of the
crime.
People v. Carpio:There must be evidence
of notorious
inequality of forces between the offender
and the
offended party in their age, size and
strength, and
that the offender took advantage of such
superior
strength in the commission of the crime.
The mere
fact that there were two persons who
attacked the
victim does not per se constitute abuse of
superior
strength.
People v. Lobrigas (2002):The crime
committed was
murder qualified by the aggravating
circumstance of
abuse of superior strength. To appreciate
abuse of
superior strength, there must be a
deliberate intent
on the part of the malefactors to take
advantage of

their greater number. They must have

notoriously
selected and made use of superior
strength in the
commission of the crime. To take
advantage of
superior strength is to use excessive force
that is out
of proportion to the means for self-defense
available
to the person attacked; thus, the
prosecution must
clearly show the offenders' deliberate
intent to do so.
People v. Barcelon (2002): Abuse of
superior strength
was present in the commission of the
crime. The
court cited the case of People vs. Ocumen,
where an
attack by a man with a deadly weapon
upon an
unarmed woman constitutes the
circumstance of
abuse of that superiority which his sex and
the
weapon used in the act afforded him, and
from
which the woman was unable to defend
herself.
The disparity in age between the assailant
and the
victim, aged 29 and 69, respectively,
indicates
physical superiority on appellant's part
over the

deceased. It did not matter that appellant

was "dark"
with a "slim body build" or "medyo
mataba." What
mattered was that the malefactor was
male and
armed with a lethal weapon that he used
to slay the
victim.
People v. Sansaet (2002):Mere superiority
in number,
even assuming it to be a fact, would not
necessarily
indicate the attendance of abuse of
superior
strength. The prosecution should still
prove that the
assailants purposely used excessive force
out of
proportion to the means of defense
available to the
persons attacked.
Finally, to appreciate the qualifying
circumstance of
abuse of superior strength, what should be
considered is whether the aggressors took
advantage of their combined strength in
order to
consummate the offense. To take
advantage of
superior strength means to purposely use
excessive
force out of proportion to the means
available to the
person attacked to defend himself.

III.
IV.

AMENDED PENALTIES FOR PHYSICAL INJURIES

FOR ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE

Article 249
HOMICIDE
ELEMENTS:
1. That a person was killed.
2. That the accused killed him without any justifying circumstances.
3. That the accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed.
4. That the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of
murder, or by that of parricide or infanticide.

PENALTIES

V. JURISPRUDENCE ON CHEATING IN SCHOOL

VI.
JURISPRUDENCE ON EJECTMENT