University of San Carlos

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW TRANSCRIPTION

Judge M. Paredes

R.A. 1379: ACT DECLARING FORFEITURE OF ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH OF PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
Section 1 starts with definitions. Like public officer or employee. Any person holding any office by appointment or
contract.
Section 2: Procedure. If there is a public officer or employee who has acquired during his incumbency an amount of property
which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary and to his other lawful income and the income of legitimately acquired
property, said property shall be presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired.
So consider three things: 1) salary 2) other lawful income 3) income from legitimately acquired property. You add
the three. If the public officer acquired an amount of property which is manifestly out of proportion of the three, then there is
a prima facie presumption that the property has been unlawfully acquired.
Now what is the meaning of other legitimately acquired property? Its found in letter B of definitions. 1) Real or
personal property etc which the respondent has at anytime acquired by inheritance; 2) income of inheritance before becoming
public officer or employee; 3) property already pertaining to him when he qualified for public office or employment or fruits
and income of exclusive property. They are all considered legitimately acquired property.
But it shall not include the following: 1) property unlawfully acquired but ownership is concealed; 2) property
unlawfully acquired by respondent but transferred to another; 3) property donated to respondent unless he can prove to the
satisfaction of the court that the donation is lawful.
So if a taxpayer knows of any public officer or employee who has unlawfully acquired property, then he may file a
complaint before the City or Provincial Prosecutors Office. What shall the office do? Conduct previous inquiry similar to
preliminary investigation in criminal cases. So he will conduct an investigation similar to preliminary investigation. Meaning
affidavits of complainant. Of course the public officer will be given a chance to answer, the respondent may file counteraffidavits. Both sides may present witnesses. If the prosecutor finds probable cause, meaning there is reasonable ground to
believe that the law is violated and respondent is probably guilty thereof, what is required is not absolute certainty but
probability only.
Who will initiate forfeiture proceedings? Answer: SOLICITOR GENERAL, in the name and on behalf of the Republic of
the Philippines. Question: with what court?
The law says court of first instance BUT forget it (it is not anymore RTC), it is now the Sandiganbayan . Thats the
latest.
Petition for a writ commanding said officer or employee to show cause why the property should not be declared
property of the State.
But there is proviso to protect politicians. No petition shall be filed within one year before any general election or
within three months before any special election.
Suppose the public officer or employee resigns or is dismissed or is separated from office or employment, is this a bar to the
filing of the petition? The answer is NO.
By the way there is a prescriptive period under this law but forget that prescriptive period because of the
constitutional provision the right of the state to recover unlawfully acquired wealth shall not be barred by prescription, lapses
or estoppel. So if there is any law with a prescriptive period with respect to recovery of ill-gotten wealth forget it because the
constitution said imprescriptible. But the penal aspect may prescribe, like plunder (20 years).
Section 3 is contents of petition.
Section 4 is period for the answer, 15 days. Then the court shall set a date for a hearing, open to the public. If
respondent is unable to show to the satisfaction of the court then the court shall declare such property forfeited in favor of the
State and by virtue of such judgment the property aforesaid shall become property of the State. Forfeiture is a penalty but
the procedure or proceeding is not criminal in nature, its civil proceeding because there is no penal provision under this law.
The only penalty is found in Section 12: Any public officer after the effective date of this act, transfer or convey any
unlawfully acquired property shall be punished with imprisonment. So what is punished is unlawful transfer or conveyance.
If a public officer is found liable under R.A. 1379, he will be dismissed from the service in relation with R.A. 3019
(Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
Now what is forfeiture? It is a divesture of property without compensation in consequence of a default or an offense and the
term is used in such a sense in this article, the case is Kabal vs Kapunana et al.
Is forfeiture case filed under R.A. 1379, criminal or civil? Supreme Court in Republic vs Sandiganbayan said forfeiture
proceeding are civil in nature contrary to the claim of respondent Marcoses but the forfeiture of property is a penalty. In
Garcia vs Sandiganbayan, the Supreme Court stated that forfeiture law establishes that it does not enumerate any
prohibited acts, the commission of which would necessitate the imposition of penalty.
Forfeiture case under R.A. 1379 is an independent civil action. There are those and which the law allows to be filed
separately from the criminal action and which may proceed independently of the criminal action. Section 3 of E.O. 14
describes forfeiture cases filed under R.A. 1379 as an independent civil action. It says may be filed separately from and
proceed independently of any criminal proceedings and may be proved by preponderance of evidence. It is independent civil
action which is separate and distinct from and regardless of the result of the criminal action.
In Republic vs Sandiganbayan, the Solicitor General filed an action under R.A. 1379, Imelda Marcos and her
children answered, it happened a long time, we can no longer recall, all things were legal, repeated several times in the
answer. Since this is civil proceedings, the court conducted pre-trial, then trial started, after the presentation of the first
witness, the Solicitor General filed a motion for summary judgment. The Marcoses contended that a motion for judgment
should be filed after answer. The Supreme Court made a very extensive research, decisions of Federal Supreme Court,
Criminal Law Second Installment 56

decisions of the State courts and it said adopting a decision of one State court that a motion for summary judgment may be
filed at anytime before judgment even if the plaintiff has already presented its initial evidence, if there no genuine issue then
the court may render summary judgment. So the Sandiganbayan rendered summary judgment and the Supreme Court said
what the Sandiganbayan did was correct. Why summary judgment? Because the answer of the Marcoses did not raise a
genuine issue. Lahi man ang judgment on the pleadings. Ang judgment on the pleadings, the answer admits the material
allegations of the complaint. In summary judgment, its different, the answer may have raised an issue but the issue is not
genuine. Thats the difference between judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment. Why summary judgment?
Because the answer says it happened a long time ago, we could no longer recall, everything was legal, etc, etc, it did not
raise a genuine issue.
By the way, under the law, it says Solicitor General, dili na Solicitor General according to the Supreme Court, Office
of the Ombudsman. Section 15 of Ombudsman Act: The proper action contemplated refers no less to the forfeiture
proceedings under R.A. 1379. It is clear that such forfeiture proceedings is in addition to the criminal action that may also be
filed against the public officials who enriched themselves at the expense of the public treasury.
The Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for forfeiture. So kanang gibasa ninyo karun na
CFI, sayop na na siya according to the case of Garcia vs Sandiganbayan. The Supreme Court stated that it logically congruent
that violation of R.A. 1379 are in place under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan even though the proceeding is civil in
nature since the forfeiture of the illegally acquired property amounts to a penalty.
Then next question, who has the authority to file petition for forfeiture under R.A 1379? Is it the Solicitor
General or the Ombudsman? Its answered by Republic vs Sandiganbayan, according to the Supreme Court, unlawfully
acquired wealth amassed after February 25, 1986, the duty to conduct a previous inquiry similar to preliminary investigation
in criminal cases and the duty to file a petition for forfeiture are both vested with the Office of the Ombudsman.
Can respondent in a forfeiture case be preventively suspended? The answer is No because R.A. 1379 is civil
proceeding, so walay suspension.
Again Republic vs Sandigandanbayan, what is the basis for determining the value of respondents assets,
the acquisition cost or the fair market value? Supreme Court ruled that in ascertaining the value of respondents properties
and shareholdings, it is not the fair market value as claimed by the petitioner that should be made basis thereof rather as
correctly held by the Sandiganbayan, it is the acquisition cost thereof since it is the actual amount of money shield out by
the respondent in acquiring them.
Third element: manifestly out of proportion to the public officers summary and his other lawful income. It is the
proof of this third element that is crucial in determining whether a prima facie presumption has been established in this case,
as I said summary judgment is applicable to forfeiture cases.
Respondent Marcoses erroneously understood hearing to be synonymous with trial. The words hearing and trial have
different meaning and connotation. Trial may refer to the reception of evidence and other processes, it embraces the period
for the introduction of evidence by both parties; hearing as known in law is not confined to trial but embraces several stages
of litigation including pre-trial stage. Hearing does not necessarily mean presentation of evidence or the oral argument. It
does not necessarily imply the presentation of oral or documentary evidence in open court but that the parties are afforded
the opportunity to be heard.
There is a prohibition on transfer or conveyance of unlawfully acquired properties. (Section 12)
Section 8 of R.A. 3019 creates another exception to the Bank Secrecy Law. This is also an exception to the AntiMoney Laundering Law.
Inquiry into illegally acquired properties extends to cases where the property is held or recorded in the name of other
persons such as relatives. (Banco Pilipino vs Purrisima)
In Anti-Graft cases, the inquiry into unlawfully acquired properties to the extent to deposit accounts of other persons
including relatives and friends of the respondent public official. May foreign currency deposits of a respondent in a forfeiture
case be inquired or looked into? Answer is YES. Foreign currency deposits forming part of the prima facie presumed ill-gotten
wealth of a respondent in a forfeiture case are not entitled to the benefits of absolute confidentiality, an exemption from
garnishment, attachment and other processes under R.A. 6426. (Intingan vs CA)
Title Eight: CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
Involve killings and inflicting physical injuries. There are 20 crimes against persons including rape. Rape is already
reclassified, not anymore a crime against chastity but a crime against person.
Chapter One: DESTRUCTION OF LIFE
Section One. Parricide, murder, homicide
Art. 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.
Parricide is a crime of relationship. It is the highest form of destruction of human life. Victims are direct line relatives
except the spouse.
If first cousins marry each other and the wife killed the husband, is the crime parricide? NO. Because first cousins
cannot marry. When is parricide not punished by reclusion perpetua? When committed through negligence, when committed
by mistake under exceptional circumstances.
Relationship is the essential element. Parents and children are not included in the term ascendants or descendants.
In one case decided in 1997, the wife was charged with parricide. She testified in court that she married 4 times but she
insisted I married my last husband, she killed her last husband. Supreme Court said it is parricide because you admitted that
the 4th husband was married to you.

Criminal Law Second Installment 57

The other ascendant or descendant must be legitimate. The father, mother or child may be legitimate or illegitimate.
The child should not be less than three days old because the crime would be infanticide. How do you prove marriage?
Present the marriage certificate or oral testimony.
Relationship must be alleged in the information.
Parricide may be committed through reckless imprudence.
The father abandoned his child when the child was only one year old, 20 years later, the father entered a bar, inominom, nisud sad ang anak, ang amahan naay grupo, ang anak naa sad grupo, wa siya kabaw na iyaha diay amahan,
nagkatinubagay, the son killed the father, parricide or not? Because parricide does not require that the accused know the
person killed is a relative.
How about the stranger who participated in the commission of the crime. Are they also liable for parricide? No, either
homicide or murder. Conspiracy cannot be applied because relationship is an element. There are can be two information if a
relative and stranger committed the crime. One information for parricide, another information for murder or homicide as the
case may be.
Parricide yields to infanticide, if a relative kills a child less than three days old, its not parricide but infanticide.
Suppose the child is less than three years old. The mother asked her brother to kill her child, suppose the child is
less than three days old, what is the liability of the mother? Infanticide. Suppose the child is three days old or more, what
crime was committed by the mother? Parricide. How about the brother? Homicide or murder? Its always murder because
killing a child is murder.
So relationship must be in the direct, not in the collateral line. Relationship between offender and 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 only illegitimate relationship that can bring about parricide is that between parents
and illegitimate children as the offended and offender.
The presence of any of the qualifying circumstances in murder will be considered generic aggravating circumstances.
This is just an opinion of the author. Suppose a Muslim has three wives and he killed his third wife, is he liable for
parricide. The answer of the author NO. Muslim husbands who has several wives can be convicted of parricide only in case the
first wife is killed. Nganu man? There is no parricide if the other wives are killed although their marriage is recognized valid.
Reason: a Catholic man can commit the crime only once, if a Muslim husband who commit the crime more than once in effect
he is being punished for the marriage which the law itself authorizes him to contract.
Art. 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.
Art. 247 actually does not define a crime. Actually destierro or punishment here is not really a penalty. Its designed
to punish the husband so that the relatives will not retaliate.
Please read the case of US vs Alano on what is the meaning of immediately thereafter. The discovery, the escape,
the pursuit and the killing must all form part of one continuous act.
And please take note of the requisites also:
1. That a legally married person surprises his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another
person.
2. That she or he 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. That he has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his wife or consented to the infidelity of the other
spouse.
Ill give you an example of immediately thereafter, killed or inflicted serious physical injuries after discovery, escape,
pursuit and killing. Wala gi-ingon na one hour after, two hours after, basta duany connection, discovery, escape, pursuit and
killing.
Pananglitan, law student unya gi-ingnan sa mga silingan bai, iniglakaw nimo, kanang imung asawa muduwa na ug
laing team (Germany ug Netherlands daw =p). So pagka-alas 5, adto na ko day kay nanay klase pero wala siya niadto sa
USC, nilipot siya sa luyo, asus ang silingan mao diay ang nisaka, pero ga-andam na siya ug kuarenta y sundang. Primero,
preliminaries pa, kuhit-kuhit pa, ingon siya requisite number one not yet present sunod gitangtanganan sa blouse, thrilling
kayo, kung gipatay niya does this fall under this law? The answer is no kay ni-ingonang balaod must be caught by surprise
pero iya mang gi-atngan so dili caught in the act. Pero pagbalik niya kay wa diay klase sakpan niya didto, muapply na.
Assuming nga dili to maoy facts, dili na law students, triatlethe siya, kabaw siya running, bisekleta ug swimming,
unya wa siya kbaw na iyang amigo kauban niya sa triathlon nakabit sa iyang asawa nadagan man, sus kay nakit-an man niya,
pusilon unta niya pero nahutdan man siyag bala, gukod sila, marathon, pag-abot sa pikas sus naa may suba, kayak na sad,
abot sa pikas, naa may bisekleta, lumba na sad, nya abot na sad sila ug sapa, langoy na sad, triatlethe gud, gikan sa alas 6
sa buntag naabtan alas 6 sa gabie, pag-abot sa bukid didto gipatay, death under exceptional circumstances? YES. Tana-awa,
kay hot pursuit, laliman ka sakpan niya ang kabit sa iyang asawa, hot pa gyud kaayo. The discovery,the escape, the pursuit
must all form part of one continuous act so bisan naabtan pag pila kaoras basta kay hot pursuit.
Karaan ni siya na RPC, applicable, under the same circumstances, to parents with respect to their daughters under
Criminal Law Second Installment 58

eighteen years of age, and their seducer, while the daughters are living with their parents.
Meaning of the word surprise, it means to come upon suddenly and unexpectedly.
person.

Art. 247 is not applicable when the accused did not see his spouse in the act of sexual intercourse with another

Theres another old case, the sexual intercourse include preparatory acts. In People vs Gonzales, the Court said there
must actual sexual intercourse.
Question: wala na tong parents? (referring to 4th paragraph)
Judge: Apil gihapon, Niingon lang ko old, nicriticize lang ko kay karaan naman gud, conservative pa kayo ang penal
laws nato.
The killing of his spouse by the accused must be by reason of having surprised her in the act of sexual intercourse.
By the way, the attack must take place while the sexual intercourse is going on according to the author. If the
surprise was before or after, no matter how immediate, Art. 247 does not apply.
Immediately thereafter has been interpreted to mean that between the surprising and the killing or the inflicting of
physical injury, there should be no interruption or interval of time, in other words, it must be a continuous process.
What is required is that the killing is the proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the accused.
When third persons are injured in the course of firing at the paramours, will the offender spouse be free from
criminal liability? The author said NO.
Death or inflicting injuries is not murder. The offended cannot therefore be held liable for frustrated murder for
injuries suffered by third persons.
Killing must be the direct by-product of the accuseds rage. (People vs Abarca). Punishment is for the protection of
the accused. This cannot be qualified by either aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Now, killing an unfaithful spouse is
not a crime. When third persons are injured, the offended party was not held liable unless he is negligent.
Art. 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.
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.
It is unlawful killing of any person, not parricide or infanticide. Then the aggravating circumstances (refer above),
naa ni tanan sa aggravating circumstances except the last (outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.)
So must not be less than 3 days old. There must be intention to kill. Murder will exist with only one of the
circumstance mentioned in Art. 248. When other circumstances are absorbed or included in one qualifying circumstance, they
cannot be considered as generic aggravating. Any of the qualifying circumstances enumerated in Art. 248 must be alleged in
the information.
Cruelty. The victim must be alive when the injuries or wounds are inflicted.
Outraging means to commit an extremely vicious or deeply insulting act. Scoffing means to jeer, and implies a
showing of irreverence.
When the qualifying circumstance is the use of fire, what crimes result? If the purpose of setting fire is to conceal the
killing, the crime is homicide and arson. When fir is a means to kill, then it is murder. If a house is burn, a person dies, what
crime is committed? Arson (penalty is maximum) only because there is no intention to kill. Because if the intention is to kill,
the house is burnt, it is murder.
Suppose, komedya komedya lang, joke ra unta pagsugod, pero nispread man gud ang and the person is killed, what
crime is committed? Theres an actual case People vs Pugoy decided 1988, if resorted to as a joke (meaning fire), the crime
is homicide because burning is not a means to kill.
Treachery is inherent in poison. Abuse of superior strength is inherent in and comprehended by treachery. Essence of
treachery: offended party is denied of the chance to defend himself.
Then cruelty under Art. 248 and cruelty under Art. 14. Under Art. 248, aside from cruelty any act that would amount
to scoffing the body of the victim will qualify the killing into murder. Under Art. 14, the law requires that the victim be alive
when the cruel wounds were inflicted and therefore mst be evidenced to that effect.
Can murder be committed even if at the beginning the offender has no intention to kill the victim? Opinion: Yes,
although generally murder can only be committed if at the outset, the offender has an intention to kill because the qualifying
circumstance must be resorted to with the view of killing the offended party. However, if the offender may have not intended
to kill the victim but he only wanted to commit a crime against him in the beginning, he will still be liable for murder if in the
manner of committing the felony, there was treachery as a consequence thereof the victim died. Reason: this is based on the
rule that the person committing a felony shall be liable for the natural consequences of his acts.
Criminal Law Second Installment 59

When the qualifying circumstances were not proven in the trial? Can the accused be convicted of murder? NO.
Art. 249. Homicide. Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another without the
attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be
punished by reclusion temporal.
Next is homicide, person is killed, no justifying circumstance, there is intention to kill, it is presumed. Killing was not
attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder. Section 10, R.A. 7610 when the victim is under 12 years old, then
higher penalty. Evidence of intent to kill is important only in attempted and frustrated homicide because if a person is killed
there is a presumption that the killing is intentional.
That the death of the deceased was due to his refusal to be operated on is not a defense.
No offense of frustrated homicide through imprudence.
Where the wounds that caused death were inflicted by two different persons, even if they are not in conspiracy, each
one of them is guilty of homicide.
There is accidental homicide. Death of a person brought about by lawful act performed with proper care and skill,
and without homicidal intent.
Corpus delicti in crimes against persons (actual commission of the crime charged).
Art. 250. Penalty for frustrated parricide, murder or homicide. The courts, in view of the facts of the case, may
impose upon the person guilty of the frustrated crime of parricide, murder or homicide, defined and penalized in the
preceding articles, a penalty lower by one degree than that which should be imposed under the provision of Article 50.
The courts, considering the facts of the case, may likewise reduce by one degree the penalty which under Article 51
should be imposed for an attempt to commit any of such crimes.
Penalty for frustrated parricide murder, or homicide may be lowered by one degree or two degrees. In fact court may
impose a penalty three degrees lower for attempted parricide murder, or homicide. When consummated, intent to kill is a
general criminal intent which is presumed and need not be established. Intent to kill is conclusively presumed when death
resulted.
Evidence of intent to kill is important only in attempted or frustrated homicide.
Physical injuries are included as one of the essential elements of frustrated homicide. There is no crime of frustrated
homicide through imprudence.
Distinction between homicide and physical injuries. Homicide, there is intent to kill while in physical injuries, there is
no intent to kill. If mortal wounds are inflicted but those were due to negligence, is frustrated homicide committed? NO, the
crime committed is serious physical injuries.
Art. 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. (lower penalty sa homicide)
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.
Kung ang Tau Gamma ug ACCRO ang mapinatyanay, dili na death caused in a tumultuous affray because they are
organized to attack each other. Kung ari ka sa jail, OXO vs Sige-sige, Bahala na vs Batang Cebu, kung magkagubot na sila,
that is not death in a tumultuous affray.
So what are the requisites?
1. That there be several persons
2. That they did not compose groups organized for the common purpose of assaulting and attacking each other
reciprocally
3. That these several persons quarreled and assaulted one another in a confused and tumultuous manner
4. That someone was killed in the course of affray
5. That it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the deceased
6. That the person or persons who inflicted serious physical injuries or who used violence can be identified.
When there are two identified groups of men who assaulted each other then there is no tumultuous affray. Now who
are liable? Persons who inflicted serious physical injuries, if it is not known who inflicted serious physical injuries on the
deceased, all the persons who use violence upon the person of the victim are liable but with lesser liability. (2 nd paragraph)
Supposed the wounds or injuries inflicted are slight physical injuries only, will that fall under Art. 251? The answer is
NO because slight physical injuries is inherent in tumultuous affray.
Now if the person who caused serious physical injuries is identified then he is liable for serious physical injuries. Are
slight physical injuries included? NO. But if the person who inflicted slight physical injuries is identified then he is liable for
slight physical injuries.
Who may be the victim under Art. 251? The victim may be a participant in the affray or mere passerby. Tumultuous
affray exists when at least four took part. If there is conspiracy this crime is not committed because the act of one is the act
of all. As long it cannot be determined who killed the victim all those persons who inflicted serious physical injuries will be
collectively answerable for the death of the fellow. (UST Annotation)
Art. 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
Criminal Law Second Installment 60

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.
The participant or some participants suffer serious physical injuries or physical injuries of a less serious nature.
Person responsible cannot be identified, so who liable? Those who appear to have used violence upon the person of the
offended party.
Art. 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. However, if the suicide is not consummated, the penalty of arresto mayor in its
medium and maximum periods, shall be imposed.
There are two acts punished here: 1) by assisting another to commit suicide whether the suicide is consummated or
not; 2) by lending his assistance to another to the extent of doing the killing himself
A person who attempts to commit suicide is not criminally liable but the one who assisted him is liable. (Reyes)
You should distinguish euthanasia or mercy killing from assistance to suicide. Euthanasia or mercy killing is the
practice of painlessly putting death a person suffering from insurable decease. This is a big debate in Europe.
The intention must be for that person who is asking the assistance of another to commit suicide. What is the
meaning of giving assistance? It means giving means (like arms, poisons or whatever manner of positive and direct
cooperation.
There is a provision under R.A. 9165 (Dangerous Drugs Act), a crime known as administration of dangerous drug.
Pananglitan, ikaw mu-injection, suppose naoverdose, patay, is that giving assistance to suicide. NO because here there must
be intention to give assistance. Naay importante kaayo na kaso pero wala niabot sa Supreme Court, dire sa Cebu. Niadto
naay engineer na nagtudlo sa UV. Kusog kayo mudebate diha sa Freedom Park. Ingon man siya na iyang Gino okay si
Hamashak (not clear), ingon siya na kung sunugon ko ninyo dili jud ko masunog. Gichallenge niya ang kontra na relihiyon na
sunugon siya Plaza Independencia. Pagkadomingo sa Plaza Independencia, tapok sa kapoy, gibuhusan gasoline, gidagkutan,
patay. Gilubong pero wala man nabanhaw, amigas ra man ang ninggawas. Gikiha ang kadtung i-agaw niya, giving assistance
to suicide, sus gi-convict sa RTC, appeal to CA, gi-reverse. So na-acquit.
Art. 254. Discharge of firearms. Any person who shall shoot at another with any firearm shall suffer the penalty
of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, 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.
There is no intention to kill, pabuthan lang ka to scare you. So any person who shall shoot at another with any
firearm 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. So kung dunay intention to kill, that is not discharge of
firearm anymore. The purpose must be to intimidate or frighten the offended party. If a firearm is not discharged at a person,
there is no crime of discharge of firearm. Kung gi-ingnan di gani ka mulakaw, patyon taka, nagpabuto nya nilakaw, what
crime is committed? Grave coercion, compelling a person to do something against his will. Pero kung gipabuthan arun
mahadlok, that is discharge of firearm. Gipabuthan para mahadlok pero naigo man, no intention to kill, no intention inflict
injury, gipabuthan nya naigo so complex crime of discharge of firearm with serious or less serious physical injuries. Kung
pananglitan, naa kay .22 nya pabuthan to nimung layo kay sa tanan, di maigo sa bala, that is impossible crime.
Intent to kill is negatived by distance of 200 yards between offender and victim.
Can discharge of firearm be committed through imprudence? NO, because there is intention to intimidate. If the
firearm is discharged at a person and the trigger was pressed but did not fire, what crime is committed? Frustrated discharge
of firearm. (author)
Section Two. Infanticide and abortion.
How do you distinguish infanticide from abortion? In infanticide, the child killed is already a person, less than three
days old, separated na from the umbilical cord while in abortion, the child killed is still drawing life from the mother, the
umbilical cord is not yet cut, baby had an intra-uterine life of less than seven months, killing is within 24 hours. Trying to kill a
child already dead, impossible crime of infanticide.
Art. 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 mayor 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 reclusion temporal. (as amended
by R.A. 7659)
This is killing a child less than three days old.
There is a special mitigating circumstance, if the crime be committed by the mother of the child for the purpose of
concealing dishonor, she shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor and if said crime be committed for the same purpose by the
maternal grandparents or either of them, the penalty shall be reclusion temporal, so there is a special mitigating
circumstance.
Ang lalaki nakapaanak siya, ang iyang uyab nagkababy, kung ang mupatay amahan sa lalaki, special mitigating na?
Dili, mitigating ra na sa maternal side. The penalty is for parricide or murder but the name is always infanticide. Pero
pagbantay mo kay pananglitan, in robbery nisud ang katawan, natumban ang bata na less than three days old, patay, what
crime is committed? Its not robbery with infanticide, its robbery with homicide, kay in robbery with homicide, its generic; it
may be murder, it may be parricide. If a person is killed, bisag pila ang idad, bisag relative pa, by reason or on the occasion of
robbery, the crime is known as robbery with homicide. Other person who kills a child less than three days old will suffer the
penalty of murder.

Criminal Law Second Installment 61

Concealing dishonor is not an element of infanticide. Only the mother and maternal grandparents are entitled to the
mitigating circumstance of concealing dishonor.
You should distinguish infanticide from parricide. Infanticide=less than three days old, parricide=three days up,
infanticide=the child may or may not be related to the accused, in parricide=the child is related to the accused.
CRIM 15
Article 256. Intentional Abortion
Intentional abortion is not a crime against the mother, it is a crime against the fetus committed by any person who
shall intentionally cause an abortion. Either by using violence upon the person of the pregnant woman or without using
violence shall act without the consent of the woman, or if the woman shall have consented. Abortion is willful killing of the
fetus in the uterus or the violent expulsion of the fetus from the maternal womb which results in the death of the fetus. The
fetus must die in consummated abortion. In abortion the fetus maybe over or less than six months old.
There are 3 ways of committing intentional abortion:
Persons liable for intentional abortion: the person who intentionally cause the abortion, the woman is liable under
article 258 If she consented to the abortion caused on her. If she did not consent to the abortion caused on her, she is not
liable.
There is a distinction between abortion and infanticide. If the fetus could sustain an independent life after separation
from the maternal womb, and is killed, the crime is infanticide not abortion. In abortion the offender must know of the
pregnancy of the woman because the particular criminal intention is to cause an abortion.
Abortions versus Infanticide: Suppose the mother as the consequence of abortion suffers death or physical injuries
what crime is committed? Complex crime of murder or physically injuries with abortion. If despite employment of sufficient
and adequate means to effect abortion the fetus that is expelled from the mothers womb is viable but unable to sustain the
life outside the maternal womb. What crime is committed? According to the opinion of the author, frustrated abortion because
abortion is consummated only if the fetus is dead. Suppose, the expelled viable fetus could sustain an independent life from
the mothers womb, what crime is committed? Infanticide.
Suppose the means employed in abortion are inadequate or insufficient, what crime is committed? Impossible crime
of abortion.
257. Unintentional Abortion.
This can only be committed by means of violence. Unintentional abortion cannot be committed by the woman
herself. Impose upon any person but not the woman herself who shall cause an abortion by violence but unintentionally. Like
if a man did not know that the woman is pregnant he pummeled the woman with his fist and the baby was aborted the crime
is unintentional abortion. May abortion be cause3 by threats? Naglakaw ang babaye, nya naay nagatang ngtago sa luyo sa
lubi, mikalit lng ug gawas ng mascara ug ungo tungod sa kakuyaw sa babaye, na abort iyang baby. Is that abortion? Well
since, there is no violence, there is no unintentional abortion. But if the threat, approximates violence then some authors
believe that it is unintentional abortion. But if the purpose is to cause abortion, then the crime is abortion. If abortives where
taken but the woman was not pregnant, what crime is committed, if any? impossible crime. If inadequate or ineffectual
means were employed, then its also impossible crime of abortion.
The violence here must be intentionally exerted. Is the accuse liable for abortion even if he did not know that the
woman was pregnant? answer is in the affirmative. There is a complex crime of parricide with abortion. If the husband killed
the wife who is pregnant, the crime is parricide with abortion, if the baby died. So here, the law requires physical violence
inflected deliberately. The force or violence must come from another, mere intimidation is not enough. The problems by the
author, suppose a quarrel ensued between a husband and a wife who was pregnant by that time, violence was resorted to by
the husband and as a result, the wife had an abortion and died. What is the crime committed? Parricide with unintentional
abortion. Suppose the woman committed suicide, she jumped out of a window of a building but she landed on a passer by she
did not die, but an abortion followed . Is she liable for unintentional abortion? NO, because the force so violence must come
from another persons. If the abortive drug used in abortion is a prohibited or regulated drug. Two crimes are committed,
intentional abortion and violation of republic act 9165, that is administration of dangerous drug.
Abortion practice by the woman herself, so, a woman shall practice an abortion upon herself or shall consent that any
other persons should do so, there is a special mitigating circumstance. If the woman shall commit abortion to conceal her
dishonor. If committed by the parents of the pregnant woman or either of them, and they act with the consent of the said
woman for the purpose of concealing dishonor, the offender shall suffer pricion correccional also a special mitigating
circumstance.
Suppose the maternal grandparent or the mother of the woman after knowing that the woman is pregnant,
administered abortives and the baby was expelled from the womb. Can the maternal grandparent avail of the special
mitigating circumstance of concealing dishonor? The answer is NO, because the law says, they must act with the consent of
the woman. So, if the woman did not consent to the abortion, the maternal grandparent cannot avail of this special mitigating
circumstance, only the woman or any of her parents is liable under article 258. If the purpose of the latter is to conceal her
dishonor.
259. Abortion practiced by a physician or midwife and dispensing of abortives. This is committed by a physician or
midwife who taking advantage of their scientific knowledge and skill shall cause abortion or assist in causing the same. So,
take note physician or midwife not nurse. Then pharmacist, who without proper prescription from a physician shall dispense
any abortive , there is no crime if there is a doctors prescription.
There is a special law, Republic Act 4729. Regulating the sale, dispensation and/or distribution of
contraceptive drugs.
Therapeutic abortion by a physician to save the life of the mother. No criminal liability, because there is medical
necessity which would warrant abortion, meaning there must be no other practical or less harmful means of saving the life of
the mother. But if done by a physician without medical necessity, the physician is liable.
Section Three. Duel
Criminal Law Second Installment 62

Next is Duel. I think this is an obsolete provision of the revised penal code. Kining duel formal kayo ni, kinahanglan
nga kung mahimo coat and tie. Panahon paman n sa kastila gud, unya naa say seconds, mga sinaligan nila unya naay moihap
, uno, dos, magtalikud cla inig abot sa 10 atubangan magpinusilay, thats duel, its a formal combat.
Pero kung magsabot lang mo, naa may announcer sa usa ka station, contra to niya ang announcer sa pikas station,
kita ta sa plaza Independencia, pili lang unsang armasa gusto nimu unya nag abot cla didto ngpinusilay, that is not duel,
homicide is committed.
So duel is a formal or regular combat previously concerted between two parties in the presence of two or more
seconds of lawful age on each side who make the selection of arms and fix all the other conditions of the fight. Wala n rn,
Acts punished in duel, killing ones adversary in a duel. The penalty is similar to the penalty in homicide, reclusion temporal.
Inflicting upon the adversary physical injuries. Making a combat although no physical injuries have been inflected. Pag abot
sa 10 count punisilay sila puro butalo y naigo. So, arresto mayor. How about the seconds, they shall be punished s
accomplice. If only slight physical injuries in a duel, must the penalty be arresto minor? Opinion of Reyes arresto minor only.
So, a mere fight as a result of an agreement is not necessarily a duel.
261. Challenging to duel. There are three acts punished under 261.
1. Challenging another to a duel. Mao n kanang mga announcer sa radio, kita ta pinusilay tas plaza, d naman
magtinigbasay, uwaw sad nuh announcer unja magda ug sundang, pinusilay jud.
By enciting another to give, accept a challenge to a duel. So kining n insight need not necessarily be a participant. Scoffing at
or decrying another publicly for having refused to accept a challenge to fight a duel. Aw, maminaw mo anang mga station,
mao jud na talawan na sya, puti ug I kai d musukol.
1.
2.
3.
4.

Physical injuries: There are four kinds:

mutilation,
serious,
less serious,
slight.

262. Mutilation. Lopping or clipping off some part of the body. The putting out of an eye does not fall under this
definition. Two kinds of mutilation;
1. intentionally mutilating another by the depriving him either totally or partially of some essential ingredient for
reproduction . This is intentional . y laing tuyo, gikuha ang usa ka egg. Pero kung nagtinigbasay naigo ang egg unja nahug.
That is not intentional.
2. By intentionally making other mutilation. That is lopping or clipping of the part of the offended party other than the
essential organ for reproduction to deprive him of the part of his body. Gidakop unya gigapos ug giputol ang kamot.
There is a higher penalty if the victim of the intentional mutilation is under 12 yrs of age under republic act 7610.
Remember in mutilation, the offender must have the intention to deprive the offended party of a part of his body. So, if there
was a bolo duel, naputol ang kamot, that is not mutilation but serious physical injuries. Of course mutilation cannot be
committed through criminal negligence.
Chapter Two: PHYSICAL INJURIES
263. Serious physical injuries resulting in insanity, imbecility, impotency or blindness, losing use of speech, power to
hear or smell, etc. Becoming deform or losing any part of his body. So there are four classes of serious physical injuries
committed by wounding, beating, assaulting or administering injurious substances. This maybe committed by reckless
imprudence or simple imprudence.
There are 3 classes depending on consequences of the injury inflected, the nature and character of the wound
inflected and the proper penalty. There must be no intention to kill, if it is serious and there is intention to kill, usually the
crime is considered frustrated homicide or murder as the case maybe. Therefore distinguish physical injuries from attempted
or frustrated homicide. In frustrated or attempted homicide, there is intent to kill, non in physical injuries. Penalty when the
victim of serious physical injuries under paragraph 1 is under 12. under Republic Act 7610, one degree higher.Read the
examples under Serious physical Injuries.
Medical Attendance is not important in serious physical injuries. In determining incapacity, must the injured party
have an avocation at the time of the injury? Not necessarily because the term work includes studies or preparation for a
profession. Listening of efficiency due to injury is not incapacity. You should distinguish ordinary physical injuries from
mutilation. In mutilation there is deliberate lopping or clipping off of some part of the body. When is serious physical injuries
qualified? If the offenses committed against any of the persons enumerated in the article defining parricide or with the
attendance of any of the circumstances mention in the article defining the crime of murder, the penalty is higher. Serious
physical injuries by excessive chastisement by parents are not qualified. In this connection, we should study hazing and
related laws.
Nature of physical injuries. What is punished is the consequence not the stage of execution, it is always
consummated. Nagda ka ug daku kaau nga puthaw, kai imu untang bunalan imung contra, pag isa nimus puthaw wana man
dha moingon daun kag attempted physical injuries. Physical injuries is a crime of result, there is no attempted or frustrated
physical injuries. Intent to kill must be manifested by Overt acts it cannot be manifested by oral threats kai muingon ang usa
ka taw patyon taka ang gda nya kai toothpick. The injury to cause deformity is one that cannot be replaced by nature. If the
loss of teeth is visible and impairs the appearance of the injured party it constitutes disfigurement. The substitution of the
artificial teeth for the natural teeth does not repair the injury, its serious physical injuries . Kung gibubuan ug acid unya na
deform ang nawng gplastic surgery naggwapo, still serious physical injuries. 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.
264. Administering Injurious Substances. Without intention to kill shall inflect another any serious physical injury by
knowingly administering to him any injurious substance or beverage or by taking advantage of his weakness of mind or
credulity . Naay mga maginom sa silingan labinag nia mo sa middle of the city . gikan sa 7 maabtan na lamang 3 kadlawn
hangtod bisan unsa na lang ipangsagul sa inom butangan nimug muriatic acid. Painom sa contra pert eng hubuga. Taking
advantage of weakness of mind. I warn you that this is a crime only administering injurious substances of beverages. If the
injury is serious, the law says, shall inflect upon another any serious physical injury by knowingly administering to him
injurious substances or beverages. Kung miadto sya sa CR unya pagtuo niya tanduay ra sad unya muriatic d i. perte nang
hubuga iya sang gisagul sa pitsel, inom sab tanan. There is no crime under 264. Please take note, knowingly administering.
Criminal Law Second Installment 63

Article 264 does not apply when the physical injuries that result are less serious or slight.
265. Less serious physical injuries. There are matters to be noted. 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. The physical injuries
must be those describe in the preceding articles. There is qualified less serious physical injuries. Medical attendance or
incapacity is required in less serious physical injuries. The crime is less serious physical injuries even if there was no
incapacity but a medical treatment was for 13 days. It is only slight physical injury when there is no medical attendance or
incapacity for labor. The disjunctive or above means that it is either incapacity for work for 10 days or more or the necessity
of medical attendance or an equal period which will make the crime of less serious physical injuries.
266. Slight physical Injuries. Three kinds: Physical Injuries which incapacitated the offended party for labor from 1-9
days or required medical attendance during the same period. Then, physical injuries did not prevent the offended party from
engaging in his habitual work or which did not require medical attendance. Ill treatment of another by deed without causing
any injury. If you slap the face of the person your intention is to hurt him, the crime is slight physical injuries only. If you slap
him and your purpose is to humiliate him the crime is slander by deed. If you were alone in one room its maltreatment, slight
physical injuries not slander by dead. Then the crime of rape. It is already a crime against person, is amended by Republic Act
8353. but before rape, we will discuss hazing. Came out in d bar 2 times.
R.A. 8049: Anti-Hazing Law
What is hazing? It is an initiation right or practice as a pre-requisite for admission into membership in fraternity,
sorority or organization. Placing the recruit, neophyte or applicant in some embarrassing or humiliating situations such as
forcing him to dominial, silly, foolish and similar tasks or activities or otherwise, subjecting him to physical or psychological
suffering or injury. A person applied for a job, as a medical representative was qualified, he sign a contract. But in the
contract it states that you must undergo initiation right or hazing. So he underwent, initiation right or hazing. He was asked to
carry a NIGO. Then gipabaligya syag kamatis, sibuyas para pag testing kay medical representative lg. Pasinggit singiton sya
sa Ayala Mall. Is that hazing? No, because the law says, as a pre-requisite. Mi sign naman sya ug contract, . As a prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity, sorority or organization. Placing him in some embarrassing or
humiliating situation. In hazing, there maybe no physical injuries inflected. There maybe no force, no violence, if he was
embarrassed or humiliated even if no physical injuries are inflected, if it was done as a pre-requisite of admission then it is
considered hazing. Question: May the master or employer be held liable for slander by deed? It is believed that the answer is
NO, because humiliation is a means of committing a crime of hazing. The law dos not apply to any club or organization or
Armed Forces of the Philippines , PNP, PMA, Cadet Corps or Citizens Army Training. Physical, Mental and Psychological testing
and training procedure and practice. Underline the words to determine and enhance the physical, mental and psychological
fitness of prospective members.
Section 2 was asked in the BAR Exams. Problema lang kai ang gi list mao n ang coverage. Wa giaapil ang hazing as
one of the coverage unya gipangutana maayu nalang ang uban naa silay stock knowledge tubag tubag sad.
No hazing or initiation rights in any form or manner by a fraternity, sorority or organization shall be allowed without
prior written consent to the school authorities or head of organization 7 days before the conduct of such initiation. Theres
something wrong with section 2, it would seem that hazing is allowed provided there is permission. No hazing or initiation
rights, etc. Without prior written consent. I believe what is meant by prior written consent here is initiation. Which is not
necessarily hazing. Then written notice, including names, to be subjected to such activities, undertaking, no physical violence
may employed by anybody. This was approved after that Aquila Legis incident. Daghang wala maka BAR, naka BAR pero wala
gpatake oath.
What is the duty of the head of the school or organization, or the representative? Assign at least two representatives
of the school or organization to be present during the hazing or initiation.
If the person subjected to hazing or other forms of initiation rights, suffer any physical injury or dies, who are liable?
The officers and members of the fraternity, sorority or organization who shall or who actually participated in the inflection of
physical harm shall be liable as principals. Then the person or persons who participated in hazing shall suffer reclusion
perpetua if rape, sodony, mutilation results there from. How about the responsible officials of the school or the police, military
or citizens army training organization. What is their responsibility rather? They may impose appropriate administrative
sanctions even before conviction. Maximum penalty is provided in certain cases. What is the liability of the owner of the place
where hazing is conducted? Answer, As an accomplice provided the following requisites are present. 1. He has actual
knowledge of the hazing conducted therein. 2. He failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring if the hazing is
held in the house of one of the officers or members of the fraternity. The parents shall be liable as principals under what
circumstances? When they have actual knowledge of hazing conducted therein. 2. They failed to take any action to prevent
the same from occurring. How about liability of school authorities including faculty members who consent to the hazing or
who have actual knowledge? Liable as a accomplices if they failed to take any action to prevent hazing from occurring. Then
how about officers, former officers or alumni who actually planned the hazing although not present. They shall be liable as
principals. How about officers, members of the organization, group fraternity, who knowingly cooperated in carrying out
hazing by inducing the victims to be present they are liable as principals. How about adviser who is present when the acts
constituted hazing were committed? When are they liable? They are liable if they failed to take action to prevent the same
from occurring. They are liable as principals.
The next paragraph is dangerous if misinterpreted. It says, the presence of any person during the hazing is prima
facie evidence of participation therein as a principal unless he prevented the commission of the acts punishable therein.
Pagkahimu aning balaura dili maayu kaayung pagkadeliberate kai the presence of any person. Pananglitan ikaw wa kai labot
nya naay hazing tabang kag pakpak kai ganahan sad ka kai gibunal bunalan ug palo palo ug db gpakaon ug unsa dha. Lipay
sad ka pakpak. Unsa man principal ka kai failed to prevent hazing? I dont think so. Ang gipasabot aning the presence of any
person during the hazing kining mga officers, members, alumni, school administrators who failed to prevent the commission
of hazing and not just any person kai ang gibutang diri any person, d na puydi kai kung expectator lang ka ususiro ka unya
prima facie evidence d i. Now, under the revised penal code there is mitigating circumstance. Lack of intention to commit so
grave are wrong, that mitigating circumstance is not available because the law says, any persons charge under this provision
shall not be entitled to the mitigating circumstance that there was no intention to commit so grave a wrong. Muingon dayon
ang master, waman koy intension to kill. Gipalopalo ko sya para dunay pain unya daghan man say ngpalo palo 20 kabuok
masters, patay. Also liable, president, manager, director or responsible officer of a corporation engaged in hazing as a
requirement for employment in the manner provided therein. So, what else is related to crimes against persons?
Trafficking in person falls under crimes against personal liberty, Kidnapping, maybe Republic Act 7610. Have we
studied 7610? Child Abuse Act.
Criminal Law Second Installment 64

Quiz
1.

A private individual hired by a government agency on a contractual basis for a particular project and for a specified
period belongs to, what kind of service? There is no doubt he is a public officer. But, under the Civil Service Law, how
do you classify him as an officer? Career or non-career? Non-career Service

2.

The governor was administratively charged for misconduct. Then, he was reelected. Supreme Court said that his
administrative liability is condoned by his reelection. What do you call that doctrine? Aguinaldo Doctrine

3.

If a public officer who is not qualified as grade 27 commits serious physical injuries in relation to his office and is
charged. Which court has jurisdiction? Sandiganbayan

4.

What prosecuting agency is tasked to conduct preliminary investigation for violation of Anti-Graft Law? Ombudsman

5.

How about violations/offenses under RA 3019 that are not within under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan, but within the jurisdiction of the RTC, which agency may conduct preliminary investigation? Office
of the Prosecutor/DOJ

6.

Which agency will conduct preliminary investigation involving recovery of the ill-gotten wealth of former Pres.
Ferdinand Marcos? PCGG

7.

What is the period of preventive suspension under RA 3019? How long may a public officer be suspended under RA
3019? 90 days

8.

Suspension under 3019 is automatic. True or false? False, there must be a pre-suspension hearing

9.

If a motion to quash information for violation of RA 3019 is filed, may the court put on hold the suspension of public
officer? A public officer was charged for violation of RA 3019. There was a motion to suspend him. Then the accused
filed a motion to quash the information. Is this reason for the Sandiganbayan to put on hold or suspend the
suspension? Yes or no? No

10-12.

What are the three modes by which the offense penalized under Sec. 3(e), RA 3019, may be committed? Gross
inexcusable negligence, evident bad faith, manifest partiality

13-14.

What are the three ways of violating Sec. 3(e), RA 3019? Causing any undue injury to any party, giving any
party unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference

15.

It is synonymous, in relation to Sec. 3(e), with bias which excites a disposition to see and report matters as they
wished for rather than as they are. Partiality/Manifest partiality

16.

It arises when a public official or employee is a member of a board, an officer, or a substantial stockholder of a
private corporation or owner or has a substantial interest in a business, and the interest of such corporation or
business, or his rights or duties therein, may be opposed to or affected by the faithful performance of official duty.
Conflict of interest

17.

It includes bilas, inso and balae. Relatives

18-19.

What must a public officer do if there is conflict of interest? Resign or divest

20.

Who shall file a petition for forfeiture under RA 1379 after the Officer of the Prosecutor finds prima facie violation or
probable cause for violation of RA 1379? Which prosecuting agency? Ombudsman
Rape

The mother of all cases in rape is People vs. Campuhan. Its the bible of all rape cases. Under the new law, rape may
be committed by a man or a woman and there is also marital rape. Under the old law, rape is committed by a man who shall
have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances. Carnal knowledge.
In 2007, there was one disturbing case decided by the Supreme Court because in the information it is stated that the
accused sexually abused the victim. Under said information, the Supreme Court said the accused cannot be convicted of rape
because sexual abuse is not carnal knowledge [you have a copy of that decision in your notes]. It further stated that he
cannot also be convicted of acts of lasciviousness. Neither can the accused be convicted of violation of RA 7610 because there
is a peculiar definition of sexual abuse under said law.
Through force, threat or intimidation. There may be physical injuries because if the woman is threatened with a knife
and submits herself to the man, then there is still rape.
When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise, unconscious. Deprived of reason means either she is
demented or insane. Or otherwise unconscious. Consistent ruling of the Supreme Court there is rape if the woman is asleep
because she is unconscious; she did not give herself to the sexual congress. But in People vs. [I forgot the family name. The
first name is Roger. I forgot the last name. Its in your notes also] [But, based on my research, the case is People vs. Salarza.
The first name of the accused is not even Roger. Its Silvino!], rape of a woman half asleep. There was a British startlet,
Zurin, the name is Zurin [its Zareen Smith!]. She took her vacation in Palawan. She checked-in in at a beach resort. The son
of the owner of the beach resort became her sweet heart or lover. Then, a tourist guide was eyeing her [naibog sa niya]. So
one time, he invited the man and [Zareen] to a drinking spree. They were in the beach drinking. The woman was already
[tepsy!] then [pun-an pa gyud] so she was drunk. [Ingon dayon si (Silvino), o cge if kapoy na mo, [then you can retire]. So
the woman returned to her cottage. [Silvino] followed her. To make the long story short [sud ang babaye, mosquito net,
unya] she downed her nighty. [Unya nisud si (Silvino). Pirmiro gi-raise niya ang curtain] and then he slowly removed the
undies. Then he mounted her. [Ang babaye, gikabayuan!] In English, horsing! The woman was half asleep. She thought that
the one mounted her was her lover. Since he said that he is not her lover, she pushed him. But it was all done. The man had
already reached seventh heaven. So [Zareen] filed a case against [Silvino]. Convited by the RTC. Acquitted by the Supreme
Court. Why? Was there force? None. Was there violence? None. Was she unconscious? No, she was half asleep. She consented
because she thought that it has her lover. [Ang-ang mn ng rape ug reckless imprudence.]
Criminal Law Second Installment 65

By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority. Grave abuse of authority here is approximating
force, threat or intimidation. Why is fraudulent machination included? [Yesterday, nahitabo ni. Kining mga mananambal.
Kining mga quack doctors. Mas labina ug kaning mga babaye tawon sa countryside nga sayon ra kaayong patuhuon. Muingon
mn na, Day unsa may sakit nmo? Magsakit mn akong tiyan. Ah injectionan nato na day. Nisugot sad! Unya niburot noon
ang tiyan.] Thats fraudulent machination.
When the offended party is under 12 years of age or is demented. Consent here is immaterial. Bar exam question: A
woman below 12 years old who had sexual intercourse with a man. The child even said masarap. Its rape statutory rape.
Supreme Court: What is the difference between statutory rape and child rape? If below 12 years old, statutory rape. If below
7 years old, child rape. Demented consent is immaterial. Under 12 consent is immaterial because these persons are not
capable of giving rational consent to the sexual congress. So even if there is no force, no threat, no intimidation, no
deprivation of reason, not unconscious, no fraudulent machination, no grave abuse of authority, the crime is statutory rape.
Number 2 is already reclassified. This is the new provision. Rape by sexual assault. The penalty is lower than the first
kind of rape. This is committed (1) by inserting his penis into another persons mouth or anal orifice. The offended party may
be a man or a woman. This is known as penile rape. The other one any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice
of any person. Object or instrument rape according to the Supreme Court.
Penalties.
Committed with the use of deadly weapon or by 2 or more persons. Watch out because in one case the Arab national
forced a woman to go to his apartment and raped her inside the apartment. The woman attempted to run but a knife was
pointed at her. Is it qualified rape? Supreme Court said no. Not qualified rape but simple rape only beacuse the knife was not
used to consummate rape. The knife was used to intimidate the woman. Meaning, rape with use of deadly weapon mean
using deadly weapon in order to commit rape. Then by 2 or more persons.
When by reason or on the occasion of rape, the victim has become insane. Penalty is reclusion perpetua.
When rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof. You should apply People
vs. Mangulabnan. Attempted rape, homicide is committed. [Rape-on unta ang babaye. Niresist. Gipatay.] That is attempted
rape, homicide is committed by reason or occasion thereof. [Rape-on unta nya ang babaye. Niabot ang husband. Gipusil ang
husbang.] What crime is committed? The crime is rape attempted rape, homicide is committed when by reason or on the
occasion. Although this is a gray area. The crime may be attempted rape or homicide. Because by reason or on the occasion
here means either intentional homicide or accidental homicide. [Rape-on unta nya ang babaye unya gipusil nya ang naa untay
mu-rescue. Ang mu-rescue wa maigo, silingan ang naigo. Rape and homicide by reason or on the occasion.
Death penalty or reclusion perpetua.
When the victim is under 18 years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree or the common law spouse of the parent of the victim. [Klaruha ni kay
very strict ang Supreme Court sa interpretation.] Two things: (1) the information must allege the age of the woman under
18; and, (2) the relationship must also be alleged ascendant, step-parent, [Ang gibutang sa information, common law
spouse. Unya ang gi-prove sa prosecution, step-parent. Supreme Court said not qualified rape. Unsa may pasabot sa
Supreme Court? Muingon gani step-parent, gikasal gyud, dli kay puyo2x lang.], guardian [Several Supreme Court decisions
also. To be qualified, the guardian must be a legally appointed guardian. Case decided by the Supreme Court: a mother left
her 14-year-old child with their neighbor to go to Mindanao for one month. The child was raped by the neighbor. The neighbor
was charged with qualified rape, but the Supreme Court said simple rape only because the accused was not a legal guardian]
relative by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil degree, common law spouse [kung iprobar gani, step-parent, simple
rape lang kay ang common law spouse kana mang nagpuyo2x. Words ra gyud ang difference. Technicalities.]
Victim is under the custody of police or military authorities or any law enforcement or penal institution. Under the
custody may be she is a detainee by final conviction or a detention prisoner or she is there for safe-keeping only.
Rape in full view of spouse, parent, any of the children or other relatives within the third civil degree of
consanguinity.
When the victim is a religious engaged in legitimate religious vocation or calling. Thats the first requisite. Second,
personally known to be such by the offender before or at the time of the commission of the crime. [Gwapa kaayo ang madre
unya naay silingan nila, naibog kaayo sa madre. Ang madre nigawas mn pgka alas 12. Ningadto mn sa night club kay mao
may kuan nya nga kanang mga mubog lupad nga mga babaye maoy iyang silbi tarungon ang landas, sa Tagalog pa no. Maoy
iyang trabaho. So ningadto sya. Wa sya magmadre. Ga-sinina sad sya ug dli habit ba kanang sexy sad. Uy gisunod. Pag-uli
gi-rape sa silinga.] Is that qualified rape? If what she made in going to the night club, she was engaged in legitimate religious
vocation, its qualified. [But kung nignadto lang gyud to sya para magkiat kay nakita sad sya ug pari utro sad nagkiat, thats
not qualified rape.] Please take note that the rapist here must know the vocation or calling of the victim.
When the victim is a child below 7 years old, Supreme Court said this is known as child rape.
When offender knows that he is afflicted with HIV/AIDS or any other STD and the virus or disease is transmitted to
the victim.
Committed by any member of the AFP, paramilitary units, cafgu, PNP, law enforcement agency or penal institution.
When the offender took advantage of his position to facilitate the commission of the crime. Take note of taking
advantage of his position. [Police ko ha. NBI ko.]
When by reason or on the occasion of rape, the victim must suffer permanent physical mutilation or disability
[Kagrabe sad noh. Na-disabled mn. Unsay pasabot ani? Well, in one case decided by the Supreme Court, gisunod sa lalaki
tong babaye ngadto forest kay nanguhag kahoy ba. Unya kay ganahan mn sad sa silingan lagi gihapon. So gi-rape nya.
Pagkahuman iyang gitigbas dri. Namutilate gyud ang nawong. So gikiha sya ug qualified rape. Supreme Court, paligas lang
gihapon, no because kadto pagtigbas, element to sya sa attempted murder, dli sa rape.]
I warn your future clients. There is hardly any defense in rape [bisag unsa pay katarungan. Wa pay rape nga ako gitrial nga wa ma-convicted. Convicted tanan gyud. Sa Danao, Japanese national 7 counts of rape. Ang iyang sister-in-law was
only 13 years old. She forgot the time, the date but she was made to account that she was raped 7 times. 7 convictions, he
Criminal Law Second Installment 66

did not appeal the decision of the court. Tua sa Munti. Murag Yakuza tingali to kay dha mn sa Danao nag-standby. Negosyo
cguro ug firearm. Anyway, were going to survey cases on rape. Makaingon mo, there is no defense. Muingon ka, wa may
medical certificate. Wrong. Medical certificate is not required. It is merely corroborative. Wa mn musinggit. Wrong ghapon kay
ug tiunan ug kutsilyo. Dali ra mn to, 3 minutes. Ingon ang Supreme Court, bisag 2 minutes pa basta naay penetration, partial
penetration. Niingon nga, gamay ra mn kay tong balaya, meaning, cramped kaayo sila. Ingon ang Supreme Court, balik2x na,
rape is no respecter of time and place. Way depensa.]
When the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime.
[Muingon dayon ang laki wa mn ko kahibawo nga mabdos to, abi mn nkog kusog lang mukaon, dakog tiyan.]
When the offender knew of the metal disability, emotional disorder and physical handicap of the offended party at
the time of the commission of the crime.
Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or 2 or more persons, reclusion perpetua.
Attempted and a homicide is committed, reclusion perpetua.
When by reason or on the occasion of rape, homicide is committed, reclusion perpetua. [Klaruhon ni. Rape unya
homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion. Who is killed here? She is not necessarily the woman but maybe another
person. Rape or attempted rape or consummated rape on the occasion or by reason.
CRIM 16: JULY 15, 2010
RA 8505: An Act Providing Assistance And Protection For Rape Victims
Sec.3 rape crisis center to be established by the DSWD, DILG, DOH
Sec.4 duty of the police officer. Upon receipt of the complaint for rape:
1.
2.
3.

immediately refer the case to the prosecutor for inquest or investigation;

arrange for counseling and medical services; and
immediately make a report on the action taken

Police officer or examining physician must be of the same gender to ensure that only persons expressly authorized by
the offended party shall be allowed inside the room. By the way, the flow is this: if a rape compliant is filed, refer it to the
women's desk of the police station. If any medical examination will be conducted, the doctor must be of the same gender. If
there is any preliminary investigation to be conducted, the prosecutor must be of the same gender, meaning woman. Not
necessarily the judge who will preside the case.
Sec. 5 protective measure. Right to privacy of the offended party and the accused shall be recognized. Closed-door
investigation.
Sec. 6 rape-shield. In prosecutions for rape, evidence of complainant's past sexual conduct, opinion thereof or of
his/her reputation shall not be admitted. That's the general rule. So the offender cannot say 'there is no rape because the
woman is a prostitute or mahilig or she has had previous experience with many men', that's not allowed. Exception: unless
and only to the extent that the court finds that such evidence is material and relevant to the case. That's actually the rapeshield law.
In rape, there must be sexual intercourse. Slight penetration is enough. Force employed against the victim of rape
need not be of such character as could be resisted. When the offender has moral ascendancy or influence, it's not necessary
that she put up a determined resistance. Almost always in rape cases there are only 2 witnesses; the victim and the offender.
There is frustrated rape. It's either attempted or consummated. You have to distinguish acts of lasciviousness from attempted
rape.
Sec. 266 effect of pardon. Subsequent valid marriage between the offender and the offended party shall extinguish
the criminal action or the penalty imposed. Take note, VALID MARRIAGE not intention to marry but valid marriage.
Second paragraph is marital rape. In case it is the husband who is the offender, the subsequent forgiveness by the
wife as the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty. Must the forgiveness here be express or implied?
I think it may be implied. If the husband and the wife live again together under one roof, then there is evidence of
forgiveness. The crime shall not be extinguished or the penalty shall not be abated if the marriage be void ab initio. In crimes
against chastity, such effect benefits not only principals but also accomplices and accessories. Suppose, 3 robbers entered a
house and raped the woman in the house and the woman agreed to marry on of the robbers. Will the marriage extinguish
robbery with rape against the 2 other accused? The answer is NO.
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 act punished.
In the case of Pp vs Alvin Abolon, if the offender inserted his tongue in the vagina of the woman, what kind of rape is
that? RAPE BY SEXUAL ASSUALT. When this law was amended, the DOJ issued a circular to all the prosecutors in the
Philippines, to the effect that if a finger is inserted in the vagina of the woman, the crime is acts of lasciviousness only. It was
challenged. According to the DOJ it's acts of lasciviousness but then the case reached the CA and the CA stated that it is RAPE
BY SEXUAL ASSAULT because a finger is an instrument.
The Anti-Rape Law, 8353, revolutionize the crime of rape with the new recognition that the crime should include
sexual violence on the woman's sex-related orifices other than her organ to cover gender-free rape.
Paragraph 1, new article 266-A RPC covers rape through sexual intercourse while paragraph 2, rape by sexual
assault. Rape through sexual intercourse is also denominated as organ rape or penile rape while rape by sexual assault is also
called instrument or object rape or gender-free rape or the narrower homosexual rape. Rape by sexual assault may be
committed by a woman against a woman; a man against a woman; a woman against a man; or a man against a man.
There are differences between paragraphs 1 and 2; organ rape and rape by sexual assault.
Criminal Law Second Installment 67

In the 1st mode, the offender is always a man. In the 2nd, the offender may be a man or a woman.
In the 1st mode, the offended party is always a woman. While in the 2 nd, the offended party may be a man or a
woman.
In the 1st mode, rape is committed through penile penetration. 2 nd is committed by inserting the penis into another
person's mouth or anal orifice. Or any instrument or object into the genital of anal orifice.
Penalty for rape under the 1st mode is higher, reclusion perpetua. In the 2nd, it's reclusion temporal, if I'm not
mistaken. In view of material differences between the 2, organ rape and rape by sexual assault, the 1 st mode is not
necessarily included in the 2nd , and vice versa.
The accused here was convicted only of the crime of acts of lasciviousness. Geronimo Ordianrio vs CA. Teacher
convicted for 12 counts of rape for sexual assault against male student by inserting his penis in the victim's mouth. This is
rape by sexual assault. Rape maybe committed notwithstanding the fact that persons involved are both male under the AntiRape Law of 1997. Pp vs Jason Navarro, ang iyang gi-ingon nga napilo man, wala magahi, flaccid ba. Ingon dayn xa way rape
kai nibawg man. Yang katarungan nga kapoy kuno kaayo, due to fatigue. He also questioned the reputation of the woman. Is
there rape? SC said YES. Because there was a slight contact. Even the slightest contact of the penis with the labia constitutes
rape. A flaccid penis can do as much damage as an erect one. At least, in so far as the crime of rape is concerned. It may be
uncomfortable and difficult to commit rape inside the vehicle does not render the commission thereof improbable. Is the
victim's reputation considered in the prosecution for rape? According to the rape-shield law, NO. character or reputation is
immaterial.
Qualified rape, rape by a relative. Step-brother step-sister, not qualified because they're not related by blood or
affinity. The enumeration under qualified rape is exclusive, hence the common-law husband of the victim's grandmother is not
included. 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, committed by the ascendant of the offended woman. Employment of force and intimidation not
indispensable in incestuous rape. If the offender is not known to the offended party, 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. If the woman is
below 12 years old, consent is immaterial.
In the crime of rape, full or complete penetration of the woman's sexual organ is not necessary. Slightest penetration, contact
with the labia will consummate the rape.
Suppose the prosecution failed to present the medical certificate. Is that reason for the court to acquit the accused.
Answer is NO because medical examination or medical certificate is not required. It may only be corroborative in nature. How
about absence of external sign of physical injuries, is that reason to acquit the accused? NO because if the offender will use a
knife or hand gun, the woman will submit.
If on the occasion or by reason or rape, the victim died. What is the crime committed? Special complex crime of rape
with homicide. There is a distinction between attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness. In attempted rape, there is intent to
have sexual intercourse or intent to lie. In acts of lasciviousness, there is no intent to lie with the offended woman. The
intention is merely to satisfy lewd design. Intent to lie means intent to penetrate. Pp vs Cavalquinto, real name of the victim's
survivor (the woman or child victim of violence) should not be disclosed. The court shall only use fictitious initials. Personal
circumstances of the victim survivor or any information tending to establish or compromise their identities, as well as those of
their immediate family or household member, hall not be disclosed. SC issued a resolution, AM No. 99-7-06. Office of the
Solicitor General commented that the posting of the full-text of decision in child-abuse cases on the SC website violates the
right to privacy of the aggrieved parties. According to the DOJ, the fact that the aggrieved child may have consented through
a parent or guardian to a public hearing of the case does not negate the expectation of privacy which the child may later
invoke because the child victims cannot be presumed to have intended their initial agreement to extend beyond the
termination of their case to the posting of the decision reached by the court on the webpage.
SHORT QUIZ:
1.

Accomplice

2.

Accomplice

3.

The officers, former officers or alumni of the organization, group, fraternity or sorority who actually planned the
hazing although not present when the acts constituting the hazing were committed shall be liable as principal,
accomplice or accessory? Principal

4.

First cousins married each other. The man killed the woman with treachery. What crime is committed? Murder

5.

The accused killed a five-year old child. There was no treachery, no evident premeditation, no abuse of superior
strength. What crime is committed? Murder. Killing a child is always a murder.

6.

X was bumped by Y. As a consequence of the incident, X bumped A. A is pregnant. The baby was spilled from
the womb. Is there any crime committed by X? No crime.

7.

Why? Because there was no intentional violence employed. No violence is okay.

8.

X was drunk, poured sulfuric acid to the glass filled with wine. Y drank the contents of the glass and as a
consequence of which, he suffered less serious physical injuries. Is this a case involving administering injurious
substances and beverages under Art. 264? No.

9.

Why? Because the injury is not serious, but less serious. Unjust vexation.

10.

X and Y were alone in a room. X slapped Y. No physical injuries were inflicted. What crime, if any, is committed
by X? maltreatment/slight physical injuries/unjust vexation.
Title Nine: CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY
Criminal Law Second Installment 68

Chapter One: CRIMES AGAINST LIBERTY

There are eight [8] crimes under crimes against liberty. There are sixteen [16] crimes against security.
Chapter One (Crimes Against Liberty), Section One is illegal detention. There are three [3] crimes classified as illegal
detention. In illegal detention, the essential element is intent to detain or deprive the victim of liberty. If there is none, then it
must be another crime.
Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention.
What is the distinction between kidnapping and illegal detention? In kidnapping, there is asportation or movement
from one place to another. Illegal detention does not require taking away. A person may even be detained in his own house.
Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another. If committed by a public officer, the crime is arbitrary detention.
Or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty. (1) Kidnapping or detention may have lasted for how many days? Three
days. (2) 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. Penalty is reclusion perpetua in the three cases I
mentioned. If the physical injuries are inflicted against a person who was not a victim of kidnapping or kidnapped or a victim
of detention, the case does not fall under Art. 267. (4) If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor. Never mind the
number of days even if it is one hour only. Exception when the accused is any of the parents, female or public officer. If
committed by parents, no crime under Art. 267. If the person detained is female, number of days is immaterial. If the person
detained is a public officer, number of days is also immaterial.
If a woman is transported, restrained of her liberty, without lewd design, the crime is serious illegal detention.
If the woman is carried away to break her will or to compel her to agree to a demand of the offender, meaning, there
is no intention to deprive her of liberty, the crime is grave coercion.
If kidnapping was incidental to the main purpose, there is no kidnapping. For example, X is kidnapped to kill him
(main purpose is to kill), the crime is murder, qualified by evident premeditation because there was no intention to deprive
him of liberty or if there was, it was only incidental to the main purpose of killing the victim.
Penalty shall be death or reclusion perpetua under the present law where the kidnapping or detention was committed
for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person.
Please take note, it is not necessary that there is a demand for ransom. It is not necessary that ransom is delivered
and received. Its the purpose which is important. Purpose is to extort ransom. It is sufficient if the intent or purpose is to
extort ransom. We are adopting the Lindbergh Law.
The last paragraph was asked in the Bar Exams. Classic case is People v. Larranaga (Juan Paco Larranaga, the
Chiong kidnapping case). What was the crime charged? Kidnapping.
When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention (main purpose is detention although deprived the
victim of liberty), or is raped, or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, maximum penalty. This is qualified kidnapping
or special complex crime. Kidnapping with rape or torture or dehumanization.
In the case of the Chiong sisters, there was rape and homicide. So kidnapping with homicide. There was rape. How
do you classify? Kidnapping there was rape, there was homicide. Homicide should be generic, meaning, it may be murder.
Well, according to Philippine criminal jurisprudence, [kung magcomplex ka, unya duha kabuok crimes ang masagol] what is
the worst crime? Its, according to the Supreme Court, homicide. So, kidnapping with homicide, not kidnapping with homicide
and rape because he said that homicide is a graver offense. In the case of the Chiong sisters also, the victims were subjected
to torture or dehumanizing acts. What was the dehumanizing act? They were made to dance naked in front of the tormentors.
In a case, two minors were kidnapped. One was the son of a gasoline station owner. The other one was the son of a
driver. The purpose was to extort ransom. With respect to the kidnapping of the son of the gasoline station owner, its
kidnapping for ransom. With respect to the son of the driver, its kidnapping with homicide.
When the law says when the victim is killed or dies, it does not matter how matter are killed.
There are four elements of the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention.
murder.

If the victim, like the person killed, is not the person kidnapped, the crime is kidnapping and separate crime of
Penalty when the victim is a minor and accused is one of the parents, according to Reyes, arresto mayor or a fine.

How do you distinguish kidnapping from forcible abduction? If there is lewd design, then the case is forcible
abduction. If there is none, its kidnapping only.
If the purpose is to deprive the woman of her liberty, the crime is serious illegal detention.
Detention or locking up is essential. There must be actual confinement or restriction of the person of the offended
party. He may be detained inside a big compound, but if the purpose is to deprive him of his liberty, the crime is serious illegal
detention.
Restraint of liberty, either permanent or temporary, is the essential element of kidnapping.
In the book of Reyes, you read the case of People v. Camo, complex crime of kidnapping with murder.
If the purpose is to kidnap and then later, he was killed with treachery, two crimes kidnapping and murder. If the
purpose of kidnapping is incidental, the main purpose is to kill, its murder.
Ransom is money, price or consideration paid or demanded for redemption of a captured person or persons; a
payment that releases from captivity.
Criminal Law Second Installment 69

How do you distinguish kidnapping from coercion? In coercion, there is no intent to deprive the victim of his liberty.
If he as forced to go with the offender without intention of depriving him of his liberty. There was one case where the man
offered to the girl to bring her home. [So kuyog sila. Nisugot ang bata. Pag-abot gasanga na ang dalan,] instead [na ngari sa
left], which is the road towards the house of the girl, [gibira mn nuon ngari sa right.] He pulled the girl towards the road
leading to the house of the suspect. [Nakit-an sa 3 ka batan-on nga giguyod nya niresist ang bata.] The man was charged
with the crime of kidnapping. Supreme Court said coercion only because the prosecution was not able to prove that the
purpose of the man was to deprive the girl of her liberty. She was forced to do something against her will. Its compulsive
coercion.
Distinction between illegal detention and arbitrary detention. Illegal detention committed by private person;
arbitrary detention by public officer or employee.
Art. 268. Slight illegal detention.
Committed by private individual committing crimes under Art. 267 without the attendance of any of the
circumstances enumerated therein.
What is the liability of the person who shall furnish the place for the perpetration of the crime? Same penalty.
Third paragraph of Art. 268 is a mitigating circumstance, that is, if the offender voluntarily releases the person
kidnapped and detained within 3 days from the commencement of the detention. That is the first requisite. Second requisite,
without having attained the purpose intended. And third requisite, before the institution of the criminal proceedings against
him. Suppose a public officer was kidnapped. He was released before 3 days. The accused was not able to attain his purpose.
There was no criminal proceeding instituted yet. Can the accused invoke this mitigating circumstance of voluntarily release if
he voluntarily released the offended party? The answer is no. All the requisites are present voluntary release within 3 days,
the offender did not attain his purpose, there was no criminal case file yet. The reason is voluntary release mitigating only in
slight illegal detention, but not mitigating in serious illegal detention. [Kay kung ang gikidnap public officer, thats serious
illegal detention. Kung bata, serious illegal detention.]
Liability of accomplice in slight illegal detention co-principal.
In People v. Saliente, cited by Reyes, voluntary release if the victim is a woman is not mitigating circumstance.
Art. 269. Unlawful arrest.
Unlawful arrest may be committed by a public officer or a private person. The law says any person without
distinction. 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. The most important phrase in unlawful arrest is for the
purpose of delivering him to the proper authorities. This is usually, but not necessarily, preceded by incriminatory
machination. [Kay ang tuyo to deliver him to the proper authorities. Butangan ang bag ug something, thats incriminatory
machination. Pananglitan dha sa department store. Then arrestahon. Unsay tuyo? Aron dad-on didto sa police ug court.] That
is unlawful arrest. There is detention in unlawful arrest, but detention is only incidental to the main purpose, which is, to
deliver the party to the proper authorities.
Please take note of the second element the purpose of the offender is to deliver him to the proper authorities. The
arrest or detention is not authorized by law or there is no reasonable ground therefor. In other words, there is no probable
cause to effect warrantless arrest.
You should distinguish unlawful arrest from illegal detention. If the purpose of detention is to deliver him to proper
authorities, then its unlawful arrest.
You should distinguish unlawful arrest from Art. 125 (delay in the delivery of the detained persons to the proper
judicial authority). In delay, there is probable cause. What makes it a crime? Failure to deliver the detainee to the proper
judicial authority. In unlawful arrest, the detention is not authorized by law because there in no probable cause. Under Art.
125 (delay), the crime is committed by failing to deliver the person arrested to the proper judicial authority. In unlawful
arrest, it is committed by making an arrest not authorized by law.
No period of detention is fixed by law under unlawful arrest. It may be one hour, two hours or one day.
The motive of the offender is controlling. If the purpose is to deliver him to the proper authorities, it is unlawful
arrest. If it is not, meaning, if the motive is to detain him, to deprive him of liberty, the crime is illegal detention.
Section Two. Kidnapping of minors
There are two crimes called kidnapping of minors, but these two articles are radically changed by recent special
penal laws.
Art. 270. Kidnapping and failure to return a minor.
The word kidnapping is misplaced. There is no kidnapping in Art. 270. The crime is failure to return the minor to
the custodian of the minor, to the parents or guardian. In fact, the word kidnapping does not appear in the body of the
article. It only says any person who, being entrusted with the custody of a minor person. If he was entrusted, then there is
no kidnapping. What makes it a crime? Failure to deliver the minor to the parents or guardians. There was a case where two
doctors where convicted by the RTC. [Naay nanganak sa ilang clinic, wa mn kabayad so dli i-release kay wa mn kabayad. So
ninggawas ang babaye kay nangitag kwarta. Dugay sd kaayo niuli, dugay nibalik sa hospital hangtud ang bata gikuha sa
barangay captain nya wa na mahibaw-i kung asa na ang custody sa bata. So gikiha ug kidnapping and failure to return a
minor.] Supreme Court said there was no kidnapping. The crime is failure to return a minor, but acquitted by the Supreme
Court because the most important element failure to restore the latter to parents or guardian was not proved by the
prosecution. The tragedy is [didto na sa barangay captain, ni-file nasang inahan ug habeas corpus. Sus wa mn sd sya
kaprubar nga iya tong bata, wa gyud nya makuha.] So the essential element in this article is that the offender is entrusted
with the custody of the minor.
Art. 271. Inducing a minor to abandon his home.

Criminal Law Second Installment 70

Anyone who shall induce a minor to abandon the home of his parent or guardians or the persons entrusted with his
custody. Since this is RPC, there must be criminal intent.
If committed by the father or mother, penalty shall be arresto mayor or fine. Because if the minor is entrusted to a
legal custodian, [gi-deprive sila ug] parental authority then if they induced the minor to abandon the home of the person to
whom the child was entrusted, then the penalty is arresto mayor.
Kidnapping and serious illegal detention cannot be committed by parents, but Art. 271, even parents can commit the
crime.
The leading case is People v. Paalam. The inducement must be actual, committed with criminal intent and
determined by a will to cause damage [Kung ingnon lang, oi Day adtos Manila nindot kaayo didto kay nay mga artista. Nya
nisugot sd kuyog.] Thats not abandonment or inducing a minor to abandon his home.
What is the meaning of shall induce a minor to abandon the home? What constitutes the crime is the act of
inducing a minor to abandon his home or the home of his guardian and that it is not necessary that the minor actually
abandons the home.
Section Three Slavery and servitude
Are obsolete in view of trafficking in person law thats why we have to study trafficking in person.
There are three crimes called slavery and servitude.
Art. 272. Slavery.
Anyone who shall purchase, sell, kidnap or detain a human being for the purpose of enslaving him. The word
kidnap here is misplaced also. [Liman ka ang penalty is prision mayor ug ang tuyo slavery. Gikidnap pa, gi-slave pa gyud.
Prision mayor hinoon. Kung kidnapping, reclusion perpetua.]
If the purpose is to enslave, its slavery, but under trafficking in person [taas ang penalty.] There are several
purposes in trafficking in person, either slavery, peonage, prostitution or lascivious conduct. [Daghan kaayo na sya. Unya],
means of committing, you use all the words in the dictionary [naa dha sa kuan] coercion, intimidation, undue influence
[hurot, perteng taasa sa definition. Di jud ka kaikyas.]
If the purpose is to assign the victim to a moral traffic, its prostitution under the RPC. If the purpose is not to
enslave him, if the purpose is not to assign him to moral traffic, then its illegal detention. So read Republic Act 9208. This is
already obsolete.
You should distinguish kidnapping from illegal detention.
Art. 273. Exploitation of child labor.
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. [Kung niingon ang gikiha, Day, ang imong
amahan utangan sa ako ug P10,000. Kinahanglan musirbi ka nko as helper or maid. Muingon ang bata, cge nlng kay di mn
gyud na kabayad akong amahan.] Is that exploitation of child labor? The answer is no. Why? Because the law says against
the latters will. [Wa gani musugot ang bata, thats exploitation. Kung gipugos ang bata pagtrabaho, nya nisugot nlng, thats
similar to coercion.]
Art. 274. Services rendered under compulsion in payment of debt.
Is also rendered obsolete by Anti-Trafficking Law. This is know as criminal peonage.
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. Coercion here is absorbed in the crime of criminal peonage. Please
take note compel. [Utangan si Dodong. Dong kabayad ka dli? Dli kabayad. Kinahanglan mutrabaho ka family driver musugot
kag dli. Kasaan dayon sa pistola. Sugot lang driver.] Is that a crime under Art. 274 (services rendered under compulsion in
payment of debt? Answer is no. Why? Because the law says as household servant or farm laborer. [Ang driver di mn na
household servant. Di sd na farm laborer.] What crime is committed? Coercion [napugos ug trabaho.]
CRIM 17: July 21, 2010
Chapter Two: CRIMES AGAINST SECURITY
Section One. Abandonment of helpless persons
and exploitation of minors.
There are 4 crimes against abandonment of helpless persons and exploitation of minors. They are modified if not
rendered obsolete by Trafficiking in persons RA 7610.
Art. 275-Abandonment of Persons in Danger and Abandonment of Ones own Victim. Abandonment of persons in
Danger is a crime by omission because if there is deliberate abandonment with intention to kill the crime is homicide. For
example you leave a child inside the zoo and you open the gates where lions are kept. Or gi-ablihan sad nimu ang mga cage
sa bitin, so there is a clear intention to kill the child; deliberate abandonment which does not fall under Art.275. What are the
acts punished in 275? Failing to render assistance to any person whom the offender finds in an uninhabited. Uninhabited place
is a place where there are no people around. The victim cannot get helped from anybody. Then wounded or endanger of dying
then the accused can render such assistance without detriment of himself. If a person finds somebody wounded and in danger
of dying but there is a big python beside that person and you abandon that person, you are not held liable because if you will
render assistance the python might attack. Failing to help or render assistance to another whom the offender accidentally
wounded or injured. Please take note of the word accidentally not negligently. Failing to deliver a child under 7 years of age
whom the offender has found abandoned to the authorities or to his family or by failing to take him to a safe place. Where the
injuries were inflicted accidentally and the victim lives the crime is abandonment. But if he dies it might be homicide. If the
injuries inflicted were through negligence and the victim is abandon the crime is physical injuries through negligence. Now
Criminal Law Second Installment 71

under this article the offender is liable only when he can render such assistance w/o detriment to himself. There is an
obligation to render assistance only if he is found in an uninhabited place. If the mortally wounded person is found in a place
not in uninhabited abandonment will not bring about this crime because there is still a possibility that he might be saved by
other persons. Uninhabited place is determined by the possibility of person receiving assistance from another.
The 2nd act of abandonment contemplates a situation is caused by an offender and the 3 rd person is injured as a
result of such accident. Character of the place is not important. Under the 3 rd act of abandonment it is immaterial that the
offender that the child is under 7 years.
Art. 276 is Abandoning a Minor. Who is liable? Anyone who shall abandon any child under 7 years of age the custody
of which is incumbent upon him. If the minor dies the accused shall be punished by prision correccional, if he shall be in
danger only it shall be prision correccional minimum and medium period. Provisions contained in the 2 preceding paragraphs
shall not prevent the imposition of the penalty provided for the act committed when the same shall constitute a more serious
offense. There is a special law PD 603, which punishes a parent who abandons the child under circumstances as to deprived
him of love, care and protection. If there is intent to kill then art.276 does not apply. There must be a permanent, conscious
and deliberate abandonment in this article. Mere abandonment of a child even when his life is not in danger so long as there
is interruption of the care and protection he needs by reason of his tender age. What kind of abandonment is contemplated by
law? It is not momentary leaving of a child but the abandonment of such minor that deprives him of the care and protection
to his person.
Art 277 Abandonment of minor by a person entrusted with his custody in general. Who is liable? Anyone who having
charged of the rearing or education of a child shall deliver the child to a public institution or other person 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.
Same penalty against parents who shall neglect their children by not giving them education which their station in
life requires and financial condition permits. There is also a parallel provision under PD 603. Under PD 603 parent is
punished who neglect the child by not giving him the education which the familys station in life and financial condition
permits. Again the abandonment here must be conscious and deliberate. If the deliberate abandonment is to cause the death
of the child the crime is homicide. Failure to give education must be due to deliberate desire to evade such obligation.
Art 278 Exploitation of Minors. There are five acts punished under Art.278. The exploitation of minor here must refer
to act endangering the life and safety of the minor. Here the offender is engaged in some kind of business that would place
the life or limb of the minor even though working for him is not against the will of the minor. Age of the minor must be below
16. What kind of business? Business that generally attracts children. Crime of exploitation of minors is not committed if the
employer is a parent or ascendant. Exception unless the minor is less than 12 years old. We have to distinguished exploitation
of minors under RPC and RA 7610 (Child Abuse Act). Exploitation of minors under RPC must be Below 16. RA 7610 must be
below 18. RPC, business must be of such kind that would place the life or limb of the minor in danger even though working for
him is not against the minor. RA 7610, as long as the employment is inimical even though there is no physical risk and
detrimental to the childs interest against moral, intellectual, physical and mental development of the minor. RPC, if the child
fell and suffered physical injuries while working employer shall be liable for the physical injuries in addition to liability for
exploitation of minor. RA 7610, no such similar provision exists.
Take note of the case of De Guzman vs. Perez, ponente is Corona, decided July 25, 2006. Manag-uyab law students
then they have a love child. Unya wala magkadayon unya medyo miasenso ang lalaki and babaye dili kayo progresibo ang
iyang negosyo. So the woman, former classmate demanded support and education for the child. The defense of the man who
was a former law student was that both of us must be held liable. SC said NO. The 1 st case filed was abandonment but
finding probable cause to charge petitioner with neglect of child punishable under Art. 59(4), PD 603 in relation to Sec. 10, RA
7610. Under Art. 59, PD 603, criminal liability shall attached to any person who neglects the child by not giving him the
education which the familys station in life and financial condition permit. Now the accused here De Guzman acknowledge
Robie as his son. The court found that De Guzman is in fact financial capable of supporting Robies education. He owns
750,000 worth of paid-up shares in a company. Now his argument is that liability for neglect of child under Art. 59 (4), PD
603 attaches only if both parents are guilty of neglecting the childs education. SC said the law is clear, the crime may be
committed by a parent. The liability of the crime is not dependent of whether the other parent is guilty of neglect. The law
intends to punish any parent which neglect corresponds to the failure to give the child the education which the familys station
in life and financial condition permit. So De Guzman was held indictable for violation of Art.59(4), PD 603. But the charge
against him cannot be made in relation to Sec 10(A), RA 7610.
Additional penalties for other offenses, Art. 279, RPC. The imposition of the penalties prescribed in the preceding
articles shall not prevent the imposition upon the same person of the penalty provided for any other felonies defined and
penalized under this code. Simply means that the offender is liable not only for abandonment or exploitation but also for all
the consequences of his acts like physical injuries resulting from abandonment.
Section Two. Trespass to dwelling
Distinguish trespass to dwelling from violation of domicile? Unlike violation of domicile trespass to dwelling is
committed only in one way.
Art.280 is Qualified Trespass to dwelling. The accused here is a private person who shall enter the dwelling of
another against the latters will. This is the only way of committing the crime. Qualified if committed by means of violence or
intimidation. How do you distinguish trespass to dwelling to trespass to property? In trespass to dwelling the dwelling is
inhabited. Whereas in trespass to property the place is not inhabited. Defenses, 3 rd par., not applicable to any person who
shall enter anothers dwelling to prevent harm unto himself. Kung gigukod siya ug sundang unya nay balay sirado pultahan,
gibanggaan niya unya malas raba kay pagsud niya nagduwa ang bana ug asawa, naatlan gyud. Is he liable for trespass to
dwelling? No. He was only trying to save himself. 2ns defense; Prevent serious harm to occupants to a dwelling or a 3 rd
person. Miagi siya als 2 kadlawn, nasunog na ang atop unya perteng hagoka sa mga nagpuyo, so he destroyed the door to
save the occupants. Thats not trespass to dwelling. Naay pikas balay naglagubo, klaro kayo na patyon na gyud ang asawa sa
bana so you barged in to save the wife. Thats not trespass to dwelling. Nor shall it be applicable to any person who shall
enter a dwelling for the purpose of rendering some service to humanity or justice. Like in the last example I gave you. Nor to
anyone who shall enter any cafs, taverns, inns and other public houses while the same are open.
Dwelling means any building or structure exclusively devoted for rest and comfort. Repeat exclusively
devoted for rest and comfort as distinguished from places devoted to business, offices, etc. Do not forget the case of Pp vs.
Lamajang. Lamajang removed the wooden funnel of the kitchen and he entered the house but was not able to take anything.
What crime he committed? Attempted robbery, theft, etc? NO. Since he was not able to get anything the crime is trespass to
dwelling only. Entrance to dwelling must be against the will of the owner. It must be against the presumed or express
prohibition of the occupant. Lack of permission does not amount to prohibition. Prohibition must be in existence prior to or at
the time of the entrance. What is intended to be protected is privacy to ones dwelling. The violence or intimidation may take
Criminal Law Second Installment 72

place immediately after the entrance. What will determine whether the crime committed is qualified trespass or trespass to
dwelling? It is the condition of the dwelling. Or trespass that determines the crime committed. As long as the place is
inhabited the crime is trespass to dwelling. In trespass to property there is clear or manifest prohibition for entering.
Examples of dwelling, a persons room in a hotel; a room where one resides as a boarder. What are the variant
crimes that may be committed when a person trespasses a dwelling? If the purpose in entering the dwelling is not shown,
trespass is committed. Its not clear whether the trespass was to take any property. If the purpose is shown, it may be
absorbed in the crime as in robbery with force upn things the trespass yielding to the more serious crime. Like the culprits
gained entry by removing the roof. Once inside they took personal properties the crime is robbery with the use of forced upon
things. Trespass to dwelling is absorbed. If the purpose is not shown and while inside the dwelling he was caught by the
occupants one of whom was injured by him, the crime committed is trespass to dwelling and homicide if the occupant was
killed or physical injuries or if there was no injury, unjust vexation.
May trespass to dwelling be committed by the owner of the house? Yes. For example he leased one of the rooms and
he forced himself to enter the room by means of violence such is trespass. Under what circumstances that trespass to
dwelling is not committed? We have discussed this. Trespass to dwelling versus violation of domicile; we have discussed this
also. There are 3 ways of committing violation of domicile.
Art 281. Other forms of trespass. Any person who shall enter the closed premises or the fenced estate of another
either of them is uninhabited. By the way its trespass to dwelling even if the occupant is temporarily absent. Pananglitan wala
diha and tag-iya, mibakasyon for 1month the place is still inhabited. Its not an abandoned place. Here the prohibition to
enter is manifest. This is private property, No Trespassing. The trespasser has not secured the consent of the owner or the
caretaker thereof.
Section Three. Threats and coercion
Art 282. Threats. Any person who shall threaten another with the infliction upon the following; person, honor,
property upon another or of his family any wrong amounting to a crime. How do you distinguish coercion from threat? We will
discuss coercion 1st before we compare the 2. There are 3 acts under grave threats. Threatening another with the infliction
upon his person, honor, property or of his family any wrong amounting to a crime demanding money or imposing any other
condition even though not unlawful and the offender attain its purpose. This is future, threatening another with the infliction
upon his person, honor, property or of his family any wrong amounting to a crime. If the accused says if you will not vacate
your house I will burn your house or I will kill you. Thats grave threats amounting to a crime. Conditional, if you will not
vacate. But if the accused were present, they were confronting each other vacate the premises or else I will shoot you. So
the offended party vacated the premises, that is grave coercion. Grave threats is future, If you will not vacate I will kill you.
Grave coercion, Vacate now otherwise I will shoot you. So misibat, milakaw siya. Thats immediate, personal confrontation.
Making threat w/o the offender attaining his purpose. Threatening another with the infliction upon his person, honor, property
or of his family any wrong amounting to a crime the threat not being subject to a condition. By the way how do you
distinguished grave threat from robbery? The most important distinction is in robbery there is a animus lucrandi (intent to
gain) if you will not give money I will kill you. Thats no more threat thats robbery.
Threat is absorbed in robbery. Here the accused must have exercised violence prior to or at the time the victim was
doing the act desired by the accused to be done. By the way there is something wrong in number 1, if the offender shall not
have attained his purpose the penalty is lower by 2 degrees shall be imposed. The threat must be to inflict a wrong
amounting to a crime upon the person, honor or property of the offended party or that of his family. In grave coercion its
personal, in grave threats not only personal but also against honor, property of the offended party or that of his family.
What are the crimes that arise from intimidation? 1. Robbery. If the intimidation is immediate but conditional coupled
with demand for money or personal property. 2. Threat if it is future or conditional. Teleponohan gani nimu, hatag kwarta
ugma ha di gani ka mohatag sunugon naku imung balay. That is future, grave threats. Ang threaten crime, arson. Perog
atubangay sila, di gani ka mohatag kwarta pusilon tika. That is robbery.
Coercion if it is direct, immediate and personal or serious enough. Essence of the crime of threats is intimidation. In
coercion naa gihapon intimidation the only difference is in coercion there is personal confrontation.
There are 2 kinds of coercion; Compulsive and preventive. In the crime of threats it is essential that there be
intimidation. In the intimidation there is promise of some future harm or injury either to the person, honor, property of the
offended party or his family. In coercion it is against the person only of the offended party not against honor, not against
relatives. The act threatened to be committed must be wrong.
Pananglitan nay mosud sa balay sa imung uyab, mamugos gyud moingon ug upsilon tikag di ka mogawas. Is that
grave threats? NO. Because the act perpetrated by the offended party is wrong. Note of the phrase threaten another with the
infliction of another any wrong in the 1 st paragraph of Art.282. So the act threaten to be done must be wrong. So kung
moingon kag upsilon tika kung di ka mogawas, that is not wrong. In fact in a threat to commit a crime is threat to inflict
wrong. Pananglitan mamugos, mosud gyud sa balay bisan din a magdala ug armas nya moingon if di gani ka mogawas
upsilon tika, is that grave threats? That is not grave threats. Now if there is another crime actually committed or the objective
of the offender is another crime the threat is only a means or mere incidence to its commission, the threat is absorbed in
another crime. For example in trafficking in person there may be grave coercion or threat or intimidation, these 3 is absorbed
in trafficking. In robbery there is likewise intimidation but it is absorbed in robbery. But if the threat was made with the
deliberate purpose of creating in the mind of the person threatened the belief that the threat will be carried into effect, the
crime committed is grave threats and the minor crime which accompanied it will be disregarded. The offender in grave threats
does not demand the on the spot delivery of money or any other personal properties otherwise robbery already.
In grave threats the act threaten to be committed must be wrong. Consummated as soon as the threats come to the
knowledge of the person threaten. Not necessary that the offended party was present at the time the threat or threats were
made. What is threat? It is a declaration of an intention or determination to injure another by the commission upon his person
or honor, or property or upon that of his family of some wrong which may or may not amount to a crime. Grave threats when
the wrong threaten to be inflicted amounts to a crime. Light threats if it does not amount to a crime. So to constitute grave
threats what must the threat refer to? The threat must refer to a future wrong and must be committed by acts or through
words of such efficiency to inspire fear or terror upon another. It is therefore characterize by a moral pressure that produces
alarm. Is threat to file criminal charges unlawful? NO. Light threats a threat to commit a wrong not constituting a crime.
Distinction grave threats wrong threatened amounts to a crime which may or may not accompanied by a condition. Light
threats the wrong threatened does not amount to a crime but is always accompanied by a condition. Repeat, always
accompanied by a condition.
Art 284. Bond for good behavior. 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. Please do not forget bond for good
Criminal Law Second Installment 73

behavior is only for grave and light threats. There is also bond for good behavior in VAWC (Violence against women and their
children). Light threats is in the nature of blackmailing. The wrong threatened does not amount to a crime coupled with a
demand for money or other condition even though lawful.
Art 285. Other Light threats. There are 3 acts punished as other light threats. Threatening another with a weapon,
drawing a weapon, orally threatening another in the heat of anger, orally threatening another to do any harm not constituting
a crime. How do you distinguish light threat from other light threat? In light threat the threat does not amount to a crime and
there is demand for conditions. Repeat, in light threat the threat does not amount to a crime and there is demand for
conditions. In other light threat the wrong done does not amount to a crime and there is no demand for money or any other
condition. In other light threats the weapon must not be discharged. Any threat made in jest or in the heat of anger
constitutes light threat. What is the nature of other light threats? They are not subject for a demand of money or any material
condition and the wrong threatened does not amount to a crime.
Art 286. Grave Coercions. Grave coercions cannot be committed in writing, threats can be committed in writing. Any
person who, without authority of law, shall, by means of violence, threat or intimidation prevent another from doing
something not prohibited by law. This is preventive grave coercion. Repeat prevent another from doing something not
prohibited by law. The 2nd kind is to compel another party to do something against his will, whether it be right or wrong. That
is compulsive grave coercion. Although you have the duty to work but if you are forced to work against your will that is still
grave coercion because the law says whether it be right or wrong. Grave coercion does not always mean employment of
violence. There may be grave coercion through intimidation. Tionan nimu ang tao, if you will not vacate the premises now I
will shoot you. No violence, so misibat. That is compulsive grave coercion through intimidation; there is personal and
immediate confrontation between the offender and the offended party. When is grave coercion qualified? If committed in
violation of the exercise of the right of suffrage, for the purpose of compelling another to perform religious act or to prevent
him in exercising such right or in so doing such act. Pananglitan tionan nimu ang Pari, di gani ka mag-ampo padre (pag-ampo
gyud ha pra mag-uwan).
There are 2 ways of committing grave coercions. Preventive and Compulsive. There are 3 elements. Now, violence or
intimidation will bring about grave coercion if the act prevented is not prohibited by law. If prohibited by law the liability is for
some other crime. In compulsive coercion whether prohibited or not, that is grave coercion. That is compelling whether
prohibited or not, that is grave coercion. Threat to file any criminal action is not a crime. In grave coercion the act of
preventing by force must be at the time the offended party was doing or about to do the act to be prevented. If the act was
already done the crime is unjust vexation. When is the act of preventing, another crime? Art.132- A public officer who shall
prevent by means of violence or threats the ceremonies or manifestations of any religion is guilty of interruption of religious
worship. Violence or threats is absorbed as one of the elements of the crime interruption of religious worship; crime against
fundamental law of the state. Any person who by force prevents the meeting of a legislative body. What crime? Under
Art.143- Act tending to prevent the meeting of the Assembly and similar bodies. Any person who shall use force or
intimidation to prevent member of Congress from attending meetings etc., violation of parliamentary immunity. Force or
intimidation is absorbed as element of the crime. When is the act of compelling another offense? Public officer who not being
authorized by law compels another person to change his residence; thats the crime of expulsion. Then under Art. 267Kidnapping the debtor to pay his debt. Its not only coercion but kidnapping for ransom because there is a demand for
payment that releases from captivity. In coercion the force or violence must be immediate, actual or imminent. Grave threat if
future. Purpose of the law in penalizing coercion; No person may take the law into his own hands. You should distinguish
coercion in illegal detention. In illegal detention, there is intent to deprive another of his liberty. Grave coercion from
frustrated illegal detention. Grave coercion must be distinguished from unlawful arrest. In unlawful arrest, the purpose is to
bring the offended party to the authorities.
Art 287. Light Coercions. Seizing by means of violence anything belonging to his debtor for the purpose of applying
the same to his debt. Here there must be a creditor-debtor relationship. Unjust vexation. 2nd paragraph of art.287- Any
other coercions or unjust vexations. Unjust vexation includes any human conduct although not productive of physical or
material but would however unjustly vexed or annoy another person. There is no attempted or frustrated unjust vexation.
Art 288. Other similar coercions. That is forcing, compelling laborer or employee to purchase any merchandise or
commodities. Paying wages by means of tokens or objects other than legal tender.
Art 289. Formation, maintenance and prohibition of combination of capital or labor through violence or threats . If
death or some serious physical injuries are caused in an effort to curtail the exercise of the rights of laborers and employers
the act should be punished in accordance with the provisions of the RPC. Now coercion is consummated even if the offended
party did not accede to the purpose of the coercion. Grave coercion arises only if the act which the offender prevented
another to do is not prohibited by law or ordinance. What kind of violence may be employed in grave coercion? It must be
immediate, actual or imminent. Essence of coercion is an attack on individual liberty. When the property of a debtor is seized?
What variant crimes may result? Light coercion if by means of violence the property is applied to the debt. Robbery then
estafa if there is no obligation on the part of the offended party but was only pinned(not clear uy!). How do you distinguished
grave coercion from unjust vexation? Grave coercion, the act of preventing by force must be made at the time the offended
party was doing or about to do the act to be prevented. Unjust vexation the act was already done when the violence is
exerted.
Chapter Three: DISCOVERY AND REVELATION OF SECRETS
There are 3 kinds. Art. 290. Discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence. Any private individual who in
order to discover secrets of another shall seized his paper or letter or reveal its contents. Not applicable to the following; to
parents, guardians, or persons entrusted with the custody of minors. Then Art. 292. Revelation of industrial secrets. Now in
revealing secrets with abuse of office if the matter pertains to the master or employer, damage is necessary. Essence of the
crime; offender learn the secret in the course of the employment. Revelation of industrial secrets business secret must not be
known to the other business, entities or to the other persons. Damage or prejudice is a necessary element.
R.A. 9344
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006
TITLE I
GOVERNING PRINCIPLES
CHAPTER 1: TITLE, POLICY AND DEFINITION OF TERMS
We will not discuss all the sections so take note lang unsay section lang atung napili. This is known as Juvenile
Justice and Welfare Act of 2006.
Criminal Law Second Installment 74

Section 1. It shall cover the different stages involving children at risk and children in conflict with the law from prevention to
rehabilitation and reintegration.
Warning: wala pa ni gipangutana sa bar exams. Im afraid this might be included.
SEC. 4. Definition of Terms. - The following terms as used in this Act shall be defined as follows:
(b) "Best Interest of the Child" refers to the totality of the circumstances and conditions which are most congenial to the
survival, protection and feelings of security of the child and most encouraging to the child's physical, psychological and
emotional development. It also means the least detrimental available alternative for safeguarding the growth and
development of the child.
(c) "Child" refers to a person under the age of eighteen (18) years.
(e) "Child in Conflict with the Law" refers to a child who is alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as, having committed an
offense under Philippine laws.
(i) "Diversion" refers to an alternative, child-appropriate process of determining the responsibility and treatment of a child in
conflict with the law on the basis of his/her social, cultural, economic, psychological or educational background without
resorting to formal court proceedings.
Instead of imprisonment, diversion. Kung 15-year old child makapatay, he or she cannot be prosecuted, instead ang
gamiton diversion, meaning, without resorting to formal court proceedings
(j) "Diversion Program" refers to the program that the child in conflict with the law is required to undergo after he/she is
found responsible for an offense without resorting to formal court proceedings.
Example, a 17-year old child cannot be prosecuted if he did not act with discernment. If he or she acted with
discernment, dili siya mapreso, instead we resort to diversion without resorting to formal court proceedings. This law also
amends the Probation Law.
(I) "Intervention" refers to a series of activities which are designed to address issues that caused the child to commit an
offense. It may take the form of an individualized treatment program which may include counseling, skills training, education,
and other activities that will enhance his/her psychological, emotional and psycho-social well-being.
(q) "Restorative Justice" refers to a principle which requires a process of resolving conflicts with the maximum involvement
of the victim, the offender and the community. It seeks to obtain reparation for the victim; reconciliation of the offender, the
offended and the community; and reassurance to the offender that he/she can be reintegrated into society. It also enhances
public safety by activating the offender, the victim and the community in prevention strategies.
(r) "Status Offenses" refers to offenses which discriminate only against a child, while an adult does not suffer any penalty for
committing similar acts. These shall include curfew violations; truancy, parental disobedience and the like.
Kung dili crime kung adult ang muhimo, dili sad pwede na crime na kung ang muhimo bata. Example, dib a ang
dakpon sa curfew bata ra? Kung dagko dili? Thats not allowed. Because that is a status offense. Another example, truancy,
maglaroy-laroy, kung dili kuno ma-punish ang dagko, dili sad ang bata because that is discrimination.
CHAPTER 2: PRINCIPLES IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE
SEC. 5. Rights of the Child in Conflict with the Law. - Every child in conflict with the law shall have the following rights,
including but not limited to:
There is a very long enumeration, you just read them. Anyway, many of the acts mentioned here are already found
in other law. To read a few: (UNDERLINED)
(a) the right not to be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
(b) the right not to be imposed a sentence of capital punishment or life imprisonment, without the possibility of release;
(c) the right not to be deprived, unlawfully or arbitrarily, of his/her liberty; detention or imprisonment being a disposition of
last resort, and which shall be for the shortest appropriate period of time;
(d) the right to be treated with humanity and respect, for the inherent dignity of the person, and in a manner which takes
into account the needs of a person of his/her age. In particular, a child deprived of liberty shall be separated from adult
offenders at all times. No child shall be detained together with adult offenders. He/She shall be conveyed separately to or
from court. He/She shall await hearing of his/her own case in a separate holding area. A child in conflict with the law shall
have the right to maintain contact with his/her family through correspondence and visits, save in exceptional circumstances;
(e) the right to prompt access to legal and other appropriate assistance, as well as the right to challenge the legality of the
deprivation of his/her liberty before a court or other competent, independent and impartial authority, and to a prompt
decision on such action;
(f) the right to bail and recognizance, in appropriate cases;
(g) the right to testify as a witness in hid/her own behalf under the rule on examination of a child witness;
(h) the right to have his/her privacy respected fully at all stages of the proceedings;
(i) the right to diversion if he/she is qualified and voluntarily avails of the same;
(j) the right to be imposed a judgment in proportion to the gravity of the offense where his/her best interest, the rights of the
victim and the needs of society are all taken into consideration by the court, under the principle of restorative justice;

Criminal Law Second Installment 75

(k) the right to have restrictions on his/her personal liberty limited to the minimum, and where discretion is given by law to
the judge to determine whether to impose fine or imprisonment, the imposition of fine being preferred as the more
appropriate penalty;
(I) in general, the right to automatic suspension of sentence;
(m) the right to probation as an alternative to imprisonment, if qualified under the Probation Law;
I tell you, kung diha ta sa Probation Law, pila ang penalty para madisqualify ka? More than 6 years diba? If a 17-year
old child commits a crime like murder or rape and he or she did not act with discernment, convicted siya, let us say the
penalty would have been life imprisonment, ladies and gentlemen, pwede ang Probation Law, maka-apply siya for probation,
this is an exception to the Probation Law.
(n) the right to be free from liability for perjury, concealment or misrepresentation; and
When during his youth, 16/17years old pa siya, he was convicted of robbery, ni-adult na siya, mutrabaho siya, naay
pangutana Have you ever been convicted of crime involving moral turpitude? No iyang gibutang, he is not liable for perjury
or mirepresentation. Mao na kagrabe. Dili siya makiha because the law says so. It is a right. Daghan ni-object ani.
(o) other rights as provided for under existing laws, rules and regulations.
SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. - A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the
commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an intervention
program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.
A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be
subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which case, such child shall be subjected
to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act.
The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced
in accordance with existing laws.
This is a very important section because it amends the Revised Penal Code and other penal laws.
If naay mga criminal syndicate mangita silag below 15, maoy pasudlon sa mga balay, or himuong runner kay kabaw
man sila na exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an intervention program pursuant to
Section 20. Thats why its important to know what is intervention pursuant to section 20.
How about a child above 15 but below 18? General rule: also exempt from criminal liability. So kay exempt man from
criminal liablity subjected to intervention. Now when is he or she liable? The law says unless he/she has acted with
discernment, in which case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act. So mao
gihapon, diversion, intervention.
Now exemption from criminal liability does not include exemption from civil liability.
SEC. 7. Determination ofAge. - The child in conflict with the law shall enjoy the presumption of minority. He/She shall enjoy
all the rights of a child in conflict with the law until he/she is proven to be eighteen (18) years old or older. The age of a child
may be determined from the child's birth certificate, baptismal certificate or any other pertinent documents. In the absence of
these documents, age may be based on information from the child himself/herself, testimonies of other persons, the physical
appearance of the child and other relevant evidence. In case of doubt as to the age of the child, it shall be resolved in his/her
favor.
Any person contesting the age of the child in conflict with the law prior to the filing of the information in any appropriate court
may file a case in a summary proceeding for the determination of age before the Family Court which shall decide the case
within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the appropriate pleadings of all interested parties.
If a case has been fiied against the child in conflict with the law and is pending in the appropriate court, the person shall file a
motion to determine the age of the child in the same court where the case is pending. Pending hearing on the said motion,
proceedings on the main case shall be suspended.
In all proceedings, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges and other government officials concerned shall exert all
efforts at determining the age of the child in conflict with the law.
Now how do you determine age? Determination of age, the CICL (child in conflict with the law) shall enjoy
presumption of minority. He or she shall enjoy all the rights of a CICL until he or she is proven to be 18 years old or older.
How do you determine age? 1) birth certificate; 2) baptismal certificate; 3) any other pertinent documents (voters ID); 4) in
the absence of these documents, information from the child himself/herself; 5) testimonies of other persons; 6) physical
appearance of the child; 7) other relevant evidence.
Suppose you are the offended party, you want to contest the age of the child, what are you going to do? You file in
the appropriate court a petition to determine the age of the child. What is the procedure? Summary proceedings for the
determination of the age of the child which must be decided within 24 hours from receipt of the appropriate pleadings of all
interested parties.
TITLE IV
TREATMENT OF CHILDREN BELOW THE AGE OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
SEC. 20. Children Below the Age of Criminal Responsibility. - If it has been determined that the child taken into custody is
fifteen (15) years old or below, the authority which will have an initial contact with the child has the duty to immediately
release the child to the custody of his/her parents or guardian, or in the absence thereof, the child's nearest relative. Said
authority shall give notice to the local social welfare and development officer who will determine the appropriate programs in
consultation with the child and to the person having custody over the child. If the parents, guardians or nearest relatives
cannot be located, or if they refuse to take custody, the child may be released to any of the following : a duly registered
nongovernmental or religious organization; a barangay official or a member of the Barangay Council for the Protection of
Criminal Law Second Installment 76

Children (BCPC); a local social welfare and development officer; or when and where appropriate, the DSWD. If the child
referred to herein has been found by the Local Social Welfare and Development Office to be abandoned, neglected or abused
by his parents, or in the event that the parents will not comply with the prevention program, the proper petition for
involuntary commitment shall be filed by the DSWD or the Local Social Welfare and Development Office pursuant to
Presidential Decree No. 603, otherwise ,known as "The Child and Youth Welfare Code".
Sultian ta mo, ladies and gentlemen, even kaning NGO na advocate sa mga bata nireklamo na, dakpon nimo, kuot sa
bulsa, naay birth certificate, andam na, pakita sa mga pulis na 15 years old sila. Kay according to the law, ayaw dakpa, buhii,
ibalik sa mga parents.
TITLE V
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE SYSTEM
CHAPTER 2: DIVERSION
SEC. 23. System of Diversion. - Children in conflict with the law shall undergo diversion programs without undergoing
court proceedings subject to the conditions herein provided:
(a) Where the imposable penalty for the crime committed is not more than six (6) years imprisonment, the law
enforcement officer or Punong Barangay with the assistance of the local social welfare and development officer or other
members of the LCPC shall conduct mediation, family conferencing and conciliation and, where appropriate, adopt indigenous
modes of conflict resolution in accordance with the best interest of the child with a view to accomplishing the objectives of
restorative justice and the formulation of a diversion program. The child and his/her family shall be present in these activities.
(b) In victimless crimes where the imposable penalty is not more than six (6) years imprisonment, the local social
welfare and development officer shall meet with the child and his/her parents or guardians for the development of the
appropriate diversion and rehabilitation program, in coordination with the BCPC;
(c) Where the imposable penalty for the crime committed exceeds six (6) years imprisonment, diversion measures
may be resorted to only by the court.
SEC. 24. Stages Where Diversion May be Conducted. - Diversion may be conducted at the Katarungang Pambarangay,
the police investigation or the inquest or preliminary investigation stage and at all 1evels and phases of the proceedings
including judicial level.
SEC. 25. Conferencing, Mediation and Conciliation. - A child in conflict with law may undergo conferencing, mediation or
conciliation outside the criminal justice system or prior to his entry into said system. A contract of diversion may be entered
into during such conferencing, mediation or conciliation proceedings.
SEC. 26. Contract of Diversion. - If during the conferencing, mediation or conciliation, the child voluntarily admits the
commission of the act, a diversion program shall be developed when appropriate and desirable as determined under Section
30. Such admission shall not be used against the child in any subsequent judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative
proceedings. The diversion program shall be effective and binding if accepted by the parties concerned. The acceptance shall
be in writing and signed by the parties concerned and the appropriate authorities. The local social welfare and development
officer shall supervise the implementation of the diversion program. The diversion proceedings shall be completed within
forty-five (45) days. The period of prescription of the offense shall be suspended until the completion of the diversion
proceedings but not to exceed forty-five (45) days.
The child shall present himself/herself to the competent authorities that imposed the diversion program at least once
a month for reporting and evaluation of the effectiveness of the program.
Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the contract of diversion, as certified by the local social welfare
and development officer, shall give the offended party the option to institute the appropriate legal action.
The period of prescription of the offense shall be suspended during the effectivity of the diversion program, but not
exceeding a period of two (2) years.
SEC.
SEC.
SEC.
SEC.

27.
28.
29.
30.

Duty of the Punong Barangay When There is No Diversion.

Duty of the Law Enforcement Officer When There is No Diversion.
Factors in Determining Diversion Program.
Formulation of the Diversion Program.

Section 27-30: You may or may not read. (OK kayo! As if a single soul will choose to read)
SEC. 31. Kinds of Diversion Programs. - The diversion program shall include adequate socio-cultural and psychological
responses and services for the child. At the different stages where diversion may be resorted to, the following diversion
programs may be agreed upon (enumeration not mentioned or discussed)
CHAPTER 3: PROSECUTION
SEC. 32. Duty of the Prosecutor's Office. - There shall be a specially trained prosecutor to conduct inquest, preliminary
investigation and prosecution of cases involving a child in conflict with the law. If there is an allegation of torture or illtreatment of a child in conflict with the law during arrest or detention, it shall be the duty of the prosecutor to investigate the
same.
CHAPTER 4: COURT PROCEEDINGS
SEC. 34. Bail. - For purposes of recommending the amount of bail, the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority shall
be considered.
SEC. 35. Release on Recognizance. - Where a child is detained, the court shall order: (wala gibasa ang enumeration, I just
included it for bar exam purposes. *wink)
(a) the release of the minor on recognizance to his/her parents and other suitable person;

Criminal Law Second Installment 77

(b) the release of the child in conflict with the law on bail; or
(c) the transfer of the minor to a youth detention home/youth rehabilitation center.
The court shall not order the detention of a child in a jail pending trial or hearing of his/her case.
SEC. 36. Detention of the Child Pending Trial. - Children detained pending trial may be released on bail or recognizance
as provided for under Sections 34 and 35 under this Act.
And PLEASE read Section 38!
SEC. 38. Automatic Suspension of Sentence. - Once the child who is under eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the
commission of the offense is found guilty of the offense charged, the court shall determine and ascertain any civil liability
which may have resulted from the offense committed. However, instead of pronouncing the judgment of conviction, the court
shall place the child in conflict with the law under suspended sentence, without need of application : Provided, however, That
suspension of sentence shall still be applied even if the juvenile is already eighteen years (18) of age or more at the
time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt.
Upon suspension of sentence and after considering the various chcumstances of the child, the court shall impose the
appropriate disposition measures as provided in the Supreme Court Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law.
Sa P.D. 603, naay suspension but it requires application, this law says suspend even if there is no application.
SEC. 39. Discharge of the Child in Conflict with the Law. - Upon the recommendation of the social worker who has
custody of the child, the court shall dismiss the case against the child whose sentence has been suspended and against whom
disposition measures have been issued, and shall order the final discharge of the child if it finds that the objective of the
disposition measures have been fulfilled.
The discharge of the child in conflict with the law shall not affect the civil liability resulting from the commission of
the offense, which shall be enforced in accordance with law.
Another shocking provision is Section 42
SEC. 42. Probation as an Alternative to Imprisonment. - The court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a
child in conflict with the law, and upon application at any time, place the child on probation in lieu of service of his/her
sentence taking into account the best interest of the child. For this purpose, Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 968,
otherwise known as the "Probation Law of 1976", is hereby amended accordingly.
Di ba ang atung probation, naay sentensya di ba? 6 years. 6 years and one day na gani, goodbye, din aka makaprobation. But this law says probation as an alternative to imprisonment, with discernment, ok, convicted, life imprisonment,
probation gihapon.
TITLE VII
GENERAL PROVISIONS
CHAPTER 1: EXEMPTING PROVISIONS
SEC. 57. Status Offenees. - Any conduct not considered an offense or not penalized if committed by an adult shall not be
considered an offense and shall not be punished if committed by a child.
Mao lagi ng curfew kay di man mapreso ang dagko, di sad nimo ipunish ang child. Naa pa gyud worse, shocking ni,
wa maconvicted ug sniffing ug rugby kung bata, Section 58.
SEC. 58. Offenses Not Applicable to Children. - Persons below eighteen (18) years of age shall be exempt from
prosecution for the crime of vagrancy and prostitution under Section 202 of the Revised Penal Code, of mendicancy under
Presidential Decree No. 1563, and sniffing of rugby under Presidential Decree No. 1619, such prosecution being inconsistent
with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Provided, That said persons shall undergo appropriate
counseling and treatment program.
Timan-i ha. No vagrancy, no prostitution, no mendicancy, no rugby (haha). Kung dakpon na sa pulis ang mga 15-anyos diha
na mag-rugby, ang pulis pay makiha, illegal arrest.
SEC. 59. Exemption from the Application of Death Penalty. - The provisions of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and other special laws
notwithstanding, no death penalty shall be imposed upon children in conflict with the law.
CHAPTER 2: PROHIBITED ACTS
SEC. 60. Prohibition Against Labeling and Shaming. - In the conduct of the proceedings beginning from the initial contact with
the child, the competent authorities must refrain from branding or labeling children as young criminals, juvenile delinquents,
prostitutes or attaching to them in any manner any other derogatory names. Likewise, no discriminatory remarks and
practices shall be allowed particularly with respect to the child's class or ethnic origin.
Dili puwede ingnan ang bata na criminal ka man dong! Unsa man diay ang i-ingon buotan ka dong?! Ayaw gyud.
Kawatan, di na kawatan, nanguha lang ug butang. (haha) Kay klaro man oh, you cannot brand or label children. So thats
R.A. 9344, ladies and gentlemen, uyon mo ana? Daghan gustong mubitay ni Kiko Pangilinan! Iya man ning balaod!
CRIM 18
R.A. No. 9208: Anti- Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003
Pursuant to the constitutional provision on state policies. Sec 2 of the law (anti-trafficking in persons) provides: the
state values the dignity of every human being and guarantees the respect of individual rights
Criminal Law Second Installment 78

Sec 3. Definition of terms. Of course the most important is the definition on trafficking, - a very broad definition,
encompassing several acts and provisions.
What is trafficking? It refers to the recruitment, transportation, transfer or harboring, or receipt of persons with or
without the victims consent or knowledge, within or across national borders by means of threat or use of force, or other
forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the
person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another
person for the purpose of exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or
services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs.
Like kidnapping it seems that there is transportation in trafficking. So, if a person is recruited in the neighborhood
and exploited in the neighborhood, the act, strictly speaking does not constitute trafficking. Take note that there is something
very unique in this law: with or without the victims consent or knowledge. In trafficking, the consent of the person
trafficked is IMMATERIAL. The law is very clear. He may have consented because he was deceived. He must have been sold by
his relative.
Then: within or across national borders. There is international human trafficking. By what means? Very broad also.
threat or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking
advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a
person having control over another person.
Recruiters usually give money to parents or guardian to get the consent of the child to be trafficked.
Purposes are the following: exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced
labor or services (So, the provision on criminal peonage in the RPC is superseded by this law), slavery (I think slavery in RPC
is also modified if not repealed by this law), servitude or the removal or sale of organs.
Even if one of the means we just enumerated is absent, if the person trafficked is a child (meaning no threat or use
of force, no violence, no undue influence, no giving of money), the crime is qualified trafficking. The law says: The
recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation shall also be considered as
trafficking in persons even if it does not involve any of the means set forth in the preceding paragraph.
Then, you know the definition of a child. Similar definition in 7610 and other related laws. Then prostitution under
the law is different from the prostitution in the RPC. In the RPC, it is the woman prostitute who is punished. Under this law, a
prostitute who is trafficked is considered a victim and cannot be prosecuted. Who will be prosecuted? The person who used
the trafficked person.
So, prostitution refers to any act, transaction, scheme or design involving the use of a person by another (take note:
it is the user who is punished, not he prostitute), for sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct in exchange for money, profit or
any other consideration. So, if X trafficked Y for sexual exploitation or prostitution, the crime committed by X is prostitution.
Then, forced labor and slavery- refer to the extraction of work or services from any person by means of enticement,
violence, intimidation or threat, use of force or coercion, including deprivation of freedom, abuse of authority or moral
ascendancy, debt-bondage or deception.
Then, sex tourism. It refers to program organized by travel and tourism-related establishments and individuals which
consists of tourism packages or activities, utilizing and offering escort and sexual services as enticement for tourists. This
includes sexual services and practices offered during rest and recreation periods for members of the military.
Then, sexual exploitation- refers to participation by a person in prostitution or the production of pornographic
materials as a result of being subjected to a threat, deception, coercion, abduction, force, abuse of authority, debt bondage,
fraud or through abuse of a victims vulnerability.
Debt bondage- refers to the pledging by the debtor of his/her personal services or labor or those of a person under
his/her control as security or payment for a debt, when the length and nature of services is not clearly defined or when the
value of the services as reasonably assessed is not applied toward the liquidation of the debt.
Then pornography- refers to any representation, through publication, exhibition, cinematography, indecent shows,
information technology, or by whatever means, of a person engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activities or any
representation of the sexual parts of a person for primarily sexual purposes.
Then, Sec. 4. Acts of Trafficking in Persons. What are the acts of trafficking in persons?
(a) To recruit, transport, transfer; harbor, provide, or receive a person by any means, including those done under the pretext
of domestic or overseas employment or training or apprenticeship, for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual
exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
(b) To introduce or match for money, profit, or material, economic or other consideration, any person or, as provided for
under Republic Act No. 6955, any Filipino woman to a foreign national, for marriage for the purpose of acquiring, buying,
offering, selling or trading him/her to engage in prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery,
involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
(c) To offer or contract marriage, real or simulated, for the purpose of acquiring, buying, offering, selling, or trading them to
engage in prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor or slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
(d) To undertake or organize tours and travel plans consisting of tourism packages or activities for the purpose of utilizing and
offering persons for prostitution, pornography or sexual exploitation;
(e) To maintain or hire a person to engage in prostitution or pornography;
(f) To adopt or facilitate the adoption of persons for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor,
slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
(g) To recruit, hire, adopt, transport or abduct a person, by means of threat or use of force, fraud, deceit, violence, coercion,
or intimidation for the purpose of removal or sale of organs of said person; and
Criminal Law Second Installment 79

(h) To recruit, transport or adopt a child to engage in armed activities in the Philippines or abroad.
Then, under section 5, there are acts which promote trafficking in persons.
(a) To knowingly lease or sublease, use or allow to be used any house, building or establishment for the purpose of promoting
trafficking in persons;
(b) To produce, print and issue or distribute unissued, tampered or fake counseling certificates, registration stickers and
certificates of any government agency which issues these certificates and stickers as proof of compliance with government
regulatory and pre-departure requirements for the purpose of promoting trafficking in persons;
(c) To advertise, publish, print, broadcast or distribute, or cause the advertisement, publication, printing, broadcasting or
distribution by any means, including the use of information technology and the internet, of any brochure, flyer, or any
propaganda material that promotes trafficking in persons;
(d) To assist in the conduct of misrepresentation or fraud for purposes of facilitating the acquisition of clearances and
necessary exit documents from government agencies that are mandated to provide pre-departure registration and services
for departing persons for the purpose of promoting trafficking in persons;
(e) To facilitate, assist or help in the exit and entry of persons from/to the country at international and local airports,
territorial boundaries and seaports who are in possession of unissued, tampered or fraudulent travel documents for the
purpose of promoting trafficking in persons;
(f) To confiscate, conceal, or destroy the passport, travel documents, or personal documents or belongings of trafficked
persons in furtherance of trafficking or to prevent them from leaving the country or seeking redress from the government or
appropriate agencies; and
(g) To knowingly benefit from, financial or otherwise, or make use of, the labor or services of a person held to a condition of
involuntary servitude, forced labor, or slavery.
Sec. 6. Qualified Trafficking in Persons. (not bailable offense because the penalty is life imprisonment):
(a) When the trafficked person is a child;
(b) When the adoption is effected through Republic Act No. 8043, otherwise known as the "Inter-Country Adoption Act of
1995" and said adoption is for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary
servitude or debt bondage;
(c) When the crime is committed by a syndicate, or in large scale. Trafficking is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried
out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in large
scale if committed against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group;
(d) When the offender is an ascendant, parent, sibling, guardian or a person who exercises authority over the trafficked
person or when the offense is committed by a public officer or employee;
(e) When the trafficked person is recruited to engage in prostitution with any member of the military or law enforcement
agencies;
(f) When the offender is a member of the military or law enforcement agencies; and
(g) When by reason or on occasion of the act of trafficking in persons, the offended party dies, becomes insane, suffers
mutilation or is afflicted with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) or the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).
Sec. 7. Confidentiality. In the following stages, confidentiality must be observed.

Investigation
Prosecution;
and trial of an offense under this Act

The law says shall recognize the right to privacy of the trafficked person and the accused (note: not only the
trafficked person but also the accused).
There may be closed-door investigation, prosecution or trial. The name and personal circumstances of the trafficked person or
of the accused, or any other information tending to establish their identities and such circumstances or information shall not
be disclosed to the public.
In cases when prosecution or trial is conducted behind closed-doors, it shall be unlawful for any editor, publisher, etc. to cause
publicity of any case of trafficking in persons.
Then, Sec. 8. Prosecution of Cases. Who may prosecute (file a complaint for trafficking)?

Any person who has personal knowledge of the commission of any offense under this Act,
the trafficked person,
the parents,
spouse,
siblings,
children;
or legal guardian

Then, Sec. 9. Venue. - shall be filed where the offense was committed, or where any of its elements occurred, or
where the trafficked person actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense: Provided, That the court where the
criminal action is first filed shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts.

Criminal Law Second Installment 80

Then, Section 11. This is the opposite of RPC. Kinsay gipunish sa RPC? The prostitute. Under this law, kinsay
gipunish? The person who used the prostitute who is trafficked. Kinahanglan iqualify. Trafficked prostitute. Kung di siya
trafficked, ah siya ang makiha.
This (section 11) is buying or engaging the services of trafficked persons for prostitution. There is penalty for first
offense and penalty for second offense.
Then, prescriptive period is 10 years. If you file a separate civil action, exempt from Filing Fees.
Proceeds and Instruments Derived from Trafficking in Persons shall be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the
government.
Skip sections 15 and 16.

Sec. 17 is very important.

Legal Protection to Trafficked Persons. - Trafficked persons shall be recognized as victims of the act or acts of
trafficking (so, if prostitute shall be considered a victim and shall not be prosecuted) and as such shall not be penalized for
crimes directly related to the acts of trafficking enumerated in this Act or in obedience to the order made by the trafficker in
relation thereto. (Please take note also the second sentence) In this regard, the consent of a trafficked person to the intended
exploitation set forth in this Act shall be irrelevant (so, if pobre kayo, especially kung minor. Kung moingon, day dad-on ka
namo sa cebu, nya mosayaw man ka, ok ra nimo? Moingon ang bata: pobre man kaayu mi gud. Nya pila man? 10,000 per
week. Make it 15,000 ingon ang bata. OK deal.)
The person who trafficked the child is still liable. Consent is immaterial. Kay sa Philippine society, kung pobre kaayu, mapugos
na lang to be trafficked. Naa man gani uban mapugos pakuha sa ila kidney somewhere in Manila. Baligya ang kidney.
Trafficked Persons who are Foreign Nationals shall be protected and deported.
You may skip sections 20-23. You may read section 24. Services for Trafficked Persons: Legal assistance, Resource
centers, etc.
Sec. 25. Repatriation of Trafficked Persons. - The DFA, in coordination with DOLE and other appropriate agencies,
shall have the primary responsibility for the repatriation of trafficked persons, regardless of whether they are documented or
undocumented.
If, however, the repatriation of the trafficked persons shall expose the victims to greater risks, the DFA shall make
representation with the host government for the extension of appropriate residency permits and protection, as may be legally
permissible in the host country.
R.A. 9262: Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004
I know nga kung basahon nato ang ubang provisions diri, mo-object gyud ang mga lalaki kay kung ngari ta sa RPC
second-class citizens man daw ang mga babaye. Pag-abot sa VAWC nabawsan sad ang mga laki.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9262. Pursuant to the constitutional provision and general principles, the State values the dignity
of women and children and guarantees full respect for human rights. The State also recognizes the need to protect the family
and its members particularly women and children, from violence and threats to their personal safety and security.
What is the most important definition under this law? Of course what is the meaning of violence against women and their
children. The definition is also very broad. Please take note a single act is already punished by law. It says any act or a series
of acts committed by any person against a woman (warning gentle men di gyud mo kainvoke sa VAWC. Moinvoke mog VAWC
bayot mo! Weapon gyud ni sa mga babaye) who is his:

wife,
former wife,
or against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship (ladies and gentlemen, kung
nay moy uyab, mao na gitawag dating. Uyab gud mo nya naka-ugbok ka sa mohun. Nay uban nga madaug2. So
mura ug maunder. Pakauuwawan sa publiko.),
or with whom he has a common child (one night stand sila. Nagkita. Mutual attraction. Nay nahitabo. Nanganak ang
babaye. So, ang tendency ana mahadlok tawon ang babaye biyaan. Daug-daugon ang babaye kay naa ma baby na
buhion).
or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode (so, not only against a
woman, but also against the child of the woman, not any other child).

which result in or is likely to result in (these are the forms of violence) physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering,
or economic abuse (di nimo patrabahuon aron ma-under nimo or if patrabahuon, pahayahay ang laki.
Ang nagbuhi ang babaye. May pa hiluan! hahahaha) including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion,
harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty. It includes, but is not limited to, the following acts:
A. "Physical Violence" refers to acts that include bodily or physical harm;

B. "Sexual violence" refers to an act which is sexual in nature, committed against a woman or her child. It includes, but
is not limited to:

Criminal Law Second Installment 81

a. rape, sexual harassment, acts of lasciviousness, treating a woman or her child as a sex object, making
demeaning and sexually suggestive remarks, physically attacking the sexual parts of the victims body, forcing
her/him to watch obscene publications and indecent shows or forcing the woman or her child to do indecent
acts and/or make films thereof, forcing the wife and mistress/lover to live in the conjugal home or sleep
together in the same room with the abuser;
b. acts causing or attempting to cause the victim to engage in any sexual activity by force, threat of force,
physical or other harm or threat of physical or other harm or coercion;
c. Prostituting the woman or child.

C.

"Psychological violence" refers to acts or omissions causing or likely to cause mental or emotional suffering of the
victim such as but not limited to intimidation, harassment, stalking, damage to property, public ridicule or humiliation,
repeated verbal abuse and mental infidelity. It includes causing or allowing the victim to witness the physical, sexual
or psychological abuse of a member of the family to which the victim belongs, or to witness pornography in any form
or to witness abusive injury to pets or to unlawful or unwanted deprivation of the right to custody and/or visitation of
common children.

D.

"Economic abuse" refers to acts that make or attempt to make a woman financially dependent which includes, but is
not limited to the following:

1. withdrawal of financial support or preventing the victim from engaging in any legitimate profession,
occupation, business or activity, except in cases wherein the other spouse/partner objects on valid, serious
and moral grounds as defined in Article 73 of the Family Code ( di patrabahuon ang kapuyo-puyo o prisuhon
sa balay);
2. deprivation or threat of deprivation of financial resources and the right to the use and enjoyment of the
conjugal, community or property owned in common;
3. destroying household property (kanang ubang bana ag-uli ipanlaba ang mga plato, that is economic abuse);
4. controlling the victims own money or properties or solely controlling the conjugal money or properties.
(b)"Battery" refers to an act of inflicting physical harm upon the woman or her child resulting to the physical and
psychological or emotional distress.
(c) "Battered Woman Syndrome" refers to a scientifically defined pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms found in
women living in battering relationships as a result of cumulative abuse.
Duna ni siyay pattern. Nya dili lang single act. There must be series of acts.
(This is very important. The first case was peope vs. marivic penosa. But, that case has aready been abandoned kay
mas lig-on man kani na law [VAWC] kay sa kadto na case. What happened to this case? Didto ni sa merida, leyte. Kani si
marivic penosa kulatado kaayu ni sa bana. Basta mouli gani siya sa balay, sigurado gyud ng kulata. So, nahibawo siya nga
kulata man gyud ni kay nakahibaw man iya bana a uwahi siya. Ni-anticipate siya nga kulatahon siya. Pag-abot niya sa balay,
natug man ang bana. Iyang gipatay. Si judge madrona of RTC Ormoc City sentenced her to reclusion perpetua for parricide.
Katrina legarda filed a motion for reconsideration kay ni-invoke siya sa Battered Woman Syndrome. So, the Supreme Court,
granted the motion for reconsideration to prove Battered Woman Syndrome. And, the defense was able to prove. So, gireduce ang penalty. Anyway, after that, na-approve ang VAWC).
Under the battered woman syndrome, if it is found out that the woman is suffering from battered woman syndrome,
patyon niya nag husband (natulog o wa natulog), bisan absent ang tanang elements of self-defense, she is exempt from
criminal as well as civil liability. Patyon niya natulog. Pero, probahon una na siya is suffering from battered woman syndrome.
Bisag way self-defense, acquitted gyud siya.
(d) "Stalking" refers to an intentional act committed by a person who, knowingly and without lawful justification follows the
woman or her child or places the woman or her child under surveillance directly or indirectly or a combination thereof.
(kanang ipasunod-sunod ang asawa. I-monitor ang movement.)
The law (VAWC) applies even if the relationship is dating only. Kung dating na gani, ang babaye ka-invoke na sa
VAWC. So, what is dating relationship?
(e) "Dating relationship" refers to a situation wherein the parties

live as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage; or

are romantically involved over time and on a continuing basis during the course of the relationship. (laktod
pagkasulti, manag-uyab lang.)

A casual acquaintance or ordinary socialization between two individuals in a business or social context is not a dating
relationship.
(f) "Sexual relations" refers to a single sexual act which may or may not result in the bearing of a common child.
X and Y duna silay sexual relations. Nya, ang woman was abused. So, kausa lang (single sexual act). Naa may uban na dugay
kaayu nanguyab. Iya gyud gi-preserve ang iya pagkaputli. Unya, sa usa lang k-gabii, nakuha siya sa laki. Unya ang laki
moabuso na. moana nga: ahhh di lagi ni. Bisag sagpaon pa nako ni, moluhod ni sa akoa kay hadlok ni buwagan. Di ba? Naa
nay in-ana? (Class: NAA!) so, kung i-abuse na sa lalaki, the crime committed is a violation of 9262
Criminal Law Second Installment 82

(g) "Safe place or shelter" refers to any home or institution maintained or managed by the Department of Social Welfare and
Development (DSWD) or by any other agency or voluntary organization accredited by the DSWD for the purposes of this Act
or any other suitable place the resident of which is willing temporarily to receive the victim.
(h) "Children" refers to those below eighteen (18) years of age or older but are incapable of taking care of themselves as
defined under Republic Act No. 7610. As used in this Act, it includes the biological children of the victim and other children
under her care.
So, how do you construe (the law)? LIBERALLY.
SEC. 4. Construction.- This Act shall be liberally construed to promote the protection and safety of victims of violence
against women and their children.
There are acts of violence against women and their children. What are these acts?
SEC. 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:
a.

Causing physical harm to the woman or her child;

b.

Threatening to cause the woman or her child physical harm;

c.

Attempting to cause the woman or her child physical harm;

d.

Placing the woman or her child in fear of imminent physical harm;

e.

Attempting to compel or compelling the woman or her child to engage in conduct which the woman or her child
has the right to desist from or desist from conduct which the woman or her child has the right to engage in, or
attempting to restrict or restricting the womans or her childs freedom of movement or conduct by force or threat
of force, physical or other harm or threat of physical or other harm, or intimidation directed against the woman or
child. This shall include, but not limited to, the following acts committed with the purpose or effect of controlling or
restricting the womans or her childs movement or conduct:

1. Threatening to deprive or actually depriving the woman or her child of custody to her/his family;
2. Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her children of financial support legally due her or her
family, or deliberately providing the womans children insufficient financial support;
3. Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her child of a legal right;
4. Preventing the woman in engaging in any legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity or
controlling the victims own mon4ey or properties, or solely controlling the conjugal or common money,
or properties;

f.

Inflicting or threatening to inflict physical harm on oneself for the purpose of controlling her actions or decisions;

g. Causing or attempting to cause the woman or her child to engage in any sexual activity which does not constitute
rape, by force or threat of force, physical harm, or through intimidation directed against the woman or her child or
her/his immediate family;

h. Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct, personally or through another, that alarms or causes
substantial emotional or psychological distress to the woman or her child. This shall include, but not be limited to,
the following acts:

1. Stalking or following the woman or her child in public or private places;

2. Peering in the window or lingering outside the residence of the woman or her child;
3. Entering or remaining in the dwelling or on the property of the woman or her child against her/his will;

Criminal Law Second Installment 83

4. Destroying the property and personal belongingness or inflicting harm to animals or pets of the woman
or her child; and
5. Engaging in any form of harassment or violence;

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 womans child/children.

SEC. 7. Venue.- The Regional Trial Court designated as a Family Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction
over cases of violence against women and their children under this law. In the absence of such court in the place where the
offense was committed, the case shall be filed in the Regional Trial Court where the crime or any of its elements was
committed at the option of the compliant.
Now, dinhi na mo-object ang mga lalaki. Ang kuyaw kun scheming ang babaye. Unsa may laban sa babaye? Ngayu
siya ug TPO (temporary protection order), or BPO (barangay protection order). If gusto siya na permanent, PPO (permanent
protection order). Ang uban ipapatay, TKO! Hihhihi (oki kaau ang hirit ni judge. Harhar)
What is protection order?
SEC. 8. Protection Orders.- A protection order is an order issued under this act for the purpose of preventing further
acts of violence against a woman or her child specified in Section 5 of this Act and granting other necessary relief. The relief
granted under a protection order serve the purpose of safeguarding the victim from further harm, minimizing any disruption
in the victims daily life, and facilitating the opportunity and ability of the victim to independently regain control over her life.
The provisions of the protection order shall be enforced by law enforcement agencies. The protection orders that may be
issued under this Act are the barangay protection order (BPO), temporary protection order (TPO) and permanent protection
order (PPO). The protection orders that may be issued under this Act shall include any, some or all of the following reliefs:
a.

Prohibition of the respondent from threatening to commit or committing, personally or through another, any of the
acts mentioned in Section 5 of this Act;

b.

Prohibition of the respondent from harassing, annoying, telephoning, contacting or otherwise communicating with the
petitioner, directly or indirectly;

c.

Removal and exclusion of the respondent from the residence of the petitioner, regardless of ownership of the
residence, either temporarily for the purpose of protecting the petitioner, or permanently where no property rights
are violated, and if respondent must remove personal effects from the residence, the court shall direct a law
enforcement agent to accompany the respondent has gathered his things and escort respondent from the residence;

d.

Directing the respondent to stay away from petitioner and designated family or household member at a distance
specified by the court, and to stay away from the residence, school, place of employment, or any specified place
frequented by the petitioner and any designated family or household member;

e.

Directing lawful possession and use by petitioner of an automobile and other essential personal effects, regardless of
ownership, and directing the appropriate law enforcement officer to accompany the petitioner to the residence of the
parties to ensure that the petitioner is safely restored to the possession of the automobile and other essential
personal effects, or to supervise the petitioners or respondents removal of personal belongingness;

f.

Granting a temporary or permanent custody of a child/children to the petitioner;

Directing the respondent to provide support to the woman and/or her child if entitled to legal support.
Notwithstanding other laws to the contrary, the court shall order an appropriate percentage of the income or salary of the
respondent to be withheld regularly by the respondents employer for the same to be automatically remitted directly to the
woman. Failure to remit and/or withhold or any delay in the remittance of support to the woman and/or her child without
justifiable cause shall render the respondent or his employer liable for indirect contempt of court;
h.

Prohibition of the respondent from any use or possession of any firearm or deadly weapon and order him to
surrender the same to the court for appropriate disposition by the court, including revocation of license and
disqualification to apply for any license to use or possess a firearm. If the offender is a law enforcement agent, the
court shall order the offender to surrender his firearm and shall direct the appropriate authority to investigate on the
offender and take appropriate action on matter;

Criminal Law Second Installment 84

i.

Restitution for actual damages caused by the violence inflicted, including, but not limited to, property damage,
medical expenses, childcare expenses and loss of income;

j.

Directing the DSWD or any appropriate agency to provide petitioner may need; and

k.

Provision of such other forms of relief as the court deems necessary to protect and provide for the safety of the
petitioner and any designated family or household member, provided petitioner and any designated family or
household member consents to such relief.

Any of the reliefs provided under this section shall be granted even in the absence of a decree of legal separation or
annulment or declaration of absolute nullity of marriage.
The issuance of a BPO or the pendency of an application for BPO shall not preclude a petitioner from applying for, or the court
from granting a TPO or PPO.
Now the reliefs are the following: Way problema sa Letter A, justified kayo ni. A. Prohibition of the respondent from
threatening to commit or committing any of the acts mentioned in Section 5.;
B. Prohibition of the respondent from harassing, annoying, telephoning, contacting or otherwise communicating with
the petitioner, directly or indirectly;
Ang letter C maoy medyo lisod-lisod. Pananglitan ikaw lalaki, napaman nimu ang ancestral house unya naa mo
nagpuyo diha, gipasanginlan ka ug VAWC, pwede kang palagputon sa ancestral home. Letter C says , Removal and exclusion
of the respondent from the residence of the petitioner, regardless of ownership of the residence . Bisan pa ang bana nagpalit
ug siya naghulog-hulog ug 41,000 per month, repeat regardless of ownership of the residence. Bisan imu pang balay, imu pa
tanang kwarta, ancestral house pa na. Or permanently where no property rights are violated; removal and exclusion. So iremove ka, youll be ousted from the house pero naa lang kay gamay na Consuelo kay ipadala man ang brief nimu(Kusoga
katawa tessa), bisekleta, pwede ra dalhon.
The law says if respondent must removed personal effects from the residence, the court shall direct a law
enforcement agent to accompany the respondent to the residence remain there until the respondent has gathered his things
and escort respondent from residence.
Letter D, no problem. Directing the respondent to stay away from petitioner and designated family or household
member at a distance specified by the court, and to stay away from the residence, school, place of employment, or any
specified place frequented by the petitioner and any designated family or household member. So, directing respondent to stay
away. Pananglitan dunay dating relationship ang teacher ug student unya nangayo ang student ug stay away order. Unya kay
studyante man niya, asa man siya mag lecture? Adto sa layo? Kay di man paduolon sa eskwelahan. Granting temporary or
permanent custod, no problem. Granting a temporary or permanent custody of a child/children to the petitioner; also no
problem.
Letter H-Prohibition of the respondent from any use or possession of any firearm or deadly weapon. So dili
pagamiton ug deadly weapon, ug naa siyay natural weapon iyaha ra nah(tess again laughs)!
Restitution for actual damages caused by the violence inflicted, including, but not limited to, property damage,
medical expenses, childcare expenses and loss of income; No problem. Directing the DSWD or any appropriate agency to
provide petitioner temporary shelter.
By the way, I forgot letter E, kiung ang bana or uyab nagpuyo sila pero wala kasla then nipalait ug auto ang bana.
Nya sige sad siya ug data-data nya gikiha man siya ug VWC, pwede siya ma.deprive sa iyang sakyanan. Imbarguhon ang
ywai ihatag sa asawa. Mag Caddilakad lang ang bana. Because the law says Directing lawful possession and use by petitioner
of an automobile and other essential personal effects, regardless of ownership. Paminawa ra gud, bisan ang lalaki dunay
lawful possession sa auto pwede ug i.deprive siya. Because the law says Directing lawful possession and use by petitioner of
any automobile and other essential personal effects. Unsa may essential personal effects na i.deprive sad ang laki? Kung naa
siyay auto, imbargoho. Naay bisikleta, imbargo gihapon. Question: Does ownership be transferred to the woman? The law is
silent; I dont think so.
Please take note that any of the reliefs we have just mentioned shall be granted even in the absence of legal
separation, or annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage. Supposed nanagyo ug BPO ang asawa, delikado sad ning BPO
kay naa may mga Brgy. Captains nga wala kahibaw unsa ning BPO. Abi nila ug hawon na kayo sila kay maka-issue ug BPO.
Moadto ka sa Brgy. Capatain nya moingon ka nag papahawaa ang akong bana sa balay kay gikulata ko nya ex-parte mana, ah
sugoon dayon ang Tanod na hala bunlota to papahawaa sa balay. Is that possible? Yes, the law says so. Supposed the brgy.
Issued a BPO will that preclude the petitioner to ask for TPO? No. Pwede pa gihapon siya mangayo ug TPO and later on PPO;
from temporary to permanent protection order. This is good law ang problema lang kung ma.abuse. Waman koy problem kay
boutan man kong pagkabana!!(katawa na si tessa ug kilsten!).
Who may file petition? Of course the offended party; parents or guardians of the offended party; ascendants,
descendants or collateral relatives within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity; officers or social workers of the
DSWD or social workers of local government units (LGUs); police officers, preferably those in charge of women and childrens
desks; Punong Barangay or Barangay Kagawad; lawyer, counselor, therapist or healthcare provider of the petitioner; and even
At least two (2) concerned responsible citizens of the city or municipality where the violence against women and their children
occurred and who has personal knowledge of the offense committed.
Criminal Law Second Installment 85

Kung ang silingan makadungog nga naglagubo ang asawas inig kagabie, magsyagit-syagit tungod sa kasakit sa
kulata. Maka-interfere ang silingan? Yes. If they have personal knowledge of any violence against women and their children
even if they are total strangers they can file the necessary petition in court. Bisan pa ang asawa maghilum lang because the
purpose of the law is to give protection to women and children. Where to apply for protection order? Applications for BPOs
shall follow the rules on venue under Section 409 of the Local Government Code of 1991. An application for a TPO or PPO may
be filed in the RTC designated as family court, or MTC with territorial jurisdiction over the place of residence of the petitioner.
SEC 11. How to Apply for a Protection Order. must be in writing, signed and verified under oath by the applicant. It
may be filed as an independent action or as incidental relief in any civil or criminal case the subject matter or issues thereof
partakes of violence as described in this Act.
SEC. 12. Enforceability of Protection Orders. All TPOs and PPOs issued under this Act shall be enforceable
anywhere in the Philippines and a violation thereof shall be punishable with a fine ranging from Five Thousand Pesos
(P5,000.00) to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) and/or imprisonment of six (6) months.
Ang asawa taga-Batanes, kulata sa bana, nilayas niadto sa Julu, kung managyo siya ug PTO sa Batanes, puwede ba
i-enforce sa Julu which is already beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court? The answer is Yes. The law says all PTOs may
be enforced anywhere in the Philippines.
SEC. 13. Legal Representation of Petitioners for Protection Order.
SEC. 14. Barangay Protection Orders (BPOs); Who May Issue and How. - Barangay Protection Orders (BPOs) refer to
the protection order issued by the Punong Barangay ordering the perpetrator to desist from committing acts under Section 5
(a) and (b) of this Act.
A Punong Barangay who receives applications for a BPO shall issue the protection order to the applicant on the date
of filing after ex parte determination of the basis of the application.
Kung muadto ang asawa sa Punong-barangay, gikulata ko Capt., gitiunan ko ug pistol, nya wala raba silay pistol,
kwarenta isundang lang gud, namakak ba, pero unsa man ang ingon sa balaod? Ex parte determination, di paminawon ang
bana, issue dayon TPO ka ang barangay tanod iyang gikabit.
If the Punong Barangay is unavailable to act on the application for a BPO, the application shall be acted upon by any
available Barangay Kagawad.
If the BPO is issued by a Barangay Kagawad the order must be accompanied by an attestation by the Barangay
Kagawad that the Punong Barangay was unavailable at the time for the issuance of the BPO. BPOs shall be effective for
fifteen (15) days. Immediately after the issuance of an ex parte BPO, the Punong Barangay or Barangay Kagawad shall
personally serve a copy of the same on the respondent, or direct any barangay official to effect is personal service.
SEC. 15. Temporary Protection Orders. Temporary Protection Orders (TPOs) refers to the protection order issued
by the court on the date of filing of the application after ex parte determination that such order should be issued.
The court shall schedule a hearing on the issuance of a PPO prior to or on the date of the expiration of the TPO. The
court shall order the immediate personal service of the TPO on the respondent by the court sheriff who may obtain the
assistance of law enforcement agents for the service. The TPO shall include notice of the date of the hearing on the merits of
the issuance of a PPO.
Kung managyo ka ug PPO, no longer a TPO, there must be a hearing, meaning, give the respondent an opportunity
to be heard. So what is PPO?
SEC. 16. Permanent Protection Orders. Permanent Protection Order (PPO) refers to protection order issued by the
court after notice and hearing. (PPO)
What is the sanction of violation for protection order? Imprisonment witout prejudice to criminal or civil action. Then
the respondent may be required to post bond to keep the peace.
VAWC is a public crime, meaning bisag and complainant dili mu-execute ug affidavit, if persons who personally know
the facts execute affidavits to prove VAWC, ang babayi nagpakahilum, dili ingon na dili siya ma-protected, daan na gud ng
battered gud, unya mukiha-kiha? Samot.
Sec. 26. Battered Woman Syndrome as a Defense. Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering
from battered woman syndrome do not incure any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the
elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code.
There was no unlawful aggression on the part of the husband, no reasonable necessity to repel the aggression. There
was lack of sufficient provocation, so bisan pag all the elements are absent, the woman does not incur any criminal liability.
In the determination of state of the woman who was suffering from battered woman syndrome at the time of the
commission of the crime, the court shall be aasssisted by expert psychiatrist and psychologist.
Section 27: Prohibited Defenses
The following defensess are prohibited: under the influence of liquors, under the influence of illicit drugs or any other
minds altering substance.
Section 28: Custody of Children. Of course kung below seven, with the woman.
Section 29: Duties of Prosecutor or Court Personnel. You may not read.
Section 30: Duties of Barangay Officials and Law Enforcers. You may not read.

Criminal Law Second Installment 86

Section 33: Prohibited Acts. A Punong-Barangay, Barangay Kagawad or the court hearing an application for a
protection order shall not order, direct, force or in any way unduly influence the applicant for a protection order to
compromise or abandon any of the reliefs sought in the application for protection.
Failure to comply witht his section shall render the official or judge administratively liable.
So kung mangayo ug protection order ang bayi niya muingon ang judge na naa moy mga anak, bana man na nimo,
ayaw nalang ng protection order the judge may be held administratively liable if we follow this law.
Section 34: Persons Intervening Exemot from Liability.
Section 35: Rights of Victims.
Section 37: Hold Departure Order.
Section 38: Exemption from Payment of Docket fee and Other Expenses.
Section 44: Confidentiality. All records pertaining to cases of violence against women and their children including
those in the barangay shall be confidential and all public officers and employees and public or private clinics to hospital shall
respect the right to privacy of the victim.
So thats VAWC.
Short Quiz:
1.

This law covers the different stages involving children at risk and children in conflict with the law from prevention to
rehabilitation and reintegration. JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT OF 2005

2.

It refers to an alternative, child-appropriate process of determining the responsibility and treatment of a child in
conflict with the law on the basis of his/her social, cultural, economic, psychological or educational background
without resorting to formal court proceedings. DIVERSION

3.

It refers to a series of activities which are designed to address issues that caused the child to commit an offense. It
may take the form of an individualized treatment program which may include counseling, skills training, education,
and other activities that will enhance his/her psychological, emotional and psycho-social well-being.
INTERVENTION

4.

It refers to a principle which requires a process of resolving conflicts with the maximum involvement of the victim,
the offender and the community. RESTORATIVE JUSTICE

5.

It refers to offenses which discriminate only against a child, while an adult does not suffer any penalty for
committing similar acts. STATUS OFFENSES

6.

The essence of the crime of threats is what? INTIMIDATION

7.

True or False. A threat to file criminal charges falls under other light threats. FALSE

8.

True or False. In compulsive grave coercion, the act compelled may or may not be prohibited by law. TRUE

9.

It is any act committed without violence but wich unjustifiably annoys an innocent person. UNJUST VEXATION

10. True or False. Coercion is consummated even if the offended party did not accede to the purpose of the coercion.
TRUE
R.A. 9995: Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009
An act defining and penalizing the crime of photo and video voyeurism, prescribing penalties therefor, and for other
purposes.
I call this law the Katrina Halili Law.
Section 3. Definition of Terms.
(d) "Photo or video voyeurism" means the act of taking photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons
performing sexual act or any similar activity or of capturing an image of the private area of a person or persons
without the latter's consent, under circumstances in which such person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of
privacy, OR THE ACT OF SELLING, COPYING, REPRODUCING, BROADCASTING, SHARING, SHOWING OR
EXHIBITING THE PHOTO OR VIDEO COVERAGE OR RECORDINGS OF SUCH SEXUAL ACT OR SIMILAR ACTIVITY
THROUGH VCD/DVD, INTERNET, CELLULAR PHONES AND SIMILAR MEANS OR DEVICE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
CONSENT OF THE PERSON/S INVOLVED, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT CONSENT TO RECORD OR TAKE PHOTO OR
VIDEO COVERAGE OF SAME WAS GIVEN BY SUCH PERSON'S.
Bisag nisugot pa ka magpapicture, magpavideo, kung gipublish, gibroadcast without your consent, its still a crime.
The law says notwithstanding that consent to record or take photo or video coverage of same was given by such person's.
In fact the last paragraph of the definition of terms states that it shall apply notwithstanding that consent to record
or take photo or video coverage of the same was given by such person/s. Pero ang penalty kayang-kaya, 3-7 years plus fine.
Section 6. Exemption. - Nothing contained in this Act, however, shall render it unlawful or punishable for any peace officer,
who is authorized by a written order of the court, to use the record or any copy thereof as evidence in any civil,
criminal investigation or trial of the crime of photo or video voyeurism
The law does not include administrative cases. So i-research lang na ninyo.

Criminal Law Second Installment 87

CRIM 19
RA 9231: Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labor
First things first, in relation to 7610, RA 9231 (Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labor). This is actually an
amendment to Secs. 2 and 12 of the law. There is also an amendment to Secs. 13, 14.
Sec. 12 of the law, child below 15 years of age shall not be employed. There are exceptions: (1) when a child works
directly under the sole responsibility of his/her parents or legal guardian and where only members of his/her family are
employed; (2) where a child's employment or participation in public entertainment or information through cinema, theater,
radio, television or other forms of media is essential [kining mga child actors and actresses kanang mga performers, mga
bata pa].
Sec. 12-A. Hours of Work of a Working Child.
(1) A child below fifteen (15) years of age may be allowed to work for not more than twenty (20) hours a week:
Sec. 12-B. Ownership, Usage and Administration of the Working Child's Income. - The wages, salaries, earnings and
other income of the working child shall belong to him/her in ownership and shall be set aside primarily for his/her support,
education or skills acquisition and secondarily to the collective needs of the family.
Sec. 12-D. Prohibition Against Worst Forms of Child Labor. - No child shall be engaged in the worst forms of child
labor. [Like all forms of slavery or practice similar to slavery, use of children for prostitution or production of pornography, use
of children for illegal or illicit activities, work which is hazardous or likely to be harmful to the health, safety or morals of
children.
Sec. 13. Access to Education and Training for Working Children - No child shall be deprived of formal or non-formal
education.
Sec. 14. Prohibition on the Employment of Children in Certain Advertisements. - No child shall be employed as a
model in any advertisement directly or indirectly promoting alcoholic beverages, intoxicating drinks, tobacco and its
byproducts, gambling or any form of violence or pornography.
Sec. 16-A. Jurisdiction Family Courts.
If a separate civil action is instituted, then there is exemption from filing fees.
RA 7610: Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination
Sec. 2. Declaration of State Policy and Principles. Policy of the State to provide special protection to children from all
firms of: (1) abuse; (2) neglect; (3) cruelty exploitation; and, (4) discrimination and other conditions, prejudicial their
development.
Sec. 3. Definition of Terms.
(a) "Children" refers to person below eighteen (18) years of age or those over but are unable to fully take care of themselves
or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or
condition;
(b) "Child abuse" [has a very broad definition] refers to the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the child which includes
any of the following:
(1) Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional maltreatment;
(2) Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child [Kung naay
depekto ang bata, sugsugon nmo, thats child abuse. Ingnon nmo nga kimpang. Ingnon nmo nga libat. Di gyud na nmo
sya abusahan kay pagdako, mudevelop ang inferiority complex];
(3) Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs [Duna nay giwarrant of arrest ani. Pagnaog sa barko, dretso pusas. Then,
presented to me. Judge: Unsa mn diay ni? Wa musupport sa bata. Child abuse under letter b(3) unreasonable
deprivation of basic needs];
(4) Failure to immediately give medical assistance or treatment.
Sec. 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse.
In the RPC, only a woman may be held liable for prostitution. Sec. 5 speaks of male or female, who for money,
profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, [this is not found in the
RPC] indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct. Under the RPC and 7610, sexual intercourse is not an element of
prostitution. Lascivious conduct. Of course, there is sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct. So even if there is no sexual
intercourse. They are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.
Section 6. Attempt To Commit Child Prostitution. 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.
[Pananglitan ikaw Mr. De Los Santos, gada kaw ug dise sais anyos. Gida nmo sa hilit2x nga dapit beach house.
Kamo rang duha. Nya imo gyung gilipstikan, giunsa dha. Gashorts. Unsa may kuan ana?] Attempt to commit child
prostitution. [Ayaw ko ingna palogon ra mn nko na sir. Nigawas ni sa Bar Exams, actually. I think I already mentioned this
before. Ang pangutana sa Bar, colonel of a military, retired, and then he engaged the services of a 14-year-old girl. Didto sila
sa beach house. Wa mn sd niingon nga naa silay gibuhat. Basta didto sya. Gida nya didto. Gipaserve.] What crime is
committed? Attempt to commit child prostitution. Second question what are the defenses? [So ang defense, nga relative]
because Sec. 6 says not being a relative of a child.
Another attempt to commit child prostitution. [Ikaw mgreview2x ka Mr. De Los. Santos, ayaw gyud pasauna2x do.
Sauna2x ngani ka, malas lang ka. Any person is receiving services from a child in a sauna parlor or bath, massage clinic,
health club and other similar establishments. [Miingon ka, oi first Sunday ra mn, mgpamasahe ko. Unya wa ka kahibaw nga
ang gamasahe nmo dise sais o dise siti. Wa mn sd ka mangayo ug birth certificate kay ang nawng sd mura mn ug baynti uno.
Criminal Law Second Installment 88

Ug raidon, a demalas De Los Santos, dli ka-Bar. Unsay kiha? Attempt to commit child prostitution. Ang gahimo ning balaura,
dli abugado DSWD. Pero gamay2x ra ug penalty kay 2 degrees lower mn. Probationable ni Mr. De Los Santos.]
Sec. 7. Child Trafficking.
Well, we have studied trafficking already.
Sec. 8. Attempt to Commit Child Trafficking.
Child traveling alone to a foreign country without valid reason and without clearance from DSWD. Well,there is an
attempt to commit trafficking.
Pregnant mother executing an affidavit of consent for adoption for a consideration. [Mabdos sya. Nag-execute ug
affidavit. Bayran sya ug P20,000.] But if she executed an affidavit without consideration, there is no attempt to commit child
trafficking.
Person, agency, establishment or child-caring institution recruits women or couples to bear children for the purpose
of child trafficking. [Gahimog apartment. Unya cge, anha mu dha puyo. Panganak mo ha. Inyong anak, atong i-traffick.]
Thats attempt to commit child trafficking.
Doctor, hospital or clinic official, etc. simulating birth for the purpose of child trafficking [Lain ang nanganak nya
ipaangkon sa uban para matraffick ang child.]
Sec. 9. Obscene Publications and Indecent Shows.
This is hiring, employing, using, persuading, etc. a child to perform in obscene exhibitions and indecent shows.
Higher penalty against ascendant, guardian, or person entrusted.
Sec. 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation.
[Timan-i ninyo ang coverage sa child abuse.] Neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation, other conditions prejudicial to the
childs development.
Letter (b) of Sec. 10 [Pagbantay sd mo ani. Not only boys but also girls. Magdada gani ka. Magpuyo kag usa ka
bachelors pad, nya naa gani kay kauban dha nga 10 years or junior. Pilay edad nmo? 25. O kinsi. Ana, demalas ka ana kay
you might be accused of attempt to commit child prostitution. Nganong kamo ram n duha dha? Pangutan-on ka.] The law
says any person who shall keep or have in his company a minor, twelve (12) years or under or who in ten (10) years or more
his junior [manghud nmog 10 years, pero minor ha] in any public or private place, hotel, motel, beer joint, discotheque,
cabaret, pension house, sauna or massage parlor, beach and/or other tourist resort or similar places. [So dad-on nmong kinsi
anyos sa tourist places. Kamo rang duha. Sakpan ka sa DSWD, di ka ka-Bar.]
(c) Inducing, delivering or offering a minor to any one prohibited by this Act to keep or have in his company a minor.
[Kung RPC, this is corruption of minors. Ang corruption of minors, you provide a minor to satisfy the lust of another. Dli para
nmo, para sa uban. Mao ra pud ni sya, similar. But the penalty is higher.]
(d) Any person, owner, manager or one entrusted with the operation of any public or private place of
accommodation, allowing any person to take along with him to such place or places any minor
(e) Using, coercing, forcing or intimidating children to beg or use begging as a means of living, act as conduit or
middlemen in drug trafficking or pushing [the child will not be held liable for mendicancy, but the person who uses the child to
beg is liable].
Sec. 11. Sanctions of Establishments or Enterprises which Promote, Facilitate, or Conduct Activities Constituting
Child Prostitution
Sec. 22. Children as Zones of Peace.
Meaning, do not involve in them armed conflicts in order to promote the goal to promote children as zones of peace.
Sec. 27. Who May File a Complaint.
(a) Offended party;
(b) Parents or guardians;
(c) Ascendant or collateral relative within the third degree of consanguinity;
(d) Officer, social worker or representative of a licensed child-caring institution;
(e) Officer or social worker of the Department of Social Welfare and Development;
(f) Barangay chairman; or
(g) At least three (3) concerned responsible citizens where the violation occurred.
[So even strangers.]
Title Ten: CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
Chapter One: ROBBERY IN GENERAL
There are 29 crimes against property under the RPC.
What is robbery? Taking of personal property belonging to another with intent to gain by means of violence against
or intimidation of persons or force upon any thing.
Is there a kind of robbery where the subject is real property? There is one usurpation of real property.
Classify robbery into 2: (1) robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons; and, (2) robbery by the use of force
upon things.

Criminal Law Second Installment 89

There are 4 elements of robbery in general:

Art. 312.

(1) SUBJECT MATTER personal property. If real property is occupied or real right is occupied, then usurpation under

(2) PROPERTY MUST BELONG TO ANOTHER PERSON. The other person from whom the property is taken need not be
the owner. So a thief may be a victim of robbery. Naay nangawat, gitulis pa gyud ang kinawat. The phrase belonging to
another in relation to the property taken or thus, the phrase belonging to another in relation to the property taken mean
that the naming of owner is a matter of essential description of the crime. Yes, if the crime charged is robbery with homicide.
When the accused is prosecuted for robbery with intimidation or violence resulting only in physical injuries or for robbery with
force upon things, the name of the real owner is not essential so long as the personal property taken does not belong to the
accused. So the owner may be unknown but the robber is not, of course, the owner of the property. In robbery with homicide,
the name of the person is important because the property is taken from the person who was killed, as a general rule. In
robbery, the personal property of another is taken by the offender against the will of the owner.
(3) TAKING OF PERSONAL PROPERTY MUST BE UNLAWFUL. Where the taking was lawful and the unlawful
misappropriation was subsequent to such taking, the crime is estafa or malversation. Property to be sold on commission. It
was delivered to the accused so the delivery was lawful. Later on the property was sold. He did not remit the proceeds or he
misappropriated the property. The crime is estafa. When is unlawful taking complete? From the moment the offender gains
possession of the thing even if the culprit has had no opportunity to dispose of the same, that unlawful taking is complete.
[Three persons entered a store. Then gitiunan ang cashier. Butang sa bulsita ang tanang sud dha sa caha de yero. So
gibutang sa bulsita. Niabot ang pulis, tungod sa kakuyaw, nanagan. Gibiyaan ang bulsita, puno sa kwarta. Is there robbery?
The answer is yes. Even if they were not able to take the property away. RPC is different from American Law on larceny. In
larceny, there must be taking away of the personal property. The latest decision is, of course, People v. Valenzuela.
Robbery with the use of force upon things. In this kind of robbery, the thing must be taken out of the building to consummate
the crime. Taking as an element of robbery means depriving the offended party of ownership of the thing taken with the
character of permanency.
(4) INTENT TO GAIN [Suppose X believes in good faith that the property in possession of Y is his property. So he
took the personal property by means of intimidation. Is there robbery? The answer is no because there is no intent to gain.
He believed in good faith that that personal property was his or is owned by him so there is no intent to gain. But there is a
crime of course, grave coercion or grave threat. Since there was immediate taking of property, it is grave coercion. In that
example there was no animo lucrandi. However, suppose X knew that that property, like a cellphone, is not his and he said
thats mine and then by means of violence or intimidation, he took the property. He knew that the property was not owned
by him. Is that robbery? Yes because the claim of ownership is in bad faith. So intent to gain is presumed from the unlawful
taking of property. To appropriate mean to deprive the lawful owner.
The element of personal property belonging to another and that of intent to gain must concur. [The person took the
property in the possession of another person but it turned out that the property belongs to him. Pananglitan naay naglakaw
nga tawo. Gitiunan nmo. Ambi ng relo! Sus gihatag tawn. Sus pagtan-aw nmo kay ako mn diay ning relo kay naa pa gyuy
ngalan, iya. Kuha pa nyang bulsa nya, tan-aw nya ang resibo, bag-o pa nko ning gipalit sa White Gold. Is that robbery? No,
thats not robbery because the property does not belong to another person. It is owned by the robber. So the crime is grave
coercion.]
If he took the personal property from another believing that it was his own property, but in reality it belonged to the
offended party, there being no intent to gain, he cannot be held liable for robbery.
The violence must be against the person of the offended party not upon the thing taken. [Pananglitan naay
naglakaw, gada ug cellphone. Gibira ang cellphone. Kusog gyud pagkabira. Is that robbery? The answer is no because there
was no violence against the person. Gisumbag nya, gikuha ang cellphone. So nahatag ang cellphone. That is robbery. In the
first example, theft. Why? There was no violence against the person of the owner.
Intimidation need not be threat of bodily harm. [Like in the recently decided case, giingnan di gani ka muhatag
kwarta, kining imong anak among gidakop, among dad-on namos presinto. Gidakop. Gipasanginlan nga nagdrugs. So nihatag
ang nanay para dli dakpong anak. That is robbery. Pananglitan ang taga BIR, muadto didtos tindahan, o wa mn nay lisensya
imong kuan, nganong namaligya mn ka? Di gani ka muhatag ug bino, dakpon taka. Nihatag. That is robbery. Perog o wa mn
lagi kay lisensya, nganong namaligya mn lagi ka? Sir, k ra ba kaha Sir nga tagaan ta kag Chivas Regal? Gidawat sa taga
BIR. Is that robbery? That is not robbery but bribery because it was willingly given, voluntarily given.
The violence or intimidation must be present before the taking of the personal property is complete. [Gibira ang
cellphone unya gigukod sa tag-iya, gisumbag, that is not robbery because the violence was after the taking. Its theft and
physical injuries.] Exception when the violence results in homicide, rape, intentional mutilation or any of the serious physical
injuries mentioned in 263, the taking of personal property is robbery complexed with any of those crimes under Art. 294 even
if the taking was already complete when the violence was used by the offender [were going to discuss these articles later].
Taking of personal property need not be immediately after the intimidation.
Using of force upon things. Use of force upon things will not make the taking of personal property robbery if the
culprit never entered a house or building. Breaking the glass of show window [Gibuak nya ang show window, Kuha syag relo.
Lakaw. Is that robbery with the use of force upon things? No because he did not enter the building. Its simple theft.]
Entrance into the building must be effected by any of the means described in 299 and 302 [were going to discuss
later 299, 302].
Distinction between effects of employment of violence against or intimidation of persons and those of use of force
upon things. Whenever violence against or intimidation of persons is used, the taking of personal property belonging to
another is always robbery. If there is no violence or intimidation, but only force upon things, the taking is robbery only if the
force is used either to enter the building or break doors, wardrobes, etc. In robbery with violence against or intimidation of
any person, the value of personal property taken is immaterial. But in robbery with the use force upon things committed in an
inhabited house, public building or office devoted to religious worship, the penalty is based on the following: value of the
property taken; whether or not the offender carries arms. In robbery with force upon things committed in an uninhabited
building, the penalty is based only on the value of personal property.

Criminal Law Second Installment 90

Classification of robbery when both violence or intimidation and force upon things are present. The crime is robbery
with violence against or intimidation of persons because it is the graver crime.
Section One. Robbery with violence or intimidation of persons.
Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons Penalties.
You should be very very careful because this is a special complex crime. Robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons.
When by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed. Thats the first
special complex crime robbery with homicide. Warning, homicide must be consummated. Robbery with homicide, not
robbery with frustrated homicide. That is not a special complex crime of robbery under 294. Homicide in robbery with
homicide is generic. It may be murder. [Kung gipatay with treachery, dli na robbery with murder. Robbery with homicide.
Kung ang napatay close relative, like a father, so parricide, or wife, parricide. Its still robbery with homicide. Kung nisud ang
robbers, nanulis, nakatunob ug bata nga less than 3 days old, patay ang bata. Its not robbery with infanticide, its robbery
with homicide.] The mother of all cases is US v. Mangulabnan. It does not matter whether the homicide is deliberately
committed or the homicide is accidental. In US v. Mangulabnan, the robbers entered the house, the owner hid in the ceiling
[tagosa kisami. Nagpaboto, naigo, patay.] So which text to follow, Spanish text or English text? Spanish robo con omicillo
[on the occasion or by reason] [Ang kadto on the occasion of robbery, a person is killed. Accident kay nagpaboto. But it does
not matter.] If a person is killed on the occasion of robbery, its still robbery with homicide. It does not matter who is killed.
[Nanulis hangtud nga nagpinusilay, naunay sa robber ang kauban nya nga robber. Patay. Its robbery with homicide. With
more reason kung ang pulis moy naigo. Nagpinusilay ang pulis nakaigo ug tulisan, its still robbery with homicide because on
the occasion of robbery a person is killed. It does not matter who is killed.] Either deliberate or incidental. People v. Diego
Opero. [What happened? Nisud ang robber sa balay. Musinggit unta, gipaskan ug pandesal. This is the famous pandesal case.
Patay, nasuffocate. Supreme Court said robbery with homicide because on the occasion of robbery, a person is killed.] [Nisud
ang tulisan. Tungod sa kakuyaw sa tag-iya, giheart attack, patay. Robbery with homicide. These are well-settled Supreme
Court decisions. Robbery with homicide. [Sud ang robbers. Sukol tag-iya. Gipusil. Wa maigo ang tag-iya. Silingan moy naigo.
Patay. Robbery with homicide. So ang origin ana US v. Mangulabnan.]
Next is, still under number one, when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or
arson. [Para di ta maglibog kung complex crime, sayon ra na paghubad. What is his main purpose? What is his primordial
purpose? What crime? Unsa mn gyuy tuyo nya? Kung ang iyang tuyo robbery and then pagsu nila sa balay kita sila ug gwapa
unya gi-rape, thats robbery with rape because the main purpose was to take personal property by means violence against or
intimidation of persons then accompanied by rape.] Warning also. The robbery must be consummated. The rape must be
consummated. There is no such thing as robbery with frustrated rape. It must be consummated [mao na gipaklaro nko].
Then, robbery accompanied by intentional mutilation [Nanulis pa, giputol pa gyud ang kamot. That is mutilation.] or
robbery with arson [paghuman sa robbery, ila pa gyud gisunog ang balay. Thats robbery with arson, not attempted arson].
By the way, there is no such crime known as robbery with force upon things with arson. [Wala na ha.] Robbery with violence
against or intimidation of persons with arson. That is the correct special complex crime. [Kung force upon things gani,
separate na sya] robbery with use of force upon things and arson. Dli ni sya complex crime of robbery with the use of force
upon things with arson because 294 number one says accompanied by arson. This refers to robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons.
Suppose in robbery with rape, one of the robbers wanted to marry the person raped. [Ganahan mn sd sya na o cge
pakasal nlng gwapo bitaw ka. So ngpakasal. Will that extinguish robbery with rape? No.]
2. When by reason or on the occasion of such robbery, any of the physical injuries penalized in subdivision 1, Art.
263, shall have been inflicted. [Kadtong vital parts of the body.]
By the way, if by reason or on the occasion of robbery, two persons are killed, what is the crime committed? robbery
with homicide. If by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, 100 persons are killed, what is the crime committed? Robbery
with homicide. There is no such crime robbery with double homicide or robbery with multiple homicide [gipaklaro gyud nas
Supreme Court]. Never mind the number of persons killed. The crime is robbery with homicide.
There is no robbery with homicide and frustrated homicide. [The robbers killed one of the occupants and shot
another one. Had it not been for the timely intervention of the doctor, that victim would have died so frustrated homicide.
What do you call that crime? Its robbery with homicide. Frustrated homicide is absorbed in robbery with homicide. Tan-awa
lang sa mga survey sa Supreme Court decisions sa inyong notes. Naa na dha with authorities.]
No robbery with homicide and physical injuries. Complex crime of robbery with physical injuries.
Robbery with homicide, there are two things that should be considered: robbery which is a crime against property;
homicide which is a crime against person. Is this a crime against person or a crime against property (robbery with homicide)?
Supreme Court said its a crime against property. Robbery with homicide. Because the principal or primordial purpose is to
rob. The essence of robbery with homicide is this, what is essential is that, there be a direct relation or intimate connection
between the robbery and the killing. If there is connection between the robbery and the killing, its not robbery with homicide
like in one case, [nanulis sila with use of force upon things. Lakaw sila. Unya oi, kadtong pultahan, wa raba tawon sirad-i.
Baliki didto. Gibalikan. Gisugat mas boy. Gipusil ang boy, ang servant. Is it robbery with homicide? Supreme Court said no
because the killing is already separate from robbery. There must be a nexus, connection between the robbery and the killing.]
Robbery with homicide, not robbery with attempted or frustrated homicide. Suppose there is robbery, a person is
killed, a woman is raped, then another is a victim of serious physical injury (mutilation), what is the name of the crime?
[Gipatay na, girape pa, gimutilate pa gyud, giputol ang kamot] Supreme Court said robbery with homicide. [Ngano mn?]
Because according to the Supreme Court, homicide is a graver offense than rape and mutilation.
There is no attempted or frustrated robbery with rape. Both must be consummated.
Next, when by reason or on occasion of such robbery, any of the physical injuries resulting in insanity, imbecility,
impotency or blindness is inflicted.

Criminal Law Second Installment 91

There is no crime known as robbery with less serious physical injuries or slight physical injuries. The special complex
crime under robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons is robbery with serious physical injuries, not less serious,
not slight. Slight is absorbed in robbery.
Suppose the physical injuries slight or less serious is inflicted after the robbery. What is the crime committed?
Robbery and less serious physical injuries or slight physical injuries, separate crime.
Then, when by reason or on the occasion of robbery, any of the physical injuries resulting in the loss of the use of
speech or the power to hear or smell, loss of an eye, etc.
Robbery and mutilation must both be consummated.
In robbery with arson, there must be no killing. Because, if in addition to arson, a person is killed, the crime is
robbery with homicide. [Ay nlng na iapil sa title ang arson.] It may be considered, in other court decisions, as aggravating.
In robbery with homicide, there is no rape, there is no mutilation. Because if there is rape, as I said, its robbery with
homicide. [Suppose naay nasugatan sa robber. Tiunan nya. Ihatag imong kwarta. Nya iyang gipusil. Sus wa mn gyud diay
kwarta gyud. Wa gyuy kwarta. Is that robbery? Pusil pa gyud nya. What crime is committed? Its murder. Unsa may intent to
gain nga wa may bisag 25 centavos wa gyud kay gikang napildi sa buwang. Suppose gitiunan. Ihatag imong kwarta.
Gibaligtad ang bulsa, wa gyuy sud. What crime is committed? Is it robbery? Its not even impossible crime of robbery. Why?
Because there is intimidation. Kanang impossible crime poydi lang na if no other is committed. Nya imo na gud na gihulga gud
so there is grave threat. Unsa may coercion nga wa may nahatag. Its grave threat.
Short Quiz
1.

It refers to a single sexual act which may or may not in the bearing of a common child. Sexual relation

2.
It refers to an intentional act committed by a person who knowingly and without lawful justification follows
the woman or her child or places the woman or her child under surveillance, directly or indirectly or a combination
thereof. Stalking
3-5.
What are the three kinds of protection orders under VAWC? Temporary Protection Order, Permanent
Protection Order, Barangay Protection Order
6.

It refers to protection order issued by the court after notice and hearing. Permanent Protection Order

7-10.
Trafficking in person refers to the recruitment, transportation, etc. for the purpose of exploitation which
includes at a minimum the following: [The forms of exploitation in trafficking] The exploitation or the prostitution
of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal
or sale of organs.
Lets go back to crimes against property.
What is the meaning of on the occasion or by reason? It means that the homicide or serious physical injuries must
be committed in the course or because of the robbery. Robbery and homicide are separate offenses when homicide was not
committed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. The killing must be directly connected with robbery. The killing must
not be long after the robbery.
Robbery with homicide is primarily a crime against property, not person.
Robbery with homicide there is direct relation or interconnection between robbery and the killing.
Robbery with rape both robbery and rape must be consummated.
No robbery with less serious or slight physical injuries.
If inflicted after the robbery, it is a separate crime.
If the main purpose of the accused is to kill the occupant, he shot the occupant and robbed the household, the wife
or the children. Its homicide and robbery because the main purpose is to kill. [Gipatay nya.] He shot the offended party and
then removed his wrist watch or divested him of personal belongings. Main purpose is to kill. Its robbery [I believe this
should be homicide] and theft [kay ang main purpose is to kill, pagkapatay na gikuha nya. Its not a complex crime.
Pananglitan ang iyang main purpose is to rape. Pagkahuman gida nya ang panty as souvenir. Rape and theft.]
The term homicide is generic, according to Reyes, as to include parricide and murder. The juridical concept of
robbery with homicide does not limit the taking of life to one single victim or to ordinary homicide, cited by Reyes in his book.
Reyes also cited People v. Pedroso. The Supreme Court in Pedroso said there is no special complex crime of
robbery in band with double homicide and/or serious or less serious or slight physical injuries under the present Code. If
robbery is committed by a band and a person is killed, its robbery with homicide.
There is no such crime as robbery with murder, also cited by Reyes.
Homicide may precede robbery or may occur after robbery. Killing before robbery in order to consummate the
crime of robbery, remember the main purpose is to rob, to eliminate resistance [gipatay una nila ang guard then robbed the
bank] Thats still robbery with homicide even if the homicide was before because the original criminal intention is to rob. To
eliminate opposition, [gipatay ang guard.] Then, homicide may be after robbery provided there is connection between the
killing and the robbery. They robbed the occupants. [Nagmaskara. Natang2x mang maskara, di nahibaw-an. Nakaila mn ang
occupant, so gipusil sa robber after the robbery. Right there and then. Tang2x. Ug di ta to nya patyon kay nagmaskara mn.
Nahug mn ang maskara. Di dayon gawas Bai nakaila to nmo, pusila. Gipusil. Thats still robbery with homicide although the
killing was done after the consummation of the crime of robbery.
There is homicide to eliminate an obstacle to the commission of robbery, cited by Reyes. Homicide committed to
remove opposition or to suppress evidence.
Criminal Law Second Installment 92

There is also homicide necessary to defend possession of stolen goods. [Di mn gyud ihatag, di gipusil.] Thats
robbery with homicide.
Killing a person to escape after the commission of robbery is robbery with homicide. Is it robbery with homicide if the
person killed is a robber himself? Reyes cited People v. Carunungan and Barut. It would seem that it is still robbery with
homicide. Then of course People v. Mangulabnan [Spanish portion omitted]. Where robbery and physical injuries were
perpetrated to remove opposition to robbery or suppressing evidence, the crime is robbery with homicide only.
In robbery with homicide, must the person charged as accessory have knowledge of the commission not only of
robbery but also of homicide? Answer is yes.
crimes.]

Robbery with rape. Intent to rob must precede rape. [Kay ang tuyo rape gyud, nya pagkahuman nanulis, separate

There is no such crime of robbery with attempted rape, cited by Reyes People v. Carriaga. As I said, both must
be consummated.
In robbery with intimidation, there must be acts done by the accused which either by their own nature or by reason
of the circumstances under which they are executed inspire fear in the person against whom they are directed. [Gipangutana
na ni sa Bar Exams. Ang duha ka tulisan nisud sa jeep. Tiunan ang pasahero kwarta. Ang pasahero nga wala gitiuni sa
pistola, niambak. Naparok ang ulo. Patay. Robbery with homicide.]
You should distinguish threat to extort money from robbery through intimidation. In robbery through intimidation,
there is actual and immediate intimidation. If the intimidation is conditional or future, it is grave threat only. [Ihatag imong
kwarta kayg dli pusilon taka. Ihatag. That is robbery. Gitawgan sa telepono. Ugma ideliver ang P500,000. Ugma. Is that
robbery? No, its not robbery kay di mn na sya immediate. In robbery, the intimidation is personal, while in threats, it may be
through an intermediary. In threats, the intimidation may refer to the person, honor or property of the offended party or that
of his family. In robbery, the intimidation is directed only to the person of the victim. In robbery, the gain of the culprit is
immediate, while in threat, the gain of the culprit is not immediate.
You should distinguish robbery with violence from grave coercion. If there is no intent to gain, it is coercion.
You should distinguish between robbery from bribery. If the personal property is voluntarily given, its bribery. If it
was given because of the intimidation, it is robbery.
Art. 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.
This is qualified robbery with violence against or intimidation of person. So uninhabited place, meaning, there are
no persons there. To make it qualified robbery, the qualifying circumstance must be alleged in the information, otherwise, its
simple robbery only.
Robbery by a band. Please take note that this is qualifying only in robbery punished by subdivisions 3, 4, 5 of Art.
294. 3, 4, 5 is robbery with physical injuries, robbery carried to a degree clearly unnecessary for the commission of the crime
or in the course of the execution, the offender shall have inflicted upon any person not responsible for its commission, any of
the physical injuries. I repeat, by a band, qualifying only in robbery punished by subdivisions 3, 4, 5 of Art. 294. Its qualified.
Attacking a moving train, street car, motor vehicle or airship.
Entering the passenger's compartments in a train or, in any manner, taking the passengers thereof by surprise.
Robbery on a street, road, highway, or alley, and the intimidation is made with the use of firearms. [So use of
firearms must be related to road, street, highway or alley.] Being qualified, it cannot be offset by a generic mitigating
circumstance.
When committed by a band, the leader shall be punished with the same penalty. [Naay panahon sa pasko. Ang van
namasko sila. Cgeg panganta nya nangawat ug manok. Robbery with band and music.]
The intimidation with the use of firearms qualifies only robbery on a street, road, highway or alley. [Remember naa
pa tay special penal law PD 532.]
Art. 296. Definition of a band and penalty incurred by the members thereof.
Definition of a band. More than three armed malefactors take part in the commission of a robbery. [Kining armed, dli
ni kay firearm lang. Bisag bato pa. Bisan bunal ug pa. Mao na arm na sya. Not necessarily firearm.]
When any of the arms used in the commission be an unlicensed firearm, penalty shall be in the maximum.
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. [Like X, Y and Z.
Sabot nila robbery. Unya ang usa ka robber gimultilate or niinflict ug serious physical injuries. Si X moy nihimo ana. Y and Z
were present. Uyna, Y and Z did not attempt to prevent the assault. They are equally liable because Y and Z were present
and did not attempt to prevent the assault.]
When the robbery was committed by a band, the robber who did not take part in the assault by another is not liable
for the assault. Its the individual responsibility of the person who assaulted another.
If only two of the four accused were armed or only two armed persons committed robbery, Art. 296 does not apply.
When the robbery was not by a band and homicide was not determined by the accused when they plotted the crime,
the one who did not participate in the killing is liable for robbery only. [X, Y and Z. X is principal by induction and he is also
the mastermind. Si Y and Z actually committed robbery. They assaulted somebody. Is X, the mastermind, the principal by
induction, liable for the assault? No because he was not present. No if it was not contemplated in the robbery. But if X said,
sukol gani, pusila ninyo. Nisukol mn, di gipusil. Then X is liable for the assault because that was part of the agreement. So
Criminal Law Second Installment 93

when there is conspiracy to commit homicide and robbery, all the conspirators, even if less than four armed men are liable for
special complex crime of robbery with homicide.]Any member of a band who is present at the commission of a robbery by a
band. A principal by inducement, he did go with the band at the place of the commission of robbery is not liable for robbery
with homicide. Exception if homicide was contemplated in the conspiracy.
Art. 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. This is attempted or
frustrated robbery with homicide, a special complex crime. This is also by reason or on the occasion. Homicide, also generic.
Unless the homicide committed shall deserve a higher penalty. Thats last phrase. If its murder, then the penalty for murder
should be imposed.
Art. 296 is applicable to attempted robbery with homicide by a band.
Slight physical injuries should be disregarded in the designation of the offense for there is no such crime as attempted
robbery with homicide and slight physical injuries. [Absorbed na sya sa robbery.]
Art. 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. [Si X ganahan sya sa yuta ni Y. Nindot
kay syag yuta kay patag nya tambok nga yuta. Daghag tanom. So niingon si X, ali ra gud Mr. Y. Butangan nyag papel dha.
Nya deed of sale diay to. X: Pirmahi ang deed of sale. Di gani nmo pirmahan, buto gyud ni akong gigunitan. Ning pirma!
That is an example of execution of deeds by means of intimidation. It is considered robbery. Robbery na sya. Nipirma.
Ipanotarize nya. Adto syas Register of Deeds. Transfer ang property.] [Si X gusto mupalit sa yuta ni Y. Ingon sya, Y pila mn
na? Y: P500,000. X: Cge, akong ihatag dayon. Kuan syag cheke. Y: Di ko anang cheke. Cash ako. Gihatag ang cash.
Dawat ni Y. Wa bitaw na muexecute si Y ug deed of sale. Kita sila. X: Wa mn lagi ka muexecute ug deed of sale. Di gani ka
muexecute ug deed of sale karon, patay gyud ka. Kabayad na bya ko. Di niexecute ug deed of sale. Is that execution of
deeds by means of violence? The answer is no because there was no fraud. Here, the law says with intent to defraud.
GIbayran nmn nya. Dba? What crime, if any, is committed? Coercion. Compelling a person to do something against his will.
Compulsive grave coercion. Kung pananglitan, gipapirma nya. Y bayad noh. Unya pagkahuman, gipatay pa gyud, gipusil.
Paghuman ug pirma, gipusil pa gyud. Exceution of deeds by means of violence with homicide. Special complex crime.]
If the execution of deeds by means of violence is only in the attempted or frustrated stage and the violence resulted
in the death of the person to be defrauded, the penalty prescribed in 297 shall be imposed.
Must the document be public? Opinion of the author it may be private or commercial document.
Art. 298 is not applicable if the document is void. The crime is grave coercion or if physical injuries were inflicted,
then crime of physical injuries also.
How do you distinguish execution of deeds by means of violence from coercion? Here, there is intent to gain. When
the offended party is under obligation to sign, execute or deliver the document, there is no robbery. There will be coercion if
used in compelling the offended party to sign and deliver the document.
Section Two. Robbery by the use of force upon things
Art. 299. Robbery in an inhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to worship.
Committed only when the offender entered the house or building or even if there was no entrance by any of the
means, he broke the wardrobes, chests, or any other kind of locked or sealed receptacle.
There are two kinds of robbery with force upon things: (1) robbery in an inhabited house or public building or edifice
devoted to religious worship. [Inhabited house. Bisag wa pa dha ang tag-iya. Basta naa sya nagpuyo. That is still inhabited.
Then, public building.]; (2) robbery in an [ug basahon nmo ang Art. 302, its robbery in an uninhabited place. Please take
note, sayop na ang place. It should be uninhabited house para madistinguish nmo ang inhabited house ug ang uninhabited
house or in a private building. Nanotice ninyo? Ang 299 inhabited house, kining 302 should be uninhabited house. Mas
grabe ang robbery in inhabited house or public building. Ang 302, uninhabited house and private building.] One essential
requisite of robbery with force upon things is that the malefactor should enter the building or dependency where the object to
be taken is found. Art. 299 and 302 clearly contemplate that the malefactor should enter the building. If the culprit did not
enter the building, there would be no robbery with force upon things. [Example: Pananglitan naay 3 ka tawo. Unya gilangkat
nila ang roof. Langkat tagsa. Kuha sila ug hook, taga. Ilang gilower ngadto. Mura sd sila namingwit ug isda. O kini kuan ni
necklace. O kani earrings. May kay sila mumingwit. So pagkahuman, sud nilag gamay nga pouch. Lakaw sila. Is that
robbery with force upon things? Giguba ang atop. The answer is no. It is simple theft. Why? Because even if they removed
the roof, they did not enter the building. Mao nay meaning sa robbery with force upon things to enter the building. Wa mn
sila muenter so its simple theft not robbery with force upon things.

Criminal Law Second Installment 94