Article 337

QUALIFIED SEDUCTION OF A VIRGIN

Two classes of qualified seduction:
1

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

certain persons, such as a person in authority, priest,
teachers etc and

Seduction of a sister by her brother or descendant by her

ascendant, regardless of her age or reputation (incestuous
seduction)

Elements:
1 That the offended party is a virgin, (presumed if she unmarried
and of good reputation.)
2 That she must be over 12 and under 18 years of age.
3 That the offender has sexual intercourse with her.
4 That there is abuse of authority, confidence or relationship
on the part of the offender ( person entrusted with education or
custody of victim; person in public authority, priest; servant)
Persons liable:
1 Those who abuse their authority:
a persons in public authority
b guardian
c teacher
d person who, in any capacity, is entrusted with the education or
custody of the woman seduced
2 Those who abused the confidence reposed in them:
a priest
b house servant
c domestic
3 Those who abused their relationship:
a
brother who seduced his sister
b
ascendant who seduced his descendant
* This crime also involves sexual intercourse. The offended woman must
be over 12 but below 18 years.
* The distinction between qualified seduction and simple seduction lies in
the fact, among others, that the woman is a virgin in qualified seduction,
while in simple seduction, it is not necessary that the woman be a virgin. It
is enough that she is of good repute.
* For purposes of qualified seduction, virginity does not mean physical
virginity. It means that the offended party has not had any experience
before.

* The virginity referred to here, is not to be understood in so material a

sense as to exclude the idea of abduction of a virtuous woman of a good
reputation. Thus, when the accused claims he had prior intercourse with
the complainant, the latter is still to be considered a virgin (U.S. vs.
Casten, 34 Phil. 808). But if it was established that the girl had a carnal
relations with other men, there can be no crime of Seduction as she is not
a virgin.
* Although in qualified seduction, the age of the offended woman is
considered, if the offended party is a descendant or a sister of the offender
no matter how old she is or whether she is a prostitute the crime of
qualified seduction is committed.
Illustration:
If a person goes to a sauna parlor and finds there a descendant and
despite that, had sexual intercourse with her, regardless of her reputation
or age, the crime of qualified seduction is committed.
* In the case of a teacher, it is not necessary that the offended woman be
his student. It is enough that she is enrolled in the same school.
* Deceit is not necessary in qualified seduction. Qualified seduction is
committed even though no deceit intervened or even when such carnal
knowledge was voluntary on the part of the virgin. This is because in such
a case, the law takes for granted the existence of the deceit as an integral
element of the crime and punishes it with greater severity than it does the
simple seduction, taking into account the abuse of confidence on the part
of the agent. Abuse of confidence here implies fraud.
* The fact that the offended party gave her consent to the sexual
intercourse is not a defense. Lack of consent on the part of the
complainant is not an element of the crime.
* The term domestic refers to a person usually living under the same roof
with the offended party. It includes all those persons residing with the
family and who are members of the same household, regardless of the fact
that their residence may only be temporary or that they may be paying for
their board and lodging.
* A domestic should not be confused with a house servant. A domestic is
not necessarily a house servant.
* Where the offended party is below 12 years of age, regardless of whether
the victim is a sister or a descendant of the offender, the crime committed
is rape.
* If the offended party is married and over 12 years of age, the crime
committed will be adultery.

* An essential element of a qualified seduction is virginity (doncella). It is a

condition existing in a woman who has had no sexual intercourse with any
man. It does not refer to the condition of the hymen as being intact.
* One who is charged with qualified seduction can be convicted of rape.
But one who is charged with rape cannot be convicted of qualified
seduction under the same information. (People vs. Ramirez, 69 SCRA
144)
* Even if the woman has already lost her virginity because of rape, in the
eyes of the law, she remains a virtuous woman even if physically she is no
longer a virgin.
Article 338
SIMPLE SEDUCTION
ELEMENTS:
1 That the offended party is over 12 and under 18 years of age.
2 That she must be of good reputation, single or widow.
3 That the offender has sexual intercourse with her.
4 That it is committed by means of deceit.
* Deceit generally takes the form of unfulfilled promise to marry. The
promise of marriage must serve as the inducement. The woman must yield
on account of the promise of marriage or other forms of inducement.
(People vs. Hernandez, 29 Phil. 109)
* Where the accused failed to have sex with this sweetheart over twelve
(12) but below eighteen (18) years old because the latter refused as they
were not yet married, and the accused procured the performance of a
fictitious marriage ceremony because of which the girlfriend yielded, he is
guilty of Simple Seduction. (U.S. vs. Hernandez, 29 Phil. 109). Here,
there was deceit employed. This act may now be considered Rape under
R.A. 8353, Sec. 2 par. 6.
* A promise of material things in exchange for the womans surrender of
her virtue does not constitute deceit.
* If a woman under 18 years of age but over 12 agrees to a sexual
intercourse with a man who promised her precious jewelries but the man
reneges on his promise, there is no seduction that the woman is of loose
morals. (Luis B. Reyes)
Promise of marriage must precede sexual intercourse.
> A promise of marriage made by the accused after sexual intercourse
had taken place, or after the woman had yielded her body to the man by
mutual consent will not render the man liable for simple seduction.
* The offended woman must be under 18 but not less than 12 years old;
otherwise, the crime is statutory rape.

* Unlike in qualified seduction, virginity is not essential in this crime. What

is required is that the woman be unmarried and of good reputation. Simple
seduction is not synonymous with loss of virginity. If the woman is
married, the crime will be adultery.
Article 339
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS WITH THE CONSENT OF THE OFFENDED
PARTY
ELEMENTS:
1
2

that the offender commits acts of lasciviousness or lewdness.

That the acts are committed upon a woman who is virgin or
single or widow of good reputation, under 18 years of age but
over 12 years, or a sister or descendant regardless of her
reputation or age.
that the offender accomplishes the acts by abuse of authority,
confidence, relationship, or deceit.

* When the acts of lasciviousness is committed with the use of force or

intimidation or when the offended party is under 12 years of age, the
object of the crime can either be a woman or a man.
* Where the acts of the offender were limited to acts of lewdness or
lasciviousness, and no carnal knowledge was had; but had there been
sexual intercourse, the offense would have been Seduction, he is guilty of
Acts of Lasciviousness under this article.
* The crime of acts of lasciviousness under Article 339 is one that is done
with the consent of the offended party who is always a woman. The lewd
acts committed against her is with her consent only because the offender
took advantage of his authority, or there was abuse of confidence, or the
employment of deceit, or the offender is related to the victim.
* In the commission of the acts of lasciviousness either by force or
intimidation, or with the consent of the offended party, there must be no
sexual intercourse, or the acts performed are short of sexual intercourse.
In the first situation, the crime would either be qualified seduction or
simple seduction if the offender succeeds in having sexual intercourse with
the victim. In these two cases, there is consent but the same is procured
by the offender through the employment of deceit, abuse of confidence,
abuse of authority or because of the existence of blood relationship.
Article 340
CORRUPTION OF MINORS
Act punishable:

By promoting or facilitating the prostitution or corruption of

persons underage to satisfy the lust of another

That the abduction is with lewd designs.

Note: Sexual intercourse is NOT necessary

* It is not required that the offender be the guardian or custodian of the
minor.
* It is not necessary that the minor be prostituted or corrupted as the law
merely punishes the act of promoting or facilitating the prostitution or
corruption of said minor and that he acted in order to satisfy the lust of
another.
* A single act of promoting or facilitating the corruption or prostitution of a
minor is sufficient to constitute violation of this article.
* What the law punishes is the act of pimp (bugaw) who facilitates the
corruption of a minor. It is not the unchaste act of the minor which is being
punished. So, a mere proposal to promote or facilitate the prostitution or
corruption of a minor is sufficient to consummate the crime.
* Young minor should enjoy a good reputation. Apparently, a prostitute
above 12 and under 18 years of age cannot be the victim in the crime of
corruption of minors.
Article 341
WHITE SLAVE TRADE
Acts penalized:
1. Engaging in the business of prostitution
2. Profiting by prostitution
3. Enlisting the service of women for the purpose of prostitution
* The person liable under Article 341 is the one who maintains or engages
in the trade of prostitution. A white slave is a woman held unwillingly for
purposes of commercial prostitution. A white slaver on the other hand is
one engaged in white slave traffic, procurer of white slaves or prostitutes.
* The most common way of committing this crime would be through the
maintenance of a bar or saloon where women engage in prostitution. For
each intercourse, the women pay the maintainer or owner of a certain
amount in this case, the maintainer of owner of the bar or saloon is liable
for white slave trade. (People vs. Go Lo, 56 O.G. 4056)

Crimes against chastity where age and reputation of victim are

immaterial: rape, acts of lasciviousness, qualified seduction of
sister/descendant, forcible abduction
Forcible abduction defined.
> It is the taking away of any woman against her will, from her house or
the place where she may be, for the purpose of carrying her to another
place with intent to marry or corrupt her.
* A woman is carried against her will or brought from one place to another
against her will with lewd design.
* Unlike in Rape and Seduction, in the crime of Abduction, whether Forcible
or Consented, there is no sexual intercourse. The acts are limited to taking
away from a place the victim, but the same must be with lewd designs,
that is, with unchaste design manifested by kissing and touching the
victims private parts.
* If the element of lewd design is present, the carrying of the woman would
qualify as abduction; otherwise, it would amount to kidnapping. If the
woman was only brought to a certain place in order to break her will and
make her agree to marry the offender, the crime is only grave coercion
because the criminal intent of the offender is to force his will upon the
woman and not really to restrain the woman of her liberty.
* Where lewd design was not proved or shown, and the victim was
deprived of her liberty, the crime is Kidnapping with Serious Illegal
Detention under this Article 267, RPC.
* The element of lewd designs, which is essential to the crime of abduction
through violence refers to the intention to abuse the abducted woman. If
such intention is lacking or does not exist, the crime may be illegal
detention. It is necessary to establish the unchaste design or purpose of
the offender. But it is sufficient that the intent to seduce the girl is present.
The evil purpose of the offender may be established or inferred from the
overt acts of the accused.

ABDUCTION

* If the offended woman is under 12 years old, even if she consented to the
abduction, the crime is forcible abduction and not consented abduction.

ELEMENTS:
1 That the person abducted is any woman, regardless of her age,
civil status, or reputation.
2 That the abduction is against her will.

* Where the offended woman is below the age of consent, even though she
had gone with the offender through some deceitful promises revealed upon
her to go with him and they live together as husband and wife without the
benefit of marriage, the ruling is that forcible abduction is committed by
the mere carrying of the woman as long as that intent is already shown. In
other words, where the man cannot possibly give the woman the benefit of
an honorable life, all that man promised are just machinations of a lewd

Article 342
FORCIBLE ABDUCTION

design and, therefore, the carrying of the woman is

lewd design and would bring about the crime of
kidnapping. This is also true if the woman is deprived
woman is mentally retardate. Forcible abduction is
consented abduction.

characterized with
abduction and not
of reason and if the
committed and not

* Lewd designs may be demonstrated by the lascivious acts performed by

the offender on her. Since this crime does not involve sexual intercourse,
if the victim is subjected to this, then a crime of rape is further committed
and a complex crime of forcible abduction with rape is committed.
* Lewd design does not include sexual intercourse. So, if sexual intercourse
is committed against the offended party after her forcible abduction, the
offender commits another crime separate and distinct from forcible
abduction. In this case, the accused should be charged with forcible
abduction with rape. (People vs. Jose, et al., 37 SCRA 450)
* If the accused carried or took away the victim by means of force and with
lewd design and thereafter raped her, the crime is Forcible Abduction with
Rape, the former being a necessary means to commit the latter. The
subsequent two (2) other sexual intercourse committed against the will of
the complainant would be treated as independent separate crimes of Rape.
(People vs. Bacalso, 210 SCRA 206).
* If the main object of the offender is to rape the victim, and the forcible
abduction was resorted to by the accused in order to facilitate the
commission of the rape, then the crime committed is only rape. (People
vs. Toledo, 83 Phil. 777)
* Where the victim was taken from one place to another, solely for the
purpose of killing him and not detaining him for any legal length of time,
the crime committed is murder. (People vs. Ong, 62 SCRA 174)
* True intention of the offender should be ascertained. If the detention is
only incidental, the same should be considered as absorbed. Otherwise, it
should be treated as a separate offense. When such a situation arises, we
should consider the application of Article 48 on complex crimes.
* The taking away of the woman may be accomplished by means of deceit
at the beginning and then by means of violence and intimidation later.
* The virginity of the complaining witness is not a determining factor in
forcible abduction.

Distinction between forcible abduction and illegal detention:

When a woman is kidnapped with lewd or unchaste designs, the crime
committed is forcible abduction.
When the kidnapping is without lewd designs, the crime committed is
illegal detention.
> But where the offended party was forcibly taken to the house of the
defendant to coerce her to marry him, it was held that only grave coercion
was committed and not illegal detention.
* Forcible abduction must be distinguished from the crime of kidnapping.
When the violent taking of a woman is motivated by lewd design, the crime
committed is forcible abduction. But if the motive of the offender is to
deprive the woman of her liberty, the crime committed is kidnapping.
Abduction is a crime against chastity while kidnapping is a crime against
personal liberty.
Article 343
CONSENTED ABDUCTION
ELEMENTS:
1 That the offended party must be a virgin.
2 That she must be over 12 and under 18 years of age.
3 That the taking away of the offended party must be with her
consent, after solicitation or cajolery from the offender.
4 That the taking away of the offended party must be with lewd
designs.
VIRGINITY may be presumed from the fact that the offended party is
unmarried and has been leading moral life. Virginity or maidenhood should
not be understood in such a matter of fact as to completely exclude a
woman who has had previous sexual intercourse. If the previous sexual
intercourse was the result of the crime of rape, the intercourse committed
with her against he will and over her violent objection should not render
her unchaste and a woman of bad reputation.
* If the virgin in under 12 years old, the crime committed is forcible
abduction because of the theory that a child below 12 years of age has no
will of her own.

* In order to demonstrate the presence of the lewd design, illicit criminal

relations with the person abducted need not be shown. The intent to
seduce a girl is sufficient.

* The purpose of the law on consented abduction is to punish the offender

for causing disgrace and scandal to the family of the offended party. The
law does not punish the offender for the wrong done to the woman since in
the eyes of the law, she consented to her seduction.

* If there is a separation in fact, the taking by the husband of his wife

against her will constitutes grave coercion.

* The deceit which is termed by the law as solicitation or cajolery maybe in

the form of honeyed promises of marriage.

* In consented Abduction, it is not necessary that the young victim, (a

virgin over twelve and under eighteen) be personally taken from her
parents home by the accused; it is sufficient that he was instrumental in
her leaving the house. He must however use solicitation, cajolery or
deceit, or honeyed promises of marriage to induce the girl to escape from
her home.
* In consented abduction, the taking away of the virgin must be with lewd
design. Actual sexual intercourse with the woman is not necessary.
However, if the same is established, then it will be considered as a strong
evidence to prove lewd design.
* Where several persons participated in the forcible abduction and these
persons also raped the offended woman, the original ruling in the case of
People v. Jose is that there would be one count of forcible abduction with
rape and then each of them will answer for his own rape and the rape of
the others minus the first rape which was complexed with the forcible
abduction. This ruling is no longer the prevailing rule. The view adopted in
cases of similar nature is to the effect that where more than one person
has effected the forcible abduction with rape, all the rapes are just the
consummation of the lewd design which characterizes the forcible
abduction and, therefore, there should only be one forcible abduction with
rape.
Article 344
PROSECUTION
OF
ADULTERY,
CONCUBINAGE,
ABDUCTION RAPE AND ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS

SEDUCTION,

Adultery and concubinage must be prosecuted upon complaint

signed by the offended spouse

Seduction, abduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness must be

prosecuted upon complaint signed by:
a
b
c
d

offended party
by her parents
grandparents
guardians in the order in which they are named above

* The crimes of adultery and concubinage must be prosecuted upon a

complaint signed by the offended spouse. In the complaint, the offended
party must include both guilty parties if they are both alive.
* Distinguished between a private crime and a public crime. In the case of
a private crime, the same cannot be prosecuted de oficio, meaning it
cannot be initiated by any person except the offended party. These are the
crimes against chastity such as seduction, adultery, concubinage and acts
of lasciviousness. These are crimes which are initiated with the filing of an
information. A public crime is one which can be prosecuted de officio,

meaning it can be prosecuted by any person interested to prosecute the

same. The accusation is usually initiated with the filling of an information.
* The law requires that the complaint must be initiated by the said persons
in order that they are named or enumerated in the article. If this legal
requirement is not observed, the case should be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter.
* If the offended party is of age and is in complete possession of her
mental faculties, she alone can file the complaint (People vs. Mandia, 60
Phil. 372)
* If the offended party cannot sign the complaint because of her tender
age, the parents can do it for her. The same can be done either by the
father or the mother. (U.S. vs. Gariboso, 25 Phil 171 )
* The word guardian as mentioned in the law refers to the guardian
appointed by the court. (People vs. Formento, et al., 60 Phil. 434)
What is the meaning of shall have consented which bars the
institution of criminal action for adultery or concubinage?
The term consent has reference to the tie prior to the commission of the
crime. In other words, the offended party gives his or her consent to the
future infidelity of the offending spouse.
> And so, while consent refers to the offense prior to its commission,
pardon refers to the offense after its commission. (People vs.
Schnekenburger, et al., 73 Phil. 413)
Note: Marriage of the offender with the offended party extinguishes the
criminal action or remit the penalty already imposed upon him. This
applies as well to the accomplices, accessories-after-the-fact. But
marriages must be in good faith. This rule does not apply in case of
multiple rape
* In the crimes involving rape, abduction, seduction, and acts of
lasciviousness, the marriage by the offender with the offended woman
generally extinguishes criminal liability, not only of the principal but also of
the accomplice and accessory. However, the mere fact of marriage is not
enough because it is already decided that if the offender marries the
offended woman without any intention to perform the duties of a husband
as shown by the fact that after the marriage, he already left her, the
marriage would appear as having been contracted only to avoid the
punishment. Even with that marriage, the offended woman could still
prosecute the offender and that marriage will not have the effect of
extinguishing the criminal liability.
* Pardon by the offended woman of the offender is not a manner of
extinguishing criminal liability but only a bar to the prosecution of the
offender. Therefore, that pardon must come before the prosecution is
commenced. When the prosecution is already commenced or initiated,

pardon by the offended woman will no longer be effective because pardon

may preclude prosecution but not prevent the same.
* Pardon in crimes against chastity, is a bar to prosecution. But it must
come before the institution of the criminal action. (See the cases of
People vs. Villorente, 210 SCRA 647; People vs. Avila, 192 SCRA
635) To be effective, it must include both accused.
How about pardon declared by the offended party during the trial
of the case? Such a declaration is not a ground for the dismissal of the
case. Pardon is a matter of defense which the accused must plead and
prove during the trial. (People vs. Riotes, C.A., 49 O.G.3403).
* All these private crimes except rape cannot be prosecuted de officio.
If any slander or written defamation is made out of any of these crimes,
the complaint of the offended party is still necessary before such case for
libel or oral defamation may proceed. It will not prosper because the court
cannot acquire jurisdiction over these crimes unless there is a complaint
from the offended party. The paramount decision of whether he or she
wanted the crime committed on him or her to be made public is his or hers
alone, because the indignity or dishonor brought about by these crimes
affects more the offended party than social order. The offended party may
prefer to suffer the outrage in silence rather than to vindicate his honor in
public.
Article 345
CIVIL LIABILITY OF PERSONS GUILTY OF RAPE, SEDUCTION OR
ABDUCTION
1

To idemnify the offended women

To acknowledge the offspring, unless the law should prevent

him from doing so

In every case to support the offspring

* The civil liability of the adulterer and the concubine is limited to

indemnity for damages caused to the offended spouse. The law does not
mention the adulteress in the crime of adultery such that only the
adulterer shall be held civilly liable.
* There is likewise no mention of the offender in the crime of acts of
lasciviousness, as being held liable for civil damages under Article 345, the
law only mentioned the crimes of rape, seduction and abduction.
* Under Article 2219 of the Civil Code, moral damages may be recovered in
seduction, abduction, rape or other lascivious acts. The crimes of adultery
and concubinage are also included.
* In the crimes of rape, abduction and seduction, if the offended woman
had given birth to the child, among the liabilities of the offender is to

support the child. This obligation to support the child may be true even if
there are several offenders. As to whether all of them will acknowledge
the child, that is a different question because the obligation to support
here is not founded on civil law but is the result of a criminal act or a form
of punishment.
* It has been held that where the woman was the victim of the said crime
could not possibly conceive anymore, the trial court should not provide in
its sentence that the accused, in case a child is born, should support the
child. This should only be proper when there is a probability that the
offended woman could give birth to an offspring.
Article 346
LIABILITY OF ASCENDANTS, OTHER PERSONS ENTRUSTED WITH
CUSTODY OF OFFENDED PARTY WHO BY ABUSE OF AUTHORITY OR
CONFIDENCE SHALL COOPERATE AS ACCOMPLIES

TITLE TWELVE
CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVIL STATUS OF PERSONS
Crimes against the civil status of persons
1.
Simulation of births, substitution of one child for another and
concealment or abandonment of a legitimate child (art. 347);
2.
Usurpation of civil status (Art. 348);
3.
Bigamy (Art. 349);
4.
Marriage contracted against provisions of law (Art. 350);
5.
Premature marriages (Art. 351);
6.
Performance of illegal marriage ceremony (Art. 352).
Article 347
SIMULATION OF BIRTHS, SUBSTITUTION OF ONE CHILD FOR
ANOTHER, AND CONCEALMENT OR ABANDONMENT OF A
LEGITIMATE CHILD
Acts Punished:
1. Simulation of births
2. Substitution of one child for another
3. Concealing or abandoning any legitimate child with the intent
to cause such child to lose its civil status
Requisites:
1 The child must be legitimate

2 The offender conceals or abandons such child

3 The offender has the intent to cause the child to lose its civil
status

him home. What crime was committed by the person who left it in the
forest?
It is attempted infanticide, as the act of the offender is an attempt
against the life of the child. See US v. Capillo, et al., 30 Phil. 349.

Elements of Simulation of Birth

1 Child is baptized or registered in the Registry of birth as hers
2

Child loses its real status and acquiires a new one

Actors purpose was to cause the loss of any trace as to the

childs true filiation

Simulation of birth takes place when a woman pretends to be pregnant

when in fact she is not and on the day of the supposed delivery, she takes
the child of another and declares the child to be her own. This is done by
entering in the birth certificate of the child that the offender is the alleged
mother of the child when in fact the child belongs to another.
Illustration:

Article 348
USURPATION OF CIVIL STATUS
Committed by a person who represents himself as another and
assumes the filiation or rights pertaining to such person
Notes:
* There must be criminal intent to enjoy the civil rights of another by the
offender knowing he is not entitled thereto
* The term "civil status" includes one's public station, or the rights, duties,
capacities and incapacities which determine a person to a given class. It
seems that the term "civil status" includes one's profession.

People who have no child and who buy and adopt the child without going
through legal adoption.
If the child is being kidnapped and they knew that the kidnappers are not
the real parents of their child, then simulation of birth is committed. If the
parents are parties to the simulation by making it appear in the birth
certificate that the parents who bought the child are the real parents, the
crime is not falsification on the part of the parents and the real parents but
simulation of birth.

* Committed by asuming the filiation, or the parental or conjugal rights of

another

Questions & Answers

Circumstances qualifying the offense: penalty is heavier when the

purpose of the impersonation is to defraud the offended party or his heirs

1.
A woman who has given birth to a child abandons the child
in a certain place to free herself of the obligation and duty of rearing and
caring for the child. What crime is committed by the woman?
The crime committed is abandoning a minor under Article 276.
2.
Suppose that the purpose of the woman is abandoning the
child is to preserve the inheritance of her child by a former marriage, what
then is the crime committed?
The crime would fall under the second paragraph of Article 347.
The purpose of the woman is to cause the child to lose its civil status so
that it may not be able to share in the inheritance.
3.
Suppose a child, one day after his birth, was taken to and
left in the midst of a lonely forest, and he was found by a hunter who took

* Usurpation is committed by assuming the filiation or parental (when

maternal, paternal or conjugal) claim of another. To be liable for usurpation
of civil status, the offender must have the intent to enjoy the rights arising
from the civil status of another.

Article 349
BIGAMY
ELEMENTS:
1 That the offender has been legally married.
2

That the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case
his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse could not yet
be presumed dead according to the civil code.

That he contracts a second or subsequent marriage.

That the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential

requisites for validity.

Notes:

* The crime does not fall within the category of private crimes that can be
prosecuted only at the instance of the offended party PUBLIC CRIME

For the crime of bigamy to prosper the first marriage must be valid. If
the first marriage is void from the beginning, such nullity of the
marriage is not a defense in a charge of bigamy. Consequently, when
raised as a defense, the accused should be convicted since until and
unless annulled, the bond of matrimony remains or is maintained.

Need for judicial declaration of nullity

The second marriage must have all the essential requisites for validity
were it not for the existence of the first marriage.

* A simulated marriage is not marriage at all and can be used as a defense

for bigamy
* Good faith is a defense in bigamy.
* One who, although not yet married before, knowingly consents to be
married to one who is already married is guilty of bigamy knowing that the
latters marriage is still valid and subsisting.
* In the crime of bigamy, the second spouse is not necessarily liable. The
language of Article 349 indicates the crime of bigamy is committed by one
person who contracts a subsequent marriage while the former marriage is
valid and subsisting. If the second wife knew of the previous marriage of
the accused, she will be liable for the crime of bigamy but only as an
accomplice.
* There must be a summary proceeding to declare the absent spouse
presumptively dead for purposes of remarriage
* Failure to exercise due diligence to ascertain the whereabouts of the 1 st
wife is bigamy through reckless imprudence
* A judicial declaration of the nullity of a marriage void ab initio is now
required
* The language of the law is clear when it declared before the former
marriage has been legally dissolved. The Supreme Court said the even if
the accused, as plaintiff in the civil case prevails, and his first marriage is
annulled, such pronouncement has no retroactive effect as to exculpate
him in the bigamy case. Parties to a marriage should not be permitted to
judge its nullity, for only competent courts have such authority. (Landicho
vs. Relova, 22 SCRA 731, 735)

* The civil case for annulment of the first marriage does not pose a
prejudicial question as to warrant the suspension of the trial and
proceeding in the criminal case for bigamy. (Roco, et al., Cinco, et al.,
68 O.G.2952)
* One convicted for bigamy may be prosecuted for concubinage as both
are distinct offenses
* One convicted of bigamy may also be prosecuted for concubinage as
both are distinct offenses. The first is an offense against civil status, which
may be prosecuted at the instance of the state; the second is an offense
against chastity, and may be prosecuted only at the instance of the
offended party. The test is not whether the defendant has already been
tried for the same act, but whether he has been put in jeopardy for the
same offense.
* One who vouches that there is no legal impediment knowing that one of
the parties is already married is an accomplice
Distinction between bigamy and illegal marriage:
Bigamy is a form of illegal marriage. The offender must have a valid and
subsisting marriage. Despite the fact that the marriage is still subsisting,
he contracts a subsequent marriage.
Illegal marriage includes also such other marriages which are performed
without complying with the requirements of law, or such premature
marriages, or such marriage which was solemnized by one who is not
authorized to solemnize the same.
Article 350
MARRIAGE CONTRACTED AGAINST PROVISIONS OF LAWS
ELEMENTS:
1 That the offender contracted marriage.
2 That he knew at the time that
a

the requirement of the law were not complied with, or

The marriage was in disregard of a legal impediment.

Note: Circumstance qualifying the offense: if either of the contracting

parties obtains the consent of the other by means of violence, intimidation
or fraud
The requirements of the law for a valid marriage are:
1. The legal capacity of the contracting parties;
2. Their consent freely given;

3. Authority of the person performing the marriage; and

4. Marriage license, except in marriage under exceptional circumstances.

* Article 84 of the Civil Code provides that no marriage license shall be

issued to a widow until after 300 days following the death of her husband,
unless in the meantime she has given birth to a child.

* The law further provides that for accused to be liable under this article,
he should not be guilty of bigamy because otherwise, the crime punished
under Article 350 is deemed absorbed in the bigamy.

Article 352
PERFORMANCE OF ILLEGAL MARRIAGE CEREMONY

Marriages contracted against the provisions of laws

Act punished:

1. The marriage does not constitute bigamy.

performance of any illegal marriage ceremony by a priest or

minister of any religious denomination or sect or by civil
authorities

2.

The marriage is contracted knowing that the requirements of the law

have not been complied with or in disregard of legal impediments.

3.

One where the consent of the other was obtained by means of

violence, intimidation or fraud.

TITLE THIRTEEN
CRIMES AGAINST HONOR

4.

If the second marriage is void because the accused knowingly

contracted it without complying with legal requirements as the
marriage license, although he was previously married.

Crimes against honor

1.
Libel by means of writings or similar means (Art. 355);
2.
Threatening to publish and offer to prevent such publication for a
compensation (Art. 356);
3.
Prohibited publication of acts referred to in the course of official
proceedings (Art. 357);
4.
Slander (Art. 358);
5.
Slander by deed (Art. 359);
6.
Incriminating innocent person (Art. 363);
7.
Intriguing against honor (Art. 364).

5. Marriage solemnized by a minister or priest who does not have the

required authority to solemnize marriages.
Article 351
PREMATURE MARRIAGE
Acts punished:
1

A widow who within 301 days from death of husband, got

married or before her delivery, if she was pregnant at the time
of his death
A woman whose marriage having been dissolved or annulled,
married before her delivery or within 301 days after the legal
separation

* The Supreme Court has already taken into account the reason why such
marriage within 301 days is made criminal, that is, because of the
probability that there might be a confusion regarding the paternity of the
child who would be born. If this reason does not exist because the former
husband is impotent, or was shown to be sterile such that the woman has
had no child with him, that belief of the woman that after all there could be
no confusion even if she would marry within 301 days may be taken as
evidence of good faith and that would negate criminal intent.

Article 353
LIBEL
ELEMENTS:
1 That there must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or
defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition,
status, or circumstances.
2 That the imputation must be made publicly.
3 That it must be malicious.
4 That the imputation must be directed at a natural or juridical
person, or one who is dead.
5 That the imputation must tend to cause the dishonor, discredit
or contempt of the person defamed.
Notes:
LIBEL is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or a vice or defect,
real or imaginary or any act, commission, condition, status or
circumstances tending to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of a
natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead

Character of the words used to make it defamatory.

Words calculated to induce suspicion are more effective in destroying
reputation than false charges directly made. Ironical and metaphorical
language is a favored vehicle for slander. A charge is sufficient if the words
are calculated to induce the hearer to suppose and understand that the
person against whom they are uttered is guilty of certain offenses, or are
sufficient to impeach his honesty, virtue or reputation, or to hold him up to
public ridicule. (U.S. vs. OConnell, 37 Phil. 767)
Malice has been defined as a term used to indicate the fact that the
defamer is prompted by personal ill or spite and speaks not in response to
duty but merely to injure the reputation of the person defamed.
Kinds of Malice.
Malice in law This is assumed and is inferred from the defamatory
character of an imputation. The presumption of malice attaches to the
defamatory statement especially if it appears to be insulting per se.
The law presumes that the defamer made the imputation without good
intention or justifiable motive.

Malice in law can be negated by evidence that, in fact, the alleged libelous
or defamatory utterance was made with good motives and justifiable ends
or by the fact that the utterance was privileged in character.
In law, however, the privileged character of a defamatory statement may
be absolute or qualified.
When the privileged character is said to be absolute, the statement will not
be actionable whether criminal or civil because that means the law does
not allow prosecution on an action based thereon.
Illustration:
As regards the statements made by Congressmen while they are
deliberating or discussing in Congress, when the privileged character is
qualified, proof of malice in fact will be admitted to take the place of malice
in law.
When the defamatory statement or utterance is qualifiedly
privileged, the malice in law is negated. The utterance or statement would
not be actionable because malice in law does not exist. Therefore, for the
complainant to prosecute the accused for libel, oral defamation or slander,
he has to prove that the accused was actuated with malice (malice in fact)
in making the statement.
* Malice is presumed to exist in injurious publications

Malice in fact This refers to malice as a fact. The presence and

existence of personal ill-will or spite may still appear even if the
statement is not defamatory. So, where the defamatory acts may be
presumed from the publication of the defamatory acts imputed refer to
the private life of the individual, malice may be presumed from the
publication of the defamatory statement because no one has a right to
invade anothers privacy.

* Where the imputation is based upon matters of public interest, the

presumption of malice does not arise from the mere publication of the
defamatory statement. A matter of public interest is common property.
Malice in fact comes into play when the statement made is not defamatory
per se, as when the offender resorts to underserved praises or satirical
method of impeaching the virtue, honesty and reputation of the offended
party. It can also appear in the form of innuendos.

Distinction between malice in fact and malice in law

Malice in fact is the malice which the law presumes from every
statement whose tenor is defamatory. It does not need proof. The mere
fact that the utterance or statement is defamatory negates a legal
presumption of malice.
In the crime of libel, which includes oral defamation, there is no need for
the prosecution to present evidence of malice. It is enough that the
alleged defamatory or libelous statement be presented to the court
verbatim. It is the court which will prove whether it is defamatory or not.
If the tenor of the utterance or statement is defamatory, the legal
presumption of malice arises even without proof.
Malice in fact becomes necessary only if the malice in law has been
rebutted. Otherwise, there is no need to adduce evidence of malice in fact.
So, while malice in law does not require evidence, malice in fact requires
evidence.

* This discussion leads to the conclusion that the determination of libelous

meaning is left to the good judgment of the court after considering all the
circumstances which lead to the utterance or publication of the defamatory
statement. The question is not what the writer of an alleged libel means
but what the words used by him mean. The meaning given by the writer or
the words used by him is immaterial. The question is not what the writer
meant but what he conveyed to those who heard or read him (People vs.
Encarnacion, 204 SCRA 1)
How to overcome the presumption of malice.
The presumption of malice is rebutted by showing :
1.

that the accused published the defamatory imputation with good

intention;

2. that there is justifiable motive for making it;

3. that the communication made is privileged; and

4. accused must prove the truth of the defamatory imputation in those

cases wherein truth is a defense.
PUBLICATION is the communication of the defamatory matter to some
third person/s

also be a basis for prosecution for libel. As a matter of fact, even a

compliment which is undeserved, has been held to be libelous.
* To presume publication there must be a reasonable probability that the
alleged a libelous matter was thereby exposed to be read or seen by 3 rd
persons.
Republication of defamatory article is punishable.

Publication is the communication of the defamatory matter to a third

person or persons. So, the delivery of a defamatory writing to a typesetter
is sufficient publication. Writing a letter to another person other than the
person defamed is sufficient publication. (See Sazon vs. Court of
Appeals, 255 SCRA 692)

One is liable for publication of defamatory words against another although

he is only repeating what he heard and names the source of his
information. A person who repeats a slander or libelous publication heard
or read from another is presumed to indorse it. (People vs. Salumbides
and Reanzares, C.A., 55 O.G. 2638)

> The crime is libel if the defamation is in writing or printed media.

Criterion to determine whether statements are defamatory
> The crime is slander or oral defamation if it is not printed.
* Person libeled must be identified. But the publication need not refer by
name to the libeled party. If not named it must be shown that the
description of the person referred to in the defamatory publication was
sufficiently clear so that at least a 3 rd person would have identified the
plaintiff.
* When a libel is addressed to several persons, unless they are identified in
the same libel, even if there are several persons offended by the libelous
utterance or statement, there will only be one count of libel.
* If the offended parties in the libel were distinctly identified, even though
the libel was committed at one and the same time, there will be as many
libels as there are persons dishonored

Illustration:
If a person uttered that All the Marcoses are thieves," there will only be
one libel because these particular Marcoses regarded as thieves are not
specifically identified.
If the offender said, All the Marcoses the father, mother and daughter
are thieves. There will be three counts of libel because each person
libeled is distinctly dishonored.
* If you do not know the particular persons libeled, you cannot consider
one libel as giving rise to several counts of libel. In order that one
defamatory utterance or imputation may be considered as having
dishonored more than one person, those persons dishonored must be
identified. Otherwise, there will only be one count of libel.
* Note that in libel, the person defamed need not be expressly identified.
It is enough that he could possibly be identified because innuendos may

1) words are calculated to induce the hearers to suppose and

understand that the person against who they are uttered were
guilty of certain offenses, or are sufficient to impeach their honesty,
virtue or reputation, or to hold the person up to public ridicule(US v
OConnel)
2 )construed not only as to the expression used but also with respect
to the whole scope and apparent object of the writer.(P v
Encarnacion)
* The test of libelous meanings is not the analysis of a sentence into
component phrases with the meticulous care of the grammarian or stylist,
but the import conveyed by the entirety of the language to the ordinary
reader. (Lacsa vs. FAC, et al., 161 SCRA 427).
* In libel cases, the question is not what the offender means but what the
words used by him mean. ( Sazon vs. CA, 255 SCRA 692)
Praises undeserved are slander in disguise.
Where the comments are worded in praise of the plaintiff, like describing
him with qualities which plaintiff does not deserve because of his social,
political and economic status in the community which is too well known to
all concerned, are which intended are intended to ridicule rather than
praise him, the publication is deemed libelous (Jimenez vs. Reyes, 27
SCRA 52)
* Even if what was imputed is true, the crime of libel is committed unless
one acted with good motives or justifiable end. Poof of truth of a
defamatory imputation is not even admissible in evidence, unless what
was imputed pertains to an act which constitutes a crime and when the
person to whom the imputation was made is a public officer and the
imputation pertains to the performance of official duty. Other than these,
the imputation is not admissible.

malice is now required to be proven. It is enough to rely on presumed

malice in libel cases involving a public official or public figure.

When proof of truth is admissible

1.

When the act or omission imputed constitutes a crime regardless

of whether the offended party is a private individual or a public
officer;

2.

When the offended party is a government employee, even if the

act or omission imputed does not constitute a crime, provided if its
related to the discharged of his official duties.

Requisites of defense in defamation

1.
2.
3.

Libel
-false accusation need
made under oath

not

be

Case Doctrines:
* The fact that a communication is privileged is not a proper ground for the
dismissal of a complaint for libel. In the first place, it is a matter of defense.
Secondly, the fact that a communication is privileged does not mean that it
is not actionable. The privileged character simply does away with the
presumption of malice which the prosecution has to prove in such a case.
(Lu Chu Sing, et al., vs. Lu Tiong Gui, 76 Phil. 669)

If it appears that the matter charged as libelous is true;

It was published with good motives;
It was for justifiable ends.

If a crime is a private crime, it cannot be prosecuted de officio.

complaint from the offended party is necessary.

* Malice is now understood to mean publication with knowledge of

falsehood or reckless disregard of the statements veracity. The burden of
proof has not only been shifted to the plaintiff in libel, but proof has not
only been shifted to the plaintiff in libel, but proof of malice must now be
clear and convincing.

Perjury
-false accusation is made under oath

Newsweek v IAC
Newsweek portrayed the island province of Negros Occidental as a place
dominated by big landowners. Plaintiffs are associations of sugarcane
planters. HELD: Dismissed. To maintain a libel suit, the specific victim must
be identifiable. Defamatory remarks directed at a group of persons are not
actionable unless the statements are all-embracing or sufficiently specific
for victim to be identifiable. An action for libel allegedly directed against a
group of sugar planters cannot be done by resort to filing a class suit as
each victim has his specific reputation to protect. In this case, each of the
plaintiffs has a separate and distinct reputation in the community.
Rule regarding Public Officers:
Defamatory remarks and comments on the conduct or acts of
public officers which are related to the discharge of their official duties will
not constitute libel if the accused proves the truth of the imputation. But
any attack upon the private character of the public officers on matters
which are not related to the discharge of their official functions may
constitute Libel.
* Where malice cannot be inferred from false defamatory statements, the
ruling appears to be the true only if the offended party is a government
employee, with respect to facts related to the discharge of his official
duties. With his jurisprudence, it should now be emphasized that actual

* Libel in answer to another libel is not a defense. (Pellicena vs.

Gonzales, 6 Phil. 50)
* If the defamatory imputation is in the nature of self-defense under Article
11 of the Revised Penal Code such that the publication was done in good
faith, without malice and just adequate enough to protect his good name,
the statement may be considered privileged. (People vs. Baja, 40 O.G.
206; People vs. Mendoza, C.A. 74 O.G. 5607)
* The fair and true report of official proceedings refer to proceedings in the
three branches of government, to wit: judicial, legislative and executive.
The publisher is limited only to the narration of what had taken place even
if the report contains defamatory and injurious matter affecting another
person, libel is not committed for as long as what is contained is a fair and
true report of the proceedings.
* Under Article 354, the publisher becomes liable when he makes
comments or remarks upon the private character of person, which are not
relevant or related to the judicial, legislative or executive proceedings.
* Under our libel law, defamatory remarks against government employees
with respect to facts related to the discharge of their official duties will not
constitute libel, if defendant is able to prove the truth of the imputations.
But any attack on the private character of the officer on matters which are
not related to the discharge of his official functions may constitute libel
since under our laws, the right of the press to criticize public officers does
not authorize defamation. (U.S. vs. Bustos, supra; Sazon vs. Court of
Appeals, supra).

Article354

REQUIREMENT OF PUBLICITY

Kinds of privileged communication

a ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED not actionable even if the actor
has acted in bad faith
b QUALIFIEDLY PRIVILEGED those which although containing
defamatory imputations could not be actionable unless made
with malice or bad faith
* When the defamatory imputation comes under the criteria of an absolute
privileged communication, the presumption of malice under Article 354 has
no application.
* The presumption of malice, however, comes into play when the
defamatory statement is a conditional or qualified privileged
communication. To overcome this presumption of malice in law, the
defamer must prove during the proceeding that the defamatory imputation
was committed because of a legal, moral or social duty.
* Privileged communication as categorized in this discussion is a matter of
defense. It is not a ground for a motion to quash after the arraignment of
the accused. (See Mercado vs. CFI of Rizal, 116 SCRA 93). If after the
prosecution has presented its evidence, it becomes evident that the
defamatory statement was made by the accused because of a legal, moral
or social duty, then the accused can file a demurrer to evidence, as in the
meantime, there is absence of malice in law which is presumed in all
defamatory imputations.
GENERAL RULE: Every defamatory imputation is presumed malicious
even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is
shown
EXCEPTION:
a private communication in performance of legal, moral or
social duty
Requisites
1 that the person who made the communication had a legal,
moral or social duty to make the communication or at least he
had an interest to be upheld
2 that the communication is addressed to an officer or a board,
or superior, having some interest or duty on the matter
3 that the statements in the communication are made in good
faith without malice in fact
b

fair and true report, made in good faith, without any

comments and remarks

Requisites

2
3

that the publication of a report of an official proceeding is a fair

and true report of a judicial, legislative, or other official
proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of a
statement, report, or speech delivered in said proceedings, or
of any other act performed by a public officer
that it is made in good faith
that it is made without any comments or remarks

Doctrine of fair comment

A fair comment on matters of public interest is included and is covered by
the mantle of privileged communication which constitutes a valid defense
against libel and slander. If the comment is an expression of opinion
based on established facts, then it is immaterial that the opinion happens
to be mistaken, as long as it might be reasonably inferred from the facts.
Further explaining the right to comment on a public issue, the Court said,
If a matter is a subject of public or general interest, it cannot become less
so merely because a private individual is involved. The public primary
interest is in the event; the public focus is on the conduct of the
participants and not on their prior anonymity or notoriety. ( Borjal vs. CA,
301 SCRA 1 )
Santos v CA
HELD: No malice, he simply furnished the readers with the info that a
complaint has been filed against the brokerage firm and reproduced the
pleading verbatim with no embellishments.
Article 355
LIBEL BY MEANS OF WRITING OR SIMILAR MEANS
A libel may be committed by means of
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7
8.
9.
10.

Writing;
Printing;
Lithography;
Engraving;
Radio;
Photograph;
Painting;
Theatrical exhibition;
Cinematographic exhibition; or
Any similar means.

* In the enumeration above, television is not included, probably because at

the time the Revised Penal Code was conceived, television had not yet
been invented. However, the law provides, or any similar means which
easily qualifies television is such species or category. (People vs. Casten,
C.A., G.R. No. 07924-CR promulgated December 13, 1974)

Article 356
THREATENING TO PUBLISH LIBEL AND OFFER TO PREVENT SUCH
PUBLICATION FOR A COMPENSATION
Acts punished
1.

Threatening another to publish a libel concerning him, or his

parents, spouse, child, or other members of his family;

2.

Offering to prevent the publication of such libel for compensation

or money consideration.

* It involves the unlawful extortion of money by appealing to the fear of the

victim, through threats of accusation or exposure. It contemplates of two
offenses: a threat to establish a libel and an offer to prevent such
publication. The gravamen of the crime is the intent to extort money or
other things of value.
Blackmail In its metaphorical sense, blackmail may be defined as any
unlawful extortion of money by threats of accusation or exposure. Two
words are expressive of the crime hush money. (US v. Eguia, et al., 38
Phil. 857) Blackmail is possible in (1) light threats under Article 283;
and (2) threatening to publish, or offering to prevent the publication of, a
libel for compensation, under Article 356.
Article 357
PROHIBITED PUBLICATION OF ACTS REFERRED TO IN THE COURSE
OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

partys family and home. Occasionally, it involves conjugal troubles and

quarrels because of infidelity, adultery or crimes involving chastity.
Lacsa v IAC
Lacsa found that Marquez was not a proprietary member of PCA thus not
qualified to be president. He wrote to the BOD and to Marquez. He caused
to publish the second letter. HELD: Letter is not privileged communication.
To be classified as such it must be free from malice. Granting that the letter
was privileged communication, written out of a duty of an officer towards
the members, such character was lost when it was published.
* Under Republic Act No. 1477, amending Rep. Act. No. 58, the
publisher, editor, columnist or duly accredited reporter of any newspaper,
magazine or periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to reveal
the source of any news report information appearing in the said publication
which was related to him in confidence unless the court or a house or
committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the
security of the State.
Article 358
ORAL DEFAMATION / SLANDER
Two Kinds of Oral Defamation:
1 action of a serious and insulting nature (Grave slander)
2 light insult or defamation not serious in nature (simple slander)
Factors that determine gravity of the offense:
a) expressions used

ELEMENTS:
1 That the offender is a reporter, editor or manager of a
newspaper, daily or magazine.
2 That he publishes facts connected with the private life of
another.
3 That such facts are offensive to the honor, virtue and
reputation of said person.
Note:
* Even though made in connection with or under the pretext that it is
necessary in the narration of any judicial or administrative proceedings
wherein such facts have been mentioned.
* With its provisions, Article 357 has come to be known as the Gag Law.
It prohibits reporters, editors or managers of newspapers from publishing
articles containing facts connected with the private life of an individual;
facts which are offensive to the honor, virtue and reputation of persons.
But these must refer to facts which are intimately related to the offended

b) personal relations of the accused and the offended party

c) circumstances surrounding the case
Notes:
* The gravity of oral defamation depends not only on the expressions but
also on the personal relation of the accused with the offended party. Other
circumstances like the presence of important people when the crime was
committed, the social standing and position of the offended party are
factors which may influence the gravity and defamatory imputation
(Victorio vs. Court of Appeals, 173 SCRA 645).
* Note that slander can be committed even if the defamatory remark was
done in the absence of the offended party. (People vs. Clarin, C.A., 37
O.G. 1106)
* Words uttered in the heat of anger constitute light oral defamation (P v
Doronilla)

* If the utterances were made publicly and were heard by many people and
the accused at the same time levelled his finger at the complainant, oral
defamation is committed (P v Salleque)

> Accused held a mirror between the legs of complainant to reflect her
private parts. The crowd laughed. Guilty of slander by deed.
Distinctions:

* The word puta does not impute that the complainant is prostitute.
(People vs. Atienza, G.R. No. L-19857, Oct. 26, 1968 ) It is a common
expression of anger or displeasure. It is seldom taken in its literal sense by
the hearer. It is viewed more as a threat on the part of the accused to
manifest and emphasize a point. (Reyes vs. People, 27 SCRA 686)
Article 359
SLANDER BY DEED
ELEMENTS:
1 That the offender performs any act not included in any other
crime against honor.
2 That such act is performed in the presence of other person or
persons.
3 That such act casts dishonor, discredit or contempt upon the
offended party.

a. Unjust Vexation-irritation or annoyance/anything that annoys or

irritates without justification.
b. Slander by Deed-irritation or annoyance + attendant publicity and
dishonor or contempt.
c.

Acts of lasciviousness-irritation or annoyance + any of

circumstance provided in Art335 of RPC on rape
i. use of force or intimidation
ii. deprivation of reason or rendering the offended unconscious
iii. offended party under 12 yrs of age+lewd designs

Article 360
PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR LIBEL
Who are liable:
a. person who publishes, exhibits or causes the publication
or exhibition of any
defamation in writing or similar
means(par.1)

Notes:
Slander by deed is a defamation committed by the offender against the
complainant through the performance of any act which casts dishonor,
discredit or contempt upon another person.
* Slander by deed refers to performance of an act, not use of words.
Two kinds of slander by deed
1.

Simple slander by deed; and

2.

Grave slander by deed, that is, which is of a serious nature.

* Whether a certain slanderous act constitutes slander by deed of a serious

nature or not, depends on the social standing of the offended party, the
circumstances under which the act was committed, the occasion, etc.
* The acts of slapping and boxing the woman, a teacher, in the presence of
many people has put her to dishonor, contempt and ridicule. (P v Costa)
* If the acts committed against the offended party caused her physical
injury which did not require medical attendance, then the crime would be
maltreatment which is classified as slight physical injuries.
P v Motita

b.

author or editor of a book or pamphlet

c. editor or business manager of a daily newspaper magazine

or serial publication(par.2)
d. owner of the printing plant which publishes a libelous
article with his consent and all other persons who in any way
participate in or have connection with its publication (US v
Ortiz)
* A defamatory statement by itself is not a crime. It is the undue
publication of the defamatory imputation which makes it a crime. It is
therefore in this concept that proprietors and editors of periodicals are also
made responsible for the appearance of defamatory matters in any
newspaper under their management.
Venue of criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written
defamation:
a. where the libelous article is printed and 1st published OR
b. where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the
commission of the offense

* Libel cases are within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the
Regional Trial Courts. Inferior courts have no jurisdiction to try written
defamation. (People vs. Hechanova, 54 SCRA 101)

Admissible when:
a. the act or omission imputed constitutes a crime regardless of
whether the offended party is a private individual or a public officer

Where one of the offended parties is a public officer:

a. if his office is in the City of Manila
- RTC of Manila OR
- city/province where the article is printed and 1st published
b. Otherwise
- RTC of the city/province where he held office at the time of offense
OR
- where the article is 1st published
Where one of the offended parties is a private individual:
- RTC of province/city where he actually resides at the time of the
crime
- where article was printed or 1st published
* In order to prevent controversies as to the venue of criminal actions for
written defamation, the information or complaint must contain averments
as to whether the offended party is a private or public officer at the time of
the commission of the offense and whenever possible, the place where the
written defamation was printed and first published. (Agbayani, et al., vs.
Hon. Sayo, et al., L-47880, April 30, 1979)
Note: Offended party must file complaint for defamation imputing a crime
which cannot be prosecuted de oficio (e.g. adultery, concubinage, rape,
seduction, abduction, and acts of lasciviousness)
* Under the last paragraph of Article 360, only defamation consisting of the
imputation of private offenses such as adultery, concubinage, seduction,
abduction and acts of lasciviousness shall be prosecuted by the offended
party by filing a complaint. Outside of this enumeration by law, the crime is
considered a public crime which may be prosecuted de oficio.
Soriano v IAC
> The Philippines follows the multiple publication rule which means
that every time the same written matter is communicated, such
communication is considered a distinct and separate publication of libel.
* Where the publication is libelous per se, actual damages need not be
established. This is so because libel, by its very nature, causes dishonor,
disrepute and discredit and injury to the reputation of the offended party. It
is something inherent and natural in the crime of libel. (Lu Chu Sing vs.
Lu Tiong Gui, 76 Phil. 669)
Article 361
PROOF OF THE TRUTH

b. the offended party is a government employee, even if the act or

omission imputed does not constitute a crime provided it is related
to the discharge of his official duties
Requisites for Acquittal:
a. it appears that the matter charged as libelous is TRUE (for
situations 1 and 2 above)
b. it was published with good motives and for a justifiable end (for
situation 1 only)
Notes: The proof of the truth of the accusation cannot be made to rest
upon mere hearsay, rumors, or suspicion. It must rest upon positive direct
evidence, upon which a definite finding may be made by the court (US v
Sotto)
* Admission on the part of the accused that he committed a mistake will
not serve to free him from criminal liability. But it may serve to mitigate the
penalty imposed on him or lessen his civil liability. ( Phee vs. La
Vanguardia, 45 Phil 211 )
Article 362
LIBELOUS REMARKS
Libelous remarks or comments on privileged matters (under Art.
354) if made with malice in fact will not exempt the author and
editor.
* This article is a limitation to the defense of privileged communication.
* The main thrust of the law is to punish libelous remarks or comments on
matters which are privileged, if made with malice in fact. So, a newspaper
reporter who distorts facts connected with official proceedings or who adds
comments thereon as to cast aspersion on the character of the parties
involved, is guilty of libel even through the defamatory matter is published
in connection with a privileged communication. (Dorr vs. U. S., 11 Phil.
706)
INCRIMINATORY MACHINATIONS
Article363
INCRIMINATING INNOCENT PERSON
ELEMENTS:

1
2
3

That the offender performs an act.

That by such act he directly incriminates or imputes to an
innocent person the commission of a crime.
That such act does not constitute perjury.

Two Kinds:
a. making a statement which is
b i. defamatory or
ii. perjurious (if made under oath and is false)
b. planting evidence
Note: article is limited to planting evidence and the like
* This crime cannot be committed through verbal incriminatory
statements. It is defined as an act and, therefore, to commit this crime,
more than a mere utterance is required.

victim. Rather, he uses some ingenious, crafty and secret ploy which
produces the same effect.
* Intriguing against honor is referred to as gossiping. The offender,
without ascertaining the truth of a defamatory utterance, repeats the same
and pass it on to another, to the damage of the offended party. Who
started the defamatory news is unknown.
* Where the source of polluted information can be traced and pinpointed,
and the accused adopted as his own the information he obtained, and
passed it to another in order to cause dishonor to the complainants
reputation, the act is Slander and not Intriguing Against Honor. But where
the source or the author of the derogatory information can not be
determined and the accused borrows the same, and without subscribing to
the truth thereof, passes it to others, the act is one of Intriguing Against
Honor.
* Committed by saying to others an unattributable thing, if said to the
person himself it is slander.

* If the incriminating machination is made orally, the crime may be slander

or oral defamation.

Distinction between intriguing against honor and slander:

* If the incriminatory machination was made in writing and under oath, the
crime may be perjury if there is a willful falsity of the statements made.

When the source of the defamatory utterance is unknown and the offender
simply repeats or passes the same, the crime is intriguing against honor.

* If the statement in writing is not under oath, the crime may be

falsification if the crime is a material matter made in a written statement
which is required by law to have been rendered.

If the offender made the utterance, where the source of the defamatory
nature of the utterance is known, and offender makes a republication
thereof, even though he repeats the libelous statement as coming from
another, as long as the source is identified, the crime committed by that
offender is slander.

* As far as this crime is concerned, this has been interpreted to be possible

only in the so-called planting of evidence.
* There is such a crime as incriminating an innocent person through
unlawful arrest. (People vs. Alagao, et al., G.R. No. L-20721, April
30, 1966)
Article 364
INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR

Distinction between intriguing against honor and incriminating an

innocent person:
In intriguing against honor, the offender resorts to an intrigue for the
purpose of blemishing the honor or reputation of another person.
In incriminating an innocent person, the offender performs an act by which
he directly incriminates or imputes to an innocent person the commission
of a crime.

How committed:
-by any person who shall make any intrigue which has for its
principal purpose to blemish the honor or reputation of another
person
Notes:
* The crime is committed by resorting to any form of scheme or plot
designed to blemish the reputation of a person. The offender does not
employ written or spoken words, pictures or caricatures to ridicule the

RA4200 The Anti - Wire Tapping Act

Acts punished:
1) any person, not authorized by all the parties to any private
communication or spoken word
a) taps any wire of cable OR

b) uses any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear,

intercept, or record such communication or spoken word by using
a device commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or walkie
talkie or tape recorder

other circumstances regarding persons, time and place.

ELEMENTS OF SIMPLE IMPRUDENCE:

1 That there is lack of precaution on the part of the offender.

2) any person, whether or not a participant in the above-mentioned acts:

2

That the damage impending to be caused in not immediate or

the danger is not clearly manifest.

a) knowingly possesses any tape record, wire record, disc record,

or any other such record or copies thereof of any communication
or spoken word

Quasi-offenses punished

b) replays the same for any other person

1.

Committing through reckless imprudence any act which, had it

been intentional, would constitute a grave or less grave felony or
light felony;

2.

Committing through simple imprudence or negligence an act which

would otherwise constitute a grave or a less serious felony;

3.

Causing damage to the property of another through reckless

imprudence or simple imprudence or negligence;

4.

Causing through simple imprudence or negligence some wrong

which, if done maliciously, would have constituted a light felony.

c)communicates the contents thereof, whether complete or partial,

to any other person
Notes:
* Peace officer is exempt if acts done under lawful order of the court. You
can only use the recording for the case for which it was validly requested.
* Information obtained in violation of the Act is inadmissible in evidence in
any hearing or investigation.

Distinction between reckless imprudence and negligence:

Gaanan v IAC
> An extension phone is not one of those prohibited under RA 4200. There
must be either a physical interruption through the wiretap or the deliberate
installation of a device or arrangement in order to overhear, intercept or
record the spoken words. The extension phone was not installed for such
purpose.

The two are distinguished only as to whether the danger that would be
impending is easily perceivable or not. If the danger that may result from
the criminal negligence is clearly perceivable, the imprudence is reckless.
If it could hardly be perceived, the criminal negligence would only be
simple.

CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE

* There is no more issue on whether culpa is a crime in itself or only a

mode of incurring criminal liability. It is practically settled that criminal
negligence is only a modality in incurring criminal liability. This is so
because under Article 3, a felony may result from dolo or culpa.

Article 365
ELEMENTS OF RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE:
1 That the offender does or fails to do an act.
2

That the doing of or the failure to do that act is voluntary.

That it be without malice.

That material damage results.

That there is inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the

offender, taking into consideration
a
b

his employment or occupation

degree of intelligence, physical condition, and

Notes:
Test for determining whether or not a person is negligent of doing
of an act which results in injury or damages to another person or
his property.
Would a prudent man in the position of the person to whom negligence is
attributed, foresee harm to the person injured? If so, the law imposes on
the doer, the duty to refrain from the course of action, or to take
precaution against such result. Failure to do so constitutes negligence.
Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by ignoring the admonition borne of
this provisions, is the constitutive fact of negligence. (Picart vs. Smith,
37 Phil. 809, 813)

Test of Negligence.
Did the defendant, in doing the alleged negligent act, use the reasonable
care and caution which an ordinary prudent person would have used in the
same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence.
The penalties under Article 365 has no application in the following
cases:
1. When the penalty provided for the offense ifs equal or lower than that
provided in pars.1 and 2 of Article 365. In this case, the penalty shall
be that which is next lower in degree than that which should be
imposed, in the period which the court may deem proper to apply.
2. When by imprudence or negligence and with violation of the Automobile
Law, the death of a person is caused, the penalty is prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
1) Art.64 on mitigating and aggravating circumstances not applicable.
2) Failure to lend on the spot assistance to victim of his negligence:
penalty next higher in degree.
3) Abandoning usually punishable under Art 275, if charged under Art
365 is only qualifying and if not alleged cannot even be an
aggravating circumstance.
4) Contributory negligencenot a defense, only mitigating
* The defense of contributory negligence does not apply in criminal cases
committed through reckless imprudence. It is against public policy to
invoke the negligence of another to escape criminal liability. (People vs.
Quiones, C.A., 44 O.G. 1520)
* The above-mentioned doctrine should be reconciled with the doctrine of
concurrent proximate cause of two negligent drivers.
* In the case of People vs. Desalis, et al., C.A., 57 O.G. 8689, the two
accused were drivers of two speeding vehicles which overtook vehicles
ahead of them and even encroached on the others lane without taking due
precaution as required by the circumstances. The court found the
concurrent or successive negligent act or omission of the two drivers as
the direct and proximate cause of the injury caused to the offended party.
The court could not determine in what proportion each driver contributed
to the injury. Both were declared guilty for the injury suffered by the third
person.

* When negligence does not result in any injury to persons or damage to

property, then no crime is committed. Negligence becomes punishable
when it results in the commission of a crime. (Lantok, Jr. vs. Hon.
Gorgonio, L-37396, April 30, 1979, 75 O.G. 7763)
Last clear chance doctrine> The contributory negligence of the injured party will not defeat the
action if it be shown that the accused might, by the exercise of reasonable
care and prudence, have avoided the consequences of the negligence of
the injured party
Emergency rule> An automobile driver, who, by the negligence of another, is suddenly
placed in an emergency and compelled to act instantly to avoid a collision
or injury is not guilty of negligence if he makes a choice which a person of
ordinary prudence placed in such a position might make even though he
did not make the wisest choice.
Doctrine of Pre-emption
> It is a rule in collision cases which the driver of a motor vehicle to make
a full stop when crossing a thru-street. Any accident therefore which takes
place in said corner gives to rise to the presumption of negligence on the
part driver of the motor vehicle running thru-street has already reached
the middle part of the intersection. In such a case, the other driver who has
the right of way has the duty to stop his motor vehicle in order to avoid a
collision. (People vs. Taradji, 3 C.A. Rep. [25] 460)
P v Cano
> Negligence is a quasi-offense. What is punished is not the effect of the
negligence but the recklessness of the accused.
P v Carillo
> 13 yr old girl dies 3 days after surgery due to an overdose of Nubain
which triggered a heart attack that caused brain damage. HELD: Guilty of
simple negligence resulting to homicide. Carillo was the anesthesiologist,
he and his co-accused failed to monitor and provide close patient care, to
inform the parents of the childs true condition, to prove that they
exercised necessary and appropriate degree of care and diligence to
prevent the condition.
Buearano v CA
> Conviction of the accused in the charge of slight and less serious
physical injuries through reckless imprudence constitutes double jeopardy
to the charge of the crime of damage to property through reckless
imprudence.
* Since this is the mode of incurring criminal liability, if there is only one
carelessness, even if there are several results, the accused may only be
prosecuted under one count for the criminal negligence. So there would
only be one information to be filed, even if the negligence may bring about
resulting injuries which are slight.

* Do not separate the accusation from the slight physical injuries from the
other material result of the negligence.
* If the criminal negligence resulted, for example, in homicide, serious
physical injuries and slight physical injuries, do not join only the homicide
and serious physical injuries in one information for the slight physical
injuries. You are not complexing slight when you join it in the same
information. It is just that you are not splitting the criminal negligence
because the real basis of the criminal liability is the negligence.
* If you split the criminal negligence, that is where double jeopardy would
arise.
* Accused is not criminally liable for the death or injuries caused by his
negligence to trespassers whose presence in the premises he was not
aware of. In the case of People vs. Cuadra, C.A., 53 O.G. 7265, accused
was a truck driver. Unknown to him, several persons boarded his truck and
while driving along a slippery road which has a declinations of 25 degrees,
the left front wheel of the truck fell into a ditch. In his effort to return the
truck to the center of the road, the truck turned turtle, throwing off two of
the passengers who boarded the truck without his knowledge. As a
consequence, one of them died. Cuadra was acquitted of the crime of
reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and physical injuries.
* Overtaking of another vehicle is a normal occurrence in driving. But when
the overtaking is done from right, it shows recklessness and disregard of
traffic laws and regulations. It is likewise so when the overtaking is done

while another vehicle is approaching from the opposite direction. This is a

violation of Section 59(b) of the Motor Vehicle Law (People vs. Songalla,
C.A., 67 O.G. 8330)
* Driving within the speed limit is not a guaranty of due care. Speed limits
impose the maximum speed which should not be exceeded. The degree of
care required of a motorist is not governed by speed limits but by the
circumstances and conditions obtaining in the place at the particular time.
So, if the maximum speed limit is 80 kilometers per hour and the vehicle
driven at 30 kilometers per hour, but because of the very slow pace of the
vehicle, an accident occurs, the observation of the speed limit will not be
acceptable evidence of due care. (people vs. Caluza, C.A., 58 O.G.
8060)
Force majeure in relation to negligence.
> Force majeure has reference to an event which cannot be foreseen or
which being foreseen, is inevitable. It implies an extraordinary
circumstance independent of the will of the actor or perpetrator. In
negligence, the immediate personal harm or damage to property is
perceivable and can be prevented by the exercise of reasonable care. As
the event is foreseeable, the failure of the actor to use reasonable care to
prevent harm or damage constitutes reckless imprudence or simple
negligence. (People vs. Eleazar )