Revised Penal Code Book 2 Transcript of Justice Peralta Lectures

REVISED PENAL CODE: BOOK TWO

Article 114 Treason

There are two ways of committing the crime of treason. But the first thing that we will have to remember
that treason can only be committed in times of war. It cannot be committed in times of peace. Treason
may be committed when our country is at war with a foreign country. There is an existing war between
our country and a foreign country. And, therefore, treason is committed when there is war. That means
that a person joins the war against our country. It may be committed by Filipino citizens or even alien
residents. So thats number one - levying war. Levying war is simply going at war against our country.
The other one is adhering to the enemy giving them aid or comfort.

So, that is now different because with the second form of committing the crime of treason, the offender
does not actually join the enemy in levying war against our country, he just adhered to the enemy. That
means that he supports the cause of the enemy by giving aid or comfort. Like giving comfort women.
Giving comfort women is not giving aid or comfort. Giving aid or comfort is something that will promote
the cause of the enemy. When you give aid or comfort, you probably give them places to hide or to tell
him the location of the Philippine Armed Forces and so on. That is giving aid or comfort - those that will
promote the cause of the enemy.

Now, in the crime of treason, because of the nature of the crime, there is a requirement that in order that
one may be convicted, at least two witnesses should testify to the same overt act. But that two-witness
rule is applicable only if the crime of treason falls under the second form that is adherence. If you want to
prove adherence to the enemy, then there should be two witnesses who should testify on the giving aid
or comfort. The two-witness rule does not apply to levying war because levying war, one witness will be
sufficient because they are actually joining the enemy. But when you prove adherence to the enemy
and, therefore, you want to prove giving aid or comfort, then the two-witness rule will be apply. Treason
may also be proved if the offender confesses to court, that is, when he pleads guilty or confesses to the
commission of the crime of treason.

Article 115 Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason; Penalty

Proposal and conspiracy to commit the crime of treason. When one proposes, there is already a crime,
even if it is not accepted. But when the proposal is accepted, as you learned in Article 8, then it is
becomes conspiracy. So, youre now liable.

Article 116 Misprision of treason

Misprision of treason is a very important crime because it is a crime of omission. You do nothing in order
to be liable. What is punished is that is the failure to inform the authorities of the existence of a crime of a
conspiracy to commit the crime of treason. It is not failure to inform the authorities of an
existing commission of treason. What is provided for is the existence of a conspiracy to commit the crime
of treason - that is the meaning of misprision. But if there is an ongoing treason, and you do not inform
the authorities, you are not liable. You are only liable for a crime of misprision of treason if you fail to
inform the Fiscal, the Mayor, and Governor of the existence of a conspiracy to commit the crime of
treason.

What is required to be reported to the authorities is a conspiracy to commit the crime of treason and an
actual crime of treason. Conspiracy to commit the crime of treason means before the commission of the
crime of treason. If you fail to report to the authorities as required under Article 116, then you are liable.

4D 2007 1
Articles 117 to 121

Espionage. Flight to an enemy country, violation of neutrality, correspondence with a foreign country
wherein we are at war, correspondence with a country wherein is at war with our country, violation of
neutrality, flight to an enemy country. Hindi na kailangan i-explain iyan. Yung espionage lang marahil
ang kailangang i-explain sa 117.

There are two acts that are punished in the crime of espionage. The gathering of data from those
mentioned by the law, military installation, location, vocation of the military, installation to the
Philippines or naval bases, and so on - that is espionage. The other one is because you are in
possession of data pertaining to military installations and so on, and then you pass it to an enemy of a
foreign country or representative of a foreign country, then that is the crime of espionage. The flight to
an enemy country, correspondence, violation of neutrality, no need to explain.

Article 122 Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas

The crime of piracy and qualified piracy under Article 122. Now, piracy was amended you know, piracy
was amended by Republic Act 7659 sometime on December 31, 1993. Before the amendments, in
piracy under 122 and qualified piracy in 123, piracy was defined as a crime committed by person in
the high seas under other than the crew member in the high seas. That was the original crime of piracy.
And then because of the amendment in the Republic Act 7659, piracy is now defined and it now included
piracy within Philippine waters and, therefore, is now defined as a person or persons other than the crew
members or passengers - other than the crew member or passenger - in the high seas or
within Philippine waters by seizing the vessel or part of the vessel. In other words, the piracy now in 122
refers to the high seas and Philippine waters. Originally, it was only piracy in the high seas.

Piracy is actually robbery in the high seas. The meaning of piracy in the high seas or Philippine waters is
simply a crime of robbery, but the robbery is committed inside the vessel. And you commit the crime of
robbery by seizing the vessel. But you do not call it robbery in the high seas.

Now, there is also a law that provides for a crime piracy within Philippine waters, another law. This is
Presidential Decree 532. PD 532 provides that the crime of piracy within Philippine waters is
committed by any person by seizing the vessel or taking any part of the vessel or appurtenance thereto,
including cargoes of passengers or crew members.

Practically, they are the same. Piracy of Article 122 is practically the same as the piracy in 532 because
in
532, although it is limited only to piracy in the Philippine waters, there is also a crime of piracy in the
Philippine waters under Article 122. So the question is, is there is still a crime of piracy in the Philippine
waters under Presidential Decree 532? Or that piracy within Philippine waters in PD 532 is still good law
despite the amendment in Article in 122 where the Article 122 includes now piracy within Philippine
waters, di ba? So thats the question.

One of the cases decided by the Supreme Court in year 2001 (People v. Roger Tulin) that was
answered. The decision of the Supreme Court is that PD 532, piracy within Philippines is still good law.
The reason is that in a crime of piracy within Philippine waters and in the high seas under Article 122, the
crime can only be committed by outsiders because the law says persons other than the crew members
or passengers.

So if the passengers rob a co-passenger that cannot be piracy under 122 because piracy can only be
committed by outsiders because the law states persons other than the crew members or passengers.
So if a vessel, therefore, sailing within Philippine waters and then that vessel now is attacked by
outsiders, they get the cargoes and the baggage of the passengers are forcibly taken by those persons,
then the crime is piracy in Philippine waters under Article 122 because it is a crime committed by
persons other than the crew members or passengers.
But if supposing the vessel is sailing within Philippine waters and then one of the passengers poked
a gun at a co-passenger or poked a gun at the captain and then seized the vessel and then runs away
with the equipment of the vessel and the vessel is running or sailing within Philippine waters, committed
by a passenger, that cannot be anymore a crime of piracy under the Revised Penal Code under Article
122, because Article 122 can only be committed by persons other than crew members or passengers.

So, because the crime of piracy is committed by a passenger, then the law that is violated is PD 532
because in Presidential Decree 532, the one who can commit a crime of piracy within Philippine waters
is any person. It does not provide that it can only be committed by persons other than crew members or
passengers. So if it is sailing within Philippine waters, the offender is an outsider, then Article 122. If it is
committed by crew member or a passenger sailing in Philippine waters then Presidential Decree 532.

Article 123 Qualified piracy.

Now, if ever the crime of piracy is attended by any of those circumstances mentioned in Article 123. If it
is committed with the firing of a gun, if the crew members or passengers are abandoned without means
of saving themselves, or if the crime of murder, homicide, rape or physical injuries are committed, then
the crime is a crime of qualified piracy. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed.

That is now what we call an example of a special complex crime because the penalty of qualified piracy
is higher than the penalty of piracy because of the attendance of any of those circumstances mentioned
in Article 123. For example, if on occasion of piracy, the pirates fired a gun and then one of the
passengers was killed on the occasion of piracy, then there is a crime of killing or homicide. Now, if a
crime of homicide is committed on the occasion of piracy, then the crime becomes qualified piracy. The
principle that is applicable there is the principle of special complex crime.

What is special complex crime? Do you remember your Article 48, which is different from a special
complex crime? What you learned in Article 48 is different from the principle of a special complex crime.
So, Article 123 is an example of special complex crime. Why? The law recognizes the commission of
crimes other than the principal crime. When that happens, the crime is a special complex crime.

Now, if you look at the last circumstance in Article 123, where on the occasion of piracy,
murder, homicide, rape or physical injuries are committed, the crime becomes a qualified piracy. The law
recognizes the commission of those crimes on the occasion of piracy. Therefore, it becomes a crime of
qualified piracy. There is no such crime as piracy with homicide or piracy with rape.

Why is there is no crime of piracy with homicide or piracy with rape? This is because the law itself
already designates the crime that is supposed to be the proper designation or denomination of the crime.
Ginamit na yung qualified privacy eh. Pag ginamit mo na yung qualified before the crime, then that
means that all of those crimes committed on the occasion of piracy are already included in the term
qualified piracy. You do not denominate the crime as qualified privacy with homicide. Redundant yon.
Pag sinabi mong qualified piracy, all those crimes recognized by law to be committed on the occasion of
piracy are already included in the term qualified piracy.

Now, if 10 died on the occasion of piracy or even 10 are raped on the occasion of privacy, what is the
crime committed? It is still qualified piracy regardless of the number of killings. Now, there are number
of
15 who are raped, do not change the crime as qualified piracy because that is a special complex crime.
Regardless of the number of deaths, regardless of the number of persons injured, regardless of the
number of persons raped, they fall under a single indivisible crime of qualified privacy.

This is different from a complex crime in Article 48 where you can use the word multiple or double. Like
multiple murder, multiple homicide, double homicide, you can use that in Article 48 as a complex crime.
But if it is special complex crime, do not use double or multiple because the crimes of rape, homicide or
physical injuries are not treated as separate crimes. They are part and parcel of a single indivisible crime
of qualified piracy.
Article 124 Arbitrary detention

Dun sa arbitrary detention, we meant to relate these together with kidnapping and serious illegal
detention under Article 267 or even the crime of forcible abduction under Article 342. Under the Revised
Penal Code, there are many abductions that you will encounter. Actually, arbitrary detention is a crime
committed by public officers whose main duty is the maintenance of peace and order. Not all public
officers can be liable for the crime of arbitrary detention - only those public officers whose main duty is to
maintain the peace and order of the community. Who are these peace officers? They are the policemen,
NBI agents, and military men.

There are those that are public officials whose main duty is to maintain peace and order. Therefore, they
are, as a rule, public officers who are tasked by law to make arrests. Everybody can make an arrest. But
for purposes of arbitrary detention, these are the officers recognized by law as authorized because that
is their duty to make arrest. Now, if they are therefore the ones authorized to make arrest because that
is their duty, and the arrest is unlawful, meaning there is no valid ground, and the person arrested
without a warrant was subsequently detained, then the arresting officer may be liable for the crime of
arbitrary detention.

The crime of arbitrary detention can only be committed if the arrest is without any legal ground and
if there is a subsequent detention. If the arrest is done through a warrant of arrest, he cannot be liable for
arbitrary detention. If the arrest does not fall in any of those mentioned in Rule 113 Section 5,
Paragraphs A, B and C, then the arrest will be unlawful. If the arrest does not fall under the principle of
the flagrante delicto rule under Paragraph A of section 5 of Rule 113 or the hot pursuit rule under
Paragraph B of Section 5 Rule 113 or the fugitive rule under Paragraph C of Rule 113 Section 5, then
you can be sure the arrest is without legal ground.

Assuming that the arrest is lawful and the arresting officer cannot be liable for arbitrary detention, can he
still be liable for violation of a law? Can you still be held liable for a crime if the arrest is lawful? Yes. You
can still be liable for violation of Article 125 or Republic Act 7438. Have you heard about Republic
Act
7438? The law that penalizes police officers in failure to inform the person arrested without a warrant, his
right to remain silent, his right to an independent and competent counsel preferably of his own
choice, and so on. So, once he is arrested, even if the arrest is lawful, then he should inform the accused
his rights under Republic Act 7438. He is entitled to an independent and competent counsel. He has the
right to remain silent. He has the right to waive the appearance of a counsel, independent and competent
counsel in the presence of a counsel.

If they fail to inform the accused of those rights, they can still be liable for violation of Republic Act 7438.
The accused also has the right to communicate with the immediate members of his family or with his
lawyer or with his girlfriend or boyfriend. Kung yan ang hiniling eh, puwede. Sige sir because you have
informed me of my rights to communicate with my lawyer, with my relatives, nearest of kin, puwede
bang bigyan mo ako ng telepono para kausapin ko ang nanay ko? However, upon the request of the
accused, the policeman does not provide him with any means of communication, the policeman will still
be liable for violation of Republic Act 7438.

That is RA 7438. He must be informed of the rights of the accused arrested without a warrant, to a right
to an independent and competent counsel to assist him. He has the right to remain silent. He has the
right to waive the presence of an independent or competent counsel with the assistance of a counsel,
which should be in writing. He has also the right to communicate with his lawyer, nearest of kin. It will be
up to person arrested if he would like avail of these rights. If the policeman does not provide him with
any of those rights, then the policeman will likewise be liable for violation of Republic Act 7438.
Now, whats good with 7438 in relation to 124 and even 125 later on is that RA 7438 likewise applies to
invitations for questioning. Inarrest mo, ano, so arrested. So, in my presence, the person was committing
a crime. So, that is the rule of flagrante delicto. The same person was committing a crime in my
presence. I can place him under arrest. I will not be liable for arbitrary detention. So, that is an arrest
allowed under the flagrante delicto rule. Now, once he is arrested, then I will have to inform his rights
under Republic Act
7438. If I inform him, then I will not be liable for that first part of the offense. But, now supposing the
person arrested says, I want to communicate with my girlfriend or my boyfriend because they are the
nearest kin, theyre my nearest kin. But the policeman does not provide this or does not allow him to
communicate, then the policeman is still be liable for Republic Act 7438.

As stated earlier, the other important thing about 7438 is that it applies to invitations for questioning. For
example, the policeman did not see the accused commit the crime. But there were reports that he was
the one who committed the crime. Theres an investigation report, somebody said that this person
committed the crime. However, the police officer has no personal knowledge that the accused committed
the crime. So, the police officer will invite the suspect for questioning. Mr. Patajo, youre invited to
come to the office. Then once the accused is in the office, the policeman asks questions about the
accuseds participation in the crime. Ikaw, Mr. Patajo, ikaw ang pumatay kay ganito. Ikaw ang nag rape
kay ganito, lahat-lahat. Once theyve already asked those questions about the participation of a person
and then placed him on arrest at that very moment, Republic Act 7438 becomes applicable. In other
words, RA
7438 applies not only to those arrested in the presence of these officers, but also to those invited for
questioning concerning the commission of a crime. The moment the policeman asks questions
concerning the commission of a crime, the policeman should already inform the suspect of his rights.
That is the meaning of 7438.

Article 125 Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities

Now, assuming that the policeman is not liable for arbitrary detention and for violation of Republic
Act
7438 because the he was able to inform the accused of all his rights and to give them to him, what
should the policeman do so that he will not be liable for another crime? The policeman must deliver the
person arrested to the judicial authorities within the period provided for by Article 125 as amended by
Executive Order 272, the Administrative Code. What does the law provide? For crimes punishable by
afflictive or capital penalties (grave felonies), then the person arrested without a warrant should be
delivered to the judicial authorities within 36 hours, for crimes punishable by correctional penalties (less
grave felonies) then 18 hours, and for crimes punishable by light penalties (light felonies), 12 hours.
The policeman has to comply with the periods provided for by law. The person arrested, even if the
arrest was valid in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 Rule 113, he must deliver the persons
arrested to the judicial authorities.

What if they arrested a person in the act of committing a crime of robbery at 12 oclock midnight of
Friday and they cannot deliver the person within 36 hours as required by law because the next working
day is Monday, what defense can he put up?

Hmm, kalimutan na ninyo. Paragraph 7 of Article 12, ano yon? Failure to perform a duty required by law
due to lawful or insuperable cause. Insuperable cause yan, imposible. How can he deliver the person
arrested within 36 hours? Sabado walang opisina eh, Linggo walang opisina, hindi ba? He will
be exempted from the criminal liability. But what should he do? In one case, what the policeman did was
to look for the house of the judge. And then brought the person arrested to the judge. At that time, the
judge was sleeping with his wife. Kumatok. Your Honor, I arrested a person committing a crime of
robbery and I first delivered the person arrested to you because under Article 125, I have to deliver to the
proper judicial authorities. The policeman was cited for contempt of court for disturbing the judge. That is
an obstruction, sabi ng judge eh. Because when you go to 125 kasi, delivery kasi ang ginamit dyan eh.
The failure to deliver a person arrested in the periods provided for by law, deliver to the judical authorities.
Pag ininterpret mo yan, pag sinabi mong deliver, is to bring, di ba? It can be the overt act of bringing
somebody else eh. Yun kasi ang requirement.
The meaning of that delivery actually is more than physical delivery. The meaning of delivery is to
transfer jurisdiction. The meaning there is you transfer the jurisdiction of the person arrested to the
judicial authorities. That is the meaning. And how do you transfer the jurisdiction of the person arrested to
the judicial authorities? You have to file the necessary case within the periods of 36 hours, 18 hours, and
12 hours. If the is arrested without a warrant, then you have to bring the person arrested to the fiscal for
inquest. Do you know what is inquest in your criminal procedure? What happens in inquest is that
the
fiscal determines probable cause to immediately file the information without the required preliminary
investigation. What the policemen will do is to file the case within the period stipulated by law. You
have to file the case within 36 hours with the inquest fiscal.

Now, if the inquest fiscal found probable cause to file the information and the information went to court,
what will the court do? They will issue a warrant of arrest? They will not anymore. Why should he issue
a warrant of arrest, arestado na nga eh. What will the court do? Ano nakalimutan nyo. They will issue a
commitment order. May commitment order. A commitment order is one issued by the court ordering a
detention officer to undertake the detention of that prisoner. That is the meaning. So, commitment order,
you commit the person to be detained to a specific detention cell.

What is the reason why the arresting officer will not be liable for violation of 125 if case is already filed in
court and a commitment order was issued? The reason is that when the information was filed, jurisdiction
over the person of the accused was already transferred to the court. If the court orders to continue
detaining the prisoner, the policeman will no longer be liable for arbitrary detention because the reason
why the prisoner is being continuously detained is no longer by reason of his arrest, but rather by reason
of the issuance of the court of a commitment order. That is why delivery should be actually
transferring the jurisdiction of the person arrested.

If in case the accuse waives the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, then that waiver
should be in writing and with the assistance of the counsel. That is the provision under RA 7438. He
cannot waive the provisions of 125 by himself. Why? Why should he be assisted by a counsel and the
waiver should be in writing? You know the reason? Because even if the person arrested waives the
provision of 125, then he is actually telling the persons arresting him that he can continue detaining him.
In other words, if you waive the provisions of 125, then you can be detained beyond the periods provided
for by 125. Its like telling the policeman, Okay, I am waiving 125, therefore, you can continuously detain
me. Thats the meaning eh, di ba? Why does he have to waive 125? Because he might avail of his right
to what? Preliminary investigation.

What is the effect of waiving 125? The effect is that you are practically telling the fiscal not to file the
information yet because you want to respond to the complaint filed against you. You want to submit
countervailing evidence to rebut the evidence presented because you want to prove that there is no
probable cause to file the information. If he is a detention prisoner, by reason of his waiver of the
provisions of 125, he cannot yet go out of prison. He will have to be detained continuously until the
preliminary investigation is terminated.

The continued detention by that policeman already beyond the 36 hours will not cause the policeman to
be liable for 125 because it is the person arrested who waived the provisions of 125. The purpose of why
he is waiving is that he wants to present countervailing evidence. That is the meaning of 125.

Now, if later on the preliminary investigation is terminated and the fiscal finds probable cause to file the
information, the case will be filed in court. But if after preliminary investigation, the fiscal says that there
is no probable cause to file the information, the fiscal will cause the release of the person arrested and
dismiss the case.

Articles 126-127

Now, 126 and 127, you just read them. The more important provisions is 128 on violation of domicile.
Article 126 and 127, you just read them. Wala masyadong complications yan. 128,129 and 130 yan ang
medyo may complications yan. Because the crimes in 129 and 130 should be more related with the
provisions of Rule 126 in the Rules of Court up to the Rules of Criminal Procedure. It has something to
do with issuance of the warrant of arrest and the search warrant, malicious procurement of a search
warrant or search without witnesses under Article 130. So, we have to make reference with Rule126 of
the Rules of Criminal Procedure. But before going to that, we go first to violation of domicile.
Article 128 Violation of domicile

There are three ways of committing the crime of violation of domicile. The first thing that you will have to
know is that this crime is committed by public officers, like in the crime of arbitrary detention whose main
duty, likewise, is to maintain peace and order. The violation of domicile is done in the exercise of their
function of maintaining peace and order. There are those persons recognized by law who may enter the
premises of another to seize, arrest somebody, or seize or confiscate things inside their dwellings. There
are three ways of committing this crime.

Number 1: When, not being authorized by judicial order, you enter a dwelling without the consent of the
owner. In other words, when you enter the domicile without the consent of the owner.

Number 2: When there is no prohibition to enter, but once inside the domicile, you start searching items
inside the house.

Number 3: When you enter (surreptitiously) there may be no express prohibition, but once you are
inside the owner asked you to leave but you do not leave. Yun, violation of domicile yun.

Anyway, violation of domicile should be read together with Article 280 on trespass to dwelling. You also
have to refer to the aggravating circumstance of dwelling that you have learned under your Paragraph 3,
last part of Paragraph 3 of Article 14 because when the domicile is only is an aggravating circumstance,
then there is no crime of violation of domicile. If another crime is committed, but the entry is only a
means of committing the crime, then domicile becomes dwelling as an aggravating circumstance.

Anyway, so violation domicile, therefore, is committed by public officers whose main duty is the
maintenance of peace and order. If he is not a public official contemplated by Article 128, then the crime
will be trespass to dwelling or qualified trespass to dwelling under Article 280 of the Revised Penal Code.
So, thats the counterpart provision of the violation of domicile. But there will be some complications later
on when we take up robbery with force upon things. But the in the meantime, yun lang muna, para di
kayo ano, kasi mahirap ang Criminal Law maraming mga sister provisions, so later on na lang. Yun
muna ang isipin yung dalawa.

Articles 129-130

Then 129 and 130 pertain to 126, ano. The requirement of the issuance of a search warrant. Of course
you know when a search warrant is issued. The judge personally conducts the examination of the
complainant or his witnesses. The investigation is made by conducting searching questions, di ba
yun ang requirement. When somebody or a police officer applies for a search warrant, the basis usually
of the issuance of a search warrant would be the depositions or testimony of the complainant or his
witnesses. Depositions are sometimes called testimony of the applicants or the witnesses in a search
warrant. Because you have to convince the court that there is a probable cause to issue a search a
warrant. The probable cause can only be arrived at after a hearing conducted by the judge based on
searching questions, no. Kaya ang judge niyan,di pwedeng magtanong. O, ikaw ba ito? Opo. Ikaw
ba yung applicant? Opo. Di ba ikaw ay 24 years old?Opo. Hindi ban ikaw yung nag testify?
Opo. Di ba yung testimony mo positive? Opo. Hindi ganon ang searching question, panay leading
eh. Maraming judge ngayon na mga tamad eh. Ginagawa ganon. But actually searching questions,
even in your Rule
126, mahirap na trabaho yan, because it is the judge who is only asking the questions, walang adverse
counsel lang eh, ikaw lang mismo ang magtatanong eh. What is your name? O ilan taon ka na?
Pwede ka lang dito para mag-apply ng search warrant. Bakit ka nagaaply ng search warrant? Drug test
ba ito? O shabu? Ano hitsura ng shabu? O asan ang test file? O, i-sketch mo nga? Saan ka
nakapwesto? San dito? Yung bahay, anong hitsura ng taong yan, panget ba o guwapo yan? Ganun ang
searching questions. You have to establish really that there is a probable cause in the issuance of a
search warrant.

Now, if the applicant later on, misrepresented themselves. In other words, there are expert
witnesses,
yung mga usual paid witnesses. And then later, if the court only discovered later that they were
not
actually witnesses in the storage of illegal items in a particular house, but a search warrant was already
issued, then those responsible for the application of the search warrant will all be liable for violation of
Article 129, malicious procurement of any search warrant.

Article 130 Searching domicile without witnesses

The Article 130 provides there are must be witnesses. Now, you know, when a search warrant is served
under Rule 126, the law requires two witnesses, eh. The two should witness with the service of
the search warrant. Two should witness. There is a sequence in the order of those who should witness.

Ang una, it should be in the presence of the respondents. In the absence of the respondents, those who
maybe living in the house. In the absence of any person living in the house and the absence of the
respondent, then that is the time that the search warrant shall be observed or witnessed by two
disinterested persons from the community. So, ginalaw ng mga pulis kahit na nadun ang respondent,
nandun yun inhabitants of the house. Pinapatabi nila tapos kukuha ng barangay captain, mali yon. The
witnesses from outside will only come in with when there are no inhabitants, there are no respondents.
Now, if there are no respondents, there are no inhabitants, and there are no witnesses from the
community, but the policemen still persist in searching the house without any witnesses, then they will be
liable for violation of Article 130. Do you follow?

Lets go to 131, 132, to 133. Mabilis tayo kailangan tayong mag habol eh. Walang recitation, kung may
recitation mauubos ang oras natin niyan eh. Wag na lang tayong mag break and after 133 then I can
already send you home. Ay may klase pa kayo no? Tatalong buwan na akong nag lelecture. Up to
September. So, lets go to 131.

Articles 131,132, and 133 these are crimes involving disturbance of peaceful meetings, ceremonies in a
religious place or religious worship and then offensive to the feelings, religious feelings, under Article 132
and 133.

Article 131 Prohibition, interruption and dissolution of peaceful meetings

Lets go 131. Articles 131 and 132 can only be committed by public officials. It cannot be committed by
private individuals. Under 131, it covers preventing the holding of a peaceful meeting. This is usually
committed by those who are required under the law to issue permits to hold meetings in a public place,
so a public officer preventing the holding of a peaceful meeting. Now if the meeting is held in the private
property, there is no need to get a permit. But when a meeting is held in a public place, then you have to
secure a permit.

Now, the mayor or his assistant or the person designated to issue a permit does not like to issue a permit
without any justifiable reason, then the public officer maybe liable under 131 for preventing the holding of
a peaceful meeting. Now, if a meeting is held already and because there is permit, then the crime
can also be committed by public officers who prevent persons from attending a peaceful meeting or who
disturb an ongoing peaceful meeting, or he stops an ongoing peaceful meeting.

In other words if the permit is for 10 hours, then on the 6th hour dinisperse mo na, liable ka na dyan. Or
there is a peaceful meeting already granted then you prevent others from attending the peaceful
meeting. That is also punishable under 131. Or you disturb an ongoing, you created noise, and disturbed
an ongoing peaceful meeting. Then you are likewise liable under 131. So thats the crime in 131.
Preventing the holding of a peaceful meeting, prevent other persons from attending a peaceful meeting,
disturb an ongoing peaceful meeting, and disperse the peaceful meeting before the period granted.
Article 132 Interruption of religious worship

The 132 is a crime that can also be committed only by public officers. It is the disturbance of an ongoing
religious ceremony in the place of religious worship.

The problem is that some religious ceremonies are already held outside of places of religious worship.
Ang situation ng 132 is that you go to church and then you are a public officer, you disturb ongoing
religious ceremony, probably misa, yon 132 ka. You will fall under 132 because you are disturbing a
religious ceremony in the place of a religious worship.

But supposing the mass is being celebrated outside of the church. Now at the time that this law is
adapted, wala pa kasing El Shaddai nun eh. Wala pa. Ang meetings noon ay Diyos ko day, yon noon.
Wala pang El Shaddai nun. Yung mga religious sects ngayon, yung Jesus is Lord Nivenebt wala pa yon,
eh. di ba?

So the question is supposing it is a religious ceremony conducted outside the place of religious worship
and, therefore, somebody is disturbed. There is an old case involving the Iglesia ni Cristo. Sabi ng
Supreme Court, the law does not apply because religious worship, you know, those will include churches
where usually the members of the sect pray. Kasi ang ginawa ng Iglesia ni Cristo, they invited people to
attend a meeting, some sort of prayer meeting among the Iglesia ni Cristo. Then a public officer
belonging to another religion disturbed the ongoing ceremony. Sabi ng Supreme Court, ano e hindi
yan pwede under 132 because it took place outside, but they could be liable for another crime, that
would be crime of unjust vexation. If there is violence, then it would be grave coercion. If there is no
violence, then than is light coercion. So that decision has not yet been changed.

If you do something against the will, whether it is amounting to a crime or not with violence or
intimidation, you force somebody to do something against his will, with violence or intimidation, the crime
is grave coercion under Article 286. But if you do not employ violence or intimidation, but your act
merely annoys or vexes the senses of a person or a group of persons, the crime will only become
a crime of light coercion or what they call unjust vexation. Pangiinis.

Now, 131 and 132 can only be committed by public officers. But supposing it is committed by private
individuals. There was a time in our place, eh, sa loob ng simbahan, private individual, he shouted,
Sunog! Sunog! Sinabi niya sa loob ng simbahan. Galit sa pari because he was a die-hard Marcos. At
that time, alam mo naman sa Ilocos, Marcos, eh. Galit sa mga pari, mga taga doon. Nagmimisa
yung pari. He shouted, Wag kang maniwala sa pari. Sunog! Takbuhan yung mga tao.

What case are going to file against him? He is not a public officer. Then the law that is violated is 153
under the last sentence of Article 153. In 153, the law provides that if the acts or the offenses are not
punishable under 131 or 132, ten the law that is violated is Article 152. It is not because it is a private
individual, he can not be liable for violation 131 and 132 because only public officers are liable. The law
that is violated is Article 153 as long as there is tumults. Tumults, because the ones of the
requirements of 153. Tumultuous, eh. That means there must be a commotion. Tumultuous. At least four
persons are involved, di ba?

Article 133 Offending the religious feelings

Now, 133 is offensive to the religious feeling. It is basically committed by a private individual or a public
officer. Yung 133, any person yun eh. Any person committing the act offensive to the religious feeling.
What is offensive to the religious feeling? When we speak of offensive to the religious feeling, then the
act goes to the very belief. It is an act that goes against the very belief or the faith of those belonging to
that religion.

So, like Catholics, ano ba yung mga ano natin yung mga beliefs natin? Lets say mass is being
celebrated by a priest. Now, there is a chalice, merong dung ostiya, di ba? Pag binato mo yung
chalice,
but there is no disturbance, that is offensive to the religious belief because of your nagmimisa. Kung
nagmimisa siya, binato mo yung pari. That may be offensive to the religious feelings. Marami yun. Yung
mga Muslim. Di ba pag gumaganun sila? Di ba meron silang piece of cloth? Habang gumaganun sila
lagyan mo ng marumi. Naku, baka patayin ka ng Muslim niyan. They will not charge you for offensive
religious belief, but they may kill you. Yun ang offensive to religious feeling. But if you act, although
offensive to the members of the sect, may not be offensive to the religious feeling as a crime.

Like for example, procession. Pag may procession, may nagpatugtog ng malakas na radio habang may
procession. Ibang religion nun eh. Sa procession, naistorbo yung mga nasa procession. Is that offensive
to the religious beliefs when somebody is disturbing you like when there is a loud voice or sound or the
volume of the stereo is very high and, therefore, it is disturbing the procession? No, that is not offensive
to the religious feeling. That is only a crime of light coercion or what they call unjust vexation. Yung
unjust vexation kasi kung wala kang mahanap sa batas, as long as you are not injured, kasi ang unjust
vexation, you are not injured. Lahat ng pangiinis unjust vexation yan. You kiss a girl on the cheek and
the girl does not like it, as long as it is not with lewd design, unjust vexation yan, pangiinis. Or you view a
lady taking bath inside the tub. Sinisilip mo siya, unjust vexation din yun. Pangiinis yun. But if you kiss a
girl with gusto, not only on the cheek, on the lips, that is acts of lasciviousness. That is not anymore
unjust vexation. Ang unjust vexation not attended with any lewd design thats the meaning. Pangiinis
lang e.

But, if the act already is more than, pangiinis, and because attended with lewd design, it becomes acts of
lasciviousness. But, if the girl does not object to acts of lasciviousness, then the crime that is committed
is acts of deliciousness. So that is the meaning of offensive to religious feeling.

Next, meeting because we dont have classes on Monday, Ill give you a longer assignment. Article 134
to
Article 159, including 160. Naku ang haba!

What are the important provisions? You list them down the one with important provisions or the
important crimes, rebellion. You should know the essential elements of rebellion. Article 134 yan. 134-
A, the crime of coup de etat is a form of rebellion. You should know the essential elements.

Okay. You should know the distinction between rebellion under 134 and coup de etat as a form of
rebellion. We should know the crime of proposal and conspiracy to commit the crime of rebellion
and coup de etat as a form or rebellion. You should also know the crime of inciting to rebellion. Then
after that you go to Article 139, the crime of sedition, then conspiracy to committing crime of sedition, and
then the crime of inciting to sedition under Article 142.

Now, you should know the distinctions between rebellion and sedition, distinctions between proposal and
inciting. And then you should, likewise, know the distinction between inciting to sedition under Article
139, and grave threat under the first part of Article 148. Grave threat under the first part of Article 148
because there are grave threats, direct assault rather. Direct assault, grave threats, sa 252 na yun, ang
layo naman. That should be direct assault. The first form of direct assault in Article 148 and sedition in
Article
139, they have distinctions. And then 143, 144, and 145, they refer to the crimes of you should know all
those crimes. In 143, 144, 145, they refer to the crimes of failure to heed the summons of the Congress
or Senate, violation of parliamentary immunity and so on. And then 146 and 147, very important. Illegal
assembly, illegal association in 147. In 148, direct assault, very important. In 149 indirect
assault, likewise, very important.

Open disobedience under Article 150. Then you have the definition of persons in authority, agents of
persons in authority in Article 152, MEMORIZE. I-memorize nyo yan sa 152. Kinakailangan
imemorize nyo yan. Hindi niyo maiintindihan ang direct assault or indirect assault without memorizing
152. And 153, MEMORIZE. Aside from kaya lang yung other part of 153, wag na niyong basahin yon,
4D 2007 1
yung last paragraph of 153 that shall be a crime if you bury with pomp a person executed, a person
executed by reason of death penalty in accordance or contrary to the provisions of Article 85. Wala nay
un, wala ng death penalty.

4D 2007 2
And then 154, prohibited publications. In 155, alarm and scandal, MEMORIZE. You compare this with
the crime of illegal discharge of firearm. Article 155 should compared with illegal discharge of firearm
under a crime against persons, and likewise attempted felony from a crime of grave threat.

So, sa 155, you should know theres a crime of 155, alarm and scandal. When is it a crime of illegal
discharge of firearm, when is it a crime of grave threat, when is it a crime of attempted felony, when is it
a crime violation of Republic Act 8294. So you will read the Republic Act 8294. This has something to do
with the law on illegal possession of firearms and explosives. Dapat etong mahihirap ako naman
magdidiscuss nyan. Mahirap ako magdiscuss, pwede ako magtagalog sayo, or we give the evidence of
rebellion. Siyempre, alam nyo yon. But, the hardest the hard part of them, ako na magdidisscuss.
But, of course, I will ask you, Can you tell me what is the crime of illegal association? What is the effect
if it is not attended by armed men? If attended by armed men and not attended by armed men? O
anong crime, di ba? Ganon lang. How do you distinguish sedition from rebellion or inciting the inciting to
proposal? Ganon mga tatanungin ko sa inyo. Is there a crime of complex crime of rebellion complexed
with sedition? Mga ganon. Mahirap sagutin pero nasa libro yan eh. Because in the Bar Exam exam, tagal
naming dun sa committee namin eh. These questions should have not been asked.

Biro mo complex crime pero pag tanong, is there a complex crime of simple rebellion complex with coup
detat. Kung ano na lang ginagawang examiner, hindi naman pwede mangyari yon eh. Yung magtanong
tayo, yung talaga mangyayari because pwede may crime, but it may not happened. You know what is
the meaning of rebellion complex with coup detat? Kasi coup detat initiated by men in uniform
with or without the aid of civilians, kasi for the record of 134 always committed by civilians initiated by
civilians. So pwede mag complex crime. If coup detat is committed by men in uniform, simple rebellion
can be committed by civilian. Kung nag joined forces sila, complex yun. Eh pano pag yung isa
leftist. Yung simple rebellion actually, leftist yan eh. Yung coup detat as a form of rebellion, rightist
yan eh Mga military rin yan eh. Mag join silang dalawa, impossible yun. Baka mag patayan pa sila
dalawa. Yung mga ganun bang tanong sa Bar. Pewede mangyari. There is crime, but will it happen?
Impossible. Rightst atsaka leftist? Unless, of course, (unang mabas)a ang Pilipinas. Yun pa.

Revised Penal Code: Book Two Articles 134-152

P = Professor
S = Student

P: what is simple rebellion?

S: Sir, simple rebellion is when a multitude of people go against the government with uhm

P: What was the purpose of the persons under Article 134 in simple rebellion. What is their

purpose? S: Sir, their purpose is to take over the government to take over the Government.

P: Only?

S: Government and

P: In whole or in part. The government in whole or in part.

P: Yes, in whole or in part, including the Legislative or the

Executive. P: But what do they do with the Legislative or Executive?

S: Sir, they hinder them from doing their

acts. P: Preventing the whatthe act?

S: Sir, uhm, criminal

P: In the exercise of their prerogative probablysasagutin ko yan. Its my wife. Whats the
purpose?

S: Sir, their intent is to take over the government and to build their own one. Then, second, to limit
the powers of the Chief Executive or the Legislative Department in the exercise of their prerogatives.

P: In the exercise of their prerogatives. So, it is not actually taking over, it is not merely taking over the
government, whether in whole or in part. What do you mean by in whole or in part? The law says in
whole or in part. What does that mean?

S: Sir, they take over whether the whole of a facility or just a part of the Executive
organization.

P: Or even a municipality or a province. If take over refers only to a province or a city, that is also
rebellion because in whole or in part. And then the law says prevent the exercise of the powers of
Congress or the Chief Executive or in the exercise of their prerogative. What does that mean? What do
they do actually?

S: Sir, exercise of their power.

P: What do they do?

S: Sir, they dont Sir, the Legislative enacts the law and the Executive implements the

law. P: So?

S: Sir, if you rebel against the government, you prevent them from enacting a law or prevent them

from P: What do they do? What do the rebels do?

S: Sir, they try to take over the Government or they try to limit the powers of the
government.

P: Or they prevent Congress from enacting laws. Or they prevent the Chief Executive from
performing her duties as President.

P: What are the two essential elements of simple

rebellion?

S: Sir, there is public uprising and taking up of arms against the

government. P: Of course taking up arms against the government. What

kind of arms?

S: Sir, weapons.

P: Weapons? Slingshots? What about the slingshots, bolos, knives?

S: Sir, I think especially in the act of to overthrow the

government P: What is public uprising?

S: Sir, it involves multitudes of people going against the
government.

P: It involves multitudes of people. They should know their purpose or purposes openly. Four
people involved in rebellion would that be public uprising? If there are four people or four persons?

S: Sir, no.
P: No, that is not public uprising?

S: Sir, you could call the people to

P: But not public uprising? But I thought you said only two of them. Is that the people? Okay, so taking
up arms against the government in public uprising, the purpose is always to do that. That means to take
over the government in whole or part or prevent the Executive or the Legislative from exercising their
prerogatives. What about coup detat? What is coup detat as a form of rebellion under Article 134-A?

S: Sir, first, it is swift attack against the government in its totality or the community. It involves the
members of AFP, PNP or other public officers with or without the help of civilians. Then

P: Teka, teka muna, teka muna. Slowly ha. Coup detat is committed
by?

S: Sir, by members of the AFP or PNP or public officers with or without the aid of
civilians.

P: How many of them? How many of them commit the crime of coup detat? In the crime of rebellion,
its public uprising, so it involves a multitude of men. So, there are many. But in a coup detat, it can be
committed by a person or persons. What does the law provide? It is committed byWhat does the law
say?

S: Sir, the crime of coup detat is a swift attack accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy,
stealth, directed against duly constituted authorities of the Republic of the Philippines or any military
camp or installation, communication networks, public utilities or other facilities needed for the exercise
and continued possession of power, singly or simultaneously carried out anywhere

P: The law does not saythere is no public uprising. So, it can be committed

by S: By any person or persons belonging to

P: So, person or persons. It can be committed by one person, unlike in a simple rebellion because there
is public uprising so it involves a multitude of men. And how is it committed, coup detat?

S: Sir, not only by force or by violence but also by stealth, strategy

and P: And there is no need of taking up arms against the

Government?

S: Sir, uhm

P: Yes, it may be committed even if no arms are taken against the Government it can be committed
surreptitiously. Surreptitiously. There is no need of any firearms as long as there is a swift attack on

S: Sir, swift attack on any of the constituted authorities of the government or public utilities or facilities
which are needed in the exercise of the government power.

P: Ano? In the exercise? What is the purpose?

S: Sir, to curtail the powers of the government.

S: To diminish the power

P: Of the Government. Of the State, to diminish. So, it is not actually taking over, unlike in the crime of
simple rebellion, which may involve the taking over in whole or in part of the government. This one is to
diminish the power of the State. But the law enumerates what could be the facilities that should be the
subject matter of the swift attack. Military installations, camps, police station, all of these installations
including public utilities. What about in the Oakwood? The subject matter is a hotel. The soldiers
were
inside the hotel. It is not a military instillation. It is not a military facility. It is not a public utility. It is
more
ano

S: Justice, in that case, we have to look at the motive of the soldiers. If it is a political motive, then we
could say that it is a coup detat. But if there is no political motive in the first place, then we could say
that it is just a crime of

P: But the law enumerates the facilities that should be the subject matter of coup detat. So, it is
no longer important? Because the subject matter of the coup detat is a hotel?

S: But we really have to look at the motive of the

soldiers P: It is more on the purpose rather the one that

is attacked. S: Yes, sir.

P: Okay. Could it be committed by civilians?

S: Sir, no, with or without the aid of civilians.

P: It is initiated by men in uniform, but the law only requires that it should be initiated by men in uniform
with or without the aid of civilians. Civilians can also commit, but it should be with the

S: Initiation of the men in uniform

P: initiated by men in uniform. Otherwise, if it is initiated by civilians then that will become a crime of
simple rebellion. But the requisites or the elements will be different. Okay.

P: Camara, Mark? What do you understand by No, I did not ask you to study that doctrine laid down
in Enrile versus Salazar or Hernandez, People versus Hernandez, People versus (Ivan). Probably all
those doctrines are already laid down and those cases are already in doubt. Do you remember the
doctrines where there is no such crime as rebellion complex with murder? There is no complex crime of
rebellion or complex with murder. Why?

S: Sir, under the doctrine, the act of murder or another homicide is considered as an element of the
rebellion, even if committed by the criminals, sir.

P: Element. You cannot commit the crime of rebellion without killing because one of the requirements of
rebellion is taking up arms. Killing is the necessary consequence of taking over the government. What
about now?

S: Sir, when the law was amended in 1990, the law removed the commission of other crimes in the
description of the crime of rebellion.

P: Magagaling kayo talaga.

S: There is a rebellion that took place with other crimes committed during
the

P: Kaya sabi ko magagaling kayo e. Youre all good. Because you know the answer. You know, that was
a very difficult question but you know the answer. Thats correct. Because under the old provisions in
Article 135, there used to be phrase there, under the old 135, you will find there the penalty of rebellion.
Nakalagay ang penalty. The penalty of rebellion in so far as the leaders are concerned, the penalty of
prision mayor including commission of serious violence and destruction of property. In other words, if you
are a leader and then you commit the crime of rebellion then you commit serious violence or damage to
property, whatever violence or damage to property committed, then the penalty is only one. And that is
prision mayor under the old law. So, that justifies the ruling that there is no such crime of
rebellion
complexed with murder because that provision allows the absorption of other crimes committed on the
occasion of rebellion. But that phrase is not anymore included there. That has been removed in
Article
135 when there was an amendment. So what is the effect of removing that phrase? There may now be
a crime of rebellion complexed with murder. Now, what do you understand by proposal and inciting?

S: Sir, proposal to commit rebellion,

sir?

P: And inciting to commit the crime of

rebellion.

S: The main difference is that in a proposal to commit rebellion, there is no public meeting and such
proposal is done in private as against in inciting to rebellion when the leader is inciting the members who
attended the meeting in a public place. And in a proposal to commit rebellion, the one who proposed has
decided to commit the crime and proposes its commission to other people, while in inciting to
rebellion, the leader speaking in the meeting merely incites the people who attended to rebel against the
government.

P: So, there is no distinction with the second one? It should have been showed. I do not see the
distinction. In the first one, that is correct. The proposal to commit rebellion is done confidentially. It is
between the proponent the person given the proposal the proposal stage. It is done confidentially. And
then inciting is done publicly because it may be done through speeches, writings or anything that will
disseminate information. Pwedeng writing, pwedeng plays, lahat yan pwede yan. As long as the purpose
is to incite the people to commit the crime of rebellion, so it is done publicly. What is the other distinction?

S: Sir, to be able to commit rebellion, that person who leads the rebellion, he then decides to commit the
crime. Unlike in inciting to rebellion, the

P: Already decided? Is he in actual commission of the crime of rebellion in

proposal? S: Sir, not yet, sir. The mere proposing

P: So, nobody is in the crime of rebellion. The one who is proposing merely asks somebody to join him,
but he is decided to commit the crime of rebellion later on. Thats the meaning of proposal. What about in
inciting to rebellion? Is it already in the actual commission of the crime of rebellion?

S: Sir, not yet. The Code says that without being part in the rebellion, the leader
who

P: He is not yet in the act of committing a crime of rebellion in inciting to rebellion. So, in other words, he
just merely delivered a speech, for example, inciting the people to commit the crime of rebellion. He is
not in the actual commission of the crime of rebellion. Why? The one proposing is not in the
actual commission of the crime of rebellion, but he is inciting people to commit the crime of rebellion.
Why? Because you will not anymore be liable for inciting to rebellion. You may become a principal to
inducement. If there is already an ongoing rebellion and then you incite people to commit the crime of
rebellion, you are already a principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion. You may be a
principal to inducement because rebellion is a continuing offense. So if you are not in the act of
committing a crime of rebellion and then youre inciting the people, then that inciting is already part of the
commission of the crime of rebellion. Unlike in the crime of proposal, yung proposal, you proposed and
then later on you decide. In inciting, you are not in the act of rebellion, but you are still telling people to
commit the crime of rebellion. There is no need of committing the crime of rebellion later on. What about
conspiracy?
S: The conspiracy only dependsSir, in that case, the act of conspiracy, when all the members actually
decide to commit the crime of rebellion, that already constitutes the crime if conspiracy to commit
rebellion, sir.

P: So, it is affected. Is there such a crime as proposal to commit the crime of coup detat? Or is
there such as a crime as inciting to commit the crime of coup detat as a form of rebellion?
P: Sir, if the coup detat was added to in 134-A and the specific

provision P: Inciting wala?

P: It does not include

P: Inciting to commit the crime of coup detat, theres no such crime. But proposal to commit the crime of
coup detat, meron yan. Proposal and conspiracy to commit the crime of coup detat and simple
rebellion, pwede yon, but not the inciting to commit a crime of coup detat. Bakit? Meron bang men in
uniform inviting everybody to commit the crime of coup detat? Its impossible. It is always done
surreptitiously. How do you distinguish coup detat from simple rebellion?

S: Sir, the essence of the crime of coup detat is a swift attack; rebellion is a public uprising and taking
up arms. Secondly, sir, the persons who commit the crime of coup detat must be initiated by military
men or public officers or persons in authority. Unlike in rebellion where there in no such particular
provision in any group of person who can commit a crime of rebellion. Next, sir, is that a rebellion must
be committed by a multitude of men, unlike in coup detat where an a single military officer or group of
military officers, with or without civilian authority, may commit the crime of coup detat and also.

P: And? And also?

S: Sir, the target in coup detat is against constituted authority or military installations or other
facilities. Unlike in rebellion where there is no such condition and

P: What about the purpose?

S: The purpose for rebellion is either to (1) deprive or prevent the exercise of the government of any of
its powers or prerogatives or take away any territory from the National Government. Unlike the

P: In whole or in part.

S: In whole or in part, sir. Unlike in coup detat where the purpose of committing is to diminish or seize
a power.

P: So, even if they do not seize power as long as they diminish, thats already crime of coup

detat. P: Labadan, Leah? Whats the crime of sedition?

S: The crime of sedition is committed by any person who rise publicly and tumultuously to attain by
force or intimidation or any other unlawful means for the purpose of preventing the promulgation and
execution of laws or the holding of an election. Second, by preventing the National Government, the
provincial or municipal government or any of its officers or employee in executing its functions or
functions of the office. Third, by attacking or inflicting acts of hatred to the public officers. Number four,
by attacking or prohibiting acts of hatred by reason of political or social end to persons. Number five,
despoil by reason of political or social end, of person or the municipal government, National Government
or any part thereof.

P: What about the private individuals?

S: Private individuals? Sir, the said persons.

P: Despoil, what do you understand by despoil?

S: Despoil, uhmtoruin
P: Destroy? Ruin? Now, the law enumerates five manners of committing the crime of sedition in
Article
139. There several instances where sedition maybe committed. Now, the purpose or purposes
maybe
political or social. Now if it is political, this is directed against those mentioned by law that you will
prevent the holding of the national election, or hinder public officials in performing their duties, di ba? You
despoil the government whether national or municipal. Then, what if the purpose is social?

S: Sir, if the purpose is social, it maybe directed against any person or a social

class. P: What do you do?

S: Committing acts of hatred.

P: But then, what do you actually do?

S: Social class.

P: Okay. So, let me see. Number one, what is the element of the sedition? What makes it a crime
of sedition under 139?

S: First, rising publicly or

tumultuously

P: So, what do you do when you rise publicly or

tumultuously? S: Sir, there must be at least a four people.

P: Now, what will they do in order to be tumultuous? Is there a public

uprising? S: Sir, there is an attack or an act open to the public.

P: An attack? An attack? Tumultuous or public uprising is not an

attack. S: Yes, sir. Mere uprising

P: It is more than an attack. So. what will they actually do in the crime of sedition in

139? S: Sir, there is a public disturbance.

P: Ha? There is a public disturbance. They create commotion. They create commotion in order to what?
In order to achieve the purposes, di ba? If they prevent the holding of an election, in order to become a
crime of sedition, what do they actually do to prevent the holding of a national or local election?
Now, what do they do in the crime of sedition, the offenders? Di ba they create commotions?

S: Yes, sir.

P: What do they do?

S: Sir, I will give an example.

P: Like what?

S: Sir, for example, showing a bomb.

P: Showing a bomb?

S: Yes, bomb in a

P: Baka pelikulang bomba yan. Anong klaseng bomba?

S: Actually

P: Actually, sedition is not only public uprising, its not only commotion, legal yan eh. Every citizen
has the right to ventilate his gripe against the government. That is your right. So, if you are not satisfied
with the Comelec, it is your right to ventilate your gripe against Comelec because they do not know how
to count votes. It is also your right to question the capability or the competence of the members of the
Comelec. Right ng citizen yan, eh. Now, if the government office is not performing well, then it is a right
to question the way it is being run. Right mo yan eh. But you went over your right. O, yun ang purpose
ng sedition. Because there is no taking up of arms against the government. If there is taking up arms
against the government, then it is not sedition. Actually, sedition is when you go beyond what is
required of you as a citizen to ventilate your grievances against the government.

S: Sir, for example the offender or the offenders are

P: Example, there is an increase of your tuition fee, di ba? Do you have the right to question the
increase of tuition fee? Yes. Supposing there are now groups of students in front of the Department of
Education, they burn tires. You form human barricades so that the officers will not be able to perform
their work as members of the Department of Education. That is a crime of sedition because your purpose
is to prevent the exercise of the primary duties of government agencies or government officials. But if it is
merely done by, you know, there is placard, we do not create any commotion, walang crime yan eh
because that is your right to protest, di ba? That is part of freedom of expression. What makes it a crime
is the manner of exercising that right. You create a disturbance, you create a commotion, you create a
public uprising in order to be heard. Yun ang tinatawag na sedition, di ba? So there is no taking of arms
against the government. It is merely public uprising, tumultuous. Is there a crime of proposal to commit a
crime of sedition?

S: Sir, no.

P: Why is there no crime?

S: Sir, the right to express the grievance against the government is their right and, therefore, the
proposal, that mere proposal, is not actually...

P: What is the harm? What is the harm that the government will receive by proposing to commit the
crime of sedition? Supposing you are a student, you do not like the Department of Education increasing
your tuition fee. They will say, Oh, we will not pay our tuition fee. We will not pay our taxes because the
Department of Education is not dong their work so that they dont have any salaries. And, therefore, join
me in going to the Department of Education and do this and you will do this. Is that an example? Is that
crime punishable?

S: Sir, if it is already it can be considered already as

inciting.

P: Hindi inciting yun, eh. Proposal yun, just the two of us. Im just proposing to you. We will not pay our
taxes, lahat lahat. Is there any harm to the government? None. Because that is freedom of speech. You
are protected because there is no valid crime against the government. So anything that will be done to
propose or to propose rather, its not a crime, because thats part of freedom of speech. That is your
right. But supposing the proposal is now accepted. Inaccept mo na ngayon. In the Department of
Education, we will create a commotion. We will create trouble was there. We will disturb them. We will
create public uprising. We will burn tires and create human barricades and so on.

S: Sir, there is already a conspiracy.

P: It will now become a conspiracy. Is that punishable, conspiracy to commit a crime of sedition? Is that
punishable? Is conspiracy to commit a crime of sedition punishable? Yes, it now becomes
punishable. But merely proposal, there is no crime. What about inciting to sedition?
S: Sir, inciting sedition, being part of the uprising - without taking part in public
uprising.

P: O parang rebellion din yan eh. And then, you incite others to sedition by means of speeches,
proclamations, writings, emblems, and banners or other materials. What do you do?

S: Sir, you incite others to commit

sedition.

P: You look at inciting to rebellion and inciting to sedition. Inciting to sedition is broader than the crime of
inciting to rebellion. Oo, broader ang inciting to sedition because inciting to sedition even includes
scurrilous libels committed against the government. In inciting to commit the crime of rebellion, what do
you do is that you shout to those who are listening, and then you tell them to commit a crime of rebellion
by telling them, we will over throw this government, we will arm ourselves. We will have a public
uprising. The government is not good in anything. Yun ang you mentioned the elements of the
rebellion. But in the crime of inciting to sedition, of course, that is also one way of committing a
crime of inciting to sedition. You announce publicly that youre inviting everybody to join in a crime of
sedition as long as the proponent or the one who is delivering this is not himself involved in the crime of
sedition. Thats a clear provision in 142. Okay. But the law says even the scurrilous libel is committed in
the crime of sedition. It is not merely telling the people to prevent a holding of a national election
or prevent the national government or all or its instrumentalities in their performing their duties by
creating public uprising or in a tumultuous way, di ba? What do you mean by a scurrilous libel?
Inciting to sedition to utterances, seditious words, and scurrilous libel?

S: Sir, we libel government officials.

P: Like what? The imputation of wrongdoings, ganun, committed by government officials is this
scurrilous libel, imputation of wrong doings? Hoy, masasamang mga taong ito, magnanakaw. Yung mga
nasa military, walang ginawa yun kundi magnakaw. Ganun ba un? Mga pulis, panay jueteng. Scurrilous
libel ba yun or that is part of freedom of speech? Hindi bale yung seditious words. Seditious words are
just a part. We will have public uprising, we will form barricades, we will burn tires in front of
Malacaang because the government is not is not doing its job. We are spending our money
uselessly. We will prevent the President from entering Malacaang, we will put up bonfires, and so on
and so on. Yun, yun ang seditious words because from the words alone, very clear the purpose, di ba?
From the purpose and from the speech, you can already deduce that the purpose of the speaker is to
incite, use or commit the crime of sedition. But scurrilous libel, paano yun? Di ba protected ka ng
freedom of speech? Kasi iba yung utterances of seditious words, iba naman scurrilous libel. What do
you actually do? Do you ano - parang ano yan, you made falsities in your pronouncements. Masamang
gobernador ito, i-nispend lahat para sa pambabae, mga ganito. Walang ginawa ang gobernador kundi
magnakaw, walang mabuting sinabi. All bad things are uttered. Yun ang scurrilous libel, Sumosobra ba.
But of course, it should be accompanied with seditious words not merely scurrilous libel because it is
merely saying that all the government is bad, wala yun. But if you say, Masama ang gobernador, palitan
natin ito, huwag natin pagtrabahuin dito, gago ito, pero hindi naman totoo, that is inciting to sedition.

You know, there is also a provision. I do not know if I gave you that assignment. In 153, Did I give
you
153? From inciting to sedition and inciting to rebellion. Did I tell you that? Article 153 of the Revised
Penal
Code. No? Anyway, you read inciting to rebellion and inciting to sedition together with Article 153. Kasi
dun sa second part ng 153, when there is a speech tending to create a public outcry. Public outcry
in
order to achieve the purposes of rebellion or sedition, then you know what is violated is Article
153.
Nakita mo ba yun sa 153?

Tatlo ang covered kasi ng 153. Yung, Acts that do not fall under 131 and 132, nakalagay sa 153, tapos
yung public outcry, tapos burying with pomp a person executed in violation of Article 85. Yan ang
covered ng 153. Ngayon, ano dyan a public outcry tending to achieve the purposes of rebellion or
sedition. D iba nakalagay yan? Nabasa naba ninyo? Hindi mo mahanap? Naku, hindi pa rin? Kung di
mahanap baka ako ang mali. Andyan ba yan?
Syempre nandyan. So, you look 153. You compare with inciting to sedition and inciting to
rebellion, parang magkaparehas. The only difference is that there is there are those words, public
outcry in order to achieve the purposes of rebellion or sedition.

What is the difference? Yung 153, 154 and 155, they those crimes belong to a different title. Ang title
nyan eh, crimes against public order. Yun ang title nyan 153, 154, 155, yan ang title dun. So, in other
words, what is punished in 153, 154, 155 is the public disturbance or public disorder sa 153, which is
separate from the crime of inciting to sedition or inciting to rebellion. Iba ang title niyan, inciting
to rebellion. What is punished in taking up arms against the government or public uprising or the creation
of commotion in order to achieve the purposes of inciting by sedition. So, iba ang purpose nun. Iba ang
title. Whats the difference? The same din eh. There is a public outcry, youre also delivering a speech.

In inciting to sedition or inciting to rebellion, there is no need of those who are listening to be actually
excited because what is punished in inciting to sedition and inciting to rebellion is the act of inciting the
listeners to the crime of rebellion or sedition. Dyan sa 153, 154, 155, what is punished is the public
disorder. So, if you incite the people to commit the crime of rebellion or sedition, and then the people are
actually excited, ngapalakpakan sila, nagsigawan lahat sila, lahat-lahat yan, 153 ang punishable. That
is
153 because there is a difference. The other difference is that, the crime of inciting to sedition and inciting
to rebellion, the purpose of the speaker is very clear from the very beginning. So, if you go there, you
are the audience, you want to listen, and you go there, you know already what to expect from the
speaker. Hindi ka naman magaattend dun kung hindi mo alam ang purpose eh, d iba? So, probably
everybody is invited in the meeting then we will listen to the speech of Joma Sison or sila Buscayno
and the others, you know, those NPA leaders. You expect what speech will delivered, di ba? Pag
nagsalita sila, - actually, theyre not involved in rebellion, they are not involved in sedition. The moment
that they incite people to commit the crime of rebellion or sedition even if the listeners do not create any
noise, inciting na yun.

Now, in a public outcry under 153, the audience, those who joined, listeners, they do not know. They are
going to listen from the speaker probably they will talk about love stories in a movie or bomba stars, so
madaming mga lalaki dun eh. Pag-uusapan pala eh, movies and then they deliver the speech, they start
the speech with movies and then later on iba na ang sinasabi. Lets overthrow of the Government. Lets
arm ourselves, di ba? And then, the listeners will now say Sige bomba! Sige tira! yun ang 153. What is
now punishable is, aside form the speech, the commotion because the requirement is tumultuous
or public disturbance. Yun ang 153 to differentiate it from inciting to sedition. Ganun ang diperensya
nun. But in inciting to sedition and inciting to rebellion, the people are not really excited. What is
punished is the act of inciting. The one who is committing the crime is the one who is delivering the
speech. Okay, lets take a break. Tatapusin natin up to 152.

Article 148 Direct assault, first part

For the public uprising, there is no taking up arms against the government. But supposing the purpose of
the offender is political or there is no public uprising, there is likewise no taking up arms against the
government. Therefore, it is not a crime of rebellion. It is not also a crime of coup detat because there is
no swift attack. It is not also a crime of sedition if there is no public uprising. Now, two persons prevented
members of the National Assembly in performing their work in Congress. So, therefore, there is no public
uprising because the offenders involve only two persons. There are only two offenders, but the purpose
is political. So, what is the crime committed?

The crime that is commitment is the first part of Article 148 that is a crime of direct assault. There are two
ways of committing the crime of direct assault. The first one is when the purpose is political in order to
achieve the purposes of rebellion or sedition. The other crime of direct assault is that when a person in
authority or any of the persons in authority is assaulted or attacked in the performance of their duties
or on the occasion on the performance of their duties, di ba? So, it will become direct assault under the
first part. So, if the purpose is political and, therefore, there is no public uprising, there is no taking up
arms against the Government and there is no swift attack, the crime committed is direct assault under
4D 2007 1
the first part of Article 148. Kaya apat ang dapat niyong pag aralan niyan, eh: Simple rebellion, coup
detat, 134,

4D 2007 2
134-A, 139 and then the first part of Article 148 on direct assault. Dapat alam ang distinctions nung apat
na iyan so that when you take the exams, alam nyo ang sagot.

Question: Would there be a complex crime of rebellion? Yun nga tinanong ko na sa inyo yun.
Complexed with coup detat? Puwede daw eh, but it may not happen. Theoretically? Yes. But it may not
happen. Andun yung leftist and rightist, imposible, magpapatayan sila.

Articles 143 to 144

And then 143, and 144, you read these two articles together with 131, 132, 153. Why? Because in
Article
131, the crime is committed by public officers if they prevent the holding of a peaceful meeting or when
they prevent a person from attending a peaceful meeting. In 132, it refers to acts of public officers in
preventing or disturbing a holy or religious ceremony in a place of religious worship. But if the offenders
are not public officers, then you know that 153 is the one violated, di ba? If the acts do not fall under 131
or 132, then is a law that is violated is 153.

You go now to 143 and 144. When you prevent the holding or prevent or disturb the ongoing
investigation or session of Congress or any Legislative body - that means provincial board or city or
municipal board, then the law that is violated is 143 and 144 of the Revised Penal Code. So, you disturb
an ongoing investigation or meeting or you prevented or you disturb If you prevent, 143. If you disturb,
144. Specifically applicable only to those that enact our laws, whether provincial board, municipal board,
city board or Congress or Senate.

Article 145 Violation of parliamentary

immunity

Now, 145 is violation of parliamentary immunity. You know, in your political law that a congressman or
senator cannot be arrested while congress is in session for crimes where the penalty does not exceed
what? Six years under the constitution, ha? But under 145, higher than prision mayor. So, that law has
already been amended. The parliamentary immunity in the constitution is not more than six years. If
the penalty is not more than six years, and Congress is in session, then they cannot be arrested
because that involves parliamentary immunity. Now, if the policeman insists on arresting that member of
the Senate, they will be liable for this particular crime under 145. I think you read a newspaper report
before. I think this year when there was a warrant of arrest for libel issued by an RTC Judge in Pasay for
the arrest of Jinggoy Estrada? You remember that? The policeman attempted to implement the warrant
of arrest, and he was charged with a crime of libel and the penalty is less than six years, diba? Had the
policeman insisted, Estrada could have filed a case against the policeman. The policeman could have
been liable for violation of Article 145 that this violation of parliamentary immunity. That is the
example. But only when it is Congress is in session, okay.

Article 146 Illegal assembly

Now 146, this one is very important in relation to other crimes later on. The 146 is illegal assembly. The
assembly of many is not actually punishable because we have our freedom under the constitution,
freedom to assemble. But what is punished in Article 146? Dalawang punished dun to make it
punishable. One, is the meeting of armed men because if it is a meeting of an unarmed men, walang
crime yun, kahit ano pagusapan nati, kahit na i-rape natin lahat ng mga babae sa mundo. Unarmed
naman e, walang crime yun. So, what makes it a crime of illegal assembly in 146, dalawang
requirements dun. One, a meeting of armed men and number two, for the purpose of committing an act
punishable under our laws. Iyon. Iyon ang purpose nun. But if it is a meeting merely of unarmed men
and they are trying to commit a crime of conspiracy, to commit a crime of robbery or conspiracy to
commit a crime of rape, walang crime yun because they are not armed. But if the purpose is to commit
a crime and they are armed then they will be liable. Those who attend the meeting who are not armed
will, likewise, be liable, but the penalty will be lesser. Yung armed at saka unarmed liable yun kaya
lang yung unarmed mas mababa ang penalty.
Now, you will read this with Article 306 of the Revised Penal Code. Baka hindi natin maabot yan, yung
brigandage or who are brigands under Article 306. Now, on that 306 of the Revised Penal Code
whether a friend, immediate members of a band - armed band. Because band is composed of at least
four armed men and the purpose of the meeting is to commit a crime of highway robbery or to extort or
demand ransom, ang crime dyan is 306, brigands yan. In other words, if the armed men are attending a
meeting for specific purpose or purposes of either robbery, to extort money or ransom, hindi 146 ang
punishable dun. What is punishable is Article 306 because it is specified in the purpose of the meeting.
But if the meeting, the purpose is not specified, therefore, if it is a meeting of armed men it is specified,
but it does not involve highway robbery, ransom or extort money then the crime that is committed is 146.

Now, if however, there are only three armed men three armed men for the purpose of committing the
crime of kidnapping for ransom or highway robbery or extort money, then that is also a crime of
146, illegal assembly. Why? That cannot be a crime of brigandage because there must be at least four
armed men. Tinanong sa bar yan, eh. Namilipit yung mga estudyante ung question na yan, eh.
Dalawang questions, so three armed men for the purpose of committing a crime of kidnapping for
ransom. The way it was phrased, it was a crime of conspiracy of committing the crimes. Pero ang sabi
nila there is no crime because conspiracy to commit the crime of kidnapping for ransom is not a crime.
Yan ang sagot, eh. But there are specific crimes under the law. What is punished is not the conspiracy,
but the meeting of armed men for the purpose of committing a violation of the law, di ba? Don sa
brigandage naman, committed by a band, therefore, four armed men for the purpose of kidnapping for
ransom, to extort money. Hindi yung conspiracy ang punishable dun, because there is also such a crime
as conspiracy to commit the crime of highway robbery. What is punishable is the meeting of armed men
and for that purpose.

Article 147 Illegal associations

The 147 is legal associations. What is punished is the purpose. You form an association for the
purpose of prostitution, naku! Or you form an association for the purpose of child abuse. What is
punished there is the purpose. So, only the organizers and those who form an association are liable. Yun
ang purpose dun. So, lets go 148 to152.

Article 152 Persons in authority and agents of persons in authority; Who shall be deemed as
such

In 152, you first read 152 before we go to arbitrary detention I mean direct assault or indirect assault,
ano? Im reminded of arbitrary detention because of the definitions in 152. Now, 152 maybe the victims
of direct assault or indirect assault. There are two groups of persons or public officers or persons who
may be liable for the crimes of direct assault or indirect assault, and you have the persons in
authority or agents of persons in authority.

Now, the definition of agents or persons in authority, the definitions are found in Article 152. Nakalagay
dyan sa persons in authority are those vested with jurisdiction and then those persons in authority are
those public officials vested with jurisdiction. Yung agents of person in authority are, likewise, public
officers who are mainly tasked to maintain peace and order in the community. In other words, they are
those who implement or execute the orders of persons in authority. An example of agents of persons in
authority are the policemen. Yon ang agents of persons in authority.

Now, persons in authority, pag sinabi mong vested with jurisdiction, their acts can be implemented or
enforced within their area of jurisdiction like mayors. They are persons in authority because they
exercise powers that can be enforced within their jurisdiction. Judges, justices, even baranggay
captains or members of the legislative bodies are also persons in authority because they can
implement, they can pass a bill that becomes a law, therefore, their actions or their duties can become
law, which can be enforced later on and obeyed by others. So, they are vested with jurisdiction. Yung
agents of persons in authority, yung mga police, agents, military, military men, and all those that
implement or those who execute the orders of persons in authority are agents of persons in authority.

Walang problem yan kahit mga baranggay ano, mga baranggay policemen yan. But baranggay captain
is a person in authority because he exercises powers that can be enforced within his area of jurisdiction.
So,
he is also vested with jurisdiction. Walang problema dun sa persons in authority or agents of persons in
authority because as I said, theyre public officers. But the problem is that a private individual
may become an agent of person in authority. A private individual who comes to the aid of the person in
authority becomes an agent of a person in authority. So, the private individual who comes to the aid of a
person in authority becomes, likewise, an agent of a person in authority.

And then in the last part of the definition in 152 include teachers, administrators or those who are
involved in education, di ba? Although they come from private institutions for acts committed against
them by reason of their being such, then they are likewise the persons in authority. Lawyers in the
exercise of his profession are likewise persons in authority, although they are private individuals in so far
as they are assaulted by reason of their being a lawyer.

So, example: Ateneo is a private institution. If a teacher is assaulted by a student because he got
a failing grade, the crime committed by that student is direct assault. Why? Because a teacher in a
private institution becomes a person in authority if he is assaulted by reason of his being a teacher or a
lawyer. Sinabihan ka nya, bayaran mo ako. Sabi ng cliyente, Masyado namang mataas attorney. Ito
ang kailangan mo. *Pak*. Sinuntok nya ang abogado, direct assault yun. Because a lawyer, for
purposes of his being a lawyer, and the exercise of his being a lawyer is assaulted or attacked, he is
likewise a person in authority.

So, there are, therefore, several persons in

authority:
1) Public officials.
2) Yung mga baranggay chairman included yan by specific provision in
152.
3) Teachers in private institutions and lawyers in so far as if theyre assaulted by the reason of their
being a lawyer. Persons in authority yun.
4) Then the other group of authorities will be agents of persons in authority divided lang into two
groups.
Yung public officers tasked to maintain peace and order, and the other agents of persons in authority
are
private individuals who come to the aid of persons in authority. Do you
follow?

Article 148 Direct assaults, second part

We will now go back to 148. Now, the first part of the direct assault in 148 is the one that I told you
a while ago. When the purpose is political in order to achieve the purposes of rebellion or sedition
without any uprising public uprising no taking up against the government, no swift attack, then the
crime is direct assault under first part. And then under the second part of 148, when a person in
authority or agents of persons in authority is attacked, then the crime is direct assault - by reason or on
the occasion of the performance of his duty or while in the performance of his duty. Yun ang ano yun
ang direct assault, the second form.

Article 149 Indirect assaults

Now notice the way it is worded, in 149, ang nakalagay sa 149 Would it be liable for indirect assault
under 149? Included din yung yung agents or those who come to the aid of persons in
authority included yun sa 149. What I mean is if you are given an illustration, its like this: Mr. A is a
judge. Judge si Mr. A. While he was in the performance of his duty, he was assaulted. Then a
private individual private individual comes to the aid of the judge, so both of them both of them were
assaulted. So Mr. A while a judge, while he is on the performance of his duties, nagbinigay ng order
binato. Nung binato yun judge na yon, babatuhin uli, mayrong private individual who prevented the
person who was throwing something at the judge. So, nung imbes na binato sa judge, pati ikaw
*pak* pinukpok sa ulo. Yung private individual who was going to the aid of the person in authority.
What crime was being committed or what are the crimes committed. Anong type of crimes committed?

If a person in authority is assaulted, a person or an agent of the person in authority is assaulted while on
the performance of their duties, the crime is qualified direct assault, qualified direct assault, because
theyre assaulted while in the performance of their duties. But if they are assaulted by the reason of the
performance of duty and then the crime becomes only direct assault. Like what? Or a judge in the
market,
he is buying food for the family. So, here comes a losing litigant, he saw the judge sabi, Ay ikaw
nagpatalo sa akin ha? Tapos sinampal nya, sinuntok nya ung judge. Anong crime yun? Is that a direct
assault? Yes. Because he is assaulted by reason of his being a judge. He was assaulted by a losing
litigant. Then, therefore, he assaulted him because he lost a case before the judge. That is still a crime of
direct assault because he was hit by reason of the performance of his work as a judge. But the
crime there is direct assault. Because he was not assaulted at the time of the performance of the duties
of being judge.

Supposing, in another example, A is a policeman. He was assaulted, then later on, B, a private individual,
came to the aid of Mr. A. Both of them were assaulted. Police ito, policeman. How would you differentiate
the two examples? This one is example A. This one is example B. Anong crimes yan? The
policeman was directing traffic. The bystander did not like the policeman. The A was directing traffic, so
he was assaulted. B, another bystander, came to the aid of this policeman. B was likewise assaulted.
Whats the crime committed in both cases?

In letter A, the crime committed against the judge is qualified direct assault because he was assaulted of
the crime of the performance of his duty. What about Mr. B? The crime likewise is direct assault. Why?
Because a private individual who comes to the aid of a person in authority becomes an agent of a
person in authority. He is an agent of person in authority If a private individual comes to the aid of a
person in authority.

So, in both cases, Article 148. Why? Because, under Article 148, the victims of direct assault include
persons in authority or agents of persons in authority. What about in the second example? Because the
policeman was assaulted while in the performance of his duties then the crime likewise is qualified direct
assault. Why? Because he is an agent of person in authority under 152.

What about the private individual who comes to the aid of a person in authority? Then the crime is
indirect assault. So, this one would be Article 149, this one is 148. Therefore, by reason of Article 152
Article
149 was amended by implication. So, therefore, in 149 the only victim now in 149 is a private individual
coming to the aid of agents of person in authority. The private individual coming to the aid of agent of
person in authority is a crime of indirect assault. But a private individual who comes to the aid of a
person in authority, because he becomes an agent of a person in authority, if he is likewise assaulted,
then liable for violation of Article 148.

Now, the difference, however, between direct assault of an agent of a person in authority. The policeman
and a judge, pag sinabi mong direct assault sa police, then the attack must be more serious than the
attack of a person in authority. Pag ang judge, sinampal mo yan, ginanun mo lang yung judge or kinabig
mo lang, eh medyo malakas eh hindi naman nasaktan ng todo. Ano yan, direct assault yan because
he is a person in authority.Kapag police yan, it should be more than that. Talagang physical attack ang
kailangan sa police because he is an agent of person in authority. Thats why under Article 150 or
151, the crime of disobedience disobedience or resistance that is a separate crime. Separate from the
crime of direct assault committed against agents of person in authority.

Lets say yung police, ano ha? Inisyuhan ka ng warrant of arrest. So, the judge orders a policeman to
serve a warrant of arrest. If the person arrested resists resisted without any physical attack, he
resisted. Ayaw ko. Pinu-push mo na ang pulis. Tinutulak nya ang pulis, that cannot become a direct
assault. Why? Because the attack is not yet too serious. He, the person being arrested or the person
who resisted, will be liable only for simple resistance or disobedience. But if the warrant is served and he
did not just push the police, sinuntok nya ang pulis na yun. Pinagsusuntok nya ang pulis, direct assault
na yun. Direct assault na yun. But kung ang judge yan sumita sayo, Hoy! Mali ang ginagawa mo sa
husgado. Yun tapos sinampal mo ang judge direct assault agad yun. Qualified direct assault? Why?
Because when it comes to a person in authority, the attack need not be serious unlike with a crime
committed against a policeman. Of course, natural eh pulis lang yan eh. Ako, justice tayo eh. Lagot ka, di
ba?

Now, the other thing that will help to remember is that yung teacher. Tinanong sa bar yan, eh. Tawa nga
ako ng tawa, eh . Pag dini-discuss ko sa mga listeners ko yan tawa sila ng tawa eh, kasi totoo pala
yun
minsan, ano? May teacher, sabi ko, nililigawan nung estudyante. Yung estudyante pala na nililigwan
nya, nililigwan din ng ibang estudyante. Mag karibal sila sa estudyante. Then everybody was laughing.
The professor was courting a lady student. That lady student was also being courted by another student.
So, after classes, si professor was assaulted by that student who was courting also that student. Ano
ang crime? May crime dun but it is not direct assault Why? Because even though he is a teacher the
purpose of the assault was not due to being a teacher. The assault must have something to do of his
being a teacher. Personal yun eh. But supposedly the teacher conducting was classes. The purpose of
the assault by the student is that he is courting the student because that means he is courting that
student and that student was also And then he threw a book that hit the face of the professor, and then
beat him. Anong crime yun?

Physical injuries?

Alam nyo yun, nung tinanong sa bar exams yan, we were divided. Dalawang answers ang prinopose
namin. Kasi, if the purpose is personal, then there is no need to apply Article 152 because a teacher in a
private institution, nakalagay dun, di ba? Sabi nila physical injuries. Yung isang group naman sabi direct
assault. Bakit direct assault? Because you apply the general principle, eh. When the person in
authority is being assaulted, dapat regardless of the purpose. Kasi kung, you know, in the crime of
qualified direct assault, if a judge is assaulted even if there is no purpose, as long as he is in the
performance of his duty, that makes it qualified direct assault because he is assaulted at the time of the
on the occasion of the performance of his duties. But if a person in authority is assaulted outside, then
they will now have to prove that the assault is by reason of the office.

Okay. So, therefore, by analogy, if a teacher in a private institution is teaching, and he is stoned or
assaulted by any of the students, that should be direct assault. Why? Because you do not need anymore
to determine what is the purpose, eh. Because under the law, direct assault is committed when
the person in authority or agents of person in authority is attacked or assaulted while in the
performance of his duties. Hindi sinasabi dun kung by reason of the office o hindi. So, therefore, if the
teacher is directly is conducting classes, whatever is the purpose of the one who is attacking him, if he is
attacked on the occasion of his performance, that is direct assault. Eh yun ang dapat mag-prepare ng
question and answer na direct assault. But theres no theres no case. So, sabi namin, sige,
consider na lang dalawang answer. Kung iyan ang tinuro mo dun sa kabilang school, yun. Sa kanila
naman ito tinuturo namin. Dalawa, correct, di ba? But it should be really direct assault because it
was done in the performance of his duties.

Okay. Now, the other one also is lawyer. Yung lawyer mo ayaw mo saktan. The law does not make a
distinction as to who is the assaulted lawyer. Its either the opposing party or your own client, basta may
reason. Pwede yun. Krinos-examine nila yung witness ng adverse party. Nagalit, nabastos. Pag labas
sa husgado, sinuntok niya yung lawyer. The one who is committing the crime is the opposite party.
Direct assault yun. But supposing it is his own client, masyadong mataas maningil ng kliyente. Sinuntok
ng kliyente. Direct assault pa rin because the law does not make a distinction as who should be
committing the crime as long as it is by reason of his being a lawyer.

Can it be complexed? Can direct assault be complexed with other crimes? Yes, under Article 48. If the
attack is already more than the required violence in the crime of direct assault and then there is
already an intent, not actually intent, but is already more than what is required of a crime of direct
assault, it may become direct assault with attempted or frustrated homicide or murder depending upon
the commission of the crime. Binaril mo yung judge while in the performance of his duties. If the judge
almost died, if the firing of the gun was attended by any, qualifying, aggravating circumstance and loss of
life, then you try to denominate the crime as qualified direct assault with frustrated or attempted murder
because the assault is already more than the required element of direct assault. The violence committed
against the person in authority is already more than what is required by the law.
Eh, yung police o kung di naman, namatay yung pulis o yung person in authority. Then, you can also
complex that crime under Article 48. It may be direct assault with murder or direct assault with
homicide or qualified direct assault with murder or qualified direct assault with homicide. It depends,
pag namatay
yan, sigurado ka Article 48 ang magaaply dyan and it will be complex. What I am saying is that if the
injury sustained already more than sufficient for the crime or required of the crime of direct assault, then
it will become attempted or frustrated as long as you can show that there is an intent to kill. Syempre
kung binaril mo, may intent to kill na yun.? Baka kung ano pa ang gawin.

Okay. So, your assignment is only up to Article 152, ano ha. Ill give you the following assignments for
next meeting. Habaan na natin para matapos tayo. Although 153, we have taken up 153. I always
discuss
153 with the other provisions. Tapos na yung 153. In fact, the last part of 153 is already a useless
provision.

The next paragraph C of 153. The burying with pomp of death convicts, in violation of Article 85 of the
Revised Penal Code. Bawal yan. Yung mga na-execute, inexecute sa Muntinlupa. Tapos ililibing mo,
may tugtog pang banda? Thats a crime under but thats already useless because wala ng death
penalty. So, 153 what I want to remind you that is a crime of public disorder. Articles 153, 154, 155, the
gravamen of the offense is the public disorder. Yun ang gravamen of the offense. Unlike in the crime of
inciting to sedition. The gravamen of the offense in inciting to sedition is either political or social in
purpose. Eh, magkaiba yung public outcry saka yung inciting.

Okay. Now, when you reach 154, illegal publication, for okay, or without authority or rumor mongering,
nakalagay dun. Lahat yan sa 154. You want to read this together with let me see, the 201, on
pornography, obscenity, 201. You read 154 together with Article 201 because 201 also refers to
publications or cinematographies or plays sa 201. And then, 155, alarm and scandal you compare this
with illegal discharge of firearm under the crime against persons. So, you look for illegal discharge of
firearm under the title Crimes Against Persons. I think that is found in 263, 264, 265, 266. Its under
there,
262, I think 264 ba yan?

Article 254

Article 254? Because 255 is infanticide. Tama 254. So, you compare alarm and scandal with Article 254
on illegal discharge of firearms. Then, likewise, you read Special Law Republic Act 8294 together
with
155, ha? You read the Republic Act 8294 amending the P.D. 1866. Otherwise known as The Law
on
Illegal Possession of Firearms because there is also a law there that is- what I am interested here is
that in 155, firing of a gun is alarm and scandal. So, I want you to know that not all firing of the gun is
alarm and scandal. It may become illegal discharge of firearm, it may become under grave threat, it may
become attempted felony, it may become attempted homicide, it may become attempted murder. It may
also be a special aggravating circumstance under Republic Act 8294. Thats why I want you to read
Republic Act 8294 on illegal possession of firearms or when a firearm is fired. Marami klaseng illegal
discharge. Ano ang illegal forcible entry? Sa rape, meron din illegal discharge. Why? Because it can be
committed by forcible entry, unlawful entry. Unlawful entry and opening is not intended for entry or exit,
coupled with illegal discharge.

Then in 156, 157, very important yan, 156, very important yan, 157, on evasion of service, 158,
likewise,
156, 157, and 158. You read these articles together with Articles 223 to 225 of the Revised Penal Code.
So, 156, 157, 158, you read these articles together with Articles 223, 224, and 225 of the Revised Penal
Code. Then when you reach 159, other forms of evasion of sentence, you just read 159 together with
conditional pardon, the conditional pardon under Article 92. Effects dun sa conditional pardon. And
then
160 quasi-recidivism. You go back to, although I discussed last time, you go back to habitual
delinquency under Article 62 Paragraph 5 and, likewise, recidivism and reiteracion under Paragraphs 9
and 10 of Article 14. Iko-correlate natin para maintindihan nyo maigi. Articles 156, 157, 158 should be
correlated with 223, 224, and 225. Then159 should be correlated with conditional pardon under your
Article 92 of the Revised Penal Code. Then 160 must be correlated with Article 62 Paragraph 5 of
habitual delinquency and recidivism under Paragraph 9 and reiteracion Paragraph 10, both from
Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code. Bahala na kayo. Basta pagkuha nyo ng bar exam sa
Criminal Law, pag meron mas mababa ng 90, magagalit ako, ha? Nandun na lahat, eh. Okay. And
then afterwards, you go to 161 to
184. I will tell you what are the important things that you will have to remember, ha? Yung ano,
yung
illegal or counterfeiting of coins. Counterfeiting of coins, counterfeiting of money, illegal tender,
payable to order or bearer. Basahin nyo yan.

And then, you go to forgery. What is the crime what is the definition of forgery under 169? Yung
counterfeiting coins nag-extract yan sa Article 163 up to 168. Paper money lahat yan. Paper money or
coins. Yung 169, thats not a crime. The law only defines what is forgery. And then, you go to a crime of
falsification, ha? Para madali sa inyo. Ano yung falsification? Depende kung ano subject matter. So,
you go to 170, falsification of legislative document. You go to 173, ha. I will jump muna on 173. That is
falsification of messages, telephone, telegraph or cablegram or wireless messages, 173. You go to 174,
falsification of medical certificates. Mga nagkakasakit na estudyante. Ano papalabasin? Palalabasin may
sore eyes. Yun pala wala. Naku, falsification yan under 174. Di pala sore eyes, cross-eyed. 174 yan,
falsification of medical certificate, merits or records. 174 yan. And then, you go back to 171, 172, more
important yan, 171 and 172. Memorize 171 if you can memorize. Walo yan and 172. Okay. Yung
subject matter ng 171 saka 172, yun ang naririnig nyong falsification. Falsification of official document,
public document, commercial document, and private document.

So, therefore, Articles 171, 172 refer to falsifications of official, public, commercial, and private
documents. Pwede kung legislative document, 170. Wireless telegram or cablegram, 173. Medical
records, medical certificates, 174. Pero, do not be confused. Kasi akala nyo kung falsification yan,
tatatlo lang yan, hindi, anim yan, eh.

And then if the subject matter is an affidavit or a statement under oath, then the crime that is committed
punta ka sa 183, the crime of perjury. Article 180 to 183, perjury. Document din yan. But the subject
matter is not a document. It is a document which is under oath. Statement of facts lang under oath, 183.

Now, ano pa ang dapat alam nyo dyan? Supposing testimony before a judicial body, we will go back
to
180, 181, 182. The crimes involving false testimony. The crimes involving false testimony, 180, 181, 182.
That will bring his own (unintelligible). Lahat ng pagsisinungaling nandyan na. Pagsisinungaling, pag-
iimitate, lahat na, katarantaduhan, lahat. Yung tungkol sa 167. Ano yun? Usurpation of functions,
using of an alias, and the other one is unauthorized use of insignia, I think, 176, 177. So that will finish
everything. Eh di tapos na tayo. Then, we will go to the crimes. So, that will be your assignment for next
week.

Revised Penal Code: Book Two: Articles 153-176

I told you that in the last part, 153, that is already a useless provision because there is no more the
penalty of death is no longer being imposed. Because under Article 85 of the Revised Penal Code, if you
bury with pomp somebody who was executed executed a death convict is executed, they just cannot
bury with pomp that person executed. So, because there is no more penalty of death in the meantime,
so that last part of 153 is not anymore applicable.

Now the others, public outcry in 131, 132. If the acts do not fall under 131 and 132, then the law that is
applicable is Article 153. Thats the one. The elements of 153, however, is that there must be tumults.
There must be a public disturbance. The 154 refers to prohibited acts in so far as publications without
authority or making it appear that the law is existing when in fact it is not. So, the acts that punished are
the prohibition or unauthorized publication, prohibition to publish an authorized and non-authorized
publication. We will just read them. We will study this 154 again when we take up libel in order to
differentiate what is libel and what is 154, the 154 is more on the acts that are punished regarding the
published articles.

Article 155 Alarms and scandals

Lets go to 155, this is more important. 155 is the crime of alarm and scandal. What is alarm and
scandal? It is enumerated in 155. The essence of alarm and scandal is that you create a disturbance
either by explosion, firecracker, firing firearms, engaging in nocturnal job. I do not know why engaging in
nocturnal
job is a part of the disturbance. At that time of this nocturnal job, at that time, charivari or singing out-of-
tune, probably. But the more important one is the firing of a gun in a public place.

Now, when you fire a gun in a public place, then, of course, that will be alarm and scandal in 155
when the purpose of firing of the gun is to cause a public disturbance. But firing a gun may lead to other
crimes committed. It will depend on many things. If the gun is fired in a public place merely to disturb,
then that is alarm and scandal. If a gun is fired at somebody else without the intent to kill so if a
gun is fired, directed at somebody else without the intent to kill, then the crime will be a crime against
person. Thats a crime of illegal discharge of firearm. But if the gun is fired, aimed at somebody else,
with intent to kill, and the victim is not killed, then that will be attempted felony. But if you fire the gun
aimed at somebody else with the intent to kill, and he was not killed, and then he spontaneously desisted
at that stage, then the crime is grave threat.

So, Ill give you an illustration. So, in a public place, you fire your gun. If you are in a public place,
you fired your gun towards the air. Bang! That is alarm and scandal because it is not aimed at somebody
else.

You fire your gun, I aim at you without any intent to kill. I fire my gun. Bang! You were not hit, then that
is illegal discharge of firearm.

I have an intent to kill, I fire my firearm, my gun, and then you were not hit. I have intention to kill you,
but you were not killed. Then the crime is attempted felony, because there is an intent to kill.

But supposing I fired my gun with the intent to kill, but you were not hit, and then I spontaneously
desisted at the attempted stage. Whats the crime? Then that becomes a crime of grave threat.

Supposing I fire my gun without intent to kill, aim at somebody else, with proper bullet, but the bullet did
not fire. Whats the crime? I fire my gun with bullet, I aim at somebody else without the intent to kill,
but the gun did not fire. Whats the crime? That is a crime of frustrated illegal discharge of firearm. That
is illegal or frustrated illegal discharge of firearm.

Supposing I fire my gun, not knowing that there is no bullet. So I fire my gun, not knowing that it is not
loaded with bullets, aim at somebody else without intent to kill, whats the crime? It did not fire, of
course. Di ko alam na walang bullet. I wanted to fire the gun, aim at somebody else, without intent to kill,
but the gun did not fire because there is no bullet. Whats the crime? Impossible crime. Because it
should have been a crime of illegal discharge of firearm, but because of inherent impossibility, there
are no bullets. The crime becomes an impossible crime.

Now, the other thing in your Republic Act 8294 which is the law penalizing illegal possession of
firearms or ammunitions what is Republic Act 8294? It penalizes for illegal possession of firearm or
explosives. Of course, that is a malum prohibitum, but you will have to prove the intent. It is a malum
prohibitum and, therefore, the intent as an element of the crime is not the essential element. But what are
you going to prove if it is a malum prohibitum? You have to prove animus possidendi, the one I told
you last time. There must be an animus possidendi or intent to possess which is different from intent as
an element of the crime.

So what are punished under illegal possession of firearm? When is illegal possession of firearm
punishable? There are three ways:
1) When one is caught in the act of possessing a gun without the necessary
license.
2) When one is caught in the possession of a gun with proper license, but has already expired,
with expired license. Thats also illegal possession of firearms.
3) And then the last one is you may have the license to possess, but if you bring it out without
necessary license to carry, that is also an unlicensed firearm.
So tatlo, no license at all, you have a license but already expired, and number three, is you have a
license to possess a firearm, but you do not have any license to carry outside of your residence. Tatlo.
And then the violations in Republic Act 8294 would
be:
1) If one is caught in the act of an unlicensed firearm, then he is liable for illegal possession of firearm,
unlicensed firearm. So, if you are walking outside of your residence and then you are caught in
possession of an unlicensed firearm, then that makes it already a crime of illegal possession of
firearms. Thats number 1.
2) When an unlicensed firearm is used in the killing, then the crime will be either murder or homicide
and then the use of unlicensed firearm will be treated as a special aggravating circumstance. So,
there is only one crime of killing. The crime is killing. That means murder, homicide or infanticide and
then the use of an unlicensed firearm will be treated as the special aggravating circumstance.
3) And then the third situation is that when an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of the crime
other than killing, then you will be liable for the crime to which the unlicensed firearm was used.
Isang
crime lang.

So lets say--thats the importance of alarm and scandal. So, if one fires a gun in a public place, and
therefore, it disturbs the peace, and it was found out that the gun that was used in firing is an unlicensed
firearm, what will be the crime of how many crimes are committed? So, I used an unlicensed firearm
in a public place and I fired the gun. So Im caught in the act of possessing an unlicensed firearm
because policemen caught me right after I fired the gun. I am liable for alarm and scandal because I
fired the gun in a public place and, therefore, the crime against public order and punishable under 155.

What about the gun that was used, which was an unlicensed firearm? What will happen with that gun?
You cannot be liable for the separate crime of illegal possession of firearm. Illegal possession of firearm
is absorbed with the crime of alarm and scandal because that is what the law provides, that if an
unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of the crime other than killing, then you will only be liable
for the crime to which the unlicensed firearm was used. So, thats the anomaly. Why? The alarm and
scandal is only arresto menor, so if one is caught in the possession of an armalite rifle, and the
policeman would like to make money out of it, then he will say he will just tell the boy, Okay, fire the
gun! Because if you are caught in the act of possessing an unlicensed firearm, the penalty is prision
mayor, minimum eh.

But if you fire the gun the same unlicensed firearm you fire the gun, there is only one crime of alarm
and scandal, and the penalty is only arresto menor. Eh kung mahulihan ka ng baril, eh iputok mo na
lang. Why? Alarm and scandal yun. Thats the meaning of it. It will absorb the unlicensed firearm, but not
when the unlicensed firearm is used in a killing because if it used in the killing, then that fact of being an
unlicensed firearm is appreciated as a special aggravating circumstance.

Sir, is it the same with rebellion?

No, because in rebellion, taking up arms is already the element. You mean, coup detat or simple
rebellion? No separate crime in an unlicensed firearm. That is included in the element of taking up arms
against the government.

Ang tanong dyan yung robbery with homicide. In a robbery with homicide, which is an aggravating in
fact, Im expecting a question in the bar, but medyo malalim yan, but they might ask it. Lets say, youre
charged with a crime of robbery with homicide. Robbery with homicide is a crime against property. You
do not usually appreciate treachery, evident premeditation or abuse of superior strength. You do not
appreciate in crime against property because the treachery is inherent in the crime of robbery. Inherent
yan eh. Even evident premeditation is inherent in the crime of robbery because you do not tell your
victim that you will rob him in the future. So treacherous always. So robbery, therefore, is a crime against
property and not appreciated.

Now, when on the occasion of robbery, somebody is killed, then the crime becomes a robbery with
homicide, but the killing on the occasion of robbery does not make the crime a crime against person. It
remains to be a crime against property. So, robbery with homicide, therefore, is a crime against property.

Now, supposing the victim in a crime of robbery was treacherously killed. So, it is a robbery. If the
treachery in robbery is absorbed, that is inherent. But supposing the victim in a crime of robbery
was
treacherously killed, how will you treat the treachery in that case of a robbery with homicide? So sabi ng
Supreme Court, in the case of People versus Escote, if the treachery was employed in the killing then
that becomes robbery with homicide aggravated by treachery, but in so far only as the killing is
concerned because there is no treachery in the robbery. Likewise, the Supreme Court said that if a victim
in a crime of robbery with homicide, cruelty was employed, sabi ng Supreme Court, Okay, robbery with
homicide yan, but the cruelty shall be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in the killing.

So, problem: You are passengers in a passenger bus. All of a sudden, a group of robbers and some of
the passengers brought out their knives and guns and then pointed at the victims. Now, one of the
passengers brought out his gun and then fought back the robbers who were armed with guns and knives.
The passenger died. Now, it was found out that the guns used by them were unlicensed firearms. So,
therefore, they committed a crime of robbery with homicide with the use of an unlicensed firearm.

So, how will you treat that unlicensed firearm? How will you treat that unlicensed firearm? Now, the
unlicensed firearm under Republic Act 8294 will be now absorbed in the crime of robbery with homicide
because the crime is robbery. So, the unlicensed firearm will be absorbed in the crime of
robbery because they were used in the crime of robbery.

But supposing, instead of guns, they use knives in the crime of robbery, and then later on, they used an
unlicensed firearm in the killing of the victim. So they brought out their knives. Bring out your valuables.
So they used knives in the act of committing the crime of robbery, and then one of the
passengers brought out a gun, and then one of the robbers, likewise, after they saw the passenger bring
out a gun, likewise, brought out a gun and then killed the passenger. It was found out that the gun used
in the killing of the passenger is an unlicensed firearm. So how will you now treat the unlicensed firearm?

If that is the case, because of the doctrine laid down in Escote, if the unlicensed firearm was not used in
the robbery, but was used in the killing, then the crime is robbery with homicide, and you can appreciate
the special aggravating of unlicensed firearm in so far as the killing is concerned because that gun
was not used in the robbery.

But if the gun unlicensed firearm was used in the robbery, then the crime is merely robbery with
homicide. The unlicensed firearm cannot be treated as a special aggravating circumstance because
that is absorbed in the crime of robbery.

In fact, merong kaso diyan. Although the facts are different, but by analogy - what happened there is that
after robbing the victims in a bus, a gun was found from the possession of the robber, which was never
used in the robbery. Pag baba nyang ganyan, may nahulog na baril, yung robber. When they picked up
the gun, then it was an unlicensed firearm. But the unlicensed firearm was picked up after the
robbery has already been consummated. So, anong crime to? Sabi ng Supreme Court, dalawang
crimes yan. One is robbery, the other one is illegal possession of firearm because the unlicensed
firearm was not used in the commission of the crime of robbery. O, pag ganun, di ba?

Then, we go to 156, 157, 158, 159, and 160. Now, did I tell you that 156, no the evasion of service,
then the other one is during the calamity, di ba? Evasion of Service during the calamity.

Articles 157, 158, and 159 Evasion of service of sentence

And then, we will have Evasion of Service. Other forms of evasion of service under 159, and then there
is quasi-recidivism under 160.

Now, I want you evasion of service, no, by the prisoner. When there is already a final judgment,
you can only be liable for a crime of evasion of service if there is already a final judgment, either ordinary
circumstances or during a calamity. If the evasion of service takes place during a calamity, then the
crime would be evasion of service during the earthquake, so the penalty is higher. But in both evasions
of service, there must be a final judgment. You cannot be liable for a crime of evasion of service if there
4D 2007 1
is not yet final judgment.

4D 2007 2
But granting a prisoner, a detention prisoner, escapes from prison, what is the liability? Now, if
he escapes from prison, then the detention prisoner is not liable for a crime. Lets say the crime is non-
bailable. He is charged with the crime of murder and, therefore, he is under detention. If that detention
prisoner escapes from prison, that is not evasion of service because there is no yet judgment, final
judgment. Is there a crime? If the person escapes while trial is ongoing? No, he is not liable for a crime.
The detention prisoner is not liable for a crime, but he may lose some of his rights. If there is now a
judgment of condition and he is convicted, then he cannot anymore appeal. He cannot ano, he will
lose his right to appeal because there is no judgment eh. For all we know, he might be acquitted. So,
there is no crime if he escapes.

The crime that will be committed will be a crime committed by the one who is guarding that prisoner
because if he escapes, the detained prisoner escapes through the cooperation of a public officer, then
the law that is violated is the second paragraph of Article 223. A public official consenting to an escape of
a detention prisoner. That is the second paragraph of Article 223. Where is that? Or it is committed by a
private individual or a private individual who is tasked to take custody of a detention prisoner, then the
crime that is committed by that private individual is what is found in Article 225.

You escape, there is already a final judgment. Final judgment, you escaped. Then, the person will be
liable for evasion of service if it is during calamity. Then, the evasion of service during an earthquake or
calamity. Now, the guard, the person, a public officer who is supposed to guard him consents to the
evasion of service, then that guard will be liable under Article 223 of the Revised Penal Code for
consenting the escape. Therefore, if it is co-negligence, then he will be liable for evasion of service
through negligence.

Now, if the one who is liable, who assisted him, is a private individual who was tasked to guard that
prisoner, then the law that is violated is Article 225 of the Revised Penal Code.

Now, if he is a private individual. I mean, he has not yet been convicted by final judgment and, therefore,
he is only a detention prisoner, there is no liability of the detention prisoner. The only effect of
his escaping during trial is that he might lose his rights in the Constitution or in the rules of
criminal procedure. If in case of conviction, then he might already lose his right to appeal, di ba? Eh nag-
escape eh. But the officer who caused the escape of the detention prisoner maybe liable under the
second sentence of Article 223 by allowing a detention prisoner to escape, or the person who allowed
him to escape is a private individual, then the law that is violated is Article 225.

In other words, the acts punished in evasion of service, whether negligence coming through whether
simple or during a calamity, yun ang liability of the accused convicted already by final judgment. The
liability of those who might have caused the escape will be those found in Articles 223, 224, and 225
of the Revised Penal Code.

Then one under 159, whats the crime in 159? Ha? Other forms of evasion of sentence. But,
actually, other forms of evasion of sentence is simply violation of a conditional pardon. The crime there
actually is a violation of a conditional pardon, so we can correlate this with the conditional pardon in
Article 92 of the Revised Penal Code, ha? To the differentiate it from parole. The requirements sa
conditional pardon eh a conditional pardon is granted by the Chief Executive wherein the accused and
the government will enter into a contract. There is a contract between the government and the the
accused granted pardon. The contract is that both parties will have to follow strictly the contract and,
therefore, there are conditions set forth in the grant of a conditional pardon that should be followed by the
pardoned convict.

Unlike in parole, in parole there is also a contract. But a violation of the conditions in parole may not lead
to a crime of other forms of evasion of service. Walang crime ng violation of a parole, eh. Theres
no crime of violation of parole. Unlike in a conditional pardon, violation of the conditional pardon is about
the crime of Article 159. But there are two periods in 159, in defense on the period remitted. So, if the
period remitted is more than six years, then the effect of a violation of the conditional pardon is that the
accused will have to be arrested and serve the remaining sentence. But if the period remitted is
less than six
years, then there is a crime of violation of a conditional pardon, the penalty of which is prision
correccional.

Its like this, so if you are convicted, lets say you are sentenced to a penalty of 15 years, lets say 15
years. And then now, on the 1/3, you can be pardoned when you have served 1/3 of the sentence.
So,
1/3 of the sentence is 5 years. So, you are pardoned here, pardon or conditional pardon. So, 15 minus 5,
then thats 10 years, di ba? So, you were remitted more than 6 years, 10 years eh, di ba? 10 years.
So, if, therefore, you are granted conditional pardon, after being granted conditional pardon, you violated
the conditions of pardon, then what will happen to you is that you will be arrested and serve the
remaining sentence of 10 years. You will be brought back to the National Penitentiary and then serve
the remaining
10 years. Why? Because the remitted period is more than 6
years.

Now, if the penalty, however, is 6 years and, therefore, 6 divided by 2, you were pardoned 2 years.
After
2 years, if theres a conditional pardon. So 6 minus 2, four years. The period of what must be remitted
there is 4 years, and then you violate the conditional pardon after 2 years, then what will happen to you is
that you will be liable for other forms of evasion of service. You will be charged and then you will
be meted the penalty of prision correccional given the penalty period remitted, okay?

Article 160 Commission of another crime during service of penalty imposed for another offense;
Penalty

Then, 160, quasi recidivist. I told you before, you have to know what are these repetitions. Apat na
repetitions yan. Recidivist under Paragraph 9 of Article 14. You know the basic principle of
recividism. The second crime committed must be embracing the same title and there should be previous
conviction. Reiteracion under Paragraph 10 of Article 14. Then the second crime committed must provide
for a higher penalty or if there are two or more crimes committed, the penalties may equal or lower than
the first crime committed. Of course, the condition there is that it must be prior punishment.

Then, you go to Article 62 because 160 writes that other than those provided for, other than that provided
for in Article 62, Paragraph 5, thats means a habitual delinquency, a person will be considered a quasi
recidivist if while serving his sentence, ha, if while serving his sentence, at least that there is already final
judgment. You will not be serving your sentence if there is no final judgment. You commit the second
crime. Walang conditions ng ano dun embracing the same title. Walang condition dun that higher, where
the penalty is higher than the first crime committed. So, you can be a quasi recidivist and a habitual
delinquent at the same time because the law says even if you fall under Paragraph 5 of Article 62, that
means youre a habitual delinquent. A habitual delinquent is, ano ang habitual delinquency? Di ba
mahirap yun? Anniversary of 10 years if there are five crimes. Di ba, hobo, robo, hubad.

Serious or less serious physical injuries, may kasamang light physical injuries dyan, di ba? Then, you
will have theft, robbery, and estafa. So, all of these crimes, if you commit those crimes on the third time,
ha. Ang habitual delinquency, it will only take place if the crime committed is committed on the third time.
And then the second time committed, and the third crime committed should have been committed
within the
10-year period from second crime was committed. You can be a habitual delinquent at the same time, a
quasi recidivist under Article 160.

So, lets now go on to those falsification, pagsisinungaling, sarap batukan, lahat na, marami yan.
Okay.

Article 161 to 169 Forgeries

That will be easy for you. I will just mention the articles and you follow me later on ha. Okay. So when
we talk of the seal of the government or the Chief Executive, then the laws that are violated will be 161
to163. And then, 164, 165, you are referring to mutilation of coins, imitation of coins. And then 166,
167, and
168, they refer to acts as counterfeiting or imitating notes payable to order or bearer or those documents
evidencing indebtedness of the government.

So, what are those included? Then, this will include kwarta o paper money or those substitute for money
as evidence of indebtedness of the government. Like what? Treasury warrants. Yung mga bonds, no?
Yung mga Central Bank bonds ba yan? Yung ano, yung may mga maturity dates. Yung may bonds,
Treasury Bonds ata, that call it Treasury Bonds, floating bonds. You go to Central Bank, yung may
Treasury Bond. And then after a certain period of time, you exchange that ano, you exchange that
certificate and then a corresponding interest will be earned. So that is an evidence of indebtedness of the
government because if the government accepts that, then it is like guaranteeing, no, the payment of that
upon maturity date. Therefore, these are documents evidencing indebtedness on the part of the
government.

So, if they refer to documents, I mean those documents or notes payable to bearer or order or
either paper money, yung legal tender. Then the crimes would either be:
1. Counterfeiting.
2. Illegal use.
3. Illegal possession.
Youll find them in 166, 167, and 168.

The other crime involved is Mutilation of Coins. It is a crime to mutilate a coin. Why is it a crime to
mutilate a coin? Because at that time kasi, during those times when the law was enacted, yung mga
metals natin noon contains precious metals, so it was prohibited, therefore, to mutilate the coins because
what they usually did was to mutilate the coin. Ginagamit na chain. Kinukuha uung expensive parts with
precious metal. So thats why the law prohibits the mutilation of coins, thats the reason. But nobody now
mutilates the coins, why? Lugi ka. Anong makukuha mo dun, lata na eh. Wala na eh.

So, that law probably is no longer effective. Now, when you talk of counterfeiting, then that means
that you counterfeit paper money. You make it appear that our money that is manufactured is the
genuine money, thats the idea of counterfeiting and that is punishable.

The other one is uttering. In the counterfeit, the one who counterfeits the money is liable. Now, the one
who actually uses the money is liable for uttering. So, thats part of Article 166-167, uttering of false
notes. And the one who is caught in the act of possessing false notes is liable for the crime of illegal
possession of false note. But in illegal possession of false notes, there must be an element of intent to
utter, intent to utter. That means that, if Im in possession of lets say, ten fake money and Im not using
it, they are just inside my wallet, I will not be liable for illegal possession because there is no intend to
use it.

So, usually in bar, yung mga nagpapasikat diyan sa kuwan, Air Force 1, they gastos on classmates.
Yung mga lawyers dun, pag nagti-tip sila1,000 ang yayabang, 1,000, 5,000. Yun pala fake. Kamukha mo
yung GRO diyan eh. Maraming ganun because they expect money pasikat lang. Yun ang uttering
of fake notes. But if you are not using it, you cannot be liable for illegal possession. You have to show
that there is an intent to utter.

Now, in an old case, Bank of Republic of the Philippines Islands, an old case raised in the Supreme
Court because the accused was caught in possession of several pieces of false notes. He was
convicted, but the Supreme Court made a distinction that mere possession of a false note is not a
crime because what is punishable is that there must be intent to utter. Kasi, gaya ko gusto kong
merong akong false note, di ko naman ginagamit, remembrance eh. Why should I be liable? So, sabi ng
Supreme Court, if one, however, is caught with several bundles, let say, you are not using it, but you
were caught in possession of 10 bundles of false notes. Ah, sabi ng Supreme Court, you will now be
liable. Why? The possession of so many bundles is an element of intent to use. Sabi ng Supreme Court,
ah, saan mo gagamitin yan, and dami-dami? Sabi ng akusado, saan ko gagamitin yan ang dami-dami?
Sir, wala pa kasing kuwan nun eh, wala pang - sabi niya wala pang tissue paper nun eh. Yun ang
dipensa niya.

Sir, the possession of many bundles is already an element or is it

only. No, presumption lang yon.

Its only a presumption.

You have still to prove that there is really intent to use them.

So, what if the money was used to pay?

Sometimes they call it boodle money. You are not liable because you dont intent to utter it. Uttering is
simply use it for legal purposes. Thats the meaning of utter. Utter actually is to introduce it to the market.
That is the one that is actually punished.

Article 169 How forgery is committed

And then we go to Article 169. Article 169 is not a crime. Lets look at the definition of what forgery
is. Kaya pag sinabi na, Uou are liable for the crime of forgery, walang crime na forgery. Forgery is a
way of committing a crime of falsification. But forgery is not a crime because forgery is merely the act of
imitating the signature or the handwriting, making it appear that it was signed by the person concerned.
Yan, yan ang mga forgery. You forge, thats the meaning, but thats not a crime. Under 169, it is a
manner of committing a crime of falsification.

Articles 170, 173, and 174

But the more important provision, therefore, will be Article 170, where the subject matter of the
falsification is a legislative document, you know, it does not say who should commit the crime
of falsification of legislative document, what the law says is any person.

Now, you jump to article 173 which is a crime of falsification of wireless telegram or messages. The law,
likewise, does not provide that it should be committed by a specific or a class of persons. The law says
any person. We will I will tell you the importance of what Im talking later on, ano ha. Para mai-
compare niyo.

And 174 is falsification of medical certificates or service records or merits which makes it appear that you
are sick of colitis or sore eyes that is why you did not attend my class. You presented a fake medical
certificate, falsification yan under 174.

Now, you look at 170, 173, and 174, the law does not say what is falsification in 170, 173, and 174. And
nakalagay lang dun, falsifies legislative document, false merits or false medical certificate or messages.
So, if you talk, therefore, of falsification in 170, 173, and 174, then the act can be done through what is
provided for in Article 169. Yun ang falsification ng 170, 173, and 174, all in Article 169 on forgery. Do
you follow?

Article 171 Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic

minister.

Now, when it comes, however to official public document, commercial document, and private document,
the laws that are applicable will be Article 171 and Article 172. But in Article 171, falsification under 171
can only be committed by three specified persons or groups of persons.
1) Public officers taking advantage of their public position.
2) Notary publics.
3) Ecclesiastics.
Only those mentioned in 171 can be liable for the crime of
falsification.

Article 172 Falsification by private individual and use of falsified

documents.

Now, if you go to Article 172, then the crime of falsification can be committed by private individuals, but it
makes reference to the falsifications in 171. So, what is the implication of that? The implication of that
when it is committed by private individual, then the law that is violated is 172. But the manner of
committing the crime of falsification in 172 is likewise the manner of committing the crime of falsification
in Article 171. Do you follow?
Now, Ill give you an example how to illustrate that. There are four kinds of falsification of
documents under 171 and 172 although like official document, be it a public document, be it a private
document or be it a commercial document. But the official document and public document are
created as one for purposes of falsification. So, when you speak of official document, theyre just the
same as (talking) document for purposes of falsification. But, theyre not the same in meaning. The other
one is commercial document then the last one is private document.

The official documents are those that are issued by the Government as part of the records of the
Government or an order to evidence an act of a certain government agency, payment of taxes.
You issued a receipt. That is an official document because it records the payment, a governmental
function. You apply your marriage license. That is also an official document because it becomes part of
the records of the Civil Registrar. Birth certificate, court records, pleadings, complaints, decisions. All of
these are public records or official documents because they become part of the official records of the
government.

Now, official documents may, likewise, include documents prepared by private individuals. These are
not
because, generally, the official documents are those that are prepared and issued by a government
official. But there may be official documents prepared by private individuals. When those documents
become part of the records of the government they become official documents.

Application for a marriage license, the application is filled up by the applicants. Application of a marriage
contract, the applications are made by private individuals. But once you have submitted it before the
proper agencies they become part of the records of the Civil Registrar and, therefore, official documents.
Those who are entering the government service, your application form. They become part of the record
of the Civil Service Commission or the COMELEC or what, then they become a part of the records of
those government agencies and also become official documents.

Now, the other one is public document. A public document usually is not a document which will record a
governmental function that this may perform. But rather it is prepared by private individuals. The public
document is one involving a deed of conveyance. In other words, when you speak of a deed of
conveyance, therefore, that document if consummated will produce rights and obligations of the parties
with the participation of a notary public. So, a contract of sale that is a deed of conveyance, you convey
something, the other one pays. So, there is an obligation to deliver and there is an obligation to pay.

Now, if that contract of sale is acknowledged before a notary public that means that you go to a lawyer
and then you swear before the lawyer. Yung acknowledgement, nakabasa na ba kayo nun, before me, a
notary public, personal appeared Mr. A herein referred to as the vendor, exhibiting his certificate,
issued at blah-blah-blah, and Mr. Vendee blah-blah-blah, herein referred to as the vendee. That the
attest that they executed this document with their free will consisting of seven pages with each page
signed on the left portion including the last page. Subscribed and sworn to before me. That is the
acknowledgment. Thats what you call acknowledgment. So, that is the participation of a notary public.

If that document now is the one required by law like the acknowledgement then that document becomes
a public document. Then for purposes of falsification, that public document is treated in the same
category as official document. Now, if that document, however, is not notarized or is not acknowledge
before a notary public and therefore it is a deed of conveyance, but in the absence of a notary
public or acknowledgement then that document becomes a private document, okay.

And the last one is commercial document. Sabi nila, what is a commercial document? The book of
Reyes will say, or even in the book, a commercial document is one that is governed by the Code of
Commerce. Meron nang definition, di ba? A commercial document is one that is governed by the Code
of Commerce e ang dami covered ng Code of Commerce.
Ano ang commercial documents? So, commercial documents are those that are usually substitute for
money. Substitute for money, promotes business transaction. Ang importante diyan is the characteristics
of a negotiable instrument. In other words, it can be transferred from one person or negotiated from one
person to the other. This is not only limited to personal checks, yung cheque, commercial documents
yan.
Because it promotes business transaction, it can be negotiated or delivered from one person to the other.
Yung mga iba dun may mga bill of lading, warehouse receipt, di ba? Bumili ka ng 100,000 rice.
Where will you get where will you store the 100,000 sacks of sugar or rice? You may have to get a
bonded warehouse. You store the 100,000 grams of sugar in a bonded warehouse, what will the
warehouse do? It will issue a warehouse receipt. If you are now in a possession of the warehouse receipt
then you become naturally the owner of the sugar or rice stored in that warehouse. You want to sell
those boxes of sugar. What will you do? Do you need to physically transfer the 100,000? No, you just
negotiate the receipt and whichever is in the possession of that he becomes the owner. So, that is the
meaning of a commercial document ha, okay.

Now, commercial document and official or public document have the same element. The only element is
there must be an act of falsification. Whatever is the motive in falsification of a public document, if its
committed by any these three mentioned in Article 171 under the (Revised Penal Code), 171 that
means a public official taking advantage of his public position or a notary public or ecclesiastic, the
element of intent or cause injury to a third is not a requirement. So, the mere act of falsifying that
document is a consummated crime of falsification.

Unlike when it is committed by a private individual under Article 172, when it is a private document and
this is covered by Article 172, then the crime is falsification of a private document. And, therefore, has
two essential elements:
1) The act of falsifying the document.
2) To cause injury to third persons. Remember that, to cause injury to a third
person.

What about if a private individual commits a crime of falsification of an official document? Is there also an
element of intent to injure? Ill give you an example. You are an employee of the Civil Registrar. You are
the one in charge of the issuance of a marriage license or marriage contracts. You take advantage
of your public position. You make it appear that the person who wants to get married is already of age.
So, finalsify mo yung edad niya, di ba, in a marriage license. Tama ba? Ano bang age na ngayon para
makapag-asawa?

Eighteen.

So, 18. You made it appear that the one of the contracting parties is already 18 when he knows fully well
that he is only 17. So, he issued a marriage license, pinafalsify nya, ginawa niyang 18. What about if he
is a private individual? He falsified a marriage license, the same official and the same contracting party.
He likewise falsified the marriage license. He makes it appear that he is 18, when in fact he is 17 years
of age. Question: Are they liable for a crime? If it is committed by public officer taking advantage of
his public position, whether that marriage license is used or not because there is an element of
intent to cause injury, he becomes liable for a crime of falsification of public document. Why? Because
there is no need to prove that the falsification of an official document was intended to cause injury to
another.

Now, what about the minor boy? He falsified the marriage license. So, if he did not use the license that
he falsified, can he be liable for a crime of falsification of public document or official document? Is it the
crime of the individual? No, because there is no harm done to anybody because he did not use the
marriage license.

Thats the difference between 172 and 171. But Im referring to official document, ha okay?
Kinakailangan dyan kung ikaw ang nag-falsify ng official document, you are a private individual, you
need to show that it caused injury to another. But if you are a public official who takes advantage of your
public position, there is no need because mere falsification is already a crime of falsification under 171.

Now, the other thing is that the most probably you know this that there is a falsification of public
document that maybe complex with estafa. You can complex the crime of estafa through the falsification
of public documents or even malversation through falsification of public document or probably
theft through falsification of public document, qualified theft through falsification of public document.
But you cannot
complex estafa with falsification of private document. There is no crime of estafa through falsification of
private document. Its either estafa or falsification of private document.

Why? Because, in a crime of falsification of a public document, there is only one element of falsification.
Whereas in the crime of estafa, there are two essential elements which are deceit and damage.
Whereas in the crime of private document, there are two essential elements, one is the act of falsifying
the document and the other one, the intent to cause damage. So therefore, in the crime of
estafa in falsification of private document, they have common elements of damage. So, therefore, if
there are two common elements of damage, then they cannot be complex. Kasi in private document may
damage and falsification. Estafa, damage and falsification. So, there is no crime of estafa through
falsification of private documents. Its either estafa or falsification of private documents.
Sir, for example sa falsification by the private individual? Is it inherent that youre damaged
already
because if no one would claim injury.

Well if it is not used, there is no crime of there.

If they use it?

Ah, eh crime na yan.

Even if the damage is not evident?

Yes.

Even if they cause damagae?

The moment that you use a falsified document, then you are liable. Unlike in a public official, even if it is
not used, as long as you took advantage of your public position. Then the other thing that is
also important in falsification, you know, falsification is a crime where there are no witnesses. Walang
magpa- falsify. Hoy! Halika, obserbahan mo. No. So how will you determine who the author of the
falsification is? The presumption is that the one who benefited from the falsification is probably the
one liable for the crime of falsification. Who was benefited from it? Kung government official, okay yan,
eh. But if a private individual, the only crime that he should know that he is the one, is the author is when
he benefits from it. Kaya nga dapat gamitin niya eh para you know who was responsible in the crime of
falsification.

In the Article 171, you memorize the eight manners of committing the crime of falsification indicating the
signature. Yan ang pinakamadali eh, indicating the signature or a (rubric), the ecclesciastic. You make it
appear that the person has participated, when in fact, they did not, di ba? You make it also appear that
person signed this document, when in fact, there is none. You altered due dates. You make an untruthful
statement in narration of facts. You interpolate or substitute. Di ba interpolating or making it appear that
the original exists when there is none, when there is no original or attaching a document for the registry
or a protocol, then that document is not existing, di ba? Any act that will change the meaning of the
document, just like in the crime of falsification. Madali lang yung walo? Can you memorize? I-memorize
nyo lahat yan, pati ano. Okay, we will try to give you illustrations, ano ha?

So, when a document is already consummated, you are not supposed to make any erasures. So this
usual interpellations without the knowledge of the other party, di ba? Lets say contract of sale. Di ka
na pwede magpalit dyan eh because consummated na. But you can still change without being liable for a
crime of falsification. You can still change when the act of changing or interpolating or erasing will not
change the meaning of the document or will not affect the integrity of the document.

Like, for example, nagkamali ka ng spelling sa pangalan, walang comma, walang semi-colon, mali
English, pinalitan mo, eh wala ka na dun. Walang crime, although, the documents are already the
parties have already signed. Then, di pwede yung sana ma you interpolated something when that was
found out when suppose that word was not there when the document was signed. There is no crime of
falsification because it is not intended to alter the meaning of this document. Or when you alter
the
document but the one that is altered is not material to the contract. Walang falsification dun. Or you alter
the dates, but its not intended to change the meaning of the document.

Lets say, 2006 but actually the contract was signed 2007. What was written is 2006. You can say
change it to 2007 because by erasing it, it is for the purpose of correcting. Therefore, there is no
falsification. But if you really take the signature, then falsification yan. Or you make it appear that the
person participated in the contract, but in fact he did not. Or you make it appear that the contract
was entered into by persons, but then it is not. Yan ang mga crime of falsification. Madali lang eh. Or
you altered two dates, altered two dates, that means the dates are crucial to the document.

For example, in order to avoid the prescription of the document, di ba? May mga prescriptive periods
minsan, i-activate mo. Youll change the dates so that it will not be covered by prescription, ayun,
importante yun. Or probably, if it is a crime, you know, you alter the date to make it appear that there
was no crime committed on that day, ang importante yung dates that becomes a crime of falsification. Or
you change the amount, crime of falsification yan. Because if you change the name of the document,
you will change one of the obligations. Falsification yan, hindi yan falsification. Lahat ng pinalitan na iba
ay falsification yan. But the most important one in falsification is making untruthful statement in the
narration of facts. That is the most important one. How can that be committed? Making untruthful
statement in the narration of facts.

But, the first thing that you have to remember is that, there must be a duty to disclose the truth. If there
is no duty to disclose the truth, then there is no crime of falsification. In other words, if in a
questionnaire, hindi ba? Lets say, you are applying for a job. You go over there, and then meet the other
qualifications, and then you are asked. Are you a college graduate? Therefore, it is your duty to disclose
the truth. You know that is crucial in your application for a job in the government. Or have you ever been
convicted of a crime? Then you have a duty to disclose the truth, morality or this is also recorded in your
application for a job abroad.

But,if there is nothing to disclose, because it is not a duty to disclose the truth. Lets say, anak mo,
you are applying for a job. How many children? Di ba? But having children is not essential in your
application for a job. You only mention four pero pala meron ka pang illegitimate children, ha. You
might have falsified something because you did not tell about what you were supposed to tell.
Hindi crime of falsification yun because there is no duty to disclose the truth, ha?

However, if what is asked of you will call for a conclusion or an opinion even if there is a duty to disclose,
you cannot be liable for a crime of falsification. Example, you have a duty to disclose, the requirement is
that you must be a college graduate. Are you a college graduate? Then you said, Yes. But in fact, you
are not, di ba? Okay, falsification yan when the truth is not disclosed. Have you ever been convicted of
a crime? You did not disclose it, you said, no, when in fact, you have been convicted then you have the
duty to disclose, falsification yan. And then at the end of the questionnaire, nakalagay dun, are you
qualified for this position? And then you said, yes, when in fact, you are not qualified. Are you liable for
falsification? No. Why? Because that calls for an opinion.

In the narration of facts, you are asked to state a fact. If you are not asked to state a fact, you are
asked to give your opinion, and the conclusion based on facts then you are not liable for a crime of
falsification. So, lets say, are you qualified for this position? You said, Yes. That is not a
falsification. Why? Because you are not being asked of facts, but you are being asked of your opinion.
Eh syempre pag nag- apply ka sabihin nun, Are you qualified to be in this position? Sasabihin mo ba,
No. Eh di hindi ka tatanggapin. Yung una, pride yun. Yan ang pinaka importante sa falsification,
because that is the hardest. Its the hardest because you do not know how it is violated there, hardest
yun. But if you know how it is that committed, then easy. Basta statement of facts yan. Not opinion or
conclusion. What do you think, what do you think? And then I said, Im correct, when in fact you are not
correct. Walang falsification yun because you are asked of your opinion or conclusion.

But if you did say, Are you qualified? Walang ano dun. But if you say, Im a college graduate, when in
fact, you are not, ayun. If there is a duty to disclose because that is an essential in that document,
then
you will be liable for a crime of falsification making a untruthful statement in the narration of facts. May
mga erasures na lagda, eh. Intercalations, substitutions, erasure the key there is really changing the
meaning of the document. Will it affect the integrity of the document? If your answer is yes, then there is
falsification. If there is not, there is no falsification.

And how do you determine if it will affect the integrity of the document or it will change the meaning?
When it is completely change the meaning of the document. For example, contract of sale in the
amount
100,000 pesos, you changed to 50,000 pesos. Eh di nag-iba na yung meaning ng document. It is a
contract of sale of 100,000 pesos naging 50,000 pesos na. Yun ang ibig kong sabihin. So walang
problema, 171-172. Madali ano?
Articles 173, 174,175, and 176

173, the wireless. 174 then what 175 use of falsified document, that is a crime, offering false evidence
or falsified document. It is a crime under 175. Then 176, illegal possession of apparatus in the crime of
falsification of public document, the crime of falsification, you just read them. Yes?

Sir, clarification again. If a private individual falsifies a public document, there is still a need to prove
damage?

No, its not prove damage. Its the intent to cause damage. Intent. If a document is falsified by private
individual and he does not use it, there is no intent of to cause damage. For example, the receipt, the
receipt that you gave to me, if you pay taxes in the government. So, the receipt is legally is an official
document. I falsified it, but I kept it. No harm.

Sir, in the case for instance is the intent to damage was not there. And then, does that mean it can be
complex it cannot be it can be complex because it is not applied in the falsification a private individual
of public document. It will not prove that

I gave you examples, di ba? Contract of sale of a public document. Okay. So, you falsified document,
but it was not used. So he kept it or he threw it. Walang crime. Because the gravamen of the offense is
the document that is falsified. Pinalsify nya di naman nya ginamit, eh. So, thats the case. But if you are
a government official because the records are kept by the government, you change the amount in official
receipt whether you benefited from it or not, liable ka na because you are a government official taking
advantage of your public position. Let say contract of sale, meron tayong pinirmahang contract of sale.
Pinalsified mo, hindi mo naman ginamit eh Anong crime don? Wala. Unlike if you are keeper of official
document. Yes?

Sir, for example lang you are a doctor and you request for a certificate. And that particular certificate is
used to either certify that youre physically fit or youre sick. Sir, for example there is really no such
sickness, sir. Would it fall under public document or private document?

Specific yan, pag medical certificate, the law that is applicable is 174. Medical certificate do not need to
prove intent to cause damage. Once there is a falsified medical certificate, thats it, liable ka na dyan.

But, sir, is it an absolving circumstance that the doctor said that my interpretation, thats what I

saw. No, hindi pwede yun. Otherwise you mean that you did not know that it will be used?

No, sir. But you will just say that based on what I saw, that is my interpretation. That the person
was either poisoned or there was an attempt to poison him.

He is liable niyan. What he can do the only defense of the doctor is that he was really sick. Kasi ano
yan eh, what is punished actually is the issuance of the falsified medical certificate. Now, I think the
question should be a case. The falsification done, that it may happen in two ways. The doctor makes it
appear that you were sick when, in fact, you were not sick. That is covered by 174. Or the other one is
that, a person presented a medical certificate which is falsified. The one who will be liable is the
person
who filed something with a falsified document. Like for example in this hospital, di ba they keep records?
They keep records of all patients, eh. Now, if the doctor now comes out with the medical certificate
contrary to the records in the hospital, liable yan ng falsification because he is the one issuing.

So it may happen that the doctor is the one who uses a falsified document, then hell be liable. Or it may
happen that the person claimed that he is sick and then presents a certified medical certificate when
in fact there is none, siya din ang liable.

What if it was a private individual who falsified the medical

certificate?

He will be liable because that is covered by 174. Thats why there are two things that can happen there.
Thats why its not covered in Article 171 and 172 because a medical certificate cannot be treated as a
private document or commercial document or even a tugtog ng patay yan ha.

Now, in the meantime, after you read 176 up to 182 in the meantime. Im not saying that we leave
out
177, but I follow the sequence of the documents that are subject matter of all these crimes. So you can,
therefore, hold out all these documents, subject matter of 170, 171, 172, 173, and 174.

If the subject matter, however, is likewise a document but it is not an official, they do not fall in 170,
171,
172, 173, and 174, but it is a statement under oath or a testimony under oath. That means that it is a
statement of fact made under oath or a written statement of fact made under oath or an oral testimony
made under oath, then the crime may be considered as the crime of perjury under Article 183. So the
subject matter, therefore, of 183 is a statement of facts. It is either a written statement of facts or even a
statement made under oath. So what is a statement under oath? The law requires that a statement must
be made before a notary public or a duly authorized person to administer oath. Then that statement
of fact may become the subject matter of Article 183. So, affidavit of loss, di ba?

Now, if you want to secure a license. Lets say you apply for a drivers license. Then the drivers license,
you are issued. And you were caught, and then your license was confiscated because you incurred some
violations. What you do is that you can no longer secure a new drivers license because confiscated
na eh. You are already prohibited to drive within a certain period of time because of too many violations.
What you did was to execute an affidavit of loss to go around the law. State Iblah blah blah. I was
driving in the vehicle, somebody picked my wallet included in that wallet is a license and, therefore, I can
no longer locate it and I am executing this statement in order to secure another license. Then at the
end of that statement, you will find there the jurat. Alam ninyo yung jurat di ba? To differentiate it from
acknowledgement. Ano yung jurat? A mere statement that that statement is under oath. Subscribed and
sworn to before me this blank day of September date and so and so name of the notary public. Thats
the meaning of jurat.

Now, if those statements are false and then malicious. These are statements because it is not only the
false statement that is punishable under perjury. It must be attended with malice. In other
words, fraudulent. Mere false statement, just to be giving a false statement is not a crime of perjury.
Ang sabi nila it is a sin to tell a lie. Therefore, that is perjury. Yung kaso ni Erap, sabi ko sa prosecutor eh
it is a sin to tell to tell a lie, sabi ko sa kanya, sabay tago. Bakit, if it is a sin to tell a lie, I should have
been imprisoned already many times. How many times did I tell a lie to my wife? Perjury yan. What
makes a crime of perjury is it must be done with malice.

In other words, when you speak of malice, yan ang unang element dyan. It must be a statement of fact,
done with malice, and number two, substantial for material to the document. For example, lets say yung
affidavit of loss na yan. Perjury yan. Why do they have to execute a statement of fact, affidavit of loss, to
secure another license when in fact you can no longer secure a new one because confiscated na yung
4D 2007 1
license mo. Yung ang malicious. There is a motive on the part of the affiant to execute a perjured
statement.

But if the one that is perjured is not essential to the document like for example affidavit of loss, and then
you stated there I, Mr. blah blah blah single when you are already married, walang perjury yun because
it

4D 2007 2
is not substantial or essential to the document because what is essential in the document is the
statement of loss. Walang silbi yun kung ganun ang sinabi mo, binata ka dun. That is not perjury
because it will no affect, in any way, the document. Yung ang sinasabi kong immaterial. The most
important thing is that it must be done with malice.

Now, the other kind of perjury is you do not execute a written statement, but you are required to testify.
Then before you testify, you are asked to raise your right hand. You will tell the truth, nothing but the
truth. Yes, I do. The you answer the question and then you now give perjured statement. Yun ang other
form of perjury. But the oral testimony in the crime of perjury must be done before a quasi-judicial
body. It must be through a judicial body. Why? Because if the statement is made before a judicial body
like, for example, the courts. Before testifying, you raise your right hand. You tell the truth and nothing
but the truth. The you start giving false statements, malicious. Sabi mo, hindi. Ito, siya ang pumatay.
Kasama ko yan. Andun kami sa America. Andun kami sa New York, yun pala sa New York, Cubao lang.

He is now telling a lie and that is false testimony because it is really false. Anong crime yun? Is that
perjury? No, that is not perjury. The crime will either be those punished under 180, 181, and 182. If the
statement is made before the false testimony is made before the court, then the crime will either
be false testimony in a civil case, false testimony favoring the defendant or false testimony in a criminal
case favoring the accused. But if the false testimony is made before a quasi-judicial body, Congress,
Senate, fiscal yan ang mga quasi-judicial bodies. Then the crime is perjury under Article 183. But in
both cases malicious., with malice, because mere false statement is not a crime of perjury.

What is subornation of perjury? Subornation of perjury is a principal in the crime of perjury. I ask you to
execute a perjured statement. The one who executed the perjured statement is liable for the crime of
perjury. The one who induced somebody to commit the crime of perjury is liable for the crime
of subornation of perjury. In other words, subornation of perjury is equivalent to a principal by
inducement in a crime of perjury.

rticles 176 to 177, we will take those up next Wednesday. Next Wednesday, you can read 185. Basahin
niyo lang yung 185, yung fraudulent public auctions. Public auction yung mga new laws on public auction
you cannot find in 185. Do not read anymore 186 to 189, unfair competition, infringement. All those laws
have been amended by RA 8293. I think Intellectual property Law, kinuha ninyo sa Commercial Law yan.

Imposibleng hindi kukunin yan. Intellectual property. So, 186-187, 189, amended na ng Okay, so what
we will take up Wednesday, therefore, will be Republic Act 9165, otherwise known as the Dangerous
Drugs Law of 2002. Yan yung mga nag-under sakin dyan sa Dangerous Drugs Law, naaala pa nila from
first year.

Now you read the following provisions in 9165. You start with Section 98. You start with Section 98.
Paatras ako eh. And then you go into Articles 66 and 70 then 98. Then you go back to Section 4 to
Section 29 including Section 33. Ang important sections dyan sa Section 4 to Section 29, including
Section 32, Section 4, 5, Sections 11, 12, 15, important yan, 11, 12, 15. Section 24, Section 25,
Section
29. But, of course, all the sections are important kasi yung Section 4-Section 29 those are the acts
that are punished, Kaya lang Im just giving special attention to those that I mentioned. Yung Section 4-
29 i- memorize lahat yun because when I give you the numbers, you give the (clauses) of those
numbers. Section 26, Section 33, Section 92 also. Section 66, Section 70, Section 91 and 92 and 98.
General law. Yung ang kailangan talaga mag-explain ako, hindi pwede sa recitation yan. Sobrang
mahirap talaga, mahirap. Pag nag-recitation tayo, doon tayo sa robbery, yun mahirap yun.
Robbery with force ofmahirap yun. Syndicated estafa. Talagang mahihirapan kayo sa Dangerous
Drugs Law. Then I will give you some cases. I will discuss some cases probably in Section 26, 33 wag
kalimutan yan because you will understand what Ive been talking about. Section 11, 12, and 15.
Section 5, important yan. Section 4. Section 29, planting of evidence.

You read 364 of the Revised Penal Code. When you read Section 29 of 9165, you read it together
with
Article 364 of the Revised Penal Code. Tignan mo nga yung 364 hija, kung tama ako?
Incriminatory
machinations. Intriguing against honor napapagbaliktad ko. 364 is ano incriminatory
machinations? Intriguing against honor. So, 363 is incriminatory machinations.

What is 364? Intriguing against honor.

365? Incriminating innocent person.

So instead of 364, 365. You read 365 together with Section 29 of 9165. importante
yan.

What is the crime of incriminatory machinations?

363.

Ayun na nga. Sabi ko 363. 363 is incriminatory machinations, di ba? You read together with Section
29.
364 is intriguing against honor, di ba? Kasi 365 yan ang huli eh. 365 is culpa in criminal negligence. 362
I
think is proof of (proof) in the crime of libel.

Okay. (Unintelligible) kasi malayo. Ang question dyan ay mag-plant ka ng evidence ano ang crime? You
make it appear that somebody was in possession of an unlicensed firearm, what is the crime?
You planted firearms in order that a fellow will be liable for illegal possession of firearms, ano crime? Yan
363 yan, incriminatory machination. But if you plant dangerous drugs, then that is also making it appear
that somebody committed a crime of violation of Dangerous Drugs, the crime is not 363, that is Section
29, planting of evidence.

Revised Penal Code: Articles 177-189

Article 177 Usurpation of authority of official functions

What is important in 177 is any person who will serve the function of a public officer is liable
for usurpation. But under 177, that usurpation can be committed by a person that is a private individual.
You will also a counter usurpation of judicial, executive and legislative functions, but these usurpations
will be tackled when we take up crimes committed by public officers, noh? There may be usurpations
committed by public officers. So, if the usurpation is committed by a private individual, the law that is
violated in this Article 177. But if the usurpation is committed by a public officer, then the crime will
either be usurpation of legislative, executive or judicial functions which may be found in crimes
committed by public officers.

Article 178 Using fictitious name and concealing true

name

And then illegal use of insignia has been use of an alias. Use of an alias is not a crime per se. Because
nickname is an alias, the use of an alias, he is not liable. But what makes it a crime under 178 is that the
use of an alias is either for the purpose or purposes of any of those mentioned by the law, to abate
judgment, to cause an act over the public interest and to cause damage to other party, conceal the
commission of the crime to abate judgment or to cause damage. If you use an alias for the purposes of
any of the purposes mentioned in 178, then youll be liable to a violation of 178 by mere, but merely
using an alias is not a crime. It is not a crime, noh.

Article 179 Illegal use of uniforms or

insignia
Then 179, although self-explanatory, the use of illegal use of insignia or uniform. Usually the acts occur
to those where uniforms are required for a public officer. Police, insignia of the police, military, yan.

Article 185 Machinations in public auctions

So, lets now go to 185, machination in a public auction. Theres nothing to explain. It is very clear
from the provision of 185 that when you try to manipulate a public auction, then you are liable for
machination of the public auction under 185.
Articles 186 to 189

Now, 186-189. I told you last time that this has been amended by Republic Act 8293, your law
on intellectual property, noh? More on commercial law under the Revised Penal Code.

Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Part 1

Article 190 Possession, preparation and use of prohibited drugs and maintenance of opium
dens

Lets now go to 190 which has been amended by the Dangerous Drugs Law. Okay. Now, the present
dangerous Drugs Law is Republic Act 9165, noh, of the year 2002. Its the law that took effect in July
4,
2002. That is RA 9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Law of 2002. Now
before that law, the law was then Republic Act 6425, noh. It used to be Republic Act 6425, otherwise
known as the Dangerous Drugs Law of 1972. Now, before we go to the salient features of 9165, we will
first know what were those that were provided under Republic Act 6425 so that we will understand
the
amendments in 9165, okay?

Now, the Dangerous Drugs Law is by its very nature a malum prohibitum. It is a malum prohibitum
because mere violation of the law makes the offender criminally liable. Therefore, if it is a
malum prohibitum, then you do not apply the provisions of the Revised Penal Code as a rule, noh? As a
rule, you cannot appreciate the mitigating circumstances or those circumstances that may be available in
crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code. However, under the old law of Republic Act 6425, that is
the old one, not the present law, so that you will know the changes. Under the old law, Republic Act
6425, the penalties then at that time were based on the quantity of the prohibited or regulated drugs and
punished with penalties under the Revised Penal Code. In other words, you have there a special law
where the law provides for penalties that are found in the Revised Penal Code. So, that was the reason
why the Supreme Court came out with a doctrine laid down in People versus Party of Simon, the People
versus Simon, that if the special law adopts the nomenclature of penalties under the Revised Penal
Code, then the provisions of the Revised Penal Code are applied as a general rule. So that under the old
law, if one pleads guilty under the old law, or one proves mitigating circumstances under the old law,
then those mitigating circumstances are appreciated because the penalties then are penalties under the
Revised Penal Code. Okay.

Now, under the present Republic Act 9165 under Section 98 of the Revised Code 9165, the law
specifically provides that the Revised Penal Code is not applicable to this law. So, there is a clear
declaration in this law that the Revised Penal Code is not applicable to this law. Except that if the
offender is a minor, however, minority pala hindi exempted, if the offender is a minor, then the penalty
imposed by law is the penalty of life imprisonment to death, then the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua
to death. So, that is found in Section 98, ano ha. There is expressed prohibition of the application of the
Revised Penal Code to this law that makes the Dangerous Drugs Law. But if the offender is a minor,
however, if the offender is a minor and the offense committed by the minor is a penalty of life
imprisonment to death, then the penalty to be imposed shall be the penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death.

Okay, how do we explain that? Now, under your Republic Act 9344, noh, which is the Juvenile
Delinquent Welfare Law of 2006. The law says that there is only one minor that can now be liable, and
the minor that can be liable is if the age of the minor is between 15 and 18, hindi ba? Between 15 and 18
acting with discernment. So, that is the only minor that can now be liable after that law. But if that minor
is liable because he acted with discernment, then the law in Article 89 of the Revised Penal, or Article
68, rather, in Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, he will be entitled to a privileged mitigating
circumstance of minority. So, it will then illustrate - you pay particular attention to the example that I will
be giving.

When you look at your Section 11 of 9165, we explained Section 98. If you look at your Section 11 of
Republic Act 9165, the law penalizes illegal possession of dangerous drugs based on quantity. Based
on
quantity. So therefore, regardless of quantity. So, if the lets take the case of shabu. Under Section 11,
if one is found in possession of shabu where the quantity is more than 50 grams, lets say 50 grams of
shabu, shabu yan, ha and then here comes a minor, 17-year-old boy, caught in act of possessing,
possessing ha, 51 grams of shabu and therefore violation of Section 11. The penalty of which is
more than 50 grams of shabu is life imprisonment to death or the penalty is life imprisonment to death, is
it not? Under Section 11, okay? Now, the question that will be asked is what is the effect of a minor
committing an offense under Section 11 where the penalty of life imprisonment to death is imposable?
Now, if you look at this, never mind Section 98 never mind Section 98 in the meantime. If the penalty of
the offense is life imprisonment to death, even if you want to appreciate a privileged mitigating
circumstance of minority, there is nowhere between lower to life imprisonment to death. Because as I told
you in Article 61 before, only the penalties in the Revised Penal Code can be graduated. Do you follow?
Even if you want to appreciate the privileged mitigating circumstance, you cannot lower it by one degree
because there is no one degree lower to life imprisonment to death. Do you follow?

Now, what does Section 98 provide? Section 98 provides that if a minor commits an offense where the
penalty is life imprisonment to death, then the penalty to be imposed should be the penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death. Di ba? Nakalagay sa Section 98? If the penalty of the offense committed by the minor
is life imprisonment to death, then the penalty to be imposed shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
So what happens, therefore, in this particular case is that the penalty of life imprisonment to death, a
penalty under special law is converted into a penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, a penalty under the
Revised Penal Code, di ba? Is this the penalty under the Revised Penal Code? There is no such thing as
life imprisonment. But is this a penalty under the Revised Penal Code? Reclusion perpetua to death?
Yes. Therefore, the penalty is converted to a penalty under the Revised Penal Code.

Now, you now apply the doctrine laid down in People versus Simon. What does the doctrine say? That if
the offense is now punishable, the nomenclature of penalty under the Revised Penal Code, then the
provisions of the Revised Penal Code shall apply as a general rule. So what will they do now with this?
Because the penalty now is reclusion perpetua to death. If you now appreciate a privileged mitigating
circumstance of minority, is there one degree lower to reclusion perpetua to death? Yes. One degree
lower is reclusion temporal. That is the only instance where the Revised Penal Code is applicable, it is a
special law. That is the implication of Section 98.

Okay. Now, if you go further, if you remember your computation of penalties in your Article 64 of
the
Revised Penal Code, if the penalty now is babae, what will you
do?

Divide.

You divide into three, di ba? So, you divide into three. You have minimum, medium, and

maximum. No mitigating, no more mitigating, no more aggravating? Whats the penalty?

Medium.

Your authority is Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code. Where will you get your minimum penalties
under the Indeterminate Sentence Law? The Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum penalties
shall be taken in any of the penalty next lower or in between. Babae o lalaki?

Babae.

And then you divide into three. So, you have your minimum, medium, and maximum. So, your minimum
penalty will come from there. Your maximum penalty will come from here. Is it not? Okay. So, I
convicted the accused minor, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and appreciating a privileged
mitigating circumstance, I imposed a penalty of six years and one day to 15 years as the maximum. Six
years and one day of the minimum to 15 years as the maximum. Do you follow? Then the counsel of the
accused says, assuming that there is no suspension, just to explain. Do you now apply his full
probation? Will you approve a probation here?
Yes.

The maximum penalty is six years, eh. The minimum penalty that I imposed is six years and one day,
eh. The minimum penalty that I imposed is six years and one day, eh. Under the Probation Law, you can
only apply for probation where the penalty does not exceed six years. But the penalty that I imposed is
six years and one day to 15 years. Can he apply for probation? Yes, under Section 70. As long as hes a
first time minor offender, ha. Section 70, as long as he is a first time minor offender.

Now, but, be careful, as I said. I used an example of illegal possession because there may be penalties
of life imprisonment to death, but does not fall under the Section 11 like Section 5, that is drug pushing,
drug trafficking, ano, ha? Because under Section 24, if you look at your Section 24, there is a prohibition
on probation. Ang nakalagay sa Section 24, no probation for drug traffickers and drug pushers. So,
that is the prohibition on probation. No probation for drug traffickers or drug pushers.

Now, if my example here is that he was caught in the act of selling, Section 70 is not applicable to
him. Do you follow?

If my example is, lets say, drug trafficker, hes a drug trafficker, hes a drug pusher, seller, and so on,
you will still apply this computation because he is entitled to a privileged mitigating circumstance, but he
cannot apply for probation. Because under Section 24, probation is prohibited for drug traffickers or drug
pushers. Thats why I used illegal possession. Do you follow? If I used drug trafficking, you follow still this
computation. But he is not entitled to probation because under Section 24, probation is prohibited to drug
traffickers or drug pushers.

So, that is the only instance where the Revised Penal Code will apply as a general rule, because
Section
19.

Yes?

If I read it correctly, RA 934 provides that

9344 yun.

Regarding on what time the offender may be, a minor offender may be entitled to probation after all
the

If he fails. If he fails in the intervention program. Thats it. Yeah, thats why I said forget about 9344 in the
meantime, just to explain Section 19 and Section 17, but Im assuming that you assumed that he
will apply for probation only if he failed in the intervention program because he is entitled. We will come
into that under Section 66. I will correlate this with Section 66 later on. And then, also with Section 38 and
Section 42 of 9344, noh? The explanation, so that you will not it will no be complicated. My explanation
on Section 98 is only in so far as the application of the Revised Penal Code and the application of
probation law in the meantime.

Medyo malalim yung tanong, eh. Sobrang complex yun, eh. Okay. So, lets go back. What are the other
things that you should know?

Now, under the old law, there were two kinds of drugs under the old law. You have prohibited drugs and
regulated drugs so that decisions of the Supreme Court tell us that if you are in possession - lets say you
have two hands, of course. Your right hand is holding marijuana and then your left hand is holding the
shabu, caught at the same time, noh. So you where holding marijuana, then probably youre smoking the
marijuana, at the same time youre sniffing the shabu. Pwede yan eh! Kung gusto mo
magpakamatay. So, you are, under the old law, youre violating two offenses because under the old law,
prohibited and regulated drugs were treated separately. So, under the old law if you are caught in the act
of possessing marijuana, you were then punished under Section 8. Then if you are in possession of
shabu, which is a regulated drug, then you will be punished under Section 16. They were treated
separately. But, now,
there is no more distinction between regulated or/and prohibited drugs. They now fall under one
category, which is now dangerous drugs. So, whether it is a marijuana, opium, or Indian hemp, or
shabu, that will be treated only as one offense because they now fall under one category, dangerous
drugs.

Now, the other the thing is that under the old law, when you are caught in the act of selling, noh?
Lets say you were caught in the act of selling shabu, and then later on after you were arrested, you were
arrested by the policeman, and then you get one stick of marijuana from his pocket, then you will be
liable for two offenses under the old law. The one is selling or drug pushing under the old law in Section
15, and then the marijuana taken from your possession, because that is a prohibited drug, Section 8,
illegal possession.

What happens now under the present law? Now, if this is under the present law, then you will have to
make a qualification. If what was found from the possession of the pusher after he was arrested for
selling is part of the sale; then he will only be liable for one offense. But, if the pot was found from his
pocket after he was caught selling the dangerous drugs, then he will be liable for two offenses
because that is not part of the sale. Lets say what was found from his pocket is part of the sale, one
offense; if what is found from his pocket is not part of the sale, then two offenses. One for selling under
Section 5 of 9165; the one that is found from his pocket is violation of Section 11 under 9165 as illegal
possession.

Now, under - anyway, there is also another change, ano ha? I told you that there is no more distinction
between prohibited and regulated drugs, they fall under dangerous drugs. But they have added; the law
has added another group of drugs, which they call precursor or essential chemicals. Precursor or
essential chemicals. Those precursors or essential chemicals are those that are used for the
production of bi-products. Parang raw material yan, hindi production. So, if you produce shabu, the
ingredients of the shabu will be called precursor or essential chemicals. The shabu now will become the
finished product that is a dangerous drug. Now, why do I tell you this? Because under the old law, we do
not find any precursor. Now, what they did now here under Republic Act 9165 thats why if you read
Section 4 or even Section 5, or even Section 11, lets go to Section 4 as an example, or Section 5 na lang
as an example, and then Section 11 as an example. You read the specific violation of the law. Thats in
Section 5, that is the importation of dangerous drugs regardless of the quantity; the penalty is life
imprisonment to death.

Now, for every Section, what is punished by law is not only the trafficker. Babasahin niyo don sa ano
babasahin niyo don sa provisions, meron ding mga ibat ibang offenders don. May financier; may
coddler, protector, may financier, may protector, may coddler, and then there is an illegal possession or
sale of precursor or essential chemical. Tingnan niyo sa law. So, do not be confused. When you read
trafficking under Section 5 for example, the law does not only penalize the act of trafficking, but it
penalizes also the financiers, the protectors, or the coddlers, and the settles of precursor or essential
chemicals. Thats what Im saying. You did not find that in the old law. Ang ginawa nila nagyon, lahat ng
mag-participate sa selling, o lahat ng mag-participate sa importation, lahat mag-participate sa illegal
possession. Nakalagay na lahat don. Okay, Ill give you an example of a protector or coddler so that you
understand what Im talking about.

Here comes a den. A den. When you operate a vice den, that means operating a drug den, where people
will go there and then sniff shabu or marijuana. Parang prostitution den, but this one is a drug
den. Parang sari-sari store for drugs. I think you read this in the papers, in Pasig, di ba? That is a
clear example of a drug den. The penalty of operating a drug den, for those who are operating a drug
den is the penalty of life imprisonment to death. Those who visit the den or visitors are likewise
liable for violating the law as visitors of the vice den. The two is likewise are liable being employees of a
vice den. The policemen or the public officials who protect or coddle the operators of a vice den are
likewise liable as protector or coddlers. Thats what I mean by protectors or coddlers. Where they will be
- of course, the penalty is lower than the penalty of operators because operators of a vice den, the
penalty is life imprisonment to death, eh. Coddlers can be penalized with the penalty of 12 years and
one day to 20 years. Ha? Yon.

This is a Ill give you another example. So that you may think that this is a crime of direct bribery that
we will study later on. Okay.
Supposing the drug pusher is arrested, di ba? Lets say one kilo of shabu. The policemen did not
anymore tried the case against him because the agreement is that they will divide the one kilo of shabu.
Sabi nun, okay. Hindi ka na kakasuhan. You get the half kilo of shabu, and then half of that will be mine,
sabi ng pulis. So that gagamitin niya ring pang negosiyo ung kalahati, hindi ba? Of course, the one the
pusher is liable for drug pushing because he was caught in the act of selling. But, what about the
liability of the policeman? He cannot be liable for bribery because he did not receive money in exchange
for not prosecuting him or not for arresting him. He is liable as a protector or a coddler. That is the
meaning of a protector or coddler. But, the fiscal does not prosecute him, then the crime that is
committed as qualified bribery under Article 211 of the same which we will study later on. Im just only
talking about who is the protector or the coddler, ha? Okay. Now, so, you be careful, therefore, with those
provisions.
Article 8 Possession or use of prohibited drugs

Now, the other thing that youll have to remember is that in your study of your Article 8 of the Revised
Penal Code, its Article 8, di ba? Proposal and conspiracy to commit a crime is not a crime, di ba? Now,
this special law recognizes attempt and conspiracy, although this is a malum prohibitum under
Section
26. Attempt and conspiracy. Okay, what is the implication of attempt and
conspiracy?

Now, the situation is like this. Probably, I referred to entrapment or buy-bust operations, di ba? You know
what is entrapment or buy-bust operation. So, here comes a group of policemen receiving an information
that Mr. A is a drug pusher. What the policemen will do is that they will form a buy-bust team to entrap
the seller. So, they will pick one from them as a pusher-buyer. They will give him the money to buy, di
ba? But usually, policemen, when they present a case on drug pushing, in most cases, they will make it
appear that the money could no longer be found, because once the money is submitted to the
courts, they believe that the money could no longer be returned to them because thats the part of the
evidence. So, they will concoct a story that the money was not recovered. But, you know, in under
Section 5 of Republic Act 9165, if you read Section 5 of 9165, what is punished there is not only sale,
but delivery, transport, carrying away, and sale.

Therefore, the doctrine is that the buy-bust money is not essential in proving violation of drug trafficking
or drug pushing under Section 5. Because what is covered by Section 5 is not only sale, but also
includes delivery or transport, okay. Di ba? Thats why the Supreme Court is very clear on this matter.
Even if the buy bust is money is not presented before the court, you could still be convicted of violation
of Section 5 because the money is not indispensable. Okay.

The other doctrine is that when you can not prove sale in some instances when you can not prove sale,
then the offender will now be liable for violation of Section 11 under illegal possession. Because illegal
possession is necessarily included in sale. Do you follow? Illegal possession is necessarily included in
sale. So, if he can not prove the elements of delivery, transport or sale, then the other doctrine is that the
person can still be liable for illegal possession because illegal possession is necessarily included in the
sale, transport or delivery.

So, what can the policeman do? Therefore, they will come up with a story that the money was lost in the
process or they will come up with a story like this. So, before the seller could give the shabu to the buyer,
and before the buyer could give the money to the seller, the seller sensed that the buyer is a policeman
and ran away. Then they caught up with him, they were able to take hold of the shabu in his possession,
but in the commotion, the money could no longer be found. Thats what they do. If you try to analyze the
facts, there is no exchange although what they have filed is drug pushing because that is they want to
prove in their entrapment. So, if there is no transfer of the thing, subject matter of the sale, as in ordinary
sale and then the consideration likewise is not transferred to the seller, then you can not convict him for
selling, transporting or delivering because there was no actual delivery. So, in that particular instance, the
offense that is committed is illegal possession because the shabu was taken from the possession of the
offender, that is Section 11. But, yun ang problema don. But if in the facts of the case, it will show that
there is intent to sell, intent to deliver, or intent to transport, then the offense will no longer be illegal
possession under Section 11, it will now be Section - what? 26. Okay.
Example. So you try to add something to the facts, so its still - for example, noh. There was already
delivery, hindi ba? There is already delivery, but before it could be held by the policemen, he ran away.
In other words, as long as there is an intent to sell, transport, or deliver, noh, kasi yung example ko
kanina walang pang dini-deliver, hindi pa nilalabas yung kuwarta, hindi pa nilalabas yung shabu, so there
is he now and senses that he is a policeman, then he ran away, but he was caught up by the policemen
and then found from his possession is the shabu. But if the facts will now show that he is already - Lets
say now the policeman is giving the money, di ba? And then the seller now is giving the shabu, then all
of a sudden he ran away, although the money was not yet taken by the seller and the shabu was not yet
given to the buyer. But from those facts, there is already intent to sale, hindi ba? Nagbabayad na
eh, dini- deliver na, eh, so meron nang intent to sell or delivery or transport, then the law that is violated
is Section
26 under Republic Act 9165 which provides that attempt and conspiracy is punishable with the same
penalty as if the act is consummated. Nakalagay sa Section 26, you read Section 26. Therefore, there is
no difference as so far as the penalty is concerned if the act is consummated selling, or transporting, or
delivering because under Section 5, if it is a consummated drug pushing, then the penalty is
life imprisonment to death. Now, under Section 26, attempt and conspiracy, marami yan, ha, but you
know, I am just giving you one example. Sell, transport, deliver, maintenance of a den, manufacture,
importation, maintenance of a den, the penalty is the same as if the offense in consummated. The
penalty is still life imprisonment to death. But that Section 26 will only be applicable if, as I said, you
have already proved an intent to sell, intent to deliver or transport. So, but if there is no intent to sell yet,
then the offense that is committed is violation of Section 11, illegal possession. That is a new provision in
Section 26. Kaya walang lusot yung mga drug pushers, eh.

The other one, as Ive told you last time, noh, when it comes to violation of 9165 which is very different
from illegal possession of firearms, the corpus delicti in violation of 9165 must be proved with certainty.
Must be proved with certainty. That is why you have to prove the chain of custody of this shabu
taken from the possession of the accused, and that shabu taken from the possession of the accused
must be presented before the court. Unlike in illegal possession of firearm, di mo kinakailangan i-
presenta sa husgado yan, eh. Facts or circumstances and evidence will show that the gun was
unlicensed, even if it was not presented before the court, pwede kang ma-convict sa illegal possession of
firearm, but not in illegal possession of shabu or dangerous drugs, that must be presented before the
court because that is part of the corpus delicti.

The usual problems, of course, I have not tried, probably, cases about this, but the usual problems
there is like this, ano ha. How do you establish the corpus delicti of a shabu? Now, usually offenses are
committed outside of police precincts, di ba? In places outside of police precincts, siyempre. If there
is one violating dangerous drugs inside the police precinct, its the policeman. Siya ang nag-shashabu, di
ba? So, what they usually do is that, so that we can establish the chain of custody, the usual problems
there would be: If you are arrested somewhere in Rockwell, noh, then the policeman who arrested that
person in Rockwell must now make his markings on the one that is taken from the possession. Kasi ang
ginagawa ng pulis, huli mo don sa Rockwell, they will not make any marking, they will go to the police
precinct and then turn over to the investigator. Now, if that was not marked and then the investigator will
be the one to mark that specimen, that is not the corpus delicti. Doubtful. They say that the chain of
custody should be established with certainty that that shabu was the one that was taken from the
procession of the offender.

So, if the shabu was taken in Rockwell that has to already be established, that its the same one.
So, what they do is that they should now mark the exhibit, mark the specimen, and then bring that to the
investigator, that again will be marked, and then that specimen will be brought to the chemist, that again
will have to be determined that that was the one that was the subject matter of the examination and then
later on, when it is brought to the court, that is the same evidence that was taken from the possession of
the accused. If there is a hiatus on the chain of custody, the accused will be acquitted because the
corpus delicti must be established with certainty. Pag merong doubt sa chain of custody, you can put up
doubt that that is not the same shabu that was taken from the possession of the offender, the accused
will be acquitted. Ganon ka i-strikto ang dangerous drugs in establishing the corpus delicti in violation of
the dangerous drugs.
Okay. Now, lets go to the other areas. Siguro, well jump to anyway, in Section 4, the offense there
violated is importation. So you know what is importation, if it is committed by a diplomatic member of the
diplomatic board, taking advantage of his privileges, then the maximum penalty of death shall be
imposed and those who are punished likewise are the financiers or coddlers. Then you go to Section 5,
thats where we have taken up pushing or drug trafficking, sale, or delivery of which will include also
precursors and then likewise penalizes the financiers and the protectors and the coddlers. Okay.

Now, in the meantime will go to Section 15 in relation to Section 12 and Section 11. Now the other
Section, Section 6 maintenance of a den, manufacture, manufacture of drugs, maintenance of a den,
visitors of a den, employees of a den. Self-explanatory yan, walang masyadong problema. Whos the
maintenor of a den? Eh di yung nagma-maintain ng drug den. Who are visitors? Then those who go to a
den. Visitors. Who are the employees? The employees. Anu pang ie-explain natin dyan? Kung sino yung
empleyado, eh di yung mga empleyado roon. Then manufacturer? The one who manufacture
drugs, thats also punishable by life imprisonment po yan, eh.

Okay. Now, we will go to the more important one. Lets go to Section 15, 11, and 12. The problem areas
are here. Of course, the other problem areas, I have already told you, ano ha? The other problem areas
are Section 15, Section 11, and Section 12.

Now, you go to Section 15 so that you can follow me. Under Section 15, one is liable for illegal use, that
is illegal use, ha? What is use? Gumagamit. Illegal use of dangerous drugs for the first time is punishable
by six months rehabilitation. So, one who is caught in the act of using dangerous drugs after a
confirmatory test, nakalagay don, after a confirmatory test is punishable by six months rehabilitation. If
you are found for the second time with the penalty, there will now be a penalty of imprisonment. I think
its 12 years and one week to 20 years, okay.

So, the situation therefore is like this. If you are caught using or youre smoking marijuana or you are
sniffing shabu, shabu na lang. How do you commit the crime of, how to you commit or how do you use
shabu? Siyempre, you have a tooter, may tooter yan, eh. May tooter, may aluminum foil, may burner at
saka may lighter. So what they do is that they will get a[laughter]

walang nasabi, biglang explain, noh? Addict yata si sir, eh.

[laughter]

So, just to illustrate it ba. They will get take aluminum foil and then there is a burner and then there is a
tooter. And then they will light the burner and then smoke will be emitting on top of the aluminum
foil. Then you will place the tooter, and then you start sniffing it. Finally. [laughter]

Kayo lang ang nakakaalam nyan. Then probably after 30 minutes you will already be through, then
you we will say, heaven. Heaven. Now, if the policeman caught me in the act of sniffing shabu, I am
not yet liable, I am not liable because the law says after a confirmatory test, nakalagay don, after a
confirmatory test. You know what is a confirmatory test? Confirmatory test is the second test. There is
an initial test and that initial test must be confirmed, that is the meaning of a confirmatory test. So, if you
are caught therefore, then the policemen will probably request you to urinate ha. Hoy, mag-urinate ka,
then subject the urine to laboratory test. If that is positive, then that first findings will be confirmed by
another test, that is the meaning of a confirmatory test. You can not be liable even the policeman saw
you because the law requires after a confirmatory test. I do not know why we included that phrase,
confirmatory test.

Sir, but what the (unintelligible) requires is he will definitely

be

Were going to that, noh? Kaya nga sabi ko Section 11, 12 and 15, okay.
Now, and then you look at the last part of Section 15. Nakalagay don, if however the person caught in
the act of using shabu, a quantity, a quantity of dangerous drugs is found from his possession, then he
will be liable for violation of Section11. Then that is illegal possession. So, the example you can go
further with the example.
So, I am now caught in the act of using. Apart from any place where I have control, noh, even one
gram or one gram of shabu was found in my possession under my control, nandun sa table lang, then
the use will now be absorbed by Section 11. So, you will now be liable for violation of Section 11 because
the quantity will now justify the offense to this violation of Section 11 and therefore, you are no longer
liable for use. Now, youre question is that because you are using, tapos meron pang (unintelligible).
Because you know, what they say is that the Dangerous Drugs Law of 2002 is more favorable to the
user. User is not considered as a criminal. He is rather a victim of the drug in the case. Thats
why to prevent policemen from taking advantage of those who are caught, they have to be subjected to
a confirmatory test because if they are found positive under a confirmatory test, there is no penalty of
imprisonment. They will only go on rehabilitation and after rehabilitation, they will already be released.
Yon ang purpose nyan.

The problem, however is complicated by Section 12. Kasi nakalagay sa Section 12, illegal possession of
drug paraphernalia is punishable by six months and one day to four years, di ba? Tama ba? Six months
and one day to four years. You compare the penalty under Section 15 for the first offense, the
first offense is only six months rehabilitation, eh. But ang drug paraphernalia is punished by six months
and one day to four years imprisonment. Then if you look at the second sentence of Section 12, illegal
possession of drug paraphernalia, nakalagay dun, ha, is a prima facie evidence of use under Section 15.
Section 12 is a prima facie evidence of violation of Section 15, but you can not use shabu without drug
paraphernalia, eh. Kinakain ba yung shabu? Mahal yan pag kinain mo yan, ubos ang kwarta mo,
eh. Baka pati Rockwell ibebenta mo nyan. Mahal yan, eh. So, you did you get my example? I was
caught in the act of using but Im also using drug paraphernalia because I can not use shabu without any
drug paraphernalia. So what will be the situation? You can not be liable for violation of Section 12, illegal
possession of drug paraphernalia, but instead you will be violating Section 15 because illegal possession
of drug paraphernalia is a prima facie evidence of use. So the use now will absorb the drug
paraphernalia because you can not really use shabu without drug paraphernalia, that is the meaning. But
if you are not using any shabu but merely got caught in possession of drug paraphernalia, then you are
liable under Section 12. Kaya mas maganda pa kung gamitin mo na lang.

[laughter]

Section 11 absorbs use. Use absorbs illegal use by illegal possession of drug paraphernalia. But if in the
problem is that a quantity likewise is found from your possession, then the quantity will absorb
everything. You will only be liable for violation of Section 11. Lets say gumamit ako, di ba? Gumamit
ako, so Im violating use at the same time, Im violating illegal possession. Now, if Im only using it then
the illegal possession of drug paraphernalia will now be absorbed in the use because you can not commit
a crime of using without drug paraphernalia. But, however, if I am caught now, they found two grams of
shabu in the table, then that two grams of shabu will now absorb the use. Then you will now be liable for
violation of Section 11, illegal possession. So the illegal possession will absorb everything, ha, but thats
why if you are caught in the act of possessing drug paraphernalia, the penalty is six months and one day
to four years, eh. Gamitin mo na lang. Six months in rehabilitation pa. Yes?

For the case that even if the offender failed in the confirmatory test but he was caught in the act of
possessing, will he be liable?

Okay, so your problem is use, di ba? And then the confirmatory test is positive, you

mean? If he failed it.

What do you mean failed, negative? He did not use it, then he can not be liable for use, but he can be
liable for illegal possession because that will now be a separate offense.

Sir, if the accused refuses to have the confirmatory

test?
4D 2007 1
But he can not refuse. He can not impose once it is self-
incriminatory.

4D 2007 2
But what will you do as to possession of drugs?

Delikado yan. If the one caught in the act of using refuses to undergo confirmatory test, plantingan ka ng
pulis. Plantingan ka ng pulis nyan. Kasi, Hoy, ayaw mo ng confirmatory a, ayaw mo, ha. O sige,
plantingan ka ng one gram. Patay ka, mas mahaba ang sentence nun. Kaya nga useless ung Section
11, eh. In fact, thats what they are doing. Because its very hard to subject a person arrested in the act
of using and then subjecting to a confirmatory test. Ma-trabaho sa pulis yan, eh. Huhulihin mo, dadalhin
ka sa Camp Crame or sa chemist, eh. It will take time. Siya pa magbayad ng pamasahe at lahat pa. So
what do you think if they will not charge you with illegal use? What will they charge you? Possession na
lang. Walang gastos. Eh, nagbibihis pa lang si pulis sa umaga eh, nag-iisip na kung saan kakain, eh.
Kung saan magmemeryenda, san iinom ng beer sa gabi, eh. Tapos, confirmatory test pa? Maniwala ka
diyan. Kaya sabi ko nga kay Senator Barbers nun, eh, kako, Manong, theres something with your rule.
Galing sa akin, eh. Afterwards, he died. Because hes the sponsor, eh. Yes?

Is it possible that an offender will be liable in Section 12 but then he also failed the confirmatory
test?

Now, problem there is that under Section 12, what the law still provides is that that is a prima facie
evidence of use, ano ha? But when youre already in possession of drug paraphernalia, you will
always be become liable for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia. Probably, what the accused will do
is to put up in defense that he intended to use it so that he can be absorbed in illegal use. But if the
policeman caught you in the act of possessing drug paraphernalia, it is already a violation in itself under
Section 12. Ang sinasabi lang diyan prima facie evidence because he might have used drugs when he
was caught in the act of possessing. Kaya parang its a warning to the policeman that if he is using it, do
not charge him with illegal possession. So, ang nangyayari dyan, if you are the accused, I mean the
lawyer, probably I can put up a defense that he was using them so that I can get the six months
rehabilitation. Kaya sinabi
don prima facie evidence. If youre the accuseds lawyer, then you can not put up a defense except that
you are caught in the act, eh. Pano mo idedepensa yon? Mamimili ka lang ng pulis na ia-assign mo
dyan, eh. So the only defense that you can put up is that he was using it so that he can escape with the
penalty of six months rehabilitation. Yan. Thats true. Kasi loko ang mga pulis, eh. Loko, eh.

Ang problema kasi under the law, even under the old law, pinaghiwalay-hiwalay nila ang provisions na
yon, eh. Yung illegal possession under Section 11 also includes illegal use under Section 15 under the
old law, eh. Pinaghiwalay nila kasi, eh, thinking it will help the users but rather it is helping the policeman
increase their income. Bakit? Eh, kung user lang yan, eh, eh, hindi ka magbigay. Ah, wala. They will
convert it into illegal possession nyan. You go around the court rules sa Metro Manila. Conduct ka ng
survey kung sino ang nag-charge ng illegal use. Baka sa 100, iisa lang. Sa 100 cases of drugs, iisa lang
ang na-charge ng illegal use. Dagdag sa trabaho yan eh, pulis pa? Di bale kung military, they do not
arrest naman, eh. Why do they not arrest? Iba naman ang hinahanap, eh. Abu Sayyaf, eh. Yes, maam?

In the information charges possession but is actually a violation of another provision, is the accused
entitled to an acquittal?

No. But - you give me an example.

Like your example a while ago, illegal possession but it is actually

selling

No. No, it is not. As long as the allegations in the information will include possession, wala. It will not
violate any - it does not violate the right of the accused in the rules in criminal procedure. di ba? You can
be convicted of a crime not necessarily charged with the provision as long as it is necessarily included in
the crime charged. Di ba, gaya ng murder. Like this one also, if you are charged with illegal sale. Under
Section 5, you can still be convicted of illegal possession because possession is necessarily included in
the sale. You can not sell without possessing it. Ganon din ang principle. So it will depend on whether or
not that is a crime necessarily included in the crime charged in the information.

Justice, if you were to be in a situation where it would fall specifically under illegal use so the user
must not have left any trace of drugs around the area of his
Of course. Under his control.

Under his control.

You will apply the doctrine your rule your rule on regular procedure, di ba? Search without a warrant.
You can be searched, hindi ba? Even if there is no warrant of arrest as long as the search arises from a
lawful arrest, hindi ba? And, therefore, you can be searched not only of the things in your possession but
things with your control. Di ba ganun? I do not know if Im correct. Di ba? Within your control so that
means that does not only come from your body but in the place where you have control. Ano yung place
where there is control? Eh, dun sa table. Yung sa pinaglagyan niya, andun. You have control in that.
That can still be admissible against him. Well, thats the situation in Section 11.

Okay, lets go further. Now, under Section 24, I repeat, ano ha. Walang probation, prohibited. But the
one, I might forget it, the one that I told you last time, we jumped to Section 29. There are many
provisions yet that we are going to study. But Im going baka makalimutan ko, eh. So you go to Section
29. Planting of evidence. Planting of evidence is punishable by penalty of death. Tingan nyo diyan.
Section 29. But if you plant any other evidence in the crime, in any other crime, then the law that is
violated is Article 363 of the Revised Penal Code. Incriminatory machination, ha? Its not malicious
persecution. Yung malicious prosecution is you - it might lead to a crime of perjury, eh.
Malicious persecution. Pag malicious persecution, its usually a damage suit. Kung perjury, its a
criminal case. For example, here comes a witness, noh. He is a perjured witness. I tell him to execute
an affidavit affirming that I was not in the place of the commission of the crime but knowing that I was
there, that I was the one who committed the crime, so you execute an affidavit so that will be
exonerated. So that penalty is perjury, di ba? Okay. On the other hand, if I use a witness and then
implicate him, ha, implicate him as the one who committed the crime and then the statement is likewise a
perjured statement, making it appear that he committed the crime when in fact it is not. Therefore, that
will also become perjury because it is a malicious falseration of facts under oath, di ba?

Now, if however, what we did is that we planted an evidence, like a firearm, so that he can be charged
with illegal possession of firearm, that can not be perjury because there is no false statement, then
that will now become a crime of incriminatory machination under Article 363. Now, if the charge,
however, is violation of Republic Act 9165, I gave him a gun. I mean I put - I planted a shabu in order
that he can be liable, then the offense that is punishable is violation of Section 29, planting of
evidence where the penalty is death. Penalty yan, penalty of death for planting of evidence. Do you
follow? What about malicious prosecution? Ano yung malicious prosecution? For purposes of recovery of
damages lang yan.

Okay, now lets go back to the other provisions. Now, you look at also Section 33. The provision there is
long but we will try to simplify the provision. You know, this has to be connected with Section 26. Now,
26 and 33 can be correlated with one another. Why did Congress come up with these two provisions?
Its like this. When you say malum prohibitum, the principle is that you can only be liable when you
are caught in the act of violating it, hindi ba? Mere violation of the law makes the offender criminally
liable. Therefore, you can not make the source of the drugs liable because the drug pushers or the drug
lord is sleeping in his house. So, if I am the seller, so the drug lord says, okay. The shabu came from
the drug lord living in a high rise condominium. Then he has the sellers. Yung mga bidder man nya.
And then here comes now a small time seller. But those drugs come from the drug lord. Now, if that
seller now is caught in the act of selling, then who will be liable?

The seller.

The one who is caught the one who is caught selling because that is the essence of malum prohibitum,
ha. The one who is committing the act is the one liable under the principle of malum prohibitum. So, the
brainers of the law adopted the characteristics of mala in se into the law, thats why you have conspiracy.
Attempt and conspiracy and thats why you have Section 33. That if you are charged with offenses
where the penalties are light offense, Section 7 illegal prescription, illegal possession of drug
paraphernalia, illegal use; then that victim may be utilized as a witness by the government in order to
charge the sources
of these drugs or those who are in the business of importing under Section 4, in the business of
trafficking under Section 5, in the business of manufacturing, in the business of maintaining a den, in
the business of cultivating. All of those can now be liable by utilizing the person arrested as long as the
person arrested is not charged with a higher offense, specified sa Section 33, eh. Yung mga light offense
lang yan. Illegal prescription, illegal use, yung paraphernalia, di ba, or visitors of a den or employees of
a den. So, they can be now utilized as witnesses against those, even - even, nakalagay sa Section 33.
Even if you do not comply with the requirements of the discharge of an accused under your rules of
criminal procedure. Kasi
yang sa rules of criminal procedure, in your discharge of an accused in your rule 119, you can only
discharge the accused when the information is already filed against the accused, hindi ba? How do you
discharge an accused under your rules of criminal procedure in rule 119? Anong gagawin mo dun? File-
an mo muna ng kaso, hindi ba?

You file a case against all the accused, then if the evidence of the prosecution, not actually weak, but the
evidence of the prosecution needs one of the accused to be discharged, then you file a motion to
discharge with the same criminal proceedings, and then you convince the court that all the essential
elements of a discharge of accused are present, he does not appear to be the most guilty, that the
evidence can be corroborated by other pieces of evidence, he should have not been charged as
convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, di ba? Then you have to prove. Okay.

Under Section 33, you do not need that. Even before the filing of the case, you can already use the
person arrested as a witness to determine who are the sources, who are those involved in drug
trafficking, in drug manufacturing, in drug transporting, or even in importing. Do you follow? You correlate
that with Section 26. Anong sinasabi sa Section 26? Conspiracy. A conspiracy allowed in malum
prohibitum. Why? The follow this from the Narcotics Law of United States of America eh, di ba? Okay.

Another example, so I was caught in the act of selling to him, di ba? Now, how will you hold the source of
the drugs who is found near an Islam state in China? If Im involved in the act of selling, di ba? Because I
am the one violating the law. Under the principle of conspiracy. If you can prove that the drugs came
from that man from China or any place in the world, he can be indicted under the principle of conspiracy.
But of course, the other question will be how can you establish conspiracy? Thats another thing.
But what Im saying is that you can now charge the sources of the drugs under the principle of
conspiracy. Yun ang purpose na inilagay yung Section 26 at saka Section 33, to hold the sources of
trafficking of drugs likewise liable either under Section 33 or under Section 26. Kaya magandang
provision yan, but ngayon wala pa, eh.

Paano yung territorial provision?

Well, the problem there is whether or not the law can be applied here. The crime is committed here, eh.
But, whether or not you can bring it here in the Philippines, thats another thing.

If the delivery was made in China?

Ah, hindi puwede dito yon. Delivery made in

China?

But if the middle man is here based on report, that

the

He can be indicted here under the principle of conspiracy because the crime was committed here. That
is the effect of Section 33 and Section 26. Thats a good law, but I have yet to hear others charged with
this kind of conspiracy or under Section - wala pa, wala pa akong naririnig. Its a good law, but very hard.
Its very hard to prove conspiracy. Alam naman ninyo yan eh. You prove conspiracy as if there is the
crime, so therefore, prove conspiracy with proof beyond reasonable doubt, hind ba? Yes?

Sir, I was going to ask about proving the conspiracy part, sir, because di ba, malum prohibitum, mahirap.
We have to prove conspiracy. But probably the provisions there are deterrent, hindi ba? Deterrent

parati.
So - anyway. But lets go further.
Sir, it says here that anyone who voluntarily submits to rehabilitation then shall be exempted from
prosecution and punishment. Sir, makikipag-areglo ka na lang ba sa kanila?

Thats a good question, because they might raise that as an issue in Section 33, eh. You might be
violating the right of the accused. The one who is arrested, like for example of illegal use, then
you compel him now to testify against him, he not assisted by counsel. That can be used as a - ano
ehthat may be used to deflect the purpose of Section 33.

So, my only concern is that, that is a rule, whether or not it can be admissible, thats another thing. Its
up to you. But, as long as the law says that, it will make you explain. Magiging problema talaga
yan. Because once you get the statement of a person arrested, then you will apply now the rules, the
rules of criminal procedure or cal in the Constitution now, that might become an extrajudicial confession,
eh. Considered yan admitting eh. Thats another thing.

Alam mo kasi, pinattern nila sa Amerika yan, eh. You know that in America, mas strict ang rules
natin, ang laws natin. Ang due process, mas strict tayo dito kaysa Amerika. Dun sa Amerika, may search
warrant ka, a search warrant is issued against the individual. That individual is arrested and then if he will
cooperate, then the policeman and the district attorney can already bargain with the person arrested, and
then he will give his statement implicating the source, admissible yan. Sa atin hindi puwede eh. Oo,
ganun sa Amerika kaya ang dali nilang nakakahuli sila even if the drug ports from Panama, in other
Columbia eh, na-iindict nila doon, eh because of what? Eh tayo, masyado tayong pasikat, eh. Ano ha?
Sobra sobra eh, hindi ba?

Kaya, probably they only place that as a deterrence, but actually if you get the statement of a person
arrested, they might question the legality of the statement as violation of extrajudicial confession or they
may invoke self incrimination. Maraming objections diyan eh, but what I am always saying is that this is
better than ordinary crimes. Because if you want to discharge an accused in a crime committed as
a whole crime, then you have to follow the requirements under the rules.

Ang mangyayari diyan i-charge mo muna. Like in the case of Larranaga. Do you know the case of
Larranaga? Yong dalawang magkapatid na nirape? The case should not have progressed if not for the
discharge of one of the accused, Rosia. Mahirap i-prove yun, eh. Iyong dalawang magkapatid na
beauties from Cebu? Iyong Astar family, Larranaga, sinakay sa sasakyan, they were brought to a far
place. They were raped, and one of the bodies was found from the edge of the mountain. The other body
was never found. They were questioning the decision of the court, that they did not believe the testimony
of one of the accused kasi he was in Quezon City learning how to cook, di ba? Oo, alam ko yun.

Yung Chiong sisters. Merong magandang case dun sa motion to discharge an accused, eh. Because the
one who was discharged was convicted of larceny in Mississippi. So, he was discharged. He is not the
most guilty. The problem is he admitted that he was one of those who abducted the women. So, ang sabi
ng Supreme Court, he does not appear to be the most guilty. Why? Because the crime is not only illegal
detention, but likewise with rape and homicide.

So, number two, of course his testimony really was very crucial and therefore can be corroborated. Ang
problema dun yung conviction niya. There was a conviction of larceny. Robbery yan eh, or stealing.
Kaya lang, wala silang crime of theft or robbery, they call it larceny yata, eh, di ba, in other states. He
was convicted there, then they questioned why he should discharged. Sabi ng Supreme Court, he can
still be discharged even if he has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. What is more
important is the credibility of his testimony. So, if the testimony is credible, that is more important
that hell be convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.

Ganyan din ang mga - kaya nga ang nilagay sa Section 33, you will not anymore go to this process of an
accused being discharged during the trial because the process is harder. Kasi ang process sa rule ng
criminal procedure, you present the witnesses, he will submit an affidavit, then after submitting
the
affidavit, youll present him as a witness, he will be subjected to a cross examination. If the court is not
convinced, denied yung discharge. If the court is convinced, then discharge him.

But, under this 33, even before you go to trial, puwede nang i-exclude that person who gave that
statement in order for the arrest of the source of the drugs under Section 33. Nakalagay diyan, hindi ba?
So, there is no need of filing a motion to discharge. In the first place, he is not being charged as a drug
pusher or trafficker. Ganun yon. Thats why the law says, not withstanding the provisions of the rules of
criminal procedure on discharge of the accused, the person arrested for violation, yan, of Section 7 yata
or Section 11, probably Section 12 or 15 and so on. Illegal prescription of drugs or authorized robber, he
can be used as a state witness. Yan ang implication ng Section 33.
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, Part 2

Just a reminder that under the Dangerous Drugs Law, as I told you last time, there is no more distinction
between a prohibited drugs and regulated drugs. It falls under the category of Dangerous Drugs. Now,
what are the important provisions, ano ha? No, I think I discussed already about Section 15 of the
Dangerous Drugs that is illegal use, hindi ba? Thats why I told you about illegal use.

There is a question in the bar exam. That question is crazy. The question was 247. Under 247, when
you surprise your husband or your wife in the act of sexual intercourse, then you kill or injure one or both
of them, then the penalty is destierro. I told the examinees that the penalty of destierro in 247 is not
actually a penalty because there is no crime committed in 247. Okay yun. But the question is,
because he was penalized with the penalty of destierro, he entered a locality violating the penalty of
destierro.

So, destierro is prohibition to enter between the radius of 250 kilometers to 50 kilometers. He entered.
Then later on, he was caught in the act of using dangerous dangerous drugs. And the question is: Is he
entitled to the indeterminate sentence law? Ang layo pa nun. The question is, was caught in the act of
using dangerous drugs. Is he entitled to indeterminate sentence law? Yet, what was the penalty, di ba?

If you want to know if the indeterminate sentence law is applicable to a sentence offense or crime,
then he should know what is the specific penalty for that. Because if the penalty is straight or the
penalty is death, there is no need for indeterminate sentence law. Eh ang penalty ng illegal use is
six months rehabilitation for this person. So, youre not entitled to the indeterminate sentence law
because the penalty is not imprisonment for the first offense. It is only six months of rehabilitation. But
if you ask that question to the examinees, then they have to memorize the penalty. I think what the
examiner was thinking is that, better or not indeterminate sentence law is applicable to the
Dangerous Drugs Law. I think that is the thinking of the examiner. That is the thinking of
the examiner, of course, yes. Indeterminate sentence law is applicable to the Dangerous Drugs Law.
Because you have to apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law on the authority to the Revised Penal Code
or have special, 'di ba? Okay.

So, lets go to the other provisions under Section 4. I think we discussed already Section 4, the
Importation or Quotation of Dangerous Drugs under Section 4. I told you that in that definition, in that
offense, there are actually, I think offenses that maybe punishable. So, you have the importation of
dangerous drugs, the importation of precursor, then you have the financier, then you have the protector.

Then you go to Section 5. Likewise, you have the seller, the pusher, then you have the financier,
then you have the protector or coddler, then you have the seller of precursor or chemicals.

I think I also discussed about Section 26, di ba? Did I discuss Section 26, Attempt and Conspiracy,
di ba? This is a special rule but there's a provision on attempt or conspiracy to only of several instances
where this provision maybe applicable, di ba? That when you do not prove all the essential elements of
drug pushing. But there is already intent to sell then you know, that this violated is not drug pushing.
The law that is violated in Section 26, attempt and conspiracy to sell,'di ba? If the same is not
consummate, then you cannot be liable for drug pushing but you may be liable for Attempted Conspiracy
to Sell.

I told you already about Section 29, ano, Planting of Evidence? Did I not tell you? If you plant the
evidence, lets say dangerous drugs, in order that one may be liable, then the law that is violated
is
Section 29, Planting of Evidence, di ba? Any other evidence in order to incriminate one with the
commission of a crime, then the crime is Article 353, di ba? Sabi ko, incriminatory machinations. Okay.
So, I told you that.

Then you have also the violations, of course, maintenance of the den. I also told you, di ba? In
maintenance of the den, if you are a maintainer of a den, then the penalty is life imprisonment to death.
Those who visit the den are liable as visitors for a den. Employees of den are likewise liable for the
offense of employees of a den. Those who protect the operation with them are liable for the crime of
protectors or coddlers with the maintenance of a den. And then those who are caught in the act of using
will be liable for the crime of illegal use under Section 15.
There was one of the census asked in the bar exams last Sunday. And the question was: There was a
mahjong session, then join the mahjong session, I think when he went to a mahjong session, thinking
that it was a mahjong session, people were caught in the act of using. So the problem there is that, yung
mga students, baka nagkamali sila. The question uses the word session, eh. Under the new law, there
is no crime of pot session now. So sabi ko sa kanila, if that is the question asked, do not answer directly
the problem as pot session. There is no pot session under the new law. Unlike the old law, when
persons are caught in the act of using dangerous drugs or under that regulated drug, the crime under
the old law is pot session under Section 27. But if that person now is punished under this present law,
then he will be liable individually for the offense of illegal use under Section 15, wala ng pot session.

And then Section 12, I think I discussed about Section 12, Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, di
ba? That is absorbed by illegal use; illegal use is absorbed by illegal possession, di ba? Okay.

Now, what about Section 21? Did I discuss Section 21, Destruction of the Evidence? Okay, that is a new
provision. This is the only crime in our penal structures where the law requires the destruction of
the evidence even before trial. The usual position of the destruction of tools or instruments used in
the commission of a crime or the law would be the provisions in Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code.
Under Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code, those of instruments used in the commission of the crime,
are forfeited in favor of the government. But that forfeiture under Article 45 takes place during judgment.
In other words, that is incorporated with the judgment. When caught, you can only get the
tools, instruments, those used in the commission of the crime, are for trial because that will be
incorporated in the judgment.

But under Section 21 of the Dangerous Drugs Law, the law allows the destruction of the evidence even
before trial. Of course, the process is very long under Section 21. Masyadong mahaba yung process
dyan, eh. But you can simplify the process. The first process is that when dangerous drugs, or
equipment, or precursors, or chemicals are seized or confiscated, then they shall remain in the place
where they seized or confiscated. What the policemen will do is to conduct an inventory and then
brought forth to cuff them. They cannot move, di ba? Let's say, there is a search warrant. So this
house is now searched. There are chemicals, or dangerous drugs, or equipment in the production of
drugs, then those shall not be touched by the arresting policemen or certain policemen. What they will
do is that they will photograph and then they will inventory. Right after the inventory and the photograph,
then the evidence will be transferred to the chemist, ano? The chemist now will now determine if those
confiscated are found to be positive to the test of dangerous drugs. So then, all of these will be subjected
to a test.

Then what will happen is that, so the role of the chemist therefore, is to determine if the evidence
confiscated was seize, or the pieces of evidence, or the instrument and so on, or the laboratory
equipment used in the production of dangerous drugs are positive to the test of dangerous drugs. And
then the chemist will have to make the findings immediately after, ano? Right after their transfer to
them. And then she will prepare the report under oath. The purpose of the report is to determine really if
theyre positive to the test for dangerous drugs. Now, if the result is positive then the chemist now will
and the policemen will now file the case before the inquest fiscal.
They will now bring the case to inquest fiscal. Do you know who the inquest fiscal? We studied
that under Article 125. The inquest fiscal is to determine if there is a probable cause upon the
information if a person is arrested without a warrant. In other words, if there is a warrant of arrest, then
that case will be
brought to the fiscal to determine if there is a probable cause of finding information without a need of a
preliminary investigation. So, the case will go to the fiscal and then the fiscal is required to find
information if there is a probable cause within 24 hours from receipt of the complaint. If it is the subject
matter of inquest for within 48 hours, if it passed through the regular preliminary investigation under
Section 19 of 9165, noh.

If your information now is received by the court, what will the judge do? The judge within 72 hours from
receipt of the information will conduct an ocular inspection in the place where the items are located. And
then within 24 hours from the ocular inspection will cause the destruction of the evidence. If the
presence of the accused, his counsel, the fiscal, the media, the PDEA, concerned citizens, dami eh, and
then what will happen is that, it's like a court proceeding. The process of destruction is recorded by the
court.

Then what became is we endorse that. So lets say this is one ton, di ba? What they will do is that, they
will just get a representative sample. The representative sample, if this is one ton, so probably a
representative sample of 500 grams will do. So, kukuha ng 500 grams and then later on, the 500 grams
will be one that will be marked and that will now be the one that will be used in the presentation of the
evidence of the prosecution. So you get a representative sample that is recorded by the court, that is
marked during the burning and then all those that are no longer needed will now be destroyed. So what
will happen is that during the trial, only those representative samples that were taken during the burning,
will be the one that will be presented to the court to defend to establish the purpose direct time. Thats
what happens in Section 21.

Thats why the law, as I said, this is the only crime that the law allows destruction of the evidence even
before arraignment. Kasi within 72 hours in 24 hours from the ocular inspection, the evidence must be
destroyed. That is a new provision.

But the other new provision is I don't know if I told you about Section 33 last time? Did I tell you about
Section 33? Not yet. Ha? I told you last time, ha? Okay. Then you know that Section 33, that is a very
important provision. Where even we do not follow the Witness Protection Program of the DOJ or aside
from those that are found in the rules of criminal procedure under Rule 119, as on the discharge of an
accused, ano, independent of the discharged when accused under Rule 119 of the laws of criminal
procedure, a person arrested for penalties that might have done - Actually not so, the penalty is not too
high, like illegal use, di ba? Illegal use, visitor of a vice den, then also Section 19 I think when
unauthorized prescription. All of these are considered light offenses in so far as 9165.

So, if you are caught in the act of using, then you can be utilized a state witness without going through
the motion of discharging an accused under the rules of criminal procedure. Because there is also
criminal procedure if the excess of guilt is not strong and the one of the accused can be discharged and
then utilized as a prosecution witness, hindi ba? Under your rules of criminal procedure, you can forego
with that under Section 33.

So, the person arrested can be utilized as a state witness in order to establish the source of the
sources of the drugs confiscated from him or in order to prove:

that the person is a maintainer of a vice den.

that the person is engaged in the cultivation of dangerous drug.
that the person is engaged in the manufacture of dangerous drugs.
that this person is a drug trafficker and so on.

That person can be utilized but of course, the person can be utilized if not be liable for a high offense or a
grave offense where the penalty is life imprisonment or death. That is not allowed. Only those arrested
where the penalties are not as high as the penalties in the other crimes. Okay.
Then the other one is also important. Did I tell you about Section 27, yung pilferage? Hindi pa, hind pa?
Okay. This was in examination. Actually, this is a question asked in the bar exam two years ago. Under
Section 27, these officers or those who are in-charged in the keeping of evidence, must keep
the
evidence, actually you know. They are not supposed to use it for themselves or steal. That will
become a crime under Section 27 because that will be equivalent to pilferage. They must account for
the drugs in their possession when required. If they cannot account, then thats also a violation of
Section 27. It is either pilferage or misappropriation of the drugs confiscated.

So, what happened to that problem two years ago is that sabi nila qualified bribery. The problem was the
Chinese arrived on the airport. I told you with five kilos wrapped in five different packages. So,
there were five kilos wrapped in five different packages. He was arrested by the customs with the
aviation police in NAIA, and then, 'yun pala, the policemen arrested the Chinese and a negotiation. So,
what they did was the arresting officers cut three kilos of the heroin and then the Chinese cut the two
kilos of heroin, and then he was allowed to leave. In other words he was never arrested.

Question, what are the crimes committed? Nandun lahat ng facts eh. What are the crimes
committed? Of course, the Chinese is liable for drug trafficking or importation under Section 4. But there
are also offenses committed by the police officers, eh. So, sabi nila, that is direct bribery or qualified
bribery under article 411-A. If an apprehending officer fails to prosecute or apprehend the person where
the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death or life imprisonment, the crime is qualified bribery, because
they failed to perform required by law. And the penalty of the offense committed by the Chinese is a
penalty of life imprisonment to death, then they are liable to the crime of qualified bribery, and therefore
411. But that's not the crime. That is not qualified bribery because there was no what was taken,
what was given rather, to the policemen in order not to perform required by law is not money in
exchanged. It is the very evidence, if we define, the three kilos of heroin which should have been taken
by them, kept by them and then surrendered to the authorities later on, if required. But what did they
do? They did not charge the person arrested. Happy sila. Kinuha ng pulis yung tatlo. Yung dalawa
ibinigay dun sa arrested. So, hindi pwedeng bribery 'yun because the three kilos were already part of
the evidence, eh. So, anong crime 'to per Section 27? Because they were supposed to keep the
evidence in order that when they are required to account for them, they have to account for them. And
that is an evidence in dangerous drugs. So, the violation is Section 27 not bribery.

The offense committed would be thats what I was telling you. They are also liable for the crime
of what, Protectors and coddlers of a drug trafficker under Section 4 or an importer? So, there were
three crimes. One for Section 4 for the Chinese, two offenses for the police officers Section 27, and then
the other one is protector of coddlers. That's the meaning of Section 27, ha? Okay.

Now, the other thing that you will have to baka 'eto yung itatanong sa inyo sa next year pag nag-bar
kayo. 'Yung suspension of sentence under Section 66 of Republic Act 9165. Look at your Section 66,
that if the offender is a minor, first time minor offender, hindi ba, and at the time of the commission of the
crime, between the ages of 15 and 18 acting with discernment, as long as at the time of trial, he is still or
at the time the judgment should have been promulgated, he is still 18 years of age, then he is entitled to
suspension of sentence, di ba? So, the requirement is that, he should be less than 18 at the time of the
commission of the offense and less than 18 at the time the judgment should have been promulgated.
Dalawa lang ang requirement nun di ba? So, dapat 18 pa rin siya.

But under Section 38 of your 9344, that's why there is conflict between the two, eh. Under Section 38 of
Republic Act of 9344, a suspension of sentence of minor offender, the law says that, if the offender is
less than 18 at the time of the commission of the crime, even if he is already more than 18 at the time
judgment should have been promulgated, he can still apply for suspension of sentence. So, may conflict
yung dalawa. Yung una eh yung sa 9344, kahit more than 18 pwede pa rin. In other words, you were
arrested, 17 years old. Then you go to trial. At the time that the judgment is about to be
promulgated, you already reached the age of 20. Pwede ka ng magsuspension of sentence under 9344
because the law does not require that you are still less than 18 at the time the judgment should have
been promulgated. But under Section 66 of 9165, at the time the judgment should have been
promulgated, you are still less than 18. So the problem is what law are you going to apply? Is it 9344 or
Section 66 of Republic 9165? If the offense is violation of 9165 because that is a special law, then
Section 66 will apply. That will govern. Suspension of sentence of minor offender for
drug cases the law that is applicable is Section 66, 9165. Not the general provision in the Republic Act
9344.
And then you have also offenses like delay of bungling under Section 91 and 92. We have there
offenses involving bungling or committed by those who prosecute or those who apprehend. Bungling.
Ano yung bungling or delay? Bungling. The policeman testifies in favor of the accused, or the fiscal
probes a case not for the conviction of the accused but for his acquittal, or the witnesses testify for the
acquittal of the accused, they are liable of bungling. The penalty is a little bit ano harsh. 12 years and 1
week to 20 years 'yan. Then policemen or witnesses who refuse to testify are likewise liable for delay
for failure to testify. That is also a crime. Kaya pag nasubpoenahan ka ng pulis either ng husgado, yun
pulis ayaw magtestify filan mo ng criminal case. He will be liable under this provision, sa 91 'yan 92.
Then you go back to the other offenses for crimes, ano. Meron din yung crime na cultivation. 'Yung mga
nagtatanim ng marijuana, cultivation 'yan. Meron din yung manufacture. Those who manufacture
dangerous drugs. Matindi ang penalty n'yan, life imprisonment to death. Pag nagtanim ka ng marijuana
sa loob na lang ng bahay. Bakit sa loob ng bahay? You can put up a defense, eh. Medicinal, eh. Sabi
nila, gamot daw sa tiyan. Although sa Ilocos maraming nagtatanim sa loob ng bahay nyan. Oo.
Ginagamit ng ano eh. They boil the leaves and then they drink. Sabi nila gamot daw. I dont know. Di
ko pa nasubukan. But thats what they do. But cultivation that means plantation is punishable by
life
imprisonment to death.

Now, in Section or qualifying aggravating circumstance, I think that is Section 35. Naaalala n'yo yung
aggravating circumstances, di ba? I told you that there are also special aggravating. When the
aggravating circumstance is special aggravating, then it cannot be offset by any mitigating, hindi ba?
Okay.

Yes?

May question lang po ako regarding cultivation. Sir, paano po pagka may nakatanim na marijuana, kahit
na shabu yung house n'yo and then

Marijuana, marijuana and then

Planted in your house?

Yes, Sir. And then, you come

You abort it immediately.

Sir, (unintelligible)

You abort it immediately because that is part of the prohibition, eh. The problem kasi, 'yung cultivation,
the law does not say what is cultivation. Is it large scale, small scale or not? Cultivation lang. Planting or
cultivation.

Yes?

Even if the planter was not aware it was

marijuana.

That will be a matter of defense, iha. That is, that you acted in good

faith. So, in that case, sir, it's not sure that he was caught in flagrante

delicto). That will be a matter of their defense.

Kaya lang yung marijuana, you can distinguish that from other plants. I saw already a plant of
marijuana. You cannot claim innocence. Iba yung leaves ng marijuana. Oo, iba saka may amoy yan,
may amoy.

Sir, which Section yung cultivation? Which

Section?
I think it is on the cultivation of dangerous drugs. Or I think between 56 and 10 and then 59, 10, 11, 12,
13, 14.

So, anyway, then the other thing that if you want that the one I'm telling you to check Section 25 is that
qualifying. This is the one that I was telling you. That kapag special aggravating circumstances, meron
isang tuso sa bar exams. Ang tinanong, whats the effect of special aggravating circumstance? Give an
example of a special aggravating circumstance. Kawawa yun mga taga probinsya. Hindi nila alam kung
ano yung special aggravating. In special aggravating, those circumstances that may not be found in
Article 14. But there are special conditions of law that require the imposition of the maximum penalty.

So, if you find a circumstance not found in Article 14 and then provides that the maximum penalty shall
be imposed, that is the meaning of special aggravating. So, you have your Republic Act 8294 on
illegal possession of firearms, di ba? When an unlicensed firearm I used in the killing, then the
unlicensed firearm is an aggravating circumstance. Yung Section 15 din, I mean Section 25. But we
had a long debate about this when it was asked two years ago. Kasi nakalagay sa law, Section 25 is
when one commits a crime and he is found positive to the test of dangerous drugs, then it is a
qualifying aggravating. Nakalagay sa Section 25. We debated kasi pag sinabi mong qualified
aggravating, then it may change the nature of the crime. Gaya ng homicide. Commit a crime of
homicide without any qualifying aggravating then it becomes a crime of homicide. But when you
commit a crime of killing attended by qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery, then the crime
becomes a crime of murder. So, the treachery is a qualified aggravating.

Now, if you apply that principle. Similar to Section 25 because Section 25 says that if one is found
positive to the test of dangerous drugs, then that is a qualifying aggravating circumstance. Then if you
kill somebody else, no qualifying aggravating. But you were found positive to the test of dangerous
drugs, then the crime becomes a crime of murder. Ganun tatanggap ng qualifying aggravating. I
think that is not the intention of the lawmaker. The intention there is only to impose the maximum
penalty required by law. Why? Supposing you have a maid, then o robbery na lang robbery. You put
her a gun then give me your money or else I will kill you. Then you give you the money. Then you
were arrested. Then when you were arrested you were subjected to a test for the presence of
dangerous drugs. Positive. So, what will happen now? If that is a qualified aggravating circumstance,
being positive to the test of dangerous drugs, then the crime becomes qualified robbery. Wala namang
crime na qualified robbery. So, that is only special aggravating or yung qualified theft na ninakawan ka ng
katulong mo. She has free access to your personal belongings. You come to class. When you go
home, pagdating dun sa bahay, mister Puno would like to take a bath. His boy already ran away with
his brief. If that boy is found positive to the test of dangerous drugs and you consider his being positive
to the test of dangerous drugs as a qualified aggravating, then you will have a crime of qualified qualified
theft. Sabi ko hindi qualified yan, special aggravating. That should be special aggravating. It was not
intended to change the nature of the crime. With being positive to the test of dangerous drugs is not
intended to change the nature of the crime because even there is actually, to impose the maximum
penalty of the crime committed.

Then the other thing is that yung sa Section 36, mandatory drug testing. There is a pending case in the
Supreme Court until now. The case was filed as early as 2002 right then after the law begin effective.
Questioning the mandatory provisions of Article under Section 36 on mandatory drug testing. The law
says that if you are securing a license for your gun then you have to undergo mandatory drug testing.

On your section, a license for the purpose of drivers license, then you have to have a mandatory drug
testing. Then, if you belong to the tertiary or secondary school, then you have to undergo
mandatory drug testing. Then, when you enter the Civil Service, now there is from the government,
mandatory drug testing. When you enter a private employment, then that is also mandatory drug
4D 2007 1
testing, or you run for a public office, then you have to undergo mandatory drug testing. The worst is
given. The worst is when one is charged to the crime or an offense with the fiscals office, ha,
nakalagay doon sa Section 36, when one is charge with the crime before the fiscals office and the
penalty of the crime charged against the respondent is a penalty of more than 6 years, mandatory drug
testing. Lets say finile mo si Mr. Sosa ng estafa sa fiscals office. Ang penalty ay 6 years and 1 day
to 12 years. prison mayor. He will have to

4D 2007 2
undergo mandatory drug testing under Section 36. Kaya nga sabi nila foul ang Section 36. It is - you
are presumed innocent, di ba? After the worker what is the use if they had to undergo drug testing?
Gina- judge ka lang kung may loko is to bring it up. Kailangan kahit anong pasok basta more than 6
years. Let's say physical injuries lang ang dapat na file sa iyo. What will the complainant do? He
will fight against a frustrated homicide because if it frustrated homicide, the penalty is 6 years and 1 day
to 12 years, mag-mamandatory drug testing ka, iistorbohin ka niyan. But yun ang nakalagay sa Section
36 eh.

Also in tertiary and secondary schools. Whats the reason why this young people, young children will
undergo a mandatory drug testing, di ba? Sabi ni Mayor Duterte e, why should one running for a
republic office undergo a mandatory drug testing if the constitution already provides for the
qualifications, hindi ba? That is another qualification. So, the problem with this law of dome effect, a
petition was filed with the Supreme Court questioning because of this current Section 36. Wala pang
resulta, matagal na. For those in the military or armed forces of the Philippine, they are unquestionable.
So, there's now pending mandatory drug testing.

But then, the other thing that we have to remember is when you are charged with illegal possession, di
ba? Illegal possession sa Section 11. The penalty on Section 11 is dependent on the quantity,
regardless of the purity. That is the only offense where the penalty is dependent on the quantity.

Now, you look at your Section 13. I think it is in Section 13. The law says that when one is caught in the
act of possessing dangerous drugs in the company of two or more persons or in a social gathering, then
the penalties had been imposed is maximum period. Therefore, Section 13 is aggravating
circumstance of Section 11.

Section 13 is an aggravating circumstance of Section 11. And then, thats why supposing two or more
persons are caught in the act of using. So, there are 3 persons caught in the act of using
dangerous drug. Kung tatlo kayo, what is the effect of 3 persons at the same time using dangerous
drugs? What is the effect? Sabi nila, aggravating pa yun eh. Hindi aggravating yun. The aggravating
circumstance in Section 13 is only in so far as illegal possession. Illegal possession yan, not an
aggravating in illegal use. There is no aggravating in illegal use. Kaya sabi nila, Section 13 daw is pot
session. Ang Section 13, hindi pot session yan. Section 13 is an aggravating circumstance in illegal
possession under Section 11.

Section 14, likewise, is an aggravating circumstance when illegal possession of graft paraphernalia is in
the comfort of 2 or more persons or in a social gathering, then the penalty shall be imposed. It is
maximum period. In other words, the aggravating circumstances in 13 and 14 do not refer to illegal use.
There is no such thing as aggravating circumstance in illegal use under Section 15.

So, 13 and 14 actually are not offenses, but aggravating circumstances in violation of Section 11 and
Section 12 respectively. So, what for? Wala na. Of course, I told you last time, yung number 1 element
of illegal possession is or even the violation of dangerous drugs law is the presentation of the
drugs during the trial, hindi ba? Lets say, if you want to prove we're drug pushing under Section 5.
Question: How many witnesses are you supposed to present? Di ba drug pushing, sale? Sale, di ba,
sale? How many witnesses are supposed to present? Should be 2, okay? Sabi ng Supreme Court, 1 is
sufficient witness as long as the witness has personal knowledge and therefore can testify on the Section
11 of the offense. There is no need to prolonging testimony of that witness. One witness will be sufficient.

The other thing is that, as I told you last time and I will say it again, when you say dangerous drugs, and
therefore shall be presented and identified and offered as evidence in the trial, there must be yet to prove
the chain of custody from the time he is arrested from the offender up to this time he is transmitted to the
investigator, until the evidence is submitted to the chemist for examination, until the evidence is
preserved for purposes of trial. And then, you have also to prove the chain of custody from the time it is
brought to the court and then one during the trial. If there is any hiatus on the chain of custody, the
accused will be acquitted. Sabi ng Supreme Court e yung police eh, nakasuhan niya sana kay Mr. Sosa.
Ang ginawa ng pulis, hindi naman niya minarkahan yung evidence or the arresting officer did was to bring
Mr. Sosa to the police and then it was already police station that the evidence was not but even the
arresting officer, not by the arresting officer, but the policeman who was not even the arresting
policeman, but the policeman
who was asked to investigate the case. Sabi ng Supreme Court, the policemen have vindicated the
case. He is not the one who arrested the person. That may not be the evidence confiscated from the
accused or in a case also why they decided to the Supreme Court with the arrest warrant. The place
therefore they brought the person arrested to the police station. That was only the time that they
frisked the accused, then when they frisked, they found dangerous drugs. Sabi ng Supreme Court,
damputin yan. Bat hindi mo frinisked dun sa pagkahuli dun sa lugar? Bakit doon lang sa police
station? Dont expect
'tong Supreme Court sa purpose the ringside. The accused established the evidence of confiscated from
the accused. There is a doubt there. Okay.

No more. If it is offenses under of the same code, you're being positive to the dangerous drugs. He will
be liable for violation of Section 13. The justification of Section 25 is a crime or offense punishable under
the law. Kasi sa Section 55, yung voluntary submission is procedural, hindi lalabas sa bar yan e, yung
compulsory submission and then voluntary submission. Supposing you are asked, what is voluntary
submission and what is compulsory submission? Lets say, youre an addict, di ba? You are not
arrested in the act of using. But they believe that you are really a drug dependent. What will you do?
You go to the court and then file a petition for voluntary submission. The purpose there is that before the
order, that you will be rehabilitated. Thats the meaning of voluntary submission. If you now
rehabilitated, you are not liable for any crime because youve volunteered to the court that you are a
drug dependent. Thats the meaning. But in the crime of compulsory submission, ayaw mong
magamot, then somebody, probably your father, your mother, or any agency for that matter, who will file
a petition. That is what they call compulsory submission. He is not the person who goes to the court
and then asks for an order that he may be rehabilitated, but another person, the third person shall be
compelled, and the court will order his arrested and then brought to a rehabilitation center. Thats the
meaning, ano? But in both cases, if you succeeded in your rehabilitation program, you will no longer be
liable for illegal use. Kasi nag-submit ka voluntarily e. That is the meaning of voluntary submission or
compulsory submission. I think we have passed everything that we are supposed to pass. Yung
ngayon, the decisions not in Supreme Court, have you heard about PDEA? Kasi under the law, there
would be agency, the dangerous drugs law of the PDEA (Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency).

Now, under the law, the arrest or violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law, the lead agency is PDEA, that's
the law. So, supposing a policeman does not belong to the PDEA makes his own arrest without involving
the PDEA of such arrest. So they use that, they capitalized on those situation for the acquittal of the
used drug as a drug for the acquittal. Kasi nakalagay dun sa law, the lead agency and so far as the
dangerous drugs disposal is PDEA. And under the law, before policeman, not members of the PDEA,
who make arrest, they should first coordinate with the PDEA. So, lets say, they operate here in
Rockwell, ordinary policemen, before they come here and operate, the members to coordinate with the
PDEA. Boss, meron kaming i-operate dito sa Rockwell. Mga addicts. That's the procedure. Not in
Rockwell Avenue ha? So, what they do is that, sometimes they do not anymore inform the PDEA. They
do not coordinate. They go down into the place and then make arrest. The accused lawyers will raise
that issue. That they cannot be convicted of violation of 9165 because they failed to inform the PDEA.
That will not cause the acquittal of the accused. That is only procedural in character. What is only
required by the law is that the PDEA shall be the lead agency. But the law does not say that, eh kung
ganun ang mangyayar pati ako. Di ba meron tayong citizen's arrest? At kung meron akong marijuana
dun, eh wala namang PDEA, hindi ko na arestuhin yan? Minsan, mga abogado rin mga loko e.
Nung manalo yung mga inaresto, sabi ng Supreme Court nagalit pa eh. That will
prevent others from conducting arrest. Even if somebody is smoking marijuana in your presence,
you can no longer arrest him. If you call action PDEA, e yung PDEA nag-iinuman daw.

Revised Penal Code: Articles 200-245 Crimes Committed by Public Officers with RA 3019 and RA 7080

Crimes Committed by Public Officers: Part 1

Under the law, you have to declare all your assets. He was charged with perjury. They acquitted him
for perjury because under the Republic Act 3019 there must be a compliance procedure. If there is
before
one will be charge with non-disclosure, the government must first form a compliance committee in order
that the government employee will be given a chance to correct or rectify the error. So, it will
be premature by perjury, di ba. Sabi ko ang perjury is not the falsehood, di ba? Perjury is malicious false
arrangement of facts, it is not only false arrangement of facts, deliberate and malicious, thats why he
was acquitted.

That is so far as the bar exam, yesterday, sobra kang - the bar exam should be this year,
sobra. Talagang, I do not know, theyre not trying to they do not want to try and to try no, to try to
determine who should become lawyers eh, di ba. Ganun ang mga questions that they do not need in
order to become lawyers.

Like for example, what is the retirement age of an underground miner? The questions are one liners. You
are not given the chance to think, di ba. Because it is a one liner, then you anticipate assumptions
while in the bar exam. Hindi mo alam kung anong ginagalaw nung what the bar examiner would like to
ask. Like for example, yesterday in Criminal Law, what are the penalties that can be served
simultaneously? Hindi mo alam kung anong gusto niya eh. What are the penalties that can be served
simultaneously? Sabi nila the accessory penalties, fine. Accessory penalties go with principal penalties,
kako sobra naman yung question. Serve eh. You do not serve accessory penaly. You suffer from if it is
a fine, then you pay the fine. If its accessory, then you suffer. If its imprisonment, then you serve. The
only problem is serve eh. Sabi niya anong sagot? Eh sabi ko baka the examiner is asking there what is
the triple penalty rule. The only provision in the Revised Penal Code where you see simultaneous
service of sentence, yung Article 70 lang eh, di ba? Di ba pinag-aralan natin, when one is convicted of
two or more crimes, they shall be served successively, di ba.

According to 70, if the penalties cannot be served simultaneously, but if the penalties can be served
simultaneously, then it should not be more than three times of the most severe penalty. But in no case,
imprisonment shall be more than 40 years. Yun ang nakikita kong simultaneous dun eh. But ang
question when, di ba? What are the penalties that can be served simultaneously? Hindi mo alam
kung anong gusto ng examiner, eh. Even the students, the other questions, of course what are the acts
punished with inciting to sedition, okay yun? What are the different or what are the distinctions of
accessory and accomplice and co-conspirator, di ba? Sabi nila sa atin daw nanggaling, hindi ko alam.
Then the other question is the one who fired a gun then somebody suffered injuries. Paanong paano
mo sasagutin yun? The firing of a gun, di ba, if the act is unlawful, under Paragraph 4 of Article 4 then
you become liable. Although the lawful act done is different from what they intended to commit. But if the
act is lawful and then you cause injury, then you are liable for culpa versus imprudence resulting in
physical injuries. Kayang kaya nyo yan eh. But what about the other students from other school? Hindi
nila kaya yan eh. Mabigat yun. The other question tingnan mo ha. Yung sa 347.

Yes?

Sir, question, the policeman who fired the warning shot, is the act would now be firing a warning shot
considered negligence?

Okay, if it is in the course of arresting an escapee, the act would be lawful. But if is merely fired in a
place like a public place, thats becomes a crime of alarm and scandal. So, it becomes unlawful.

So if its (to deter that)? The question I think is that people were approaching parang dudukutin
siya.

But the problem there is that no, there were people who were rushing no, but they will not be found.
Then in order to scare them, suddenly he fired the gun. Hindi mo alam kung what is exactly they want to
establish. Kasi ginamit niya yung scare eh. If you want to scare, then that is grave threat. Firing a gun
will be a grave threat eh. Kaya lang he used yung word na scare eh. To scare them away, di ba. Kaya di
mo alam kung anong gusto. The other one is 247, although probably I told you before the students here
yung
247, yung exceptional circumstances whether absolute for a cause di ba? When you kill your wife in the
act of sex and immediately thereafter, after you caught her in the act of sexual intercourse, the penalty is
only destierro. Then the judgment was - Okay, he was convicted now he has committed the penalty
of
destierro and awarded an indemnity of 50,000 pesos. Question dun eh, is he - is the order requiring
him to pay the amount of 50,000 pesos indemnity correct? Yun ang tanong dun eh. Dito maraming may
alam. Because I told them that in 247, that that destierro is not in the form of a penalty. It is for the
protection of the offender in order that he cannot go within the radius eh. Thats not in the form of a
penalty. That is for the protection. So, there is no crime. So, in the order, therefore, is to pay with the
amount of 50,000 indemnity that is wrong because you can only be civil liable if you are criminally liable.
You cannot award civil liability if there is no crime.

Ang problema yung pangalawa. Ang tanong ganito eh, supposing he is now suffering from that penalty of
destierro and, therefore, he cannot enter within the radius of 50 kilometers. He entered, violated the
penalty of destierro, and then he smoked dangerous drugs, and he was caught in the act of using
dangerous drugs. Question: Ang layo ng tanong, is the indeterminate sentence law applicable? Ang
layo. Sabi ko pag ganun ang tanong diyan, I do not know what the examiner would like to ask from the
examinee. Kasi if that is the question you should know what is the penalty of illegal use eh. And penalty
is not included. Ang penalty ng illegal use anong penalty ng illegal use sa Section 15? Six months
rehabilitation eh. Ngayon kung alam mo ang penalty is 6 months rehabilitation, then you can answer the
question. There is no indeterminate sentence law if the penalty is not imprisonment. Yun ang sagot
dun. Is the indeterminate sentence law applicable? No, because the penalty of use for the first offender
is only
6 months rehabilitation.

Hindi ba puwede ISL is not applicable because when he violated the destierro its evasion of service. So,
immediately this one is

Depende sa (recidivism), eh.

I do not know nga kung anong gusto ng examiner eh. Pwede mo rin i-disqualify because he maybe a
habitual delinquent or recidivist, hindi ba. But he does not appear to be a recidivist. Yung 247 is not a
crime eh since you do not consider the first conviction as a crime committed after final judgment.
And hindi ko nga alam kung anong gusto palabasin eh. Probably, the examiner wanted to ask because
this a special law, is indeterminate sentence law applicable? Eh di hindi na sinabi sana. Hindi eh. Ang
layo ng sagot. Kako, sobra naman. Of course, alam nila marahil I always tell them that the penalty of use
is six months rehabilitation.

Pag rehabilitation walang indeterminate because thats not imprisonment eh. Ang layo ng sagot. Ang
tanong, then the other one who will go to prison without yung grave coercion, yung ayaw magbayad ng
apartment di ba. Pagkatapos nilagyan niya ng karatula, Itong room ay sarado, di ba. Hindi naman
sinasabi kung para kanino yung ano eh para kanino yung warning na yun. Is it for the lessee or for any
other person? Meron lang warning dun eh. Sarado itong kalsada. Huwag pumasok. Magkakaroon ng
kasalan, something like that. Were expecting better questions. Ganun din sa Labor Law, ganun din.
Civil Law lng lang yata maganda eh. Civil Law and Tax. Commercial, I do not know Commercial Law.
Okay din daw ano ha. Yung panghapon ang binigyan yung mga pang hapon ang kawawa eh. Dapat
naman, pagod na ako eh.

Yung sa Labor Code they need to know what is the retirement age of an underground miner to become a
lawyer? Sobra naman. Yung pangalawang question, what are the penalties that can be served
simultaneously? Hindi ko maintindihan kung ano ba. Sabi ko, triple penalty law yan. Nag-aaway na nga
kami kanina sa mga answer. We were exchanging notes. Ako ang nagsabi we are going to prepare the
answers of UP next Thursday noon. Eh, kami-kami nag-aaway na eh, kasi sabi ko, hindi ganito nalang,
mag-alternative answer na lang, lahat ng sagot correct. Kasi kawawa estudyante eh. Because
kami mismo hindi namin alam kung anong we do not know what the examiner wants. I could have
been easier if an accused is convicted of several crimes, how will you serve the sentence, tapos. But if
you ask what are the penalties, sabi nila all penalties except death, daw. Sa tingin ko hindi lang hindi
yung concern ang nasasagot. All penalties except the penalty of death that is we have accessory
penalties din eh.
Okay, so 200, meron pa yung nonpayment of a gambling debt, yung may agreement. The ricemill
yun ang ibabayad dun sa gambling debt. Yun pala niloloko niya sa ledger, ha. In other words, the
amount that he was collecting was lower than what was actually collected. Anong dapat - stock. Eh
problema meron din tanong, eh the payment a gambling debt. Baka gusto niyong malaman meron
ding violation of PD
1602, gambling. Hindi ko maintindihan. Okay. So, about gambling thats their gambling is
jueteng. Thats PD 1602. Thats the law that actually penalizes what is gambling.

PD 1602 Prescribing stiffer penalties on illegal

gambling

So, there are many laws about gambling. The most important one is PD 1602 because we will find there
what is the meaning of gambling. Gambling is winning by chance, we bet. So, winning is dependent on
based on level of chance, not on skill. But even if it is based on chance, these games are played or
gambling is played like a parlor game, then there is no violation of PD 1602. Pag sinabing may patay,
merong nakipaglamay. Naglaro sila ng Lucky 9 or games among the immediate members of the family
just to kill the time. Parlor game yan. Thats not gambling. There are other special laws concerning
gambling, but they do not fall under PD 1602. We have illegal cockfighting, yung point shaving,
yung sport contests, illegal bookies. Hindi naman yan itatanong sa bar yan eh. Maybe 1602 lang ang
itatanon diyan sa bar exam.

Articles 200 and 201

Okay, so lets go to 200,201, and 202. Article 200 actually is not a crime. It only provides whats the
meaning of grave scandal, but there is no penalty of grave scandal under Article 200. After all, we are
pertaining to morals or customs and traditions which would fall under the meaning of grave scandal. The
problem with grave scandal is that it cannot be determined by the law itself. Kasi factual yan eh.
Because what is moral to one maybe immoral to the other. Thats why you can hardly find a decision sa
Supreme Court where one is already been convicted of grave scandal. Because it is not the
court that will determine what act is immoral.

Kaya nga mahirap ma-convict sa grave scandal except, of course, if you fall under 201. Yung obscenity,
pornography, obscenity and so on, then that would be different. Wala masyado yan sa Book 1 obscenity,
pornography. But obscenity is not only limited to what you see from human beings, but it may also
include yung mga ano obscene materials or yung mga istorya. Ano ba yan? Xerex ba yan? Yung mga sa
Tiktik. Tiktik, Sagad, ano ba yun? Yung mga Sagad, ano ba yun? All of these, included sa obscenity yan.
So, its not only in television, cinematography or human beings that we see, they include yan, stories,
komik,s lahat yan. So, yun lang yan.

Article 202 Vagrants and prostitutes; penalty.

Sa 202 naman, dapat that law should have already been amended. There is no such crime as vagrancy,
supposed to be. Why? Because vagrancy is committed when one has no permanent address and going
else in public places with no known work. Walang residence, walang trabaho, kaya usually in public
places. Why they should be penalized kung talagang wala pampabahay, walang trabaho? But they are
vagrants and, therefore, they correlate to 202 or even a prostitute. A prostitute is very hard to prove
because they have to prove regularity or habituality. There must be an element of habituality or
regularity. Eh, sino magtetestigo?

There was one policeman in Manila; They wanted to raid a prostitution den. So, the head of that team
pretended to be a customer in that place. So, talagang naging customer talaga sa prostitute, then later
on raid. Then what happened with the policeman, he was suspended for being the customer of
that prostitute. Oo, he was sanctioned. Ang sabi niya, Bakit mo ko diniretso pa? Grabe eh. So, in other
words, dapat ni-raid mo na lang.
In other words, how can you prove a crime of being a prostitute when there are no witnesses? Sino mag-
te-testify? The only one who can testify is the customer. Kasi, who will prove habituality or irregularity?
Customer lang eh. Most of the customers are married. Di nahuli sila ng misis. Kasi nga customer,
binata,
naku hopeless naman yang binatang yan. Hopeless! Kukuha ba ng prostitute eh binata siya? Mag-
asawa na lang. Sino ang gumagamit diyan? Who will become a witness? We will now go to 203 to 245.

Article 203 Who are public officers

Okay, 203 is not a crime. That is the law that defines who are public officers that are covered by the law
pertaining to crimes punishable by public officers. Now, this is what I was saying before, in your Article
14, Paragraph 1. The crimes defined from 204-245 are crimes they may be committed being a public
officers and element of the crime. Because there are other crimes where being a public officer is not an
element of the crime, but he maybe committed by a public officer. So, for example, falsification of a
public document under Article 171, di ba? Nakalagay dun sa 171, falsification maybe committed by
notary public, ecclesiastic, and public officers taking advantage of their public position. Nasa 171 yan, di
ba? But it is not found in this chapter.

In other words, the crime punishable found under this chapter are those crimes where being a public
officer is inherent in the crime. So that if you go back to Paragraph 1 of Article 14, the law says that
taking advantage of public position is an aggravating circumstance, hindi ba? So, if you commit a crime
defined from Article 244 then 245, that taking advantage of public position as an aggravating
circumstance in Paragraph 1 of Article 14 is not applicable to any of the crimes because you cannot take
advantage of your public position when that is the very element of the crime. Do you follow?

Article 203, therefore, is who are public officers - all who work with the government, whether a
consultancy, seasonal, project, regular, regardless of the position as long as they work for the
government, you are a public officer. Janitor, regular, temporary, official, member of the board, all the
receiving their pay from the gvernment, regardless of the manner of wages that you receive whether
allowance or what, you are a public officer under Article 203.

But, in the crime of technical and in the crime of malversation, anyway, we will take up Article 217
later on. Except that in Article 217, the crime of malversation, aside from being a public officer, in order to
be liable for a crime of malversation under Article 217, the public officer must, likewise, be an
accountable officer. Yun ang pwede lang. Sa 217, public officer, at the same time, he must be an
accountable officer.

Articles 204 to 209

Okay, so lets go now to 204. Yung 204 to 209 sometimes I hate to discuss all these crimes because
they pertain to charges in lawyers. Sa 204, rendition of unjust judgment. Knowing the rendering of an
unjust judgment. Even in 205, it is also rendition of the wrong judgment, 205. And then, doing a rendering
an unjust interlocutory order. Delay in the administration of justice through negligence, breach of trust of
lawyers. All of these from 204 to 209 are crimes committed by government lawyers, breach of trust.

Now, the problem, however, is that merely rendering an unjust judgment is not punishable. Otherwise,
no judge can stay forever. Maybe nagkasala kasi talgang meron mga wrong decisions eh. So, rendering
an unjust judgment or rendering an unjust interlocutory order is not what is punished by law. It is rather
knowingly rendering an unjust judgment or rendering an unjust interlocutory order.

Now, what is knowingly? Knowingly is fraudulently. You wrongfully applied the law in order to
accommodate one, and then in order to cause injustice to the other party. But, the problem, however, is
how will you prove knowingly? Knowingly can only be proven. If it is a state of mind, like in other crimes,
you can merely prove that the state of mind through acts performed by the offender, di ba? Knowingly
rendering, how do you prove that it is knowingly? You cannot read my mind if I render an unjust
judgment. Knowingly rendering an unjust judgment. How will you prove that? Then probably through the
acts of the judge. He might be whether be given money, but you cannot prove. If I then promise a benefit
or you might have the son or child receive something from a willing party. Yun ang thats the way to
prove knowingly. But that is very hard to prove, as I said, also in interlocutory order.
Now, the other provisions of the law we just cover, breach of trust by lawyers. If you are a government
lawyer, youre not supposed to divulge whatever information you gathered by reason of your
decision. You are not supposed to give it even if you go out from the government service. You are not
supposed to do that. So thats a breach of trust of lawyers, betrayal of trust to be exact.

But, lets go to more important one, 210. Kase pag-iisahin natin lahat, hindi natin maabutan yung
robbery or estafa. I want to reach the more important ones. Kaya jump lang natin ng konti. Anyway,
these are not hard provisions. But in so far as those provisions, you have to really understand them, you
have to read those laws, okay. Like 210, the crime of direct bribery. 211, the crime of indirect bribery.
211-A, the crime of qualified bribery. 212, the crime of corruption of public officials. And then you go to
Paragraphs B and C of Section 3 of Republic Act 3019 because Paragraph B of Section 3 of 3019 is also
in the form of bribery. Paragraph C of Republic Act 3019, Section 3, likewise, in the form of bribery. So
in other words, what Im saying is that there are actually five crimes of bribery. One is 210, 211,
211-A, and then, likewise, in Paragraph B and Paragraph C of Section 3 of Republic Act 3019, otherwise
known as The Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Okay.

Article 210 Direct bribery

What is then the crime of bribery? I was anticipating a problem on this with reference to plunder.
Because when we speak of bribery as a rule, the part is mutually agree. In other words, beginning of
the money and the acceptance of their money is consensual. Like what? Okay, lets go 210.

There are 3 ways of committing a crime of

bribery:
1) The public officer receives money for consideration in order to perform an act that is punishable
under our Code, under our law. So, a policeman is given money in order to kill, then the giver as long
as or provided a law, then the public officer is liable for bribery under the first form. Yung usual na
tinatanong sa bribery would be those that fall under the second and the third forms.
2) The law says that when a public officer receives money or valuable or in exchange for money in
order to perform an act required by law, yun ang double compensation. Received money in
order to perform and act required by law.
3) And the third one is receive money in order not to perform an act required by law. So, the example
would be - received money in order to perform an act required by law.

If a policeman arrests somebody else, what should the policeman do as a policeman? He should arrest
and then file the case, di ba? So, the duty of the policeman is to arrest and then file, apprehend, and
then file the case later on. So, the private complainant in the crime of robbery told to the policeman,
Sir, file mo naman yung kaso para makulong. Then the policeman said, Ay, hindi. Yun ang kailangan
ko ng pang-meryenda eh. Pag kinakailangan ko ng pambili ng iuwi ko para sa pamilya ko eh. O, sir
meron dyan. Eh di, the private complainant now gives money, then after giving money, then policeman
files the case. Thats the first form.

On the second form, the policeman received money from the private complainant in order that he will
perform the act required of him that is to file the case, di ba? Yun ang tinatawag na double
compensation. May sweldo ka na sa gobyerno, kaya lang hindi ka gagalaw kung hindi ka bibigyan.

The third form is you receive money in order not to perform an act required by law. So, I arrested you.
Tapos sabi mo sa pulis, Sir, wag mo na akong tutuluyan? O bakit? Bigyan kita ng P20,000. O sige,
bigyan mo ko ng P20,000. I accepted it. So, I will be liable under the third form that is received money
in order not to perform. What is it that he did not perform? Not to file the case.

Article 211-A
But that should be differentiated with Article 211-A, the crime of qualified bribery. Because under 211-A,
when the public officer refuses to apprehend or prosecute the person arrested for the commission of the
crime where the penalty of the crime committed by that person is the penalty of life imprisonment,
reclusion perpetua or death, then the penalty either reclusion perpetua to death. But, if demand is in
the
demand came from the public officer then the maximum penalty of death is one being imposed. Do you
follow?

Where lies the difference? The difference would be: I caught him in the act of committing a crime of
robbery. He gave me money in order not to perform an act required by law. Therefore, I do not file a
case against him. Another person, I arrested him for violation of Dangerous Drugs Law, selling 1
gram of shabu. The penalty is life imprisonment to death under Section 5. He gave me then P20,000 in
order that I will not file the case against him for violation of Section 5. So, where lies the difference? In so
far as the robbery is concerned, I am liable for a crime of direct bribery, but in so far the sale of drugs is
concerned, I am liable for the crime of qualified bribery under 211-A.

Wheres the difference? Because of the penalty of the offenses or the crime committed by two persons.
The crime of robbery is not punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. But the crime committed in the
same is punishable by life imprisonment to death. So if I fail perform an act required by law where the
penalty, we include the penalty of reclusion perpetua and also death or even life imprisonment, then I am
liable for the crime of qualified bribery. It will depend on the penalty of the person arrested.

Republic Act 3019 Section 3 Paragraphs B and C

And then, in the meantime, you go to Paragraph B and Paragraph C of Republic Act 3019. Now, under
Paragraph B of Section B of Republic Act 3019, if a public officer directly or indirectly receives money for
any consideration and for the award of a contract or a transaction, then the law that is violated in
Section
3 Paragraph B. When a public officer indirectly or directly receives money in consideration of the award
or a contract, or transaction, wherein that public officer has the right to intervene, then the crime
is Paragraph B of Section 3 3019. That is also in the form of a bribery.

The only difference between Article 210 and Section 3-B is that, in Paragraph B it is specified that the
receipt of money is for the purpose of awarding a contract or a transaction, likewise with Paragraph C of
Section 3. The law says in Paragraph C of Section 3, the receipt of money indirectly or directly for the
purpose of awarding or extending a license or a permit. So, therefore, if the public officer receives money
in order to perform an act required by law which is the awarding of a contract or a transaction, then
the law that is violated is Paragraph B of Section 3.

Now, if a public officer, likewise, performs an act required by law, but in exchange for money, but before
it could be acted upon he is paid in order to extend a license or a permit, then the law that is violated is
Section 3 Paragraph C of Republic Act 3019.

So, it will depend on the purpose. Pag ang purpose kontrata ang transaction, Republic Act
3019
Paragraph 3-B. If it is for a permit or a license, then Section 3 Paragraph C of Republic Act 3019, that is
Anti-Graft and Corruption Practices Act. That has already been cited in the case of Soriano versus
Sandiganbayan. You cannot be liable for two offenses. The law that will be applicable with this Republic
Act 3019 if the purpose is specified. Kung contract, transaction, Section 3-B if it is permit or a license,
Section 3. Any other, then it will be direct bribery under Article 210 except if the penalty is life
imprisonment, death or reclusion perpetua in so far as peace officers are concerned, then the law that is
violated is Article 211-A, okay?

Article 211 Indirect bribery

Now, if, however, the money or benefit is received by a public officer not for the purpose of performing an
act or not to perform an act or in order to commit a crime or any violation of law, then the law that is
violated is Article 211, the law on indirect bribery. So, in other words the receipt of the money is not
intended for the purpose of committing a crime, for the purpose of the nonperformance or for the purpose
of performance, then the law that is violated is Article 211, the law on indirect bribery.

So, what is indirect bribery? Receipt of something of value or money by reason of the position, by
reason of the position. But that law actually is intended to prevent or you are building a goodwill to
the public
officer eh. Wala kang kinakailangan ngayon, but in the future, meron kang kinakailangan. So, ano nga,
pumapapel ka. You are then building up, nag bi-build ka ng friendship with the public official. Binibigyan
mo ng kwarta, and so and so on. Then later on, kinakailangan mo siya. That is indirect bribery because
there is no other purpose except that you are being gifted by reason of your public position.

Article 212 Corruption of public officials

Now, what about the giver? What is the liability of the giver? Then the giver will be liable under 212 for
the crime of corruption of a public official. The private offended party is not liable for the crime of bribery
because only public officers are liable for the crime of bribery. Therefore, the giver is liable for the crime
of corruption of the public official under Article 212.

But supposing a justice of the Court of Appeals does not want to receive the bribed money. In other
words, there is a refusal. He wants to give money to the justice for an application of a TRO, but
the Justice says, What do you think of me? Im honest. And, therefore, the justice did not accept. He
did not accept the money. What is the crime committed? Is there a crime? Walang crime yung public
officer. He should be rewarded for refusing to accept bribed money. So, what is the crime committed of
the giver? That will now become a crime of attempted corruption of a public official. If the money is not
accepted, the giver has the right to uphold the crime of attempted corruption of a public official. The
public officer who does not receive the money will be rewarded, if there is a reward. Wala namang naka-
reward, eh.

Okay, now, lets go to another one. Now, when you are asked what is the difference between bribery and
robbery, yung bribery is always mutual. In other words the giver willingly gives and the receiver willingly
accepts. Ganun ang bribery.

There was one question that maybe through a crime of plunder which I will discuss later on. Kung ang
robber, lets say, if you are merely accosted by a peace officer and, therefore, you are not actually
committing a crime, di ba? Tapos sasabihin ng peace officer, Hoy, bigyan mo ako ng kwarta kung hinde
pa file-an ka ng robbery. But the person did not commit any crime. O, bigyan mo na ako ng kwarta,
kung hinde pa file-an kita ng kaso. Lets say on dangerous drugs. Then the poor boy says, Oh, Im
afraid. Im studying law eh, and thats not bailable. Can I give you money? Sige, bibigyan mo ako ng
kwarta, kung hinde, pafile-an kita. Then the poor boy gives the money because he is (suffering) that in
case of robbery will be filed against him or a crime or a charge will be filed against him.

Anong crime yon? Hindi bribery yun. That cannot be bribery. That will become a crime of robbery. That is
intimidation. I will file a case against you when actually you did not If you did not commit any crime,
and then it is only his version that he will file a case against you if you do not give the money, that is a
crime of robbery. The false charge will fall under the element of intimidation. That is one way of
intimidating. I will explain to you later on why that step is very important.

Now, in the meantime, yung sa bribery, well leave in the meantime yung provisions ng 213, 214,
215, and 216. Lets go to malversation under 217 because I want to discuss after 217, I want to discuss
the crime of plunder that will be under (210).

Article 217 Malversation of public funds or property; Presumption of

malversation

Now, sa 217, that is a crime of malversation. Malversation is committed by a public officer who has
custody of funds or property belonging to the government and misappropriates the same or converts the
same for his personal benefit. Or a crime of malversation is committed through abandonment or
negligence.

So, there are actually three ways of committing a crime of malversation. Number one, to
misappropriate or convert to a personal use. Or you allow a third person to commit the crime of
malversation either by abandonment and number one is through the negligence. Tatlo eh. So
example. I am a treasurer. I receive money as payment. From the first day, so that money now is
entrusted to me. And therefore, that money is under my custody. If I spent that money collected then I
am liable under the first one. That is
the meaning of malversation, when you misappropriate or you convert the same for your personal
benefit. The other one is abandonment or negligence. You do not misappropriate for your own benefit.
We do not convert the same to your own benefit, but you allow a third person to commit a crime or to
misappropriate and not commit a crime. You allow a third person to misappropriate or you convert the
money entrusted to you.
So, the best example, in the one of the cases as with the bar exam two years ago. Yung
government
official is assigned a government vehicle. So, therefore, that government maker is entrusted to that
government official and, therefore, he is an accountable officer in so far as the car is concerned. Ginawa
niya, he left the key inside the car one night. Umuwi na yung driver. Then later on, the driver when to the
garage, and then at 3 o clock or 4 o clock in the morning, he got the car because the government
official left the key inside the ignition key. Tinangay. Yun ang crime of malversation through
abandonment or negligence. Thats the meaning.

The government official or the accountable official probably did not misappropriate or convert the
property for this personal benefit, but allowed a third person to misappropriate or convert the money or
property belonging to the government through abandonment or negligence.

Now, who is the accountable officer under 217? Yung accountable officer is tasked by law to take
custody or the property or funds of the government in trust, in the meantime, and then to return or to
remit to the proper authorities the funds or property if required or demanded by the government agency
concerned. Thats the meaning. So, the janitor, therefore, is not an accountable officer because he is not
entrusted with money or property, and has a duty to remit or to return the fund or property required by
the government agency. So, thats the meaning of an accountable officer. So, a property, therefore,
belonging to the government malversed or misappropriated by a non-accountable officer is not liable for
a crime of malversation, only accountable officers. Okay.

Now, the other thing in that 217 is that there is an element of misappropriation or conversion. You cannot
prove the crime of malversation under the first form if you do not prove misappropriation or conversion
because what makes it a crime of malversation is the misappropriation or conversion of the
funds belonging to the government, di ba? So, if you have any guilty of a treasurer, lets say you
collected the amount of twenty thousand today. Nobody knows if you go to Air Force One tonight, Air
Force One or Pegasus or dun sa Pasay, University Belt or Pegasus. If you go there in the evening and
then you use the money of the government, nobody knows that you are using the money of the
government eh. Because the next morning, you can replace the money that you used in the previous
night. So, you cannot tell if that government official really used the money of the government, di ba?
Because he can replace it anytime as long as he has money to replace.

So, how will you prove then that a public officer misappropriates or converts it to his personal benefit, the
funds entrusted by the government to that accountable officer? The law said that if the government
wants all the accounting of the funds entrusted to him by the government, and there is a shortage in the
funds which he cant explain, then the presumption arises that he misappropriated or converted the
money for his personal benefits.

So, if you are in the government, and usually what they do in the government is that if you are a
treasurer, there is a regular audit, di ba? There is an audit team of the COA, Commission on Audit that
when the COA now audits you, most of the audits conducted by the COA are surprises. In other words,
they will not tell you when you will be audited. So, the COA now will go to the place of that accountable
officer, and then now they inquire to account the cash or the funds under his custody, and a shortage
arises. Then there is a presumption of conversion or misappropriation that is a required by law. That
presumption is only a prima facie presumption.

So, therefore, the treasurer now discovered there is a shortage of thirty thousand pesos, then the
presumption of misappropriation or conversion arises. And, therefore, the accused now, the person here,
4D 2007 1
the accountable officer will now have to rebut that presumption, rebut the prima facie presumption.

4D 2007 2
So, that presumption can be rebutted. So, in the other words, the burden of proof now that the
accountable officer did not misappropriate the money is on the part of the accountable officer. So, what
will you do is now explain, thats the meaning. The only way to rebut that presumption is that to explain
why there are shortages. If there is no valid explanation as to the shortages, in other words, there is no
justifiable reason why there were shortages, then that accountable officer will be liable for a crime of
malversation.
Pag sinabi niya ibalik mo nalang, di ba? Sir, ibabalik ko nalang yung kulang ko. What is the effect?
That
will not cure. That is not sufficient evidence to rebut that presumption. If the accountable officer says,
Well, there is really a shortage, but I am now returning the money. That return of the money is an
evidence of guilt in the crime of malversation. That is not the way to rebut that presumption. The effect of
restitution or the return of money in the crime of malversation of the property, the crime of malversation,
and admission of guilt, the only affect there is that he is entitled to a mitigating circumstance equivalent
to plea of guilty or voluntary surrender. But that will not a rebut that presumption. Ang rebuttal ng
presumption dyan yung valid expenses.

For example, nagka-ano, nag karoon ng calamity walang ilaw, bumili ng baterya, in the meantime, ayun.
That will be a valid defense because that is an emergency spending or probably walang walang
pambili ng pagkain ng mga empleyado nasa remote area sila. They are in a place where there are no
food or what they have to buy. Ayun pwede yon no ha? Bat hindi ka mag explain because not all
explanations can be justified.

In one of the cases, I think, it is Quimzon versus Sandiganbayan. One of the cases in rebutting that
presumption is the giving of vale or advance salary. So, sabi ng treasurer, O, kulang ng twenty thousand
dito? Eh sir, pinabale ko eh. O,bakit mo pinabale? Kasi para walang pampasweldo. Is that a valid
excuse? Is that a valid act on the part of the treasurer to rebut the presumption, presumption that he
converted or misappropriated the same? In one case the Supreme Court said that is not a valid excuse.
Otherwise, if you allow that as a valid excuse, then nobody will be liable for a crime of malversation. He
would just say, binale eh di tapos na. Gagawa ka lang ng resibo eh, bale ng bale. Ang sabi ng
Supreme Court, if is not a practice of that government agency in giving vales or advance salaries, if it is
not a practice in the office of giving vales or advance salaries, then you can be still liable for a crime of
malversation. But if that has been a practice even before he became an accountable officer, and that is
already being practice in the office, that may be a valid excuse. And, therefore, sufficient to rebut that
presumption of misappropriation or conversion, okay. So, ayan ang malversation under Article 217.

There is another malversation in the Revised Penal Code, but that other malversation is not an element
of plunder. Kasi you will find out Im going to bribery muna, and then malversation, then in the meantime,
we leave the other commission, anyway, I will go up. So that you will understand what is the crime of
plunder.

Republic Act No. 7080. An Act defining and penalizing the crime of
plunder

So, lets go now to the crime of plunder under Republic Act 7080. Now, the amassing of wealth or the
accumulation of wealth in the amount of at least fifty million pesos should be done through a series
of acts or a combination of overt acts arising from any of the crimes provided for in the Republic Act
7080, six predicate crimes. You know the six predicate crimes that include bribery, or receipt of any
pecuniary benefit by reason in part of the position.

So, one of the predicate prime is bribery. Then the other predicate crime is malversation or any act of
malversation or any act tantamount to a raid on the public treasury. So, in the other words, there are two
predicate crimes that are found in the Revised Penal Code and the Republic Act 3019. Ano yung
predicate crime na bribery? Receipt of any amount or pecuniary benefit by reason of position. So, we
have 210, direct bribery. Then we have 211, indirect bribery, then 211-A, qualified bribery. Then we have
the special the two special kinds of bribery under Republic Act 3019. Those are Paragraph B and C of
Section 3 of Republic Act 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. So, those
are limited to the first predicate crime.
The second predicate crime is the crime of malversation, which means that you misappropriated or you
converted your personal benefit, the funds or property entrusted to you by the government where you
are an accountable official or raid to be tantamount to a raid in the public treasury. That is also a part of
malversation, pinaganda lang yung raid.

Then the other predicate crime yung 3, 4, 5, receipt of shares of stocks or future
employment.

Then the other one is fraudulent or illegal sale of assets of the National Government. Yung shares of the
stock, you know, it does not say if you are benefiting from the shares of stock. Nakalagay don, receipt of
shares of stock or future employment. Walang sinasabi, making money from the shares of the stock.
Unlike yung bribery talagang you make money out of it, eh. Yung malversation also, you make money
out of it. But yung shares of the stock, receipt lang, eh. Okay.

Then number three is - the other one is illegal or fraudulent sale of the assets of the government. What I
mean is that you declared that the property of the government is now for sale to the private sector. Then
by selling to the private sector, you made money out of it. That is illegal or fraudulent sale. Yan di ko
masabing binenta, ganun yun di ba? Government properties, there is no proof. Maraming allegations
dun, maraming kumita, diba? Never mind, ano naman yun eh. (Unintelligible) Then it would fall under this
predicate crime.

The other one is formation of monopolies among relatives, friends or associations of the public
officials. Of course you know what is monopoly. You control a certain industry. You make money of it,
formed by your business associates, friends, partners or even relatives.

Yung Paragraph 6, yun ang catch-all provision yung Paragraph 6. Receipt of pecuniary benefit
detrimental to the interest of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines. Hindi binanggit kung
ano yan, anong crime yan. Basta sinabi nya receipt of pecuniary benefit by reason of public position
detrimental to the interest of the Republic of the Philippines and the Filipino people. Yun ang tinatawag
nilang catch-all provision. Okay.

Ngayon, ang tanong nila, can you be convicted of a crime of plunder even if the money or the funds
involve public funds.

Yung bribery - ano ba ang bribery? Where does the money come from in the crime of bribery? Public or
private? Private, eh. Receipt of money by means of public position. Where does the money come from?
Receipt of pecuniary benefit by reason of your position. Where does that money come from? From the
government? No. From private funds yun, from outsiders. Its only a malversation when the money
should involve public funds because you cannot malverse a private fund. You need to malverse
public funds. Yun ang pwede, public funds. Okay.

So, if you amass, therefore, an amount of more than 50 million pesos. So Mr. General, they conducted
an investigation and was found to have an ill-gotten wealth of more than a hundred million pesos. You
know how to discover ill-gotten wealth? What is ill-gotten wealth actually? When the wealth is grossly
more than
out of proportion rather of your legitimate income, any amounts beyond your legitimate income will
question for ill-gotten wealth. There is a presumption of ill-gotten wealth under the law of Republic
Act
3019, The Anti-Graft and Corruption Practices
Acts.

So any amount thats out of proportion for your legitimate income is called ill-gotten wealth. If the ill-
gotten wealth of the public official is more than 50 million pesos, is that government official liable now for
the crime of plunder? No, he is not liable for a crime of plunder.

The amount that you discovered should have come from a combination of overt acts or series
of combination of overt acts from any of those crimes mentioned by law. So, the amount of 50 million
pesos, more than 50 million pesos should have come from the series of acts from any of those predicate
crimes mentioned by law should have come from bribery, malversation, shares of stock, illegal sale,
receipt of pecuniary benefits or even creation of monopoly among friends or his associates.
Sir, in the case of Chairman Abalos, do you mean there is pecuniary

benefit You have to prove that he has more than 50 million pesos.

But he might be

No. You can prove that. If his ill-gotten wealth is more than 50 million pesos and then the amounts were
derived from the series of acts coming from any of those predicate crimes, he may be liable. But, you
know, there is an issue there kasi eh. He knows that kasi a amassing of (unintelligible) series of acts or
combination of overt acts, the series of acts or combination of overt acts.

The problem there is that will you be liable a public official will be liable if there is an accumulation of
more than 50 million pesos for a series of acts, but the amount was derived from a single transaction?
So, one was awarded a contract, he gave the amount of 100 million pesos in order that contract will be
awarded. That is a crime of bribery, hindi ba?

Question: Is he now liable for a crime of plunder because the act does not involve a series of acts? Kasi
nakalagay sa ill-gotten wealth, if the ill-gotten is the amassing or accumulating of at least 50
million pesos, di ba, through series or combination of overt acts, therefore it involved several acts, and
then through these acts, theres an accumulation of more than 50 million pesos. Yun ang anothats the
problem. So, something like that.

Supposing you are with the Central Bank and then you brought gold bullion, the amount the value of
which is 100 million. You are the person in custody. So, you are the accountable officer of Central
Bank. In your custody is the gold. At one instance, you brought out several gold bars worth 100 million
pesos.

Question: Are you liable for a crime of plunder because there is only one act producing probably more
than the amount of 50 million pesos? Sabi nila hindi ako covered, eh. Ang sabi ko you know the law
why the law said a series of acts? Because it was intended really to accumulate that amount through the
years because if you indicate in the law what act - there is a bribery or malversation of 50 million pesos
only in one act. And what will the banking officer do? Hindi tatanggap ng 50 million, hatihatiin niya.
So, ang purpose na inilagay sa series of acts, so that it will cover the accumulation of amounts that might
take place in two or three years. Then kung ilagay yung single amount yan, hahatiin niya. Thats why
they said series of acts. So, he did not anticipate that by saying series of act that might not include a
single act. Ang sabi ko, thats include single act. Kasi meron na dyan, dun sa BP 21 by analogy.

In your B.P. 22, the only ground for evaluation of .P 22 under the law is drawn against insufficiency of
funds. The law does not say that you also violate BP 22 when the owner of the check is account closed,
eh. So, si Judge sabi niya, Hoy, hindi included ang account closed yan. What is not mentioned is being
excluded and the law is very clear, drawn against insufficiency of funds.

So, they acquitted the accused on the ground that he cannot be convicted because the law does not
provide that if the reason of the owner is account closed, you are liable for violation of BP 22. Ang
nakalagay lang dun, eh, drawn against insufficiency of fund. Pagdating sa Supreme pinagalitan yung
judge, eh. Anong sabi, ikaw naman judge ika, yung drawn against insufficiency of fund may account na
yan, di ba, kaya lang kulang ang pondo. Ito account closed na nga wala nang account, hindi pa covered,
thats even worse. Pinagalitan, so covered na nga yung account closed.

When do you know apply that question? If series of acts are covered, hindi ba, that involved reasoning.
The act is only a single act. You have accumulated more than 50 million through the years, eh, covered
ka. That was only one act of amounting to more than 50 million pesos is not covered, with more reason
that should be covered, hindi ba? Okay.

The other question is whether or not robbery is covered. Where Republic Act 7080. Tingnan mo kung
merong dyang predicate crimes. Meron bang robbery dyan? Karamihan mutual, eh. Hindi ba thats
what
I was telling you? Ano ang difference ng bribery atsaka robbery? Robbery extortion at saka
bribery, anong sinabi ko?. Yung bribery is a mutual, eh. Yung tao nahuli willingly gives and the officer
willingly accepts, eh. Ano ang robbery? Yung giver is practically forced to pay, eh. Because
plunder is a conspiracy law. What I mean by conspiracy law is that all those who actually participated
may be liable regardless of the amount involved, eh. Ngayon, kung pinilit kang ibigay mo yung kwarta,
yung nagbigay ba conspirator ba yun? Hindi ba?

Supposing if one is forced to give money, does he become a conspirator under the principle of
conspiracy. No, because he does not willingly perform an act. Ang conspiracy, all perform their acts
willingly. Include mo ang robbery, the giver does not give the money willingly because he is actually
threatened or intimidated to give the money. So, how could he be liable?

Its like this, lets say A, B, C, and E you give me the total amount of 60 million pesos in a crime of
bribery. If that is a crime of bribery, the one who gives the money is liable for a crime. The crime is
what? Corruption of the public official under Article 212, di ba, in a crime of bribery. Now, if the persons
who give the money in a crime of plunder, lets say it should not have been a crime of corruption on a
public official because the amount does not exceed 50 million pesos. Now, if the amount exceeds 50
million pesos, the person the public officer is no longer liable for bribery. He may be liable for a crime
of plunder because there is already an accumulation of more than 50 million pesos.

The giver is not liable for a crime of corruption of a public official. He becomes a conspirator in a crime of
plunder. Therefore, if in the crime of robbery, the giver was practically forced to give his money, can you
charge now the giver as liable for the crime of plunder when the money is not willingly given? Kaya hindi
pwedeng robbery, eh. Because the giver must also may be liable as part of the series of acts. Eh, kung
pinilit mo yung robber. Pwede bang - will you file it? Will you file a case against him or plunder? The
money was not willingly given. Yun, maraming questions ka doon kung ang iba'y nagsasabi, covered
daw eh. We dont know if it is covered. Bawal yan under the six predicate crime. Or even if you
read the catch-all provision, receipt, eh, of pecuniary benefit, eh. You receive, in a crime of robbery, you
do not receive eh. You unlawfully take, eh. Yun ang diperensya ng bribery at saka robbery. Yung
bribery, mutual. Yung robbery, you unlawfully take because it is against the consent.

Then the other issue raised in plunder even if anticipation is that the question will (appear) in the bar
exam. You know that, di ba, anim na predicate cimes yun? Ill give you an example.

Supposing five persons or three persons gave 20 million each, di ba? You gave me 20 million, 20
million,
20 million. In so far as Im concerned as the public officer, I am now liable for a crime of plunder because
the amount already reached more than 50 million.

But about the givers? He only gave 20 million, eh. 20 million, 20 million. Will they now be liable for
a crime of plunder? Of course, they will be liable for the crime of plunder as long as they come from the
same predicate crime. What does that mean? Yun ang kaso ni thats was the raised in the case of
Senator Estrada, Jinggoy, eh. Kasi siya, in the information he was charged with the crime of plunder, but
in the evidence he did not contribute. But there is no showing that he got more than 50 million pesos
as far as the conspiracy. Two million lang sa kanya, eh. So, kinuwestyon na nya ngayon yung
provision. How could I be liable for a crime of plunder when it is submitted that the extent of my
participation is only up to 2 million. Anong sabi ng Supreme Court, liable ka because that is part of the
series of acts.

If all the amounts came from a single predicate crime of bribery, lets say 20 million, 20 million, 20
million. Lahat kayo liable kayo ng plunder because those are parts of the series of act and they come
from the same predicate crime. But if for example, the 40 million came from the two, but the 50
million did not come from they are probably shares of stock. Shares of stock worth 20 million was
given to me. It is not bribery, but I receive shares of stock worth 20 million.
Question: Will I be liable for a crime of plunder? Of course, because there is an accumulation of more
than 50 million. Eh, pano yung kwan yung tatlo, they cannot be liable for a crime of plunder? Why?
Because one of the amount of 20 million did not come from the same predicate crime. The amount
should
come from the same predicate crime, so to speak. Hindi pwede yung iba lets say kung 10 million lang
yung participation, yung isa, different predicate crime pagkatapos ipapataw mo doon sa iba yung wala 50
million, he will be treated separately from the others because they do not come from the same predicate
crime. Yes?

So, when you say predicate now, it is involved if there is a

There is a transaction, yeah. Its a bribery or any receipt

As long as it's imposed under the generic bribery, okay yun.

So, even when you saw somebody who did a - to bribe on official about five years or ten years
ago,
pwede yung madawit pero yun eh too late na

Puwede yon basta wala pang crime na chinarge, puwede yon. That is the best part of the law. Because
the law does not show any limitation as to the accumulation. Even if you already out of the office,
puwede yan.

Yes? Sir, actually two questions. So, just for clarification, it does not have to be a series of acts, just one
act. I gave you 50 million or 52 million in one act, we will be liable for plunder? The second question is

There is no decided case, but that is my opinion by reason of or by analogy, number

two.

Sir, the second question is A, B, and C. A contributed, for example bribery, A contributed 40 million and
then the other one

20 million, probably shares of stock for

monopoly? No, sir. Say, bribery.

All of them liable.

Sir, the other one is wanted, how can it be liable?

Liable yon.

As long as the .

the amount of 50 million.

Kaya nga ang moral lesson diyan, if you are a public official or you are a giver of the bribe, thats why
nahuli na si Jhong, tanungin mo muna iyong public official. Sir magkano na na-accumulate mo? Pag
sinabing 40 million, tama na ang 5 million sa iyo para wala ng pumalag o para hindi tayo ma-plunder.

Sir, what happened to the case of Jinggoy in the plunder?

Okay, anyway since you asked that question, anyway, hes acquitted. The problem with the evidence is
that Mr. Chavit Singson admitted that when his father, former President Erap came to know that he got 2
million in Bulacan, the father got mad at Mr. Chavit Singson. Why did you give my son? By
that admission, he is not a part of the conspiracy because he did not know. He was on his own. Okay.

Problem is that, why is it - he must be convicted of the crime of bribery. The problem is that he was a
mayor in San Juan. But the alleged amount came from Bulacan, so he was given money in
Bulacan. Then he could not have delivered the money by reason of the position because his position is
that of a mayor in San Juan. Thats the problem. But you know, when youre in position, hindi mo
maaano eh. In
fact, the bail was granted by Sandiganbayan. The Supreme Court upheld our decision because of that.
And then the prosecution did not anymore submit additional evidence.

So, sir, Jinggoy could not be held

accountable.

It is already up to him. He can be liable for illegal gambling or maybe in benefiting or profiting from
gambling if they want, but not in the crime of plunder because the evidence do not show it. Kasi inamin
mismo ni Governor Singson that when the father came to know that he had 2 million in Bulacan from a
certain Viceo ba yon? Si Viceo ang gambling lord. The father got mad. Bakit mo binigyan iyong anak ko
hind nya alam ito, gago ka pala eh sinabi kay Chavit. What is the meaning of that? Walang conspiracy.
Because the principal actor did not know that somebody was So, in other words, sumisingit lang
marahil.

So, we have to acquit him of that reasonable doubt. Probably, may kaso, but the problem is the evidence
does not show. Yan ang mahirap kasi laging may excise tax. When you come up with malversation, then
it must be really proven that he misappropriated or he converted. On the evidence na rin, anyway, off the
record ano, anyway, acquitted naman siya dun, so we can discuss it now because there is also judicial
acquitted siya dun sa ano. They acquitted him for two predicate crimes, the excise tax, and the other
one is the Velarde account.

The Velarde account is not a predicate crime. Di ba nakalagay sa predicate crime, opening an account
used as receptacle for ill-gotten wealth is not covered as a predicate crime. That is only a circumstance
to prove that a crime was committed. I-chinarge sila for the crime of plunder for opening in unauthorized
account. Opening in unauthorized account is not a predicate crime. The other Velardo account was only
used as a receptacle as a depository of the illegal amounts. Walang plunder dun. But they used the
Velarde account only as a proof of there is really an account where the amount of 189 million that came
from Belle shares was deposited. Doon naman sa excise tax, kasi we acquitted him beyond reasonable
doubt because kasi noong nag-deliver si Atong Ang daw doon sa loob ng bahay, Mr. Singson was
outside of the house.

Under the he did not actually know, there was really money delivered. Pag sinabing may ano, nag-
deliver doon tapos noong umalis na siya, Gov, tapos na. Anong malay mo kung binulsa na nila yun.

The other one is that he said that there was 130 million pesos. Hindi kakasya ang 130 million sa apat na
baskets. Hindi kakasya. What happened there that there was only a withdrawal of 90 million. Kasi
talagang sinundan namin yong paper trail eh. The amount that was deposited in Westmont Bank or
Equitable Bank under the name of the sister of Atong Ang came from the excise tax and also the 90
million. But what was withdrawn from the accounts of the (crooks) of Mr. Atong Ang was 130 million. So,
iyong 130 million hindi naman naman iyon ang dineposit doon sa kapatid ni Mr. Atong Ang. That was the
amount of 90 million that was allegedly delivered to the house of the former president. May kulang ng 40
million. So, kung 90 million ang dineliver niya, kasya yon. Ngunit pinipilit 130 million, talagang hindi
kakasya. Pumunta kami ng Central Bank ako pa ang naglagay. Hindi kakasya ng 130 million sa apat na
yon. 90 million kasya. So, iyong 40 million, you make your own conclusion kung saan nagpunta iyong 40
million. Maghirap magsalita, di ba?

And then when it was delivered, Mr. Chavit Singson was outside of the house. It could might have been
true. But, unfortunately, you cannot speculate. There must be an evidence that - that amount was
actually delivered. That was the actual amount that was also delivered. Wala siya doon eh. Sinabi lang
pumasok sa bahay, dineliver. Pagkatapos doon hindi naman niya tiningnan kung ano ang laman ng
karton. I just stepped in, tapos, puwede ba yon? Thats the problem with the but he is charged of
malversation of excise tax.

One of the issues raised by the lawyers of Mr. Estrada is that in that information for plunder because they
are separate crimes, that is what I was saying a while ago, then youre charge and accused with
the crime of plunder with all the predicate crimes in one information. Because the amassing of wealth or
accumulation of wealth should refer to a single crime or single predicate crime. Ang ginawa nila
hinalo-
halo nila and then now alleged that crime of plunder was committed. Hindi puwede yon eh. Yan ang
contention. Totoo yon baka hindi puwede yon. Because you will be charging the accused with several
crimes in one information.

But the problem is he entered a plea of not guilty. So, if there is a defect in the information, na-cure yon
because even if there are several charges in one information, and you enter a plea of - you can be
convicted of the crime alleged. Kasi dapat yan kung predicate crime ng bribery isa lang yon Kasi you
know why the law also says so because there are six predicate crimes. It will be easy to charge a
person with a crime of plunder kung yong anim ilalagay mo sa isang information.

So, 10 million pupunta sa malversation, 10 million sa bribery, 10 million sa shares of stock, lahat
lahat
yon. Di more than 60 million na. But the amassing of illegal or ill-gotten wealth will prove to come from
no longer a combination, kasi ang combination of series of acts is a pattern. Hindi na puwede yong
lahat
yon tapos more than 50 million, and then one crime of plunder. The intention there is that the series of
acts pertaining to that is the same predicate crime.

Ang ginawa nila i-binablock nila sa isang information. But, sabi nila there is no problem because even if
you take one from the other, it is will be still more than 50 million, iyong jueteng 590 million, iyong Belle
shares is 189 million. It would have been different if iyong tig 10 million lang lahat lahat, can you lump
them into one information? Then when the amounts came from different predicate crimes? Iyon ang
magandang question. But, all the amounts are more than 50 million. I do not know. What I heard that he
might be applying for amnesty according to his papers.

Wala naman bumabatikos sa amin, sa Tribune lang. Sa Tribune theyre always attacking us, but in
the
Inquirer di naman ano? Sabi sa Inquirer mangitim siya dun eh! Lahat yan ginagawa sa
plunder.

Any way, it was a job that talagang mahirap. I just kept smiling and bringing jokes, but deeply with
meaning. Because really I could my wife could not sleep, and yet my children. They were
also personally affected since sometimes I could not eat in the morning over that mistake. I wake up at 5
oclock in the morning then I jog. Then I go to sleep at 3 oclock or 2oclock, talagang mahirap. Not
because of the threats, but here everybody is looking at you, and then sabi nila kung ako daw baka i-
acquit ko kasi they were reading my mind. Kasi my actuations in the court room, in court cases,
Im always partial to the accused. Sa actuations ha, but not necessarily I acquit a lot of accused. You
know, when an accused is already accused, down na down na yan. Huwag mo na pagalitan. Huwag mo
ng pagalitan ng pagalitan. Lahat ng gusto nya kung puwede ibigay mo na. Anyway, co-convict mo
naman eh.

You know, thats my point. You know, accused has been mad at me. Wala, kasi thats my ano.
pinapatawa ko pa nga sila. In the court room, nagtatawanan kami. Kasi pag decision naman sa iyo
talaga hindi ba? Ano lang be very accommodating in two months kasi baka ganito, i-acquit natin, ganyan.
So they misinterpreted my actuations. Parang ganun din, para kong pinapagalitan iyong mga
prosecutors. You can just imagine, they want him to he should be prevented from professing his own
innocence outside of the court room. Meron ganun. Kini-question nila yong mga pronouncement outside
of the courtroom, na Erap is not guilty, Im innocent. Hindi daw puwede yon. Sabi ko anong rule yan?
Even if the accused is already convicted, he can still plead innocence. Kahit na patay na nga iyong mga
nakakulong for example, nandito hindi nila inaamin, innocent daw sila eh. Tapos you prevent it, puwede
ba yon?

You prevent him from talking that he is innocent. So, I think thats already too much. But, I can prevent
you from talking when evidence is strong. The prosecution cannot claim that the evidence is strong and
not sufficient to convict. If the case is not yet finished, we cannot do that. Because the prosecution
has no right and unlike an accused he has the right to be presumed innocent from the very beginning,
until the end. But the prosecution walang right na ganyan. Kaya ang prosecution hindi puwede magpapa-
interview. O ganito ang ebidensiya namin, malakas, mako-convict. Yan ang bawal. That is sub judice,
there is contempt. Kaya ako kinakatakutan nila, ako matapang doon. When it comes to that, matapang
ako. Pero pagkatapos naman, magkakaibigan. Ganun lang naman, di ba? Anyway, tapos na rin.
There were amounts deposited in the Velarde account. I think it will go probably to 3.2 billion, malulula
ka eh. That amount stood at 3.2 billion. 3.2 billion, but the money they I think they said it was only 2.9
billion. The problem there is that the amount deposited was not proven to be ill-gotten wealth. Kasi may
allegation there were several deposits made, but they could not prove where those amounts came from
and why were they there.

Some of the amounts probably came from the elections. Kasi sabi ni Ang, kasi pag natalo ka daw sa
presidente, yong mga Chinese pati mga kamag-anak mo pag dating ng election nagbibigay pa yan as
contribution. Pati nga contribution tayo. There were legitimate businessmen who are depositors. But they
did not prove that this came from any of the predicate crimes, you cannot audit. Only those that
are proven to have come from the predicate crimes can be forfeited. I think they know they have a hard
time to prove it or validate. Mahirap naman kung ito gallingI think there was an amount coming from
Mr. Pangilinan, 20 million. He is not a gambling lord. He is not likewise. Mga political contribution yan.
So, probably they were afraid to investigate further baka lalabas lang na political contribution yon so they
did not any more present evidence to that effect.

Anyway, its not covered naman ang political contribution. It could be different from the money
laundering, but at that time wala pang money laundering. Yon ang problema doon. So, they did not prove
any because it was only 185 million was confiscated. It was a big amount, umabot ng almost a billion,
unforfeited, almost one billion including the Boracay mansion. The Boracay mansion is worth 500 million.
But ang problema kinanibalise na yon. Ng mga addict. Yeah, I think so. It was constructed with the
amount of 300 million daw. Biro mo meron Boracay dun, yung buhangin galling pang Boracay, tapos ang
swimming pool my waves pa. Tapos lahat ng kwarto carpeted. Ilan ang area noon? More thanalmost
one hectare. I think six thousand square meters. Bakod lang nun baka 10 million na eh . Oo bakod lang,
ang laki eh, ang taas. But the problem is talagang nagkatalunan na. Not because you were the one
convicted, di ba?

So, anyway well continue next Wednesday. Your assignment on Wednesday is still the crimes
committed by a public officer. Makinig lang kayo, you know already my style, yong mga examine galing
sa lecture. Iyong hindi nakikinig at nag-absent yon ang mababa. I know those who do not get high grade
in the examination, kasi parating absent. You do not attend and then you do not ask your classmates eh
mahihirapan kayo sa examine kasi I do not like to fail students. I only get questions from those that I give
as lectures or recitation. Okay, so the same assignment.

We are not yet through with crimes committed by public officers. I always counted it with bribery and
malversation and then what is Paragraph B and Paragraph C or Republic Act 3019 Section 3 in order to
know what is the crime of plunder. So, after the crime of plunder well go back to the crimes committed
by public officers and then well take up Republic Act 3019 . We will finish 3019 next Wednesday. If it is
not finished - I think well be finish rather then you start reading 246 to 266-A, iyan ang pinaka-importante
246 to 266-A. Lahat ng provisions diyan i-memorize nyo. Wala akong lalaktawan diyan 246-266-A.
Parricide except in 246, parricide, murder, homicide, infanticide. Then under exceptional circumstances,
abortion, intentional or unintentional, serious physical injury, less serious physical injuries, intentional
mutilation, illegal discharge, i-memorize nyo lahat yan. And then crime of rape under 266-A. Yan
tatapusin natin. Kelan ba tayokelan bang last na sinabi ko,Wednesday?

Sir,mga nine meetings pa including iyong isa ngayon.

Including today?

Sir, yung Wednesday.

Wednesday?

Hindi marami pang special laws dyan.

Sir, I remember po na sabi nyo po youll continue with Dangerous
Drugs.

Ah, di ko ba natapos? Ano ba natapos natin sa Dangerous Drugs?

Sir, possession.

Okay, sige. Dapat ni-remind mo ako kanina. May tinanong diyan sa Dangerous Drugs, yun nga, ang layo
naman ng tanong. Whether or not illegal use of drugs can indeterminate sentence law is applicable. Ang
layo talaga ng tanong.

Under Section 15 may rehabilitation ang penalty dun. Hindi ba inisip non? This student should know the
penalty of illegal use, hindi ba? Whether or not he is entitledang layo naman ng tanong. Probably his
question was - the question should have been whether or not indeterminate sentence law is applicable to
the Dangerous Drugs Law. Mabuti pa ganun na lang tinanong, hindi ba? Okay, so thank you ha. Iuuwi ko
ito.

Crimes Committed by Public Officers: Part 2

We will continue now the offenses committed by public officer. I discussed 217 last time because of
Republic Act 7080. The liable source were discussed, bribery 210, indirect bribery 211, 212, qualified
bribery and then you have corruption of public officials under 212, and then we also took up Section
3
Paragraphs B and C of Republic Act 3019, because Paragraphs B and C of Section 3 of Republic
Act
3019 are also in the form of Direct Briberies, hindi ba? And then, we went to Article 217, The Crime
of
Malversation, which can only be committed by accountable officers, not all public officers. Theyd be
liable if they talk about the evidence of malversation, di ba? Then, they allow a third person to commit a
crime of malversation or negligence or misappropriate or convert to the person of benefit in the hands of
property entrusted to you.

Now, before we go to the other Articles because we are talking about malversation, we jump to
Article
220 so that we will know the distinction. The crime of illegal use of public funds, 220. Im not
following the sequence because I want that you understand all these crimes. Kasi mag-pipinsan yan eh.
Lets' say I don't like bribery, 210, 211, 211-A, then I jumped to Paragraphs B and C of Section 3 of
Republic Act
3019 and then I jumped to 217, Private Malversations, then when we understood already all these
crimes, we went to Republic Act 78 on the Crime of Plunder because these are primitive crimes, hindi
ba? Okay.

So, what is Article 220? 220 is Illegal Use of Public Funds. But this is popularly known as the Crime of
Technical Malversation. This is popular and known as technical malversation, illegal use of public funds.
But this is very different from a malversation in 217.

Because in 217, money property is either misappropriated or inverted. And therefore, the government
loses the money or the property to other persons. But when you talk of illegal use of public funds or the
crime of technical malversation, the government does not lose money. It does not lost any property or
money involved. What happens is that there is a diversion of the funds of the government for a purpose
other than to which it was intended by law or by ordinance. It was very important. And all did not have a
law or ordinance, 'no? It is the illegal use of the public funds, therefore funds used for a purpose different
from what it is intended by an ordinance or by law.

But not all diversions are technical malversation under 220. What is important is that there must be an
ordinance or a law. When we speak of ordinance, that does not mean a municipal ordinance, city
ordinance, or a provincial ordinance, an ordinance is in the form of a law but only for 'di ba ordinance
is a law, eh. But only what? Local application, hindi ba? City ordinance of Manila. Local
application
yan. But when you speak of law, required to have but then you are talking about The
General Appropriations Act. The law that is contemplated by 220 is the General Appropriations Act,
and what does that mean?

When you operate the, you know, you operate the agencies in the national government, you operate
based on the national budget. The budget is what we call the General Appropriations Act. So,
probably,
you will get the papers that the budget is delayed. There are so much debate in congress, in the senate.
Nagkaroon sila ng bicameral. They could reconcile their differences, and therefore, there is a delay in
the approval of the budget.

Now, if there is no delay, then the resolution of the congress and senate will now go to the
President. And then if that is signed by the President, then it becomes the General Appropriations Act.
It is actually a law because it passed through congress and senate and then approved by the President.
And what happens in relation to When where it will now be technical malversation for illegal use of?

If for example report in the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan will get overall budget. Those are the
other reforms. So, you have items for salaries. Say, you have items for impeachment. You have an
item for maintenance. So, before the fiscal year begins and then the budget is approved then
you are governed by the budget that is approved, which is part of the law that is the General
Appropriations Act. If the amount is allotted to us is let say, P20 million, thats for salaries. Huwag na
lang Sandiganbayan because they do not do that, in another government agency.

So, there is P20 million allotted for salaries, di ba? Then the head officers in the middle of the year sabi
nya, Magkano ba ang naiwan sa employee's salary natin. Eh sir, mayron pang P10 million. How
much do we need up to the end of the year? "Sir, baka P5 million lang eh, ang maubos natin." "Okay,
are you sure that we only need P5 million up to the end of the year?" "Yes, Sir." So, may surplus ka na
P5 million. Sabi ngayon ng internal office, "Okay. Gamitin mo yang P5 million. Bumili ka ng
Camry, tatlo. For the use of the office."

So, you use now the money for salaries of employees for a purpose different from what it was intended.
The General Appropriations Act allotted P10 million or P20 million for salaries. Therefore, that amount
should only be utilized for salaries. If that amount allotted by law is used to buy, for you to be used for
other purposes others than what was intended, that is a crime of technical malversation. But it should be
provided for by law of ordinance.

Now, one of the cases, the accused was charged with malversation under Article 217, 'no? He was
charged with misappropriating or converting to his personal benefit funds belonging to the government.
But during the trial, it was found out that is was not actually Article 217. It was actually a crime of
technical malversation that he committed. Question: Can he be convicted for technical malversation?
Or supposing, he was charged with technical malversation but during the trial it was actually
misappropriation, or conversion to his personal benefit, and therefore malversation under 217,
misaversion. Can he be convicted of technical malversation if what is charged in the formation is
malversation under 217? So, people said no.

These are two different crimes. They are not the same. As I said, usually, the crime of illegal use of
public funds, walang nawawala sa gobyerno. Misuse lang yan, misuse. Walang nawawala. As a rule,
ha. May nawawala because a general rule. Walang nawawala as a rule. They are may be instances
where crime of technical malversation can only be committed. Yung kotse ng baranggay official for my
use, di ba? So, I have a vehicle for my use.

So, the purpose why a vehicle in the budget is purchased is for the use of a government official. If
that car is used by other persons, your family, they are members of your family for personal use, liable ba
yan ng illegal use of public funds. That is technical malversation. Kaya ako di ako nagpaplaka ng pula.
Di ba ung pula government car? Iyong plaka ko dalawa eh. Pwedeng may pula pwedeng itim. Pag
pumunta sa palengke, itim. Technical malversation yan. When you used the property of the
government for a purpose other than it was intended, that is technical malversation under Article 220.
Hindi malversation
yan sa Article 217.

4D 2007 1
But if you are charged with malversation under 217, let say, you are charged with misappropriating or
converting to a personal benefit, and then what was proven in the trial is not you allowed the third person
to commit a crime of malversation either through abandonment or negligence, pwede kang maconvict.
Di ba tatlo ang manners of committing a crime of 217? The misappropriate or you convert to your
personal

4D 2007 2
benefit. Allowing a third person to commit a crime of malversation through abandonment or through
negligence. Tatlo yan eh, di ba? Okay.

You are charged with misappropriating or converting in the information. But what was proven is that you
allow the third person to commit the crime of malversation or through abandonment, pwede kang ma-
convict. Beside, even if there is a variance of the proof to establish and information as long as it falls in
any of the manners of committing a crime of malversation in 217, pwede kang ma-convict. But not when
the charged is malversation under 217 and what is proven is technical malversation. Hindi pwede yun.
Hindi pwede because they have different elements, okay? Technical or illegal.

Now 213, we now go back to 213. Parehong sa 213, there are actually two offenses that may be
committed under it. Iyong paragraph 1, bihira lang nacoconvict yan, eh. 'Yung speculators, 'yung illegal
escapes committed by a public officers, ano? Between the contract or transaction may be broad yan
eh. But if you look at the title of 213, it is actually false committed that is falsification is. Sa paraghraph 1,
ano yon? 'Yung mga speculators yan o 'yung mga ano mga yun logos or in charge of supplies.
Ang gagawin nya, i-overprice, yan paragraph 1, 213. Kung hindi naman, hindi nya muna bibilhin yun
ngayon. Di pa mababa yon, ano ha? "Pare huwag muna natin bibilhin ito, ibenta mo na lang pag tumaas
ang presyo." Iyan 213 yan, paragraph 1. That is brought against public hearing or yung speculators, let
say, properties of the government, di ba? Bebenta nya. Bago ibenta, bibilhin nya muna yung katabi
ng government property. Bibilhin nya lahat yun. Magspeculate sya, then sells the government property.
If the property of the government is sold, tumaas na presyo. Aba iyon pala, sa kanyang katabi. That is
also punishable under paragraph 1 of Article 213.

But the most popular crime under 213 is the crime of that sometimes you read or hear, the crime of
illegal exaction. Illegal exaction is found in paragraph 2 of Article 213. Pag there are three ways of
committing the crime of illegal exaction. Ano yun? You demand payment higher than what is required
to be paid. Hindi direct bribery yan. That is not direct bribery because in direct bribery, may exchange,
eh. Ito Sir, magkano babayaran ko? P20,000. Yun pala P18,000 lang babayaran. So, he's
demanding more than what is required of the tax payer who pay. Yun illegal exaction.

Number 2 is the most important one, the refusal to issue a receipt. You deliver it. Refusal to issue a
receipt is a crime of illegal exaction under 213.

Then number 3 is you require somebody to pay other than money. Let say, 100,000 ang
babayaran. Hindi, huwag mo na kong bayaran ng 100,000. Ibayad mo na lang yung Mercedes Benz
mo. Wala ng gulong. You demand payment other than money. Illegal exaction, tatlo yan eh. Tinanong
sa bar exams yan eh. Hindi nya alam kung refusal to issue of a receipt is a crime of illegal exaction.
May mga hindi nag-i-issue ng receipt. Pag sinabi nila ayaw mo ng receipt, "Oy, 213 yan. Illegal
exaction yan." Oo, para mag issue ng resibo. Baka manalo kayo ng P1 million sa BIR, di ba? You
demand a receipt.

You just read 214, 215 and 216. Yung prohibited transaction and (unintelligible) the government or
just intervene. You just read them. Walang problema dyan. Just memory work. 214, 215 and 216.

Then 217 is malversation. We'll jump to 218. Kaya sinasabi ko sa mga kaibigan ko, Ang hirap
magtrabaho sa gobyerno. Tingan mo ang crimes ang dami. Ano ang 218, 219 failure to render, naku.
You leave the country, you do not render an account. You resigned on your work, you did not render. In
other words, failure to render an account is merely saying, Hindi ka clear. Wala kang clearance. Go
abroad. Dapat may clearance ka. Thats the meaning of failure to surrender an account when you go
abroad. It is merely a failure to account or clearance pero sobra.

Tapos pag ano pag - you are an officer. If you assume the position, even your term has not yet
started, anticipating, pag holding of public office. Dapat bukas ka na mag-start ng trabaho mo. A day
before, nagpunta ka dun, nagmando-mando ka dun. Pirma ka ng prima, ano? Anticipating, the
holding of a public office. Tapos pag nandyan ka na nagta-trabaho, you leave your work without
any authority, abandonment. And then after your term has expired but you do not want to leave your
work, ano? Prolong, 'di ba? Ang dami, eh. Anyway those are found in Article 223, 224, 225, 226 and
227.
Lets go to 223, 224, and 225. Yung 223 that should be read together with Article 157 and 158 sa 223,
224 and 225. Anyway, so, I was telling you last time that when an accused charged with a crime, and
there he is now in detention. If he escapes from prison, what is the crime committed by that person
arrested for undergoing trial? Therefore, he is a detention prisoner. Wala pa, eh. A detention prisoner
that means that he is facing charges of non-bailable offense. He escaped during the trial. What is the
liability of the person who escaped during the trial? That is not evasion of service under Article 157.
Evasion of service will only take place if the accused escapes from detention when there is already a
final judgment of convictions. 'Yun ang evasion of service sa 157.

Now, when the person is not yet convicted and he is only under detention, and he escapes, walang
crime
yun. Walang crime of that person escaping. The only attempt of a detention prisoner escaping won't be
those who find the rules of criminal procedure. He might lose his right to appeal later on if he is
convicted. Hindi ba? Ganun ang detention prisoner, hindi ba?

Now, if the person evaded his sentence, that means that he escaped when judgment has already
become final executory, with the consent of the public officer who is logging him, then the law that is
violated is the first part of paragraph 1 of Article 223, consenting to escape of a person evading his
sentence.

Now, if the detention prisoner has not yet been convicted, he escapes. He escapes and therefore
with the consent of the jail guard, yung jail guard ang maging liable. Not the detention prisoner who
escaped because he has not yet been convicted by final judgment. The jail guard dahil in-allow nya the
detention prisoner to escape, although the judgment is not yet become part of executory, is likewise
liable for violation of Article 223 under the second part, 'yung paragraph 2.

So, 'yung paragraph 1, consenting to the escape of a person already convicted of a crime. Yung
paragraph 2, consenting to the escape of a detention prisoner who (unintelligible) judgment by final
conviction. Liable yun.

And then 224 is of course through a negligence that means that he did not consent to the escape of the
prisoner. But through negligence, marahil matutulog, di ba? Marami dyan yung through negligence,
para ano? Sir, iihi lang ako. San ang CR? Pag dating sa CR, nag-escape. Yun. Negligence of
police yan under 224.

Then in 225, actually, yung 225, the offender is not a public officer. Sinasabi ng 225, a private individual
who is assigned to take custody of a prisoner, if he consent to the escape of the prisoner, then he will be
liable under Article 225 not under Article 223 because 223 is committed by a public officer. 255 is a
committed by a private individual who might have been assigned to take custody of the prisoner. Yun
sa
225. So, 223, 224, 225 substantial of all the crimes as infidelity in the custody of
prisoners.

Then, the next one is 226. And 226 is the crime of infidelity in the custody of documents. Yun si
Bedol ba yun, Bedol? Sa Mindanao? Sinabi niya nawala yung nanalo. Yun infidelity yun. I do not
know why they charged him only with contempt. Infidelity yun because he was in-charge in the custody
of election returns. Then, sabi niya nawala. You loss, you're caught with the instruction. You lost or
violates the immovability. Characteristic of public documents that they should not be removed in a place
where they are supposed to be there. Infidelity in the custody of documents yan.

But you know, there is a twist here because what we are talking of 226 is the crime committed by public
officer entrusted in the custody of public documents, either he destroys, conceals, or transfer the
documents to other place without authority. But when the evidence or when the documents pertaining to
records of the courts, then, the crime may be estafa. Estafa under Article 315 Paragraph 3
Subparagraph C. Tingnan nyo sa estafa sa 315 Paragraph 3, 'yun other forms of fraudulent acts.
Meron destruction of court records and documents. If the destruction is for the purpose of deceits,
nakalagay yan. I think it's Article 315 Paragrah 3 Section C. Basahin nyo. Estafa yan. Kung court
records, estafa. If you destroyed the document, you are in custody. The crime is infidelity in the
custody of documents. What if there were destruction of court records or even documents of evidence?
Under Article 315 Paragraph 3
Subparagraph C, estafa yan. Bakit? When the destruction of the document or a court record of
documents, it's for the purpose of causing damage to another party, estafa yan. Destroyed the
evidence.
Yung court record pinunit mo yung evidence para manalo kaso 'yan, estafa
yun.

You'll take this up probably in your legal ethics. There was a bar topnotcher, number 4, I think in the bar
who proceeded a professor of law in FEU and at Ateneo, of course. The first time that he did it,
tinago
yung ebidensiya during bumibisita tinago. Tinago niya para manalo siya. He was suspended. He was
removed by the Supreme Court. But a reconsideration through the wife. Yung wife niya ang gumawa
ng sulat. So later on, lifted yung disbarment niya. So, naging suspension lang at most 2 years. But
after he
was suspended, during a trial in another case, the only way probably to win the case, kinuha
yung
evidence, kinain. Oo, kinain talaga. Kinain niya. Then, everybody was looking for, nasaan na?
Syempre, wala. But somebody saw him swallowing the evidence. He is a topnotcher. Second time
around, he was disbarred until he died. Yan ang estafa. Because you are destroying a court record or
document for the purpose of causing damage to other party. That is the meaning of estafa under
Article
315 Paragraph 3 Subparagraph C.

This is different from infidelity in the custody of document, you know. The one who is punished
in infidelity in the custody of documents is the public officer who is the custody of the document. But if
the public officer destroys the court record in order to cause damage to another, that public officer is
liable to estafa because there is a purpose and the purpose is to cause damage to another party. Sabi
nila, bakit estafa yun? Saan yung deceit? The element there is not deceit. The element there is
fraudulent act. Ang estafa kasi dalawang element. One is abuse of confidence. The other one is deceit
or when the act is fraudulent.

And then, the other crimes as I told you, participating, prolonging, abandoning, usurpation of legislative
function, usurpation of executive function, disobedience, or usurpation of executive functions. Now, the
usurpations, 'yung executive, legislative, at saka judicial, what it describes tell us. It simply means that
an executive is encroaching on the power of the legislative. Yung
legislative naman or executive is encroaching on the power of the judicial. In another words, these are
crimes that will be committed only by public officer. Lets say, youre a mayor. You usurped the function
of a judge. Ayun, the mayor is liable for his confession of judicial functions. Or a
judge probably or an executive, makes a law. Therefore, he is usurping the power of the legislative,
then that is usurpation of legislative functions. The usurpations here pertain to public official usurping
the power of the other department. Thats the meaning.

And then we go to a crime of maltreatment of prisoners. What is maltreatment? The maltreatment of

prisoners is different from the crime of ill-treatment under Article 266. That is a crime of ill-treatment. Ill-
treatment is a form of slight physical injury in Article 266. Maltreatment of prisoners is committed by
public officer or entrusted in dragging the prisoners and the prisoner is maltreated under their custody.
Pinagbubugbog mo yung kwan. Kawawa naman. Nakakulong na nga, binubugbog mo pa.
Maltreatment yan.

And then 245, nakalagay dun abuse of chastity. Iba ibang crimes yan. Sinabi ko na prolonging,
anticipating, abandoning. Yung Article 245, abuse of chastity. That is different from crimes against
chastity. The crimes against chastity are found on Article 333. I think Article 333 to Article 343. Yun
ang crimes against chastity. The crime of abuse of chastity is limited only to those persons mentioned in
245. Sino yun? Yung mga guards, warden. Bago papasukin yung asawa ng preso, pindot-pindot muna
from the guard. Request for a sexual favor in order that the request of the lady visitor will be
accommodated in exchange. Yun, abuse of chastity yan for those public officials who request for sexual
favor in exchange of a transaction. Lets say, yung mga detained women. Nagbebenta ng mga dugo
sa mga ospital. Meron din lokong doctor. Op! Lagot ka, iha. Bibili ako ng gamot. Pindot-pindot
muna. Ayan. That is the meaning of 245 abuse of chastity. What makes it a crime of abuse of chastity
is that the victim has a transaction in the public officer and in exchange of that favor, magkakaroon siya
ng sexual favor in exchange to it. That is not a crime involving chastity. Thats abuse of chastity
committed only by those persons mentioned by the law.
Then we now go to 3019s. Tama na. Para naman makapagpahinga naman
ako.

Sir, can a public officer in the custody of records is the one who committed under
estafa?

Under the law, it involves public officer, relatives, business associates, partners and other persons
conspiring with this. Now, if the spouse is utilized by the husband to receive money involving the
husband, if the husband is the one with the public officer, both of them will be liable.

Sir, if you cannot make a

connection?

Mahirap yun. If you cannot make a connection, then you cannot probably charge the wife for the crime
of plunder together with the husband. Thats why I was saying the public was one of the argument used
by Solicitor General Tito Mendoza when he had the oral argument before asking. He came from me.
Bakit? If you may approve, the acts that lead to the accumulation of an ill-gotten wealth more than P50
million, the remedy of the State is not to file a crime of plunder. The remedy of the State is to file a
forfeiture of assets under Republic Act 1379 which is civil in character. Thats what they did with
President Marcos and family. It was very easy to recover any ill-gotten wealth from the Marcoses
because under Republic Act 1379, the law of forfeiture, when they have established that there is an ill-
gotten wealth, the burden of proof shall be part of the defendants, to prove that it is not ill-gotten. May
presumption of ill-gotten, eh under RA 1379.

But when you file a case of plunder, under Republic Act 7080, of course, aside from the discovery of the
P50 million, you have to prove that the amount or the amount was amassed from any of the six
predicate crimes. And its very hard to prove. Lets say for example, one of the cases pending before a
retired general. What they found is that it was an affidavit from the wife that my husband amassed all
these wealth because he got provisions from the sale of armaments and so on. Alam nyo, di ba? But
theres a question there whether or not an affidavit can be used against the husband. Supposing your
wife doesnt want to testify, walang ebidensiya. But if you can prove other than the affidavit of the wife
that indeed the amount was amassed in total amount that was amassed from any of the predicate
crimes, sigurado yan. Kulong yan ng plunder. Aside from the case of President Erap, there was
another plunder before. Hindi naman siya ang unang plunder. There was another plunder in 2001
when I was the judge. Ako ang unang plunder riyan. Yung when the BIR cashier accumulated,
nakakatakot eh, P280 million. That is the first
conviction. What she did was to make it appear that there was an authorized depository of BIR
through the connivance of some of the employees in the bank who are now at large. They can no longer
be located. So, she was a collection agent. She was merely a cashier. So, what she did was, with
connivance with bank employees, she opened an account allegedly an account of the BIR. So, all the
taxes that were collected by her, dinideposit dun sa account na yan. When the checks are already
good, then she will go to the bank and then withdraw the money. Kasi siya yung authorized eh. Siya
ang nag-open but thats not an authorized account. Siya ang nag-open. Eh, kung ikaw ang nag-open,
ikaw nagde-deposit, ikaw din nagwi-withdaw. In a short, short time, mga three months lang, the bank,
the account, fund was empty, 280 million. Biro mo yan. Cashier lang. Not only that, she did it twice.
Dalawang accounts yun, sa ibang bangko naman. Yung isang bangko, 300 million naman. Oo, and
then she was convicted. She was even smiling. Walang remorse. Because the amounts would no
longer to be located. But you can prove the accumulation because whatever amounts deposited in the
bank in the fund, yun ang ill-gotten wealth. You do not need to prove that the amount is still there.
What all you need to prove, there were amounts deposited. The amounts accumulated are more than 50
million and then the same were withdrawn by the same person. Thats sufficient ill-gotten wealth.
Because if you prove that in the requirements that amount is still there, walang mako-convict. Even
President Erap, yan 3.2 billion deposit, wala naiwan dun. Biglang nawala. Wala nang naiwan dun. The
only one that was left is the amount of 542 million that includes the 200 million that was donated to the
Erap Foundation and then yung Boracay. Well, they are blaming us for the property was not
attached. But the problem when you filed cases, they still hear it. Because a preliminary attachment
was the requirement of the preliminary attachment. There was a period for a preliminary attachment
that the Boracay mansion be attached. But the problem is that the Boracay was in the name of a St.
Peter Holdings owned by Mr. Yulo. And Mr. Yulo is not a party to the case. Can you file a preliminary
attachment against a property owned by a party not entitled as the accused? You cannot do that
because you have to give him due process. So, we could not issue an attachment when the case was
filed because it does not appear that he is the owner based on the documents. Property is owned by St.
Peter Holding in the person of Mr. Yulo. So, we could not act. In the meantime pala itong Quezon
City,
'hindi nagbabayad ng real property tax, kinuha naman ng Quezon City. But during the trial, it was
proven
that the amount came from jueteng. So, what we did was we cannot attach the property. So, after the
case, we forfeited because it was proven during the trial that, that is the proof of the crime. So under
Article 45, pinorfeit namin yan. In the meantime, kinukuha naman ng city government dahil di daw
nagbayad ng taxes. Forfeited din for non payment of taxes. So, nag-aaway na yung national
government at city government. Pinag-aawayan yung Boracay mansion. That house is worth 300-500
million. Laki 'no? Mamumuhunan ka talaga. Im not saying found guilty na siya o okay na. But I think
he is applying for pardon now. But they will have a hard time to rebut our decision on how the amount of
189 million found its way to the Velarde account. Ano yun eh, sales of stock. You know, even if you
look at the crime of plunder, yung sales of stock nila, receipt of shares of stock, or closure employment is
one of the predicate crimes in Republic Act 7080. Hindi bale bribery because when you talk of bribery,
then you can easily say that you made money out of your position. Bribery, eh.

When we speak of malversation, this means that you spent money belonging to the government. But
nakalagay lang dun, receipt of shares of stocks. The law does not say that you profited from the same.
There is a receipt of shares of stock. This is an element of the crime of plunder. And that's what
happened with him dun sa ito ba yung Tagaytay? Bell resources? Sa Tagaytay Highlands, that's the
one. Then tatakbo na naman. Wala namang nagagalit sa amin, di ba? Meron ba? Wala eh. All I
heard there was somebody who called me up from the States. Are you the one in the TV? Why? You
looked young. Gumamit ka ba ng make-up? Sabi nagmake-up daw ako. Kako, puyat nga ako dyan eh.
I only slept for one hour during that time. 'Di ba, Atty. Puno?

We will be going for very important topics. Memorize all the provisions from 246 to Article 266-A.
Bahala kayo dyan. But I'm telling you, nandiyan lahat yung importanteng crimes, parricide, murder,
infanticide, duel, abortion, intentional, unintentional, rape, sexual assault as a form of rape, qualified
rape, dog style rape, visionary rape, andiyan lahat. So, its up to you. I am telling you very
important. Yan ang
pinakaimportante crime. From 246 up to 365, importante lahat yan. Thats why I do not like anymore to
conduct recitation para matatapos. I like that you take the bar exam. Di naman tinuro ni Sir ang
estafa eh. Nakakahiya, hindi ba? Di naman tinuro sa amin ang robbery in band to robbery with
homicide aggravated by treachery. Di naman tinuro sa amin ang robbery with homicide or robbery with
rape, di ba? So, we will try to finish. Ang problema lang dyan when you review the fiinal exam, medyo
mahaba ang coverage. Di bale. Lahat naman yan. When I tell you what are the important types,
maghintay kasi lagi. And I tell you, these are the important crimes, I will give the question from those
important crimes. Why will I ask you a crime of anticipating office, prolonging? Kinakailangan nyo ba
yun para maging abogado? Susmaryosep. Hindi ba? Or rendering an accounts? I will not ask you
those . But you will have your recitation after we are through with 3019 because there are many things
that we have to take up with 3019 especially Section 3 Paragraph E. That is the most important one
in 3019 Section 3E. Okay, go. Thank you again ha.

Crimes Committed by Public Officers: Part 3

I only discussed Paragraphs B and C of Section 3 of RA 3019 in relation to bribery under the Revised
Penal Code and in relation to the crime of plunder, di ba? So, I limited only my discussion to
Paragraphs B and C of Section 3. So, we were not able to discuss the other provisions.
Okay. So, actually the acts that are prohibited by 3019 are found in Section 3. So, we only
discussed
Paragraph B that is actually a form of bribery and also Paragraph C of Section 3, also a form of
bribery.

Republic Act 3019 Section 3 Paragraph A

Now, lets go to Paragraph A. Paragraph A is sometimes a crime of influence peddling. When a public
officer directly or indirectly induces a public officer to commit an act in violation of regulations and the
officer so persuaded or induced. Now, there are two persons here who maybe liable - the one who is
inducing and the one who is actually induced.

Now, if a public officer induces directly or indirectly a public officer, even if the public officer is
not induced, the inducer is already liable. Now, if the person is actually induced, then both of them will
be liable. So, mere inducement, the mere act, directly or indirectly of inducing a public officer to violate a
regulation is already penalized. If the public officer so induced and is actually induced, then both of them
will be criminally liable.

Republic Act 3019 Section 3 Paragraph B

Then Paragraph B, as I've said, is a sort of bribery if the purpose is to award a contract or a
transaction.

Republic Act 3019 Section 3 Paragraph C

Paragraph C, likewise, is a yung sa ZTE, maraming liable diyan 'no under Paragraph A. There
are public officers inducing somebody to violate a rule. They will fall under Paragraph A of Section 3. If
the officer is actually induced, then both of them are actually liable.

Republic Act 3019 Section 3 Paragraph D

Paragraph D prohibits the agreement of the immediate member of the family wherein an institution or
any persons where that person or institution has a pending case before, pending application or an act to
be done by the public officer or within one year after that public officer has acted on that favor or what.

Now, this is different from what you sometimes hear as nepotism. Nepotism is different. This one is the
employment of an immediate member of the family in employment with any person or any other entity
because of a pending case or a pending application or pending favor that you are asking from the public
officer or within a period of one year.

There was one case where it never reached there was a labor arbiter in Cebu where they decided a
case in favor of a bank the Metrobank. Because a case between Metrobank and the labor union. The
bank won in the case before him and then later on, his son applied with Metrobank. The son was
overqualified. He was even overqualified. He was employed by the bank within the one year prohibition
under Paragraph D. Then what happen is that the labor union discovered that the son of the labor arbiter
was employed in the bank. So, a case was filed against labor arbiter within the one year period. The
case did not progress because before the accused could be arraigned, he was charged before us. Before
it could be arraigned, the accused died. That is the best defense eh. Buti na lang indefensible di ba? The
only defense under Paragraph D is that he is not your son eh. The only defense under Paragraph D
is that the employee is not your son even if he is even if he is very much qualified. That's not a
defense eh. The only defense that he is not your son and that the one year period has already expired.
He was employed beyond the one year period. But you cannot (apply) those defenses kung patay ka na.
You will be liable.

Republic Act 3019 Section 3 Paragraph E

Then Paragraph E is the most important one. Section 3-E is the most important one. By causing undue
injury to a private person or to a person or to the government or giving unwarranted benefit to any
person through evident bad faith, gross inexcusable negligence or manifest partiality.

So, there are two things that may happen under Section 3-
E:
1) One is the causing of undue injury.
2) The other one is giving unwarranted benefit.
These are two different things. When you cause injury to the government or to any person, then
that injury can be quantified in terms of damages. When you are asking for damages, then those
damages must be quantified. In other words, in can be ascertained. But when you talk of manifest
partiality or unwarranted benefit, then probably you cannot quantify the amount, but somebody benefited
from your act. Therefore, if you prove undue injury or you file the case of undue injury, then that undue
injury should be quantified. It should be in the form of damages which can be ascertained.

If you cannot ascertain the damages, then you cannot fall under this undue injury. You might fall under
unwarranted benefit. But in unwarranted benefit, the one who is benefited is a private individual, (all
concerned). But if it is undue injury, then it's an undue injury caused to a person or to the government.
So, but the problem, however is that when we cause undue injury or you give unwarranted benefit, it is
through evident bad faith, gross inexcusable negligence or manifest partiality. These are very hard to
prove. Why? It's not only a bad faith, but it required evident bad faith. According to the Supreme Court
evident bad faith is attended with furtive design that needs fraudulence or when you speak of gross
inexcusable negligence, it is not only gross negligence, it is inexcusable. Gross na inexcusable pa.
Mahirap yun. Then, it should be manifest partiality. In other words, it's not only partial but it is manifested
very clear from the facts.

So, most of the cases that are brought to the Supreme Court or even to the Sandiganbayan fall under
Paragraph 3-E. What they usually do is that, let's say a public official you cannot prove that you made
money out of a contract. So, here comes a contract, but you cannot prove that the government official
made money out of the contract because you could not probably get a witness to testify that that public
official made money out of the transaction. But you believe that there is an overprice. So, if the price
of the walis is P25.00 which is recorded and is paid at P250. So, therefore, there is a gross discrepancy
between the value, the actual value, and the purchase price made by a government agency.

Now, of course, probably you can (prove) that you made money out of the transaction because there
is an overprice. But when you prove bribery, you know, the giver usually does not come out in the open
and then point a public officer that he made money out of the overprice. So, what are you going to do?
You cannot charge him with bribery? You're cannot also charge him under Paragraph B or C of Section
3? Then what will you do? Then they file a case of Paragraph E.

So, therefore, the difference now between the actual value and the purchase price of the walis tingting
will now be the undue injury caused to the government. Instead of filing a case of, let's say, bribery or
indirect bribery or any bribery for that matter because the giver will not come out in the open because he
benefited. Then usually you file a case of undue injury caused to the government by reason of the
overprice, yun.

The other one is that, there maybe transactions were the government official did not benefit from it. So,
like for example, ghost payments, ghost employees, ghost deliveries. When you prove ghost deliveries
and ghost employees, theyre very easy to prove because you just determine if there are disbursements,
but there were actually no projects and there were actually no employees. But you cannot prove that the
public officer made money of those ghost projects or ghost employees. What are you going to file? Then
you file Paragraph 3-E or Section 3-E because you caused undue injury to the government.
That's another example.

The other example is causing injury to a private individual, undue injury to the private individual. What
you find here is that, let's say, you are an employee of the government, but already retired. You are
entitled to your retirement pay. But the mayor does not want to give the retirement pay although youre
already entitled to it on the ground that you are a political opponent. Then, they will again file Section 3-E
because they causing injury- undue injury - to a private individual. Yun ang mga example ng undue injury.

An example of unwanted benefit would be yung mga bidders. You are not the lowest bidder, but the
contract is awarded to you. So, there is no injury to the government that you can prove, but you gave
unwarranted benefit, I mean, therefore, he is entitled to the bidding. So, because you cannot quantify the
amount that was you cannot quantify the amount, ano. The and that you are not causing injury to
that
bidder, but you awarded the contract wherein he is not qualified, then you are giving unwarranted benefit.
That's the meaning of unwarranted benefit?

Or probably in government agencies, an individual was promoted, but is not qualified, then
probably you're also giving unwarranted benefits to that private or to that employee. Yun ang ibig sabihin
ng unwarranted benefit. You cannot quantify the injury, but you can show that there is an unwarranted
benefit. It is actually getting benefits where the private party is not entitled to it.

But proving undue injury or given unwarranted benefit is another thing, and establishing evident bad faith
or gross inexcusable negligence or manifest partiality is another thing. So, even if you cause undue
injury, even if there is proof of causing undue injury, even if there is a proof of giving unwarranted benefit,
if you cannot prove that it was done through evident bad faith, gross inexcusable negligence or manifest
partiality, there is no crime committed. Kaya nga karamihan diyan naacquit eh because it is very hard to
prove evident bad faith. It is not merely bad faith. It is evident bad faith.

But there are also convictions that the evidence is really clear like a I do not know if the decision will be
sustained where there is really a big discrepancy between the actual value and the value of the item
bought by the local government unit, then you can really show what you will prove there is that despite
knowledge that the price is very high, still you awarded the contract to somebody else despite the
objections. Probably, that is evident bad faith. Because from the very beginning objections were raised
as of the amount and as of the award of the contract. Or probably if you cannot raise that or you
cannot prove that, we can also prove gross inexcusable negligence because you have all the time to go
over the prevailing value of all this tingting, but still you insisted on buying the walis at P250, ang mahal
naman nun. Walis lang, P15 lang eh, di ba? So, if you cannot prove evident bad faith then you might fall,
you can prove gross inexcusable negligence. If it is not intentional, then you can prove gross excusable
negligence.

Now, the defense that you can put up if you are the accused, of course, is you prove that the injury or the
unwarranted benefit was not done through evident bad faith. And the other defense is what they call
this is now a doctrine laid down in so many cases, but we call that as the Arias Doctrine. You heard
about Arias Doctrine? Arias Doctrine, no. They call it the Arias Doctrine.

Now, in Llorente versus Sandiganbayan, Sistoza versus Sandiganbayan, all so many cases where they
applied already the Arias Doctrine. What happens there is that you in a government agency for that
matter, before a disbursement is made or approved, there are several steps to be done before an
amount of money is released by a government agency. It starts with the clerk. He prepares probably the
payroll, the clerk. And then somebody supervises the work of the clerk, sees to it that all papers are in
order, then after the supervisor probably it will go to the treasurer to determine if there is an amount
money available or to the budget officer, if it is within the budget, so that they will not be liable for
technical malversation, if it is case with the same purpose as required by the ordinance or law. Then it
will go to recommending approval, then signed by the recommending approval. The person to required to
make the recommendation and then here comes the approving officer.

If that disbursement is non-existent, in other words, they make it appear that there are employees when
in fact there is none and, therefore, illegal disbursements then all those who participated in the release
of the money will now be charged with violation of Section 3-E because that is causing undue injury to
the government through evident bad faith, gross inexcusable negligence or given manifest partiality.
Okay. So, all of them will be charged because it involves illegal disbursement. Now, from the clerk up to
the approving officer they will be charged from having conspired in defrauding the government in the
amount of blah, blah, blah.
Question: What will now be the defenses that they can put up? Of course, the defense that they can put
up would be that they did not act through evident bad faith and so on. Now, the approving officer can
have an added defense. This is what they call the Arias Doctrine Defense that the approving officer does
not need to go over again. He is not required to go over again the documents and then determine for
himself if the documents are in order. The public officer, the approving officer will go over the
signatures
of those who participated in the preparation, the review, and so on. And he has no reason to doubt the
accuracy of the work of his subordinates because if he again will go over the documents and for
himself to determine the truthfulness of the documents or the completeness of all the documents, then
the Supreme Court said what will happen with the government functionaries. The government may not
anymore move because he again required the approving officer to do things that have been done by the
subordinates. So, he can be (exuberated) under that doctrine.

But that doctrine will only apply if that public officer, the approving officers duty, his duty is to sign
several documents, because if he only signs one document during that time he cannot invoke the Arias
Doctrine. The duty of that public officer is probably to sign several documents. That is his regular work,
maraming ganon. Yung mga utos or review permit. Mayors, for example, are signing up of documents on
a daily basis and, therefore, he has no reason to doubt the work of his subordinates then he could
(perform) in events no. That's what they call the Arias Doctrine because it is an Arias Doctrine because
that was first that defense was first applied to the Supreme Court in the case of People versus Arias.
That's why they call it the Arias Doctrine.

It has been adopted by many, many cases, one of whom is now the Press Secretary. Yung Press
Secretary natin, he was charged as mayor of Muntinlupa, eh. He invoked that defense in the
irregularity in the audit. Ayan do not mention his name ha? But, anyway, he cannot deny kasi
decision of the Supreme Court eh. He was a beneficiary of this Arias Doctrine.

Republic Act 3019 Section 3 Paragraph H

Now, the other acts punishable under Section 3, you just read them yung prohibited transaction having
interest with the transactions or kasi if you are a government official, you can do divest of your
interest in private entities. There are several transactions prohibited by law for you to be engaged into,
but most of those transactions apply to local government officials. Yung ano bawal yon eh, yung, let
say a mayor who engages in cockpit, yung operation of a cockpit that prohibited under Local Government
Code. Yung ang sinabing prohibited transactions. So, if there is a law prohibiting a public official to
engage in this prohibited transaction, then he will be liable under this provision.

Republic Act 3019 Section 3 Paragraph G

Then the one that is also very important, the latest decision of the Supreme Court, is entering a contract
grossly disadvantageous to the government. Kaya sinususpetsyahan dun sa ano eh. That is a case that
might have precipitated the news report that a lady justice was receiving money from ano yun. That is
one of the cases because of that decision, because of that gross inexcusable - the entering into a
contract that is grossly disadvantageous to the government.

Now, you look at Section 3-E at saka yung gross, grossly disadvantageous to the government. Di ba
parang mag pinsan yan? It's almost the same, eh. The only problem is that when you charge a
government official under Section 3-E, then you have to prove evident bad faith. But when you charge
somebody else with gross - entering into a contract grossly disadvantageous to the government, the law
does not require an evident, bad faith, 'di ba? Walang requirement don, eh. So, but the problem,
however, include what is grossly disadvantageous of the government? So, it will be a mere interpretation
for what is favorable and what is not favorable to the government.

But when you cannot prove, that's what they all usually do, you cannot prove Section 3-E because you
have to prove evident bad faith in order to be liable under Section 3 and then you cannot, likewise, prove
undue injury or you cannot establish unwarranted benefits, then you charge those persons for entering a
contract grossly disadvantageous to the government.
What happened in the case of People versus Go, that is the case of People versus Go. The Government
officials in the Department of Communication, those who entered into a contract, yung PIATCO,
they were charged with several offenses because there were several contracts entered into by the
government with private individuals. So, some cases were filed under Section 3-E, that means that
caused undue
injury to the government. But there was a case filed under a contract entered into grossly
disadvantageous to the government because probably they cannot prove undue injury and they cannot
prove evident bad faith. So, they were charged for entering into a contract grossly disadvantageous to
the Government.
They filed a case for the dismissal of the case before the Sandiganbayan, including Mr. Go, a private
individual. It was denied by the Sandiganbayan, so Mr. Go went to the Supreme Court. The first
resolution of the Supreme Court in that it sustained the Sandiganbayan. That it was proper for them to be
charged with violation of Anti-Graft Law entering into a contract grossly disadvantageous to the
government. But the problem is that Mr. Go is not a public officer, he is a private individual. So, in
a motion for reconsideration, Mr. Go, a private individual, raised the issue that he could not be charged
with entering into a contract grossly disadvantageous to the government because that can only be
committed by public officers. A private individual does not enter into a contract grossly disadvantageous
to the government.

So in a motion for reconsideration, the Supreme Court reversed itself and then dismissed the
case against Mr. Go, a private individual, because the act of entering into a contract grossly
disadvantageous to the government can only be committed by a public officer. So, they say that is one
of the reasons why
I do not know. They say it is also a property, a big property in Caloocan. That might be the reason why
those reports came out in the Newsbreak and in Malaya. Whatever it is ha, bahala sila. Anyway, it is
now being investigated eh, okay? Okay. The other acts you just read them. Madali lang yan eh,
prohibition, bank interest.

Republic Act 3019 Section 13 Suspension and loss of

benefits.

Now, let's go to another area in 3019 baka I was expecting question on this because it all it is actually
a provision in 3019 about suspension pendente lite. Have you heard about suspension pendete lite? It is
different from preventive suspension, ano? Suspension pendente lite is a suspension that is meted by
courts mostly by the Sandiganbayan pending the termination of a criminal case. Criminal case yan. So,
suspension pendente lite is a preventive suspension in a criminal case.

When you speak of preventive suspension that is a preventive suspension in an administrative case. So,
suspension pendente lite is a suspension pending in a criminal case. So, therefore, if it is a suspension
pendente lite that is impose by the court by reason of a criminal case file before the court. Unlike in a
preventive suspension in administrative cases as provided for in the Ombudsman Law, Republic
Act
6770, the suspension of a public officer pendente lite is automatic. Automatic yan, once the information
is
considered valid.

In other words, you do not prove anything except that you are charged with violation of Republic Act
3019 that is Anti-graft, you are charged with crimes committed by public officers in the Revised Penal
Code and you are charged with the commission of fraud against the government, and that the
information is already valid.

So, there are two requirements:

1) The information is already valid.
2) You are charged with those that I mentioned in 3019 or those crimes punishable under the Revised
Penal Code from Article 203 to 245 or any act of fraud that maybe committed against the
government.

Now, no ifs or buts, that's what they say. No ifs or buts. In other words, you cannot argue that
the evidence of guilt against you is weak. Wala kang magawa. When the information is valid, you cannot
do anything except to serve your suspension pendente lite.
4D 2007 1
So, when is the information considered valid for purpose of suspension pendente lite? When the
accused is already arraigned, then that means that the information is already valid because you can no
longer cure a defect the information once the arraignment is concluded. You can only raise the issues of
prescription, double jeopardy, di ba, after arraignment.

4D 2007 2
But any defect in the information, this is as raised in a motion to quash, and then you are now arraigned,
then that is time you can already be suspended pendente lite. You cannot argue that the evidence of
guilt is weak. You cannot argue that you did not commit the crime. You cannot argue that you are
wrongfully charged, it is motu proprio. There is even no need of a motion to file against under (motion to
be prosecuted) for you to be suspended pendente lite.

Now, what is good about the suspension pendente lite unlike in preventive suspension? Probably yung
administrative law you have studied this, di ba? If you are elected official for example, during your term
from 2004 to 2007, then you are now charged administratively, di ba? And then you are preventively
suspended. You can only be preventively suspended during your term of office from 2004 to 2007 of the
acts committed while you were an incumbent public official. So, that if you are now re-elected after 2007,
you cannot now be preventively suspended for an act, administrative act, that you committed during your
previous terms. 'Yung ang preventive suspension. Hindi na pwede because the re-election by a
people is the best evidence that the best judge of your administrative acts, eh. Your acts although not
criminal, ano ha? So, therefore, you can no longer be preventively suspended.

But in suspension pendente lite, so let's say you are an incumbent governor from 2004 to 2007. You
were charged criminally for an act committed during that term. Now, you are charge with the
Sandiganbayan, in the meantime, you are now a congressman. After 2007 you committed an act in
2005, you are charged in 2007, but at the time that you were charged, you are already a congressman.
Can you be suspended pendente lite for an act committed when you were governor, when in fact
you are already a congressman? Yes. Unlike in preventive suspension, administrative ,yes, you can
still be suspended if it is a suspension pendente lite wherever you are as long you as you remain a public
official.

That's what happened to one of the congressmen. When they suspended him he was a governor, now
he was a congressman, they suspended him. He was quarreling with us. He went to the Supreme Court.
Our decision was sustained and what he did was sabi niya wag lang suspension pendente lite, mag-
leave na lang ako without pay, 90 days. If you serve the purpose, okay lang eh. So, instead of being
suspended, he made it appear that he was on leave for 90 days without pay. I cannot question it, eh.
That's the effect of a suspension pendente lite.

Republic Act 3019 Section 11 Prescription of offenses

Now, the other thing that you should know about Republic Act 3019, I think we have discussed already,
yung prescriptions of crimes under 3019, ano? Because 3019 is special law, therefore, the prescriptive
period of the crime prescriptive period or offenses under special law is governed not by the
Revised Penal Code, but Republic Act 3326 the Law on Prescription.

I think I told you already about the case of Romualdez versus Marcelo. Remember this case of
Romualdez versus Marcelo. That we do not apply the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on the
second part of second sentence of Article 91, that when the offender is outside of the Philippine
Archipelago, then the prescriptive period will be suspended. The crimes punishable under special
law, that Article 91 is not applicable. Okay. So, you know already the doctrine.

The doctrine there is that we cannot apply the Revised Penal Code as a supplementary law or
suppletory law to Republic Act 3326 which is a law on prescription because the applicability of the
Revised Penal Code or the supplementary or suppletory character of the Revised Penal Code is only
applicable to special penal laws, laws that define crimes with corresponding penalties. Republic Act 3326
is not a penal law. Its a law on prescription. Therefore, the Revised Penal Code can not be applied
suppletorily or supplementarily.

Republic Act 6713 Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards For Public Officials And
Employees

When you want to know about 6713, Republic Act 6713 is the law on code of conduct. The code of
conduct of government officials or public officers, rules of conduct. Dapat dyan alam lang niyo yung
mali.
Nepotism is punished under 6713. Sometimes I call this law of 6713 as the law of on impropriety.
Impropriety, you do not divest, you double compensation, moonlighting. The other one is you fail it is
actually a repetition in 3019 because in 3019, you are required to respond. You have to respond with
inquiries from the citizens. If you do not respond within reasonable time, then that's punishable under
Republic Act 3019. What are the acts punishable under RA 3019? If there is an inquiry made, that
inquiries should be answered within reasonable time.

Under Republic Act 6713, that is reiterated under 6713. But 6713, it sets a period in which to respond to
an inquiry. Dun sa 3019, wala. Reasonable time lang. In 6713, there is a specific period. I think it's 15
days. Magrespond lang within 15 days from receipt of the inquiry.

Then the other act that is punished is moonlighting, failure to act on time of the inquiries, and then failure
to file SALN, sworn assets, liabilities, and net worth. It is required in our laws of the government service
to file every year sworn asset, liabilities, and net worth.

There may be two violations under this omission on SALN. And sometimes they call it SALN sworn
asset, liabilities and net worth.
1) Nonfiling.
2) The other one is nondisclosure.

Nonfiling, if they do not file, then you are liable under 6713. If you file, but you did not disclose
your assets, then you'll also be liable for nondisclosure of assets. Kaya lang dyan that is why we
acquitted Erap for perjury because if you do not disclose with your SALN, which is under oath, then
they charge you with perjury under Article 183. So aside from being charged with violation of 6713 for
nondisclosure, then you are, likewise, charged with perjury under Article 183 because there is a
malicious, I mean, there is a false narration of facts required to be disclosed under 6713 made under
oath. Then pa-filan ka ng perjury, di ba?

But we acquitted Erap because perjury, as I told you last time, perjury is not only false narration of facts -
deliberate, malicious false narration of facts. Then the other one is that, I think under Section 11 or
Section 8, there is a compliance procedure under the law 6713 that if a government official files his
SALN, he could be given time to correct if there is an error in his SALN. So, therefore, if he is not given
the compliance procedure, under the law, then it will be premature to file a case of perjury against him
because he should be given time to correct his SALN. That's why we acquitted him on perjury.

The problem there is that they did not charge him with violation of 6713 because there is no violation.
They said that there is no crime in 6713 because he filed his sworn assets, liabilities, and net worth.
Then they charged him with perjury. So, they acquitted him. Sabi nila bakit naacquit? Bakit naacquit sa
perjury yan? Nagsinungaling. Eh, di niyo naman binigyan ng pagkakataon na i-correct, eh. That is
required under 6713.

END

Revised Penal Code: Articles 246-266 Crimes Against Persons

I will not follow the sequence in the code. So instead, what I will do is I will group the crimes according to
the severity of the violence. We are now in crimes against persons. Therefore, we will start with 246 up
to
266 including 266-A which is the new law on rape. It is otherwise called Republic Act 8353. When we
talk about crimes against persons, the intention of the offender is actually to commit violence
against a person. There may be other crimes or there may be violence, but the crime is not a
crime against persons. If the intention of the offender from the very beginning is to commit violence, then
that is a crime against persons except if the crime now is rape because you do not commit violence.
Thats not the element. I mean theres an element, but the purpose of rape is not to commit violence.
Otherwise, the
involved rapist will not enjoy. In fact, there was one of congressman who objected to the transfer of
rape
from 335 to 266-A. It is used to be crime against chastity but the members of Congress, the women
members of Congress, insisted that it should be transferred to a crime against person. Mr. Wetness
objected. There was one apostle who objected. Ive heard there was a quarrel among the members who
insisted that it should remain as crime against chastity because the intention of the offender is to
penetrate, not to commit violence. Anyway, they lost. So now, its now in crimes against persons.

Now, what you will do is that if the purpose is to commit violence, then you will have to determine what is
the extent of the wound of the victim. Now, if the victim dies, then you will have at least 5 choices. So,
there will be 5 possible crimes that maybe committed if the victim dies. You have the parricide under
246, then you have murder under Article 248, and then you have homicide under 249, then you have
death during a tumultuous affray under Article 251, and then infanticide under 255. So, its very easy.
When the victim dies, then you ask a question. Then youll just make your choice from among those 5
crimes where the victim dies.

Then, of course, you know what is parricide. The offender and the offended parties come from the same
bloodline. So, it only includes the ascendants and then descendants. So, the relationship is
ascending and descending. So, you killed your son, or you killed your daughter, you killed your father,
you killed your mother. So, it is ascending and then descending, except if the victim is the spouse
because you are not related to your spouse. It is relative by consanguinity, ascending, and
descending. Therefore, the collateral relatives are not included. So, you killed your brother, you killed
your sister. Thats not parricide because the relationship is collateral. Its not ascending or descending, so
very easy. Regardless of the manner of killing your ascendant or your descendant, that is always
parricide. What makes it a crime of parricide is the relationship of the offender and the offended parties.

Now, if the victim, however, is less than 72 hours that means less than 3 days, then the crime is always
infanticide. Supposing the mother kills her son or her child and the child is only 2 days, whats the crime?
Is that parricide because you killed your children? Or is it infanticide? That is infanticide. Because under
the second paragraph of infanticide, the law says that if he is killed by the mother to conceal her honor
or dishonor or what, then the crime is infanticide. So, therefore, by provision of 255, you kill the
mother kills the daughter or the child, the crime is infanticide, although there is a relationship.

Now, if there is no relationship and the victim is more than 72 hours, then your choices will be murder or
homicide. So, no relationship or if theres a relationship, but outside of relationship in a crime of parricide,
the victim is more than 3 days, then you will be left with two choices between a crime of murder or a
crime of homicide or it may also be under Article 251, the crime of death during tumultuous affray.

'Yung death during a tumultuous affray, it occurs when two groups are not organized to kill each other.
When two groups are not organized its actually a rumble. Thats the meaning of 251, rumble, but the
two groups are not organized to kill each other. So, two groups beat each other and then probably they
quarrel and then somebody died. So, in the process, you cannot determine who inflicted the deathblows,
but you can identify who inflicted the blows. So, if you cannot identify those who inflicted the deathblows,
all those who participated in inflicting the blows will be liable for the crime of death during tumultuous
affray. But if you can identify who inflicted the deathblows, then it will not be a crime of death during
tumultuous affray. It may be homicide because you can identify the one who killed the victim.

Now, before the Anti-Hazing Law, this used to be the law that they apply. Yung ano yung hazing at that
time, you cannot determine who inflicted the deathblow. All those who participated will be liable. But if he
is identified, then those who are identified who have inflicted the deathblow will then be liable for a
crime of homicide. Lets say this is the case involving your fraternity here Di ba? Dun sa ano yung
never mind because there are members kasi rito, yung iba, di ba?

Thats the problem. So, there were several persons who ganged up on somebody else theres no intent
to kill. If there is no intent to kill, that cannot be a crime of murder. It can only be a crime of homicide. So,
in other words, if it is a crime of homicide because you can identify the one who inflicted the
deathblow, there is no problem. But if you cannot identify those who inflicted the deathblow and then
there is a sort of a rumble under 251, that is death during tumultuous affray. Now, what happened in
that fraternity is that
when you go into an initiation, nobody has the intention to kill a neophyte. There is no intention. There is
likewise no conspiracy. Because in conspiracy, there must be an intent to kill from the very beginning.
But if the victim dies, whats the crime committed? If you can identify the one who inflicted the
deathblow, then he will be liable for a crime of homicide. If you can identify those who inflicted the blows
but did not lead or did not lead to the death of the victim, that will only be physical injuries. Thats what
happened to them. Two were convicted for a crime of homicide. The other two were convicted for a
crime of physical injuries, di ba? Tama ba yun? So, anyway, we will go back to murder or homicide?
This is the question that was asked in the bar.

S: Sir, right now, regarding the death caused in tumultuous affray - Ah sir, could it be or there must be
a confusion or (unintelligible) Sir, I do not like the

No, the death during tumultuous affray is actually two groups who do not come into an agreement to kill
each other. Because if there is an agreement to kill each other, then you do not apply 251. You should
have probably two groups see each other and then they quarrel and then somebody died in the process.
That is death during tumultuous affray because there is no intent to kill. Because if two groups come
into an agreement to kill each other, then theres an intent to kill from the very beginning. So, what
happens in
251 is that two groups see each other, then probably they quarrel and then somebody died. That will
be
251. But in so far as hazing is concerned, there is no more problem because after that case, there is
already a law on anti-hazing. The Anti-Hazing Law will now apply to those who are hazing a
neophyte and then the victim dies. Medyo mabigat yan.

Let's go to Article 248-249. Hindi ba ang daming acquitted doon? An appeal to the Court of Appeals tama
yan, eh. Because there is no intent to kill from the very beginning. There is no conspiracy to commit the
crime presence at that time. He could not be liable. Yun ano dun, yun ang - thats the gist of the
decision of the Court of Appeals. Kaya apat lang ang naging convicted, di ba? Dalawa yung homicide,
who are identified to have inflicted the deathblow. Those who inflicted blows that did not contribute to the
death of the victim, only physical injuries. These I will be explaining later on when we take up physical
injuries, okay?

Now, murder and homicide. Article 248 enumerates the qualifying aggravating circumstances. These are
the same circumstances that youll find in Article 14. These are actually aggravating circumstances, but
they change the nature of the crime if the killing is affected by any of those mentioned in Article 248.
Fire, explosion, evident premeditation, treachery, abuse of superior strength, the use of a motor
vehicle, cruelty, and so on. So, you study those in Article 14. But if the killing is not attended by any of
those mentioned in Article 248, then the crime is homicide. Now, the most important thing that you have
to remember - this was a quarrel that we had when we were answering the problem in the bar exams.
Kasi, you know, when you intend to kill somebody, and then you killed him, and it is attended by any of
the qualifying aggravating circumstances in Article 248, then it becomes a crime of murder. So, if you kill
someone with treachery, evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength, with the use of a motor
vehicle, or with the use of fire, explosion, derailment of a locomotive, or in consideration of price, reward,
then the crime becomes a crime of murder. But supposing you kill someone without the intent to kill,
but in the process the killing might have been attended by any of the qualifying aggravating
circumstances, you cannot consider that as a crime of murder. It is only a crime of homicide. Example,
you kill somebody with the use of fire. When you kill somebody else with fire or explosion, then the
crime becomes a crime of murder.

Now, there is an old case which we discussed last time when we prepared the examinations in criminal
law. The problem kasi then yung nag-fire ng ano he fired a gun to scare those who were rushing to the
stage. He fired the gun and then the bullet ricocheted and then somebody was hit, then suffered injuries
requiring 12 days of medical treatment. So, the problem there is whether or not that is intentional and
therefore, the crime will be serious physical injuries or there is - or it is not intentional. So, in other words,
when the killing it may happen when the killing - when the killing takes place, you might be confronted
with 3 possible crimes. It may become murder. It may become homicide. It may be reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide. Okay. When the killing is attended by any of the qualifying aggravating
circumstances, then it becomes a crime of murder. However, if there is no intent to kill from the
very
beginning, no intent to kill from the very beginning even if the killing is attended by a qualifying
aggravating circumstance, that cannot become a crime of murder. That becomes a crime of homicide.

So, the old case of People vs. Pugay, ano ha, its like this. There were 3 boys. There were creating a
joke among themselves. As part of the joke, Mr. A poured gasoline over the body of the victim, Mr. C,
as part of the joke. Kumuha ng gasolina, binuhos. That was Mr. A. Then Mr. B got a match and then
he ignited the gasoline in the body of the boy and then he got burned and died. So, if you look at the
facts of the case, then you're asked a problem. What is the crime committed? The first thing that will
come to your mind is that the killing is attended by fire and therefore that should be a crime of murder.
Do you follow? Because he died by fire. But the Supreme Court said, No, that cannot be a crime of
murder because there was no intent to kill from the very beginning. The intention only was to play a joke.
It was a part of the joke and therefore, they did not intent to kill the victim. So, thats what I am saying
that even if the killing - it would appear that it is attended by qualifying aggravating circumstance. If
there is no intent to kill from the very beginning, the crime becomes a crime of homicide. Okay.

But there is also you know, what happened in that case? There were two crimes committed. The one
who poured the gasoline is liable for reckless imprudence because if that was a joke, then he could have
exercised the required diligence of a good father of a family in playing a joke because a joke is a lawful
act. Thats correct. Joke is a lawful act, thats part of the joke. But the one who ignited the gasoline
is liable for a crime of homicide because there is no intent to kill from the very beginning and the victim
dies, then the crime becomes homicide. The one who ignited the gasoline - So, thats ano, thats a good
decision. Why? Because as we have studied in Paragraph 1 of Article 4 when you perform a lawful act,
and then different from what you have intended to commit, then that is unintentional crime. I mean, you
were performing an unlawful act, although different from what you have intended to commit, then that
becomes a crime of homicide, di ba? He dies. Although different from what he intended to commit. But if
you are performing a lawful act, in the performance of such lawful act you caused the death of
somebody else, that cannot be homicide. That cannot be murder. It becomes a crime of reckless
imprudence resulting to homicide. Do you follow?

Magiging reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. Example, you fire a gun in a public place. As
a result, somebody is killed. It does mean you have no intention to kill, but you are performing an
unlawful act because firing a gun is a crime of alarms and scandal. So, whatever the consequence of
that firing of the gun, you will be liable for a crime of homicide. But if you are performing a lawful act like
you are scaring the crowd because they were already rushing to the stage. Ang nakalagay dun sa
problem, they were rushing to the stage and then he tried to push them back. But they insisted, so he
fired the gun to warn them, to scare them so that they will not go up to the stage. Was he performing
a lawful act? He was performing a lawful act because it was lawful for him to scare. So, whatever is the
result of that lawful act, the result is reckless imprudence. That is not an intentional crime so it becomes
only reckless imprudence. The problem with the Supreme Court is that there is a case in March
2006. I think Calimutan. The case is People vs. Calimutan, penned by Associate Justice Chico-Nazario.
May nag- away. Then naayos na, naayos na sila. Then he threw a stone. The back of the victim was hit.
He did not suffer any injury only to find out that his spinal column was affected. So, he was operated,
and, as a result, he died. Sabi ng Supreme Court reckless imprudence yan eh. Thats not reckless
imprudence. Thats an intentional crime because his throwing a stone is wrongful. It can never be a
lawful act. But they said that he did not exercise the required diligence of a good father of a family of
throwing a stone. Tama ba yan? Yes?

S: Sir, lets say for example, a policeman fires a warning shot and the bullet hit somebody

else. P: Reckless imprudence yon.

S: But aren't policemen required to fire a warning shot before they fire at the escapee or the
offender? P: Well, thats part of their rules of engagement. They should first fire a warning shot.

S: Yes, sir. What if that warning shot is the one that killed
somebody?
P: He will be liable for reckless imprudence. He will be liable because he has no intent to kill. The only
purpose is to warn the escaping prisoner. That will be reckless imprudence.

S: My question is with regard to the bar exam question. He fired the gun. So, you said that because he
fired the gun in order to scare, it becomes a lawful act. Sir, what Im saying in that particular question, do
we still need to qualify the firing, why is it lawful?

What we did was to give an alternative answer. Kasi they were to scare kasi. We do not know what is in
the mind of the examiner. But the first answer is reckless imprudence. Probably the examiner wanted
only to determine whether you know what is reckless imprudence or intentional crimes. The answer is
reckless imprudence resulting in less serious physical injuries. Then, we allow an alternative
answer. If the examinee, however, interprets the scare as unlawful act, then it should be less serious
physical injuries. So, theres an alternative answer. Thats what we do. Kasi we do not know whats in the
mind of the examiner. And I will give another problem later on 247, a very interesting problem.

S: Sir, yung followup ko dun, sir, is the fact that he was part of the security force, sir, was it the material
part of the answer?

P: No, I think what more of what you understand from the - what does the examiner want? Thats the
problem with the examination like that because we do not know whats in the mind of the examiner.
So, we allow an alternative answer depending on your answer. Ganun ang ginagawa kasi you don't
know what's in the mind. I will give you another problem later on where we quarrel and so far as 247 is
concerned.

S: Sir, regarding on the exam, would like to understand because since the policeman are required to
fire a warning shot. But he did not exercise of that lawful act, which was required according by law in
case somebody as a reason why reckless imprudence.

P: The difference kasi of reckless imprudence and intentional crimes under Paragraph 1 of Article 4 is
that when one is performing a lawful act, so, it will depend on you if that act is lawful. If you answer is
that if the act is lawful, then you should be consistent with your answer. Now, if your answer is that the
act is not lawful and therefore performed only - you performed with reckless imprudence then your
answer should also be consistent in your finding of reckless imprudence. Thats why in that problem, if
your answer is that, the act is lawful, then you should be consistent with what crime committed. If you
claimed that the act is lawful, then it should be less serious physical injuries, so that it will be
consistent. But if your answer is that the act is lawful and therefore failed to perform the required
diligence of a good father of a family then it should be consistent with the reckless imprudence resulting
in less serious physical injuries. But if what you claimed is that the act is unlawful then it should also be
consistent with less serious physical injuries, remove the reckless imprudence.

So basically, the key element is really is the diligence of a good father of a family. So let's say
for example, in a bank robbery and then the policemen were outside, and then they fired a warning shot
and it went up to the sky. That will be lawful.

S: So, and then the bullet goes up and And then somebody the bullet goes down, and hit
somebody. Then the policeman are said to have exercised the diligence of a good father of the family.
So, despite the death resulting...

P: Reckless imprudence.

S: But still

P: That would still be reckless imprudence.

S: So, how do you
P: No. If your defense is that there is no reckless imprudence then you justify the injury. Then probably
you can put up a defense dyan, it's just mere accident.

Accident under Article 12. So in other words, you have to be consistent with your conclusion. What I am
saying is that whether it is lawful or not if you say that if they are not liable then you have to justify your
answer. And probably that may be outside of his will, and therefore, it is a mere accident. No intent to
cause injury and there is no fault. It will depend on your appreciation.

Okay. So, that will be murder or homicide. It will depend on the intention of the offender. Now, we are
through. We have taken up treachery. You know already what is treachery. There are two requirements.
(1) The attack must be sudden and the other one is (2) that the offenders deliberately or consciously
adopted ways and means in order to commit the crime between impunity, without their lives being
endangered or without giving the victim the opportunity to prevent or repel the attack. So, you know that.

So, these are the crimes when the victim dies. Now, if the victim does not die then that will be a bigger
problem. If the victim does not die then that will be a bigger problem. Why? Because if the victim
does not die then there will be several crimes. It maybe less serious physical injuries, it may be slight
physical injuries, it may be serious physical injuries. It may also be attempted or frustrated felony.

Then we took up in Article 6, how do you distinguish attempted and frustrated felony and
physical injuries? How do you determine the intent to kill? So, if there is therefore intent to kill and the
victim does not die, then it will now be easier for you to determine what is the crime committed. It will be
attempted or frustrated. It is frustrated when the wounds are mortal or fatal and therefore the victim could
have died if no medical assistance was given. If it is not, then it is attempted. The problem is how do you
determine if it is attended by intent to kill? So, you have several factors. I told you in Article 6, you have
to determine what is the weapon used. You have to determine the manner of committing the act, and
then if there were utterances that accompanied in the commission of the act then you also determine
what were the utterances. So, it does not necessary mean that when one is injured with the use of
a gun, there is already intent to kill. You have to take into consideration several factors.

The most important one is in the manner on the execution of the act because you may be using
let's say handkerchief, as I told you handkerchief. The handkerchief is not a lethal weapon capable of
killing. But in the manner of using the handkerchief, it might show an intent to kill. Pag ini-strangle ka
ang ginawa - or you are choked with handkerchief then the manner of using shows an intent to kill. So, it
depends. So, it will be attempted or frustrated if there is intent to kill. If there is no intent to kill, then you
have three choices as a rule. So, you have your 263, serious physical injuries; then you have your 264,
less serious physical injuries. And then 266, slight physical injuries, tatlo.

Yung serious physical injuries dapat imemorize nyo yan, 263 because - 263 becomes very important
when you take up 294 on robbery with violence. Yung 263 becomes important because of the provisions
in robbery with homicide or robbery with violence under Article 294.

Like for example, what is serious physical injury number one? When one becomes imbecile, insane, or
impotent. Imbecile, insane, impotent, then the crime is serious physical injuries.

And then you have Paragraph 2 when you become blind or when you lost one eye or any part of
your body except reproductive organs or organs then the crime becomes serious physical injuries under
Paragraph B of 263. Or you leave a scar, permanent scar, you lost a finger, or a toe then the crime is
likewise serious physical injuries under Paragraph C, or when it requires a medical treatment of
more than 90 days that is also serious physical injuries. Or when there is incapacity of more than 30
days, incapacity or it will require a medical treatment of more than 30 days that is also a serious physical
injuries. So, you remember the numerations of serious physical injuries for purposes of 294, Paragraph
2,
3, 4 of 294. Okay.
Now, what about the other injuries that may be sustained, are you liable? Now, less serious physical
injuries is determined by the number of days of incapacity and medical treatment. If the incapacity is
more than 9 days but not more than 30 days, less serious physical injuries. If the treatment requires
more than
9 days but not more than 30 days, then that is likewise less serious physical injuries. If the treatment
does not exceed 9 days, or not more than 9 days, or he become incapacitated for not more than 9 days,
then that becomes slight physical injury. However, if it will not require any prolonged treatment or
incapacity, then the crimes becomes ill-treatment or maltreatment under 266. That is also slight physical
injury, but it
is better to call it maltreatment or ill-treatment under 266. Walang injury - may injury but it does
not
require prolong treatment. Pumunta ka sa hospital, pinauwi kana pwede kanang magtrabaho, yun thats
maltreatment or sometimes they called it ill-treatment under Article 266.

What about serious intentional mutilation or intentional mutilation. What are these crimes? Now, serious
intentional mutilation, it will depend on what is mutilated. If what is mutilated is a reproductive organ, then
that is serious intentional mutilation. Any other part of the body mutilated other than the
reproductive organ is what we called intentional mutilation. It becomes serious when it is reproductive
organ. It is intentional mutilation when it is not a reproductive organ. But mutilation may also be a serious
physical injuries. If you cut off one finger, that is also serious physical injuries. You cut one finger that
can be also intentional mutilations. How do you differentiate the two? If the intention is only to injure, then
263. But if the intention is to mutilate, then that is intentional mutilation. Akin yung kamay mo tapos
pinalo mo ng martilyo, intentional mutilation yun. But in the process of a quarrel, nag away kayo, and
then one of the fingers was cut off because of the quarrel, then that is serious physical injuries.

Now, you go to 247. This is now the problem that was asked in the bar, 247. Sabi ko yung mga law
students from Ateneo, I think they were able to answer this problem. 247 is an absolutory cause.
So, there is no such thing as attempted or frustrated death during tumultuous affray. There is no such
thing. The crime becomes physical injuries during tumultuous affray if the victim does not die. There is
no attempted or frustrated. It is only infanticide, parricide, murder, and homicide where you have
attempted or frustrated. There is no such thing as attempted or frustrated death. If the victim does not
die, then it is physical injuries.

Then you go to 247. It is an absolutory cause where the victim who has committed the crime but he is
not criminally liable by reason of public policy; therefore, that is an absolutory cause. So, if the law says
that if a spouse surprises the other spouse in a sexual intercourse with another man or a woman, and
then immediately thereafter kills one or both of them, then the person shall be liable for the
penalty of destierro. But if nobody dies then there is no penalty. Of course, immediately thereafter that
means that it allows a reasonable amount of time to expire one hour is immediately thereafter. So,
if you surprise your wife or your husband in the act of sexual intercourse and then there is a gap of one
hour from the time that you surprise your wife with the act of sexual intercourse at the time that you kill
your wife that is still covered. The immediately thereafter there does not necessarily means
immediately after you saw your wife. Interpret ng Supreme Court yan law student na yan kay People
vs. Francisco Abarca. Have you heard about that case in the 80s? That is the famous case of Abarca. I
do not know if he was accommodated. What happened kasi kay Abarca, he was a law student in
Tacloban. He came to Manila for a bar review for 6 months review. The bar exam then was November.
So, he left the beautiful wife with two young children when he came to Manila. Of course, he loves his
wife so much. So, after the bar exams, after a period of seven months, six months for the review, and
then one month for the bar exams, he went back to Tacloban. Then of course, the first thing that he did
when he arrived in his house was to look for his wife, natural. Then when he opened the door he saw his
wife in the act of sexual intercourse with the doctor. Now, the problem with Mr. Abarca is that, he did not
do anything after he saw his wife in the act of sexual intercourse. He went to a friend and then
barrowed a gun, Armalite pa. And then he went back to the house after a period of one hour has
already lapsed. Of course, the man was no longer there. So, he fired the gun to his wife. The wife
survived. And then he went out from the house. He looked for the man. The man was already playing
mahjong with some of his friends then he fired the gun. And then all of them survived, but all of them
have suffered injuries.

So, he was charged with - what is the crime charged? Ha? Ano? Complex crime. Walang
namatay.
Complex crime or frustrated murder complexed with attempted murder. Then he was convicted by
the
lower court for frustrated parricide because the wife survived and for a complex crime of frustrated
murder complexed with attempted murder, so far as the man because there was a lapsed of one hour.
The interpretation of the lower court is that he should have killed or he should have fired the gun
immediately after. So, he went to the Supreme Court, he was acquitted. Why was he acquitted? Of
course, he was taking up law, probably, he wanted to become a lawyer then the man was a doctor,
between a lawyer and a doctor. Of course, the Supreme Court will choose the lawyer.

So, do you know what they thought about that one hour? The Supreme Court said that immediately
thereafter does not refer to a fixed period of time. It is rather that at the time he fired the gun, he was not
yet in control of himself because of what he saw. So, he's not - the problem with Mr. Abarca is that after
the bar exams came out, he failed in the bar. Until now, he is not yet a lawyer. Then the doctor already
died. Alam mo naman sa probinsya He went to another place practice his profession. He had no more
patients. He became a drunkard, and then he died of sickness. Of course, sino pa maging pasyente nya?
OB-Gyn yun eh nakipag-sexual intercourse sa pasyente nya!

Then, you know what happened with Mr. Abarca? They reconciled.

He reconciled with the wife?

Yeah. They had another two children. He reconciled with his wife. Now, he is a manager of He is
they're making good in Tacloban. Well known family 'yan eh. But he did not take the bar anymore. But
he was convicted for reckless imprudence. First, the conviction there was reckless imprudence because
he was performing that is what we are saying. Because an absolutory cause is lawful act, you are not
criminally liable. So, when he fired the gun against the man, he was performing a lawful act. But he was
negligent because other persons were shot. So, he was convicted of reckless imprudence resulting in
physical injuries. Convicted sya ng reckless imprudence resulting in physical injury. But of course, if he
wants to take the bar exam, he can still take the bar exam, kasi wala namang covered ang conviction
dyan. You know why he did not take the bar exam? Because he reconciled the wife, he said that I will
not leave my wife anymore. That is a true story. You ask all those from Tacloban they know the family.
So, that is what I meant by that immediately thereafter.

Now, the question in the bar exam is this: Mr. A, he was charged with a crime of murder because
he killed a paramour but he was able to put up this defense of death under exceptional circumstances
under
247. And then the court acquitted. Then the court did not find him guilty of the crime of murder but
imposed a penalty of destierro. Destierro ang penalty nyan eh, and then in the same order, the
court
required the accused to pay the indemnity of 50,000 pesos for the death of the victim. So, he imposed a
penalty when he found that the person is not liable. But because there is a penalty of destierro, so he
imposed a penalty of destierro, because that is a penalty, he also ordered the payment of 50,000 as civil
indemnity. Is the order is correct? I told the students, sabi ko the destierro in 247 is not a penalty.
The
destierro there is for the purpose of protecting the offender because he is prohibited from entering a
certain radius to be protected from possible revenge or harm from the heirs of the victim. 'Yun ang
purpose nun. Therefore, thats not a penalty. If it is not, therefore a penalty, then it is wrong to impose a
civil indemnity of 50,000 pesos. Yan ang sagot.

The other problem is, just as well, we have some problems with that question. The second question was,
while suffering a penalty of destierro, he entered the prohibited area, and found, and then he was caught
in the act of smoking or using dangerous drugs. Question? Is he entitled to Indeterminate Sentence Law?
No. Probably, what is in the mind of the examiner is that, you are not entitled to Indeterminate Sentence
Law if you evaded sentence. Thats one of the disqualifications. Ang disqualifications ng Indeterminate
Sentence Law, then you have death, reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, prison, discretion of prison,
habitual delinquency. And when the penalty is one year or less, or evaded sentence. So, when you go
to a prohibited area covered by a penalty of destierro, that is evasion of sentence, and therefore, you are
not entitled to Indeterminate Sentence Law because thats one of the disqualifications.

Now, the problem, however, is at that in the second crime, the crime that he committed, while he evaded
sentence is illegal use of dangerous drugs. And the penalty of illegal use of dangerous drugs is
six
months rehabilitation. So youre not really entitled to Indeterminate Sentence Law because if you are
convicted of use of dangerous drugs under Section 15, the penalty is six months rehabilitation. And
therefore, you are not really entitled to Indeterminate Sentence Law because Indeterminate
Sentence Law is applicable only to imprisonment of more than one year. Mali yung premise ng tanong
eh, di ba? Baka kako ang kadalasang saguitin eh, not entitled to Indeterminate Sentence Law because
the penalty of illegal use is six months rehabilitation, not imprisonment. Ngunit ang gusto ng
examiner there is evasion of sentence. May evasion of sentence but the crime that he used in the
problem, there is a penalty of only six months rehabilitation. So we put an alternative answer that if the
answer is not entitled because the penalty of use is only six months rehabilitation, that will also be
correct. Nagkamali yung premise.

Okay, then the other one is the this has not been asked in the bar exam. The second part, or the last
part of 247 because what you think of 247 is applicable only to spouses. It may also apply to the
daughter and their seducer. That means the daughter and her seducer so, in other words, the father kills
the daughter. Thats what the law says. This law applies also to the daughter and her seducer. So, what
does that mean? It means, therefore, that there is a crime of qualified seduction or simple seduction
being committed. Then you have to refer yourselves to 337 and 338 of the Revised Penal Code to
understand that. Under 337, the law provides that when a girl between the ages of 12 and 18 consents to
carnal knowledge or even sexual intercourse through abuse of confidence, or committed by domestic
servant, a teacher, or those of religious calling, then the crime becomes a qualified seduction, as long as
the woman is of good reputation.

Now, you go to the second part of 337, and then there is a seduction there, of the daughter, but what is
the law that is applicable is the first part of 337. The other one is Article 338, the crime of
simple seduction. When the girl between the ages of 12 and 18, virgin, consents to carnal knowledge
through deceit, then that becomes a crime of simple seduction. In other words, the gravamen of the
offense in 337 and 338 is that, 337, the young girl consents to a sexual intercourse because of the
abuse of confidence of the offender. Then in Article 338, the young girl consents to a sexual intercourse
because she was deceived by the offender. Like for example, between the ages of 12and 18, she
consented to a sexual intercourse requested by the boyfriend. Sabi ng boyfriend marahil eh, o sige
pumayag ka na. Bakit papakasalan naman kita eh. I will support you. And then natamaan ng pangako,
as usual. Pangako ng pangako yung lalake, di ba nabola na yung babae. And then the girl consented to
sexual intercourse, believing that the boy will marry her. So what happens? Buntis yung babae, then the
boy did not anymore show up. That is simple seduction because she should not have consented to a
carnal knowledge if not for the promise to marry, pero delikado yan. But of course, that is seduction.

Yung qualified seduction naman, lets say teacher, the girl is between the ages of 12 and 18, and then
the teacher abused the confidence of the student, 17 years of age, and therefore, consented to a sexual
intercourse, that is a crime of qualified seduction, do you follow?

Alright, you go back now to 247. If the daughter now is being seduced, and there is an ongoing sexual
intercourse between the daughter and the offender, in a qualified seduction or in a simple seduction, and
then the father kills the man or even the daughter, 247 applies as an absolutory cause. That is the
application. Kaya lang unfair don sa daughter. But the law says, in so far as the daughter and
the seducer, hindi sinabi na seducer lang ang pinatay.

S: Sir, how is that so you have conditions precedent, do you have to be liable for the crime of seduction
before you call

P: Hindi naman. It does not necessarily mean that a conviction is necessary. What he can prove is
that he killed them because there was an ongoing seduction. No need for a conviction. Anyway, as you
all know, in your rules of criminal procedure, if you put up that absolutory cause, then the burden will be
shifted on the part of accused. He just convinced that there was an act of that there was a seduction
being committed but as I said, thats very hard to established. The only problem is

4D 2007 1
S: So, sir the mere fact of one being a teacher and the other one being the student between 12 and 18
does not automatically make it a seduction, sir? Qualified seduction?

P: If you would make it a qualified seduction, the sexual intercourse is not to abuse of confidence and
the girl of good reputation. Although the law says, virgin ka, virgin, ano ha? That virginity refers to good
reputation. Even if somebody loses her virginity she may still be of good reputation, meron ganon eh di
ba? Okay, so you have to refer to 337 and 338. But anyway, I hope that we can reach crimes against
chastity despite of the time.

Okay, and then, you go to intentional mutilation. What is intentional mutilation? When the purpose is to
mutilate a reproductive organ, serious intentional mutilation yan eh. Anong reproductive organ, alam na
natin yon? You know the penalty is harsh. Anong penalty ng serious intentional mutilation? Para kang
pumatay, ganun? Reclusion ano? Reclusion perpetua. Its like a crime of murder, reclusion perpetua. Eh,
para na rin patay kasi yung victim. Wala ng pag-asa. Putol na yung kanya e.

Then, you go to intentional abortion. Duel? Just read what is duel. Its a crime ha. Yung referee liable din
yan sa duel.

Then, you go to intentional abortion or unintentional abortion. What makes it intentional is that
the purpose is to kill the fetus, but if the killing is not intentional, then it becomes unintentional. So you
have a pregnant woman, she quarreled with the husband. The husband suspected that the fetus being
carried by the wife is not his. So gusto nyang patayin yung bata. Binugbog nya yung tiyan nya. Then the
mother and the fetus died. What would be the crime? Then that will be parricide with intentional abortion
because the purpose is to kill the fetus, the wife died. But if the purpose is to kill the wife and then the
wife died, including the fetus, then the crime is parricide with unintentional abortion. Its a complex crime
under Article 48 because you are committing two crimes with only one criminal resolution. But
supposing, they are not related. The killer is not the womans spouse. The woman is killed and then the
fetus died. Then you have to determine what is the purpose of the offender. If the offenders purpose
is to kill the fetus, then it will be murder or homicide depending circumstances surrounding the killing of
the mother or of the woman, with intentional or unintentional abortion. It will depend on what is the
purpose. But if the purpose is to kill the fetus, and therefore, there is no intent to kill the woman, but
the woman died, then that will only become homicide with intentional abortion. But if the killing is
attempted with treachery and then the purpose is to kill the woman attended by treachery or evident
premeditation, then it becomes a crime of murder complexed with unintentional abortion. It could be very
hard to conceive a crime where the intention is to kill the fetus and then the killing of a woman
becomes a crime of murder. Mahirap yon. If the purpose is to kill the fetus, then the killing of the woman
will only be homicide because there is no intention to kill the woman. The intention only is to kill the fetus
and the woman dies, is homicide with intentional abortion. But if the purpose is to kill the woman
attended with treachery then the fetus likewise died, then the crime is also murder with unintentional
abortion. Mahirap yun murder with intentional abortion, very hard. Unless the intention of the offender is
to kill both the woman and the fetus, eh baka mag separate crimes yan. It will become separate crime
because you have two intentions now. One is to kill the woman and the other one is to kill the fetus.
Although, it may not happen. But, theoretically, there are two intentions, ah separate crime yan.
Theoretical yan but it may not happen.

S: Sir, pano pag single act?

P: Depende na yun. Kasi kung patayin mo, lets say patayin mo yung nanay sa likod. This one is
an actual case. It think I told you about the case of Inocencio Gonzalez. Alam nyo yon di ba? O ano ang
sinabi ng Supreme Court, if there an intent to kill from the very beginning, then the crime only becomes
homicide, thats why he was liable for a crime of homicide. What happen there was he was very lucky
because the fetus survived, but the one who was killed was shot with the same bullet that cannot be
attempted or frustrated, its only physical injuries.

Okay now, we go to 254, illegal discharge of firearm. Alam nyo na yun what is illegal discharge of
firearm. When the gun is aimed without intent to kill, then illegal discharge of firearms. When the gun
is loaded with bullets but the bullet did not fire, then that will be frustrated illegal discharge. When the
gun is not
loaded with bullet aimed at somebody else, but the offender did not know that there was no bullet, but
his intention only is to aimed the gun without intent to kill, whats the crime? Impossible crime of illegal
discharge of firearm.

Okay. So lets go to 263, the one I was telling you. Now, you read this together with 294, paragraph 2-
5 so that you will already understand what Im saying. You will find out in paragraph 1 of Article 294 that
on the occasion of robbery, homicide, rape, intentional mutilation, or arson is committed, the
penalty reclusion perpetua or death. Now, in paragraph 2, when the injuries sustained are those
one in subdivision 1 of 263, di ba? In paragraph 2 of 294, that if the injuries sustained by the victim are
those in subdivision 1, then that is robbery with serious physical injuries. And then in paragraph 3, if the
injuries sustained are those one in subdivision 2 Article 263 or in paragraph 4 in subdivision 3 of Article
263, then the crime will also be robbery with serious physical injuries. In other words, yung paragraphs
2, 3, and 4 of Article 294, the crimes there denominated would be robbery with serious physical injuries.
Walang pagkakaiba. Three, four, five serious physical injuries lahat yan except in paragraph 5 of
294, if the injuries are just like or less serious physical injuries, then you denominate the crime of simple
robbery, in paragraph 5 of Article 294. Now, what is so important with 263?

Now, if you go to 295-296, supposing four men committed a crime of robbery, all armed and
therefore they will look like a band, di ba band? So, four armed men, malefactors committing a crime of
robbery, band is an aggravating circumstance, hindi ba? Now, you look at the succeeding Articles in
295-296, if it is committed by a band, nakalagay dyan, then the maximum penalty shall be imposed. If it
is committed by a band, then the maximum penalty is unbailable. The question therefore is this, ang
sinasabi don sa committed by a band, it refers only to those robberies with violence referring to
paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 of
294. Nakita nyo ba? Ang sinasabi rin band, can only be appreciated if the robbery falls in 3, 4, and 5
of
Article 294. Do you follow?

Okay. Now, if on the occasion of robbery, the victim became blind or became insane because of the
robbery, committed by four armed men, what is the crime committed? Or if the problem is on the
occasion of robbery, a person was injured requiring 90 days of incapacity or requiring more than
90 days of medical treatment, that is also serious physical injuries. Four armed men, ano ang difference
non? So thats the problem. So the problem is, if the robbery falls under paragraph 2 of 294, and the
robbery falls in paragraph 3 or paragraph 4 of 294, committed by four armed men or more than four
armed men, what is the crime committed and whats the difference?

Now, if the robbery with serious physical injuries falls under paragraphs 3, 4 or 5 of 294 then the crime is
robbery in band. The band there is used in the denomination of the crime because it is committed by a
band. Robbery in band. Now, if however, the robbery with serious physical injuries falls under
paragraph
2 of 294, he became blind and became insane, became imbecile, ano ha, committed by four armed
men, then denominate the crime as robbery with serious physical injuries. The band is merely an
aggravating
circumstance. That is the interpretation. Kung ang robbery mo eh 3, 4, 5, committed by a band, they
you
denominate the crime as robbery in band. But if your robbery falls under paragraph 1 and 2 of Article
294, then denominate the crime as robbery with serious physical injuries aggravated by a band. Not
robbery in band. Its not covered by 295 and 296. So thats why if the robbery if the serious physical
injuries is subdivision 1 of 263, then robbery with serious physical injuries committed by a band as an
aggravating circumstance. But if the serious physical injuries fall under subdivision 2, 3, 4 and 5 of 263
committed by four armed men, the crime becomes robbery in band. Do you follow? Thats what I was
saying.
Okay. Now, less serious physical injuries will be between 9 and 12. So madali yan eh. Walang
masyadong enumerations yan. Between 9 and 12 lang yan. Likewise, in slight physical injuries not more
than 9 days. So that this is slight injuries but remember that slight physical injury is always a
light felony. Light felony yan. That is a light felony and therefore, it cannot be complexed with other
crimes against persons. Less serious physical injuries pwede din i-complex yan because of the penalty
are not less serious physical injuries, I mean slight physical injuries because that is a life felony. So, we
now go to the crime of rape. Mr. Patajo, are you ready?

Yes, sir.
P: What is rape?

S: A rape is committed if a man forces himself to have carnal knowledge with a woman.

P: Hindi naman ganun. Indulges. A man indulges in carnal knowledge of a woman. So, if a man
indulges in carnal knowledge of a woman in any of the following circumstances, yan. Number one?

P: Number one, sir, is to force, intimidation and

threat. P: Number two?

S: Sir, through fraudulent machination or grave abuse of confidence

P: Number 3 yan. Letter C yan. Deprived of

S: Deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious.

P: Letter C?

S: Letter C, letter C, sir to

P: Yan fraudulent.

Fraudulent machination or to abuse of authority.

P: Number 4?

S: Number 4 is below 12 or demented, sir.

P: So, in Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 is consent an element? Is non-consent an element of the crime of

rape in paragraphs A, B, and C?

S: In A, B, and C, sir, consent is an element.

P: Without the consent is an element. What about Paragraph

D? S: Sir, the material consent is the material.

P: Even if the woman consents. So, how do you call the rape in Paragraph

B? S: Sir, statutory rape.

P: So, there are two statutory rapes?

S: Yes, sir.

P: One is less than 12 and then demented.

S: Yes, sir.

P: What do you understand by a person demented?

S: Sir, a person who is demented is actually mentally ill, sir.

P: Obserbahan mo kung mentally ill yan, maraming kasing stages ng mentally ill.
S: Sir, the first demented, the mental capacity of the person is equal to that of a minor who's
probably mentally ill.

P: Hindi naman. Para sa exception yan eh. Ang demented diyan, one who cannot give intelligent
consent. In other words, you want to have sexual intercourse with a woman, hindi niya alam kung mali o
tama iyon, eh. In other words, she cannot give an intelligent consent. Okay.

Now, lets go to force or intimidation. What do you understand by okay, carnal knowledge muna.
What do you understand by it? The law requires carnal knowledge or sexual intercourse?

S: Sir, carnal knowledge.

P: So, its not sexual intercourse.

S: No, Sir. Penetration is not an essential element.

P: So, what is then the element?

S: Sir, there was the intention to

P: To penetrate? Wala, Kung my intention to penetrate baka maging attempted rape lang
yun.

S: Because he has intention to lay her down and -

P: Lie down? Why you cannot do can you not do it in some other positions? Kailangan may intention
to lie down?

You use that phrase, "the intention to lie down" when you are talking of a crime thats either attempted
rape or acts of lasciviousness. You use that What? Probably what you want to convey is slightest
penetration. That is carnal knowledge, slightest penetration. So, a woman claims to have been sexually
ravished or raped. A consummated crime of rape, but she says that upon medicolegal examination
or after a genital examination shes found to be still a virgin. In other words, no hymenal laceration, no
injuries on the hymen, and therefore, the doctor says, you are still a virgin. But she claims that a crime of
consummated crime of rape was committed against her. How will you rule?

S: Sir, I would still rule against the accusers because penetration is not an essential element or it
could be consummated.

P: So, hindi sabi niya, Youre still a virgin. How can you claim that youre sexually ravished when in
fact, you are still a virgin? How will resolve that?

S: Sir, because for a hymen to be broken to is not an element of the crime. Basically, sir, there must
be some sort of penetration.

P: What?

S: Sir, it can be the slightest penetration, sir. First

-

P: It is not a requirement because slightest penetration basically committed in the crime. When do
you say there is a slightest penetration?
S: Sir, the woman could not be

P: But that is the totality.

S: Sir, the labia

P: The opening, the opening. Its either labia majora or the labia minora, the outer lip or the inner

lip. S: Yes, sir.

P: What about if touches the face? O, bakit? Pwede din natin sabihin yan. What crime? Is that slightest
penetration?

S: No, Sir.

P: So, what is it? Pwede bang malaman kung anong purpose ng lokong yan. So, once it touches the
opening, that means the labia majora or labia minora or the outer lip or inner lip it becomes the crime of
consummated crime of rape. If he does not touch the labia majora but touches the face, anong tawag
dun? Ako di ko alam ang tawag eh, but I can understand what Im saying. I know what Im saying. Its
not the opening but it touched a part.

S: The private organ, the mouth.

P: Mouth? Opening lang yang sinasabi, not the mouth. The face is like this, here, here. Around. Not on
the opening but around it.

S: Sa may singit, sir?

P: Ang layo naman. Its like that here on the face here, not on the lips. So, what is the
crime?

S: Its not consummated rape. If you can prove it that there is intention to lie down the victim it is
attempted rape.

P: Then thats attempted rape. Sometimes some say, intent to lie down with the woman or in sometimes
they call it - intent to penetrate. Because lying down is ano eh broad yun, eh. Pinahiga mo yun eh, thats
lying down. But there is no intent to penetrate, eh. So, if there is intent to penetrate, but the problem
is how do you know if there is intent to penetrate? How will you know? It still depends on the facts.
Supposing the man insisted on inserting his private organ, but he was prevented by the girl, so that he
could not insert his private organ. Then that is sure intent to penetrate. But there was no penetration
slightest because the woman forced the man, di ba? Ganun yun, eh. May intent to penetrate but because
there is no slight penetration, that will become a crime of attempted rape. Now, the law likewise says,
that in a crime of so, if the victim, therefore, is between the ages of 12 and 18, what are you going to
establish in order that one will be liable for a crime of rape? If the victim is more than 12, never mind 18,
more than 12, you want the accused to be convicted of the crime of rape. He is not demented. She is
already more than 12. What are you going to do?

S: Sir, the rape was consummated against her carnal knowledge was consummated against her
reason.

P: You have to prove. Now, if the carnal knowledge was attended with force or

intimidation. S: Paragraph 8, sir.

P: From Paragraph 8, what do you understand by force? What is intimidation? According to you,
through force or intimidation. What do you understand by force? Force that cannot be resisted? In other
words, in order - if the woman cannot resist it, and then there is carnal knowledge? It becomes a crime of
rape because the force cannot be resisted? So, should it be irresistible force?
S: Yes, sir.
P: Sobra yun pag yung force that cannot be resisted.

S: Sir, I think this force is any type of force, sir.

P: Not necessarily force that cannot be

resisted.

S: Yes, sir, as long as it is enough for her not to be able to prevent the intent to
penetrate.

P: Thats correct. What about deprived of reason? What do you understand by deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious, is there a force there?

S: Sir, if she was drugged sir or -

P: She might be asleep or was boxed. What about a woman whos sleeping? A woman who is sleeping.
Can you do a crime of rape when the woman is sleeping? Is she unconscious?

S: Yes, sir. She is probably unconscious. Assuming that there is a possibility that

P: There was an old case, I think 10 years ago, when the woman was already sleeping but she did not
resist. If she is sleeping and then you go on top of the woman and then she wakes up - of course she will
wake up. Then, she did not persist, ayun baka walang rape yun because she did not resist, eh. When a
woman is sleeping and then you go on top of her she will be awaken. But if she does not resist at that
time, walang rape iyon. That is not unconscious. What is unconscious is that, she only discovers that
somebody inserted his private organ after shes awakened. Yun ang unconscious or deprived of reason.
What about sleeping? There was an old case, where the accused was convicted because what
happened there was she was sleeping. Then when she was sleeping, somebody went on top of her.
Naramdaman niya eh. But before that she thought that it was her husband. Hindi nagrereklamo. Sabi
niya ah, husband ko to. Okay lang. Ang problema after he inserted his private organ, I do not know kung
bakit ano- ah, Hindi ito ang asawa ko! Hindi ito ang asawa ko! Hindi sinabi sa case kung bakit, eh.
Naramdaman niya, hindi pala yun ang asawa niya. Baka maliit e, o iba yung korte. That is still a crime of
rape. She did not resist him because she thought then that he was her husband. Yun, sinabi ng Supreme
Court, rape yan.

Then there was another case in Palawan. Actress yun ng British, eh. Kasama yung boyfriend then they
have been drinking, nag inuman sila dun. Then the woman was a littler tipsy, probably tipsy, nakatulog.
Because this case came later than the first one, so the boy yung ano dun, yung parang bellboy doon sa
hotel. Yun pala ang ano, he went on top of the British stage actress and then he charged the boy with
rape and he was convicted in the lower court. But in the Supreme Court the boy was acquitted because
she was not totally asleep. She was conscious. It does not fall under otherwise conscious kasi
she testified on cross examination that she could feel what was being done to her. So, if she felt theres
something but she did not resist. She only resisted after eh. And then the other problem is she fails to
file the case, belatedly. Hindi niya agad fi-nile yung kaso, eh. So, ang suspetsa ko dun, the boyfriend
later discovered that she went to bed with another man, and the boyfriend discovered, fi-nilan niya ng
rape, iyon ang suspetsa ko. So, that boy was acquitted in follow up. Swerte. Nakalibre!

So, if you are tipsy, sabi nga, you are not deprived of reason, you are not unconscious. So,
delikado. Yung na-drug marahil, pwede yun. Na-drug and then went to sleep, ayun. The law is very clear
kasi deprived of reason. If you are not deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious then you will not fall
under Paragraph 1. Fraudulent machination, wala pang naco-convict diyan sa fraudulent machination na
yan. Dinagdag nila diyan, hindi ko alam what do they want to convey. Ginawang estafa yan. That should
be a crime of estafa, panloloko, eh. Nilagay sa rape, eh. A prostitute can be the subject matter of rape?
Can a prostitute file a case of rape?

S: Yes, sir.
P: The woman of questionable morality can be the subject matter of rape? Yes. The law does not make
a distinction. Unlike in the crime of qualified seduction and simple seduction, the woman as a rule should
always be of good reputation, but not in a crime of rape. So, what is fraudulent machination?

S: Sir, its the employment of

P: Yun nga ang problema dun. The example that they gave you in congress is that, lets say even a
customer. Youre a prostitute, you have a customer and then you agreed that you will pay the prostitute,
lets say in the amount of 5,000 pesos. Then after that she agreed to have a sexual intercourse because
you will have to pay her 5,000 pesos. Now, after the sexual intercourse, the boy said, No, I will not pay
you, pulis ako eh. Libre ang pulis, eh. According to Congress, rape yun. Thats the meaning of rape.
Thats rape because she should not have agreed to sexual intercourse if not that is now fraudulent
machination. Fraud, eh. Di ba ang estafa can be committed also through fraud? Likened to estafa yun
eh. Or you have a prostitute the asking price is 5,000 pesos. Then sabi niya, Hoy, tama na sayo isang
libo eh. Hindi ka naman pala magaling. So, 1,000 lang. Thats a crime of rape. That is
fraudulent machination. Wala pang nagaganyan eh. Meron na ba? Wala. The prostitute will charge the
customer? If she does that, she will lose all her customers. She will not do that. They included that, but
that was not there before the amendment, but they included that. Okay. So, more than 12, you have to
prove without the consent?

Between the ages 12 and 18, ha, as long as it does not fall under qualified or simple seduction. So,
between 12 and 18 you always prove that is done through any of those mentioned in Paragraph A, B,
and C. In all cases. There is one exception. When the rape is commitment by the father over the
daughter or stepfather or stepdaughter even if the daughter consented to a carnal knowledge as long as
the daughter is between the ages of 12 and 18 that can still be a crime of rape because according to the
Supreme Court, the moral ascendancy exercised by the father by reason of parental authority substitutes
for the required force of intimidation in a crime of rape. Kasi daw pag more than 12 daw less than 18,
pag sinabi daw ng tatay walang magawa yung anak because of the ascendancy. But if the daughter is
already more than 18, consented to a sexual intercourse requested by the father, the father can no
longer be liable of a crime of rape. Why? Because there is no parental authority to speak of. But the
father cannot escape liability, he will still be liable. He can still be liable for a crime of qualified seduction
under the second paragraph of Article 337. Walang lusot ang tatay, eh. Palagi yun. Kung more than 12,
less than 18, nag consent yung anak, rape yan. Kung more than 18, nag consent yung anak, hindi rape
yan, but the father may be liable for qualified seduction under the second paragraph of Article 337.
Nakalagay dun sa second paragraph ng 337; even if the daughter is more than 18 and is not of good
reputation, consents to a sexual intercourse of the father, the crime is qualified seduction. Kaya walang
lusot ang tatay. Dapat naman, di ba? Okay. So, there is no crime of frustrated rape, Mr. Patajo, ha. Why
no crime of frustrated rape.

S: Sir?

P: Why no crime of frustrated rape?

S: Well, sir, this is a type of penetration was not done because

the

P: Yes, because the man did not succeed, so he was frustrated. Now, theres no crime in frustrated rape
because slightest penetration makes it a consummated crime of rape, so only attempted rape. What is
dog-style rape? Do you know what is dog-style rape or missionary rape? Decided case yan. And I will
tell you why, huwag kang tatawa. Babae pang justice ang ng file ng decision na iyan. Si Justice
Carpio- Morales. She distinguished between missionary rape and dog-style rape.
Missionary rape is when the woman and the man face each other. So, frontal ang rape. Dog style is dog
style, patalikod. Now, the difference between the two is that, when it is a missionary rape, it is a simple
rape. Dog style rape is, likewise, a simple rape but aggravated by ignominy. Aggravated by
ignominy. That means under Paragraph 17 of Article 14. It is still a simple rape but there is now an
aggravating
circumstance of ignominy or moral suffering under Paragraph 17 of Article 14. Not treachery. Hindi
rin
mistake of the blow.

People v. Siao, that's a 2001 case. That is also a good question because supposing Mr. Pataco, you
rape the woman, missionary rape. So, that is a simple rape. And then later on, pinatalikod mo, dog style
rape. And then later on, you want again to insert your private organ, it penetrated the anal orifice
- mistake of the blow. Its not the private organ. Oh, question? Pwede mangyari yun, eh. Question, what
is the crime? What are the crimes?

S: Sir. What are the crimes, sir?

P: Oo, what is the crime or what are the crimes? Kung ilan crime yan bahala ka kung ilan. You try to
understand the problem. Tatlong crimes yun. The frontal rape is simple rape. And then the second one
is the insertion of the private organ, dog style. That is also a simple rape aggravated by ignominy. The
third one is another form of rape which we call rape through sexual assault. The insertion of the private
organ into the anal orifice is a sexual assault as a form of rape. Ganun ang sagot nun. Kasi there is an
old case that when you rape when you insert your private organ, ano ha, into the private organ of
the female, then that is rape. And then later on, you insert your private organ into the anal orifice. Sabi
ng Supreme Court that is moral moral suffering, ignominy. But because that is already a crime in itself
under 266-B, that now becomes a consummated crime of sexual assault as a form of rape, because it is
not inserted into the private organ of the female but to the anal orifice. That is not a mistake of the blow.

S: Sir?

S: Sir. Question, sir?

P: You want to try it?

S: No.

S: Why? Whats the question?

S: Sir, just to be clear, when you change position you commit

another

P: Yeah, three crimes yan. Rape is consummated the moment that there is a slightest penetration. So,
if you committed a crime of rape frontal and then afterwards dog style, thats another form of rape.

S: Sir, go back to missionary rape.

P: You go back to?

S: Missionary rape.

P: Eh, di pangatlo na yun.

S: Then go back to frontal, four times?

S: Yes.

S: Sir, shouldnt the focus be on the criminal resolution? So, when the assailant is raping the victim and
then well, it's a continuous criminal resolution. So, even if he, ano so, theres only one crime of rape
aggravated by the law because of the dog style. But it doesnt matter kung how many times, but
because of the single criminal impulse

P: Tuloy-tuloy lang sabihin natin nag-Viagra siya. Hindi, for every thats theres no break,
eh.
P: There is no break.

P: You read the case of People vs. Joseph Orilla, 2004. That will answer your problem. People vs.
Joseph Orilla where the Supreme Court said that in that case the man ejaculated twice. So, ilan crimes
of rape? He ejaculated twice, ano. Sabi ng Supreme isa lang crime of rape. Because according to
the Supreme Court consummated crime of rape is determined by how many times the private organ
touched the opening. So, in other words, you there is one consummated crime of rape, ha. Inalis mo.
Tapos regardless of the interval of time, ibinalik mo. Pangalawang rape yun. Bawat hugot, isang rape
yun. That is the implication. It is determined by the number of times the private organ penetrates the
private organ of the female.

S: Sir, following that argument, sir, let's say nag-change position, sir. 'Yong-position na ipinalit hindi
dog style, sir. Will that be two cases also?

P: Oo, dalawa yun. But the problem is how will you able to prove it, ano. Proving it is another thing but
theoretically if you read that case of Orilla, dalawa yun. Now, if you are the accused, then and then
you believe that you are guilty, prove that there is only one. That will be your defense. But if you can put
up a defense that you did not commit a crime of rape, better. But if you cannot put up a defense, sabihin
mo, isang rape lang. Thats the case of Orilla. By implication, thats the meaning. Yes?

S: Sir, is it true that saying that if there is no ability to penetrate, there should there cannot be any
kind of rape like attempted rape? Sir, what if it is the intention of the accused to really penetrate like it
can be a lascivious act. Can he say that its only act of lasciviousness because theres no attempt to
ah, theres no ability to penetrate?

P: What do you mean no ability to penetrate?

S: Sir, the private part cannot stand up.

P: Then, try a Viagra. May joke nga dyan sa Viagra, Chalice ba yung isa? Chalice ba? Chalice? The
church now is convincing everybody to use chalice and Viagra because it is consistent with their belief
resurrection of the dead. But do not tell that to the public. Dont tell them that the joke came from me.
That will be a matter of defense, eh. Because if you the private organ of the male, ano, he places his
private organ into the private organ of the female. Then, therefore but there is no erection, then there
must be something wrong with that man, ha. Matter of defense, eh. But if there is absence of erection, it
will be a matter of defense, eh. But I doubt if that will be only acts of lasciviousness if really there is an
intent to penetrate. Kasi ang the reason why there is a distinction between attempted rape kasi at saka
acts of lasciviousness. If you look at the definition of acts of lasciviousness in 336, it is merely lewd
design, eh. The lewd design there is merely for the commission of lascivious acts, short of penetration.
Pindot-pindot lang.

Ngayon, if your interpretation is that it is done merely to satisfy ones lust through lewd design, acts of
lasciviousness yun, hindi ba? So, how will you distinguish now if thats acts of lasciviousness or lewd
design? Then, it will depend on the intention of the offender because more than lewd design is attempted
rape, kasi. So, if your problem is that walang erection, incapable of erection, ah, mahirap i-prove yun,
eh. You're incapable of erection, siya lang nagsasabi nun. Then, that will be acts of lasciviousness if
theres no intent to penetrate, hindi ba? What I am saying is that, if there is no intent to penetrate,
eh bakit nandun kung may absence of erection? Bakit nandun sa ibabaw yung lalaki? Conducting
surveillance? Hindi ba? That will be a matter of defense. Sa tingin ko that will still be attempted rape if
you can prove that there is an intent to penetrate.

Kasi yung case dun, you know, this is a case actually involving penned by Justice Kapunan, eh.
The girl testified that there was no actual penetration, ano ha. But he was convicted of consummated
crime of rape in the lower court. They went to the Supreme Court. Ang findings ng Supreme Court, acts
of lasciviousness lang, eh. There was no slightest penetration. There was no slightest penetration. But
base on the testimony, lumalabas that the man only placed his private organ on the private organ
of the
female. And then, the woman felt something liquid. Oo, coming from the male organ. Sabi ng Supreme
Court, acts of lasciviousness lang yan. Bakit? If he had the intention to penetrate and then that liquid
substance came from the organ of the male, then he could have inserted it. But nandun, eh. The problem
kasi with that case is that the woman was not consistent of the facts she was saying, eh. Hindi malaman
kung hinubaran o hindi, eh. So, conclusion ng Supreme Court, he only masturbated and then placed her
private organ. So, he only masturbated and then he placed his private organ. That is only acts of
lasciviousness because there is absence of intent to penetrate. Well, they resolved the case in favor
of the accused, eh. Yun ang mahirap. They resolved the case in favor of the accused. Biro mo ang layo,
consummated crime of rape, tapos acts of lasciviousness. Ang baba ng penalty, di ba? That was
attempted rape. So, the penalty should be prision mayor. So, what is sexual assault as a form of rape,
Mr. Patajo?

S: Sir, the sexual assault as a form of rape is committed by, again, any person through the following:
1) By the insertion of the penis in the oral or

P: Anong oral, anong oral?

S: Mouth, oral orifice or anal orifice.

Anal.

Anal orifice, or by inserting any instrument inside the genital or the anal
orifice.

P: So, it can be committed against any person that means that the victim maybe a boy, maybe a girl.
The offender may also be a boy, may also be a girl. It does not matter. Now, what you insert is a private
organ of a male into the mouth of any person or anal orifice. Who becomes the offender? The insertion
of the private organ into the mouth or to the anal orifice. Who is the offender?

S: The offender is the one who is inserting the penis.

P: The one who is inserting? I think it will depend who employs

force. S: So, what, sir, kung right to have an erection.

P: Hindi pwede yan. Yung the same sexes yan eh. Hindi pwede yan. That is why the law says
any person.

S: So, sir, its either.

P: Its either. It will depend as to who is the one who is employing force. What about the instrument
or object? Inserted to the?

S: The genital or anal orifice.

P: So, private organ of any person.

S: Male or female (unintelligible)

P: So, if it is inserted to the private organ, then it refers to a woman, not the private organ of a

man. S: No, sir.

P: Can you not insert an instrument or object into the private organ of the male? But the law says any
person, eh, or instrument or object on the anal orifice of any person. Yun ang any person. Even if he is
4D 2007 1
undergoing treatment for hemorrhoids? Minsan itong batas kasi ano eh, because the law says instrument
or object, eh. Thats why the question in one of the cases that was brought to the Supreme Court, I think

4D 2007 2
thats in 2003, whether or not that instrument or object includes a finger includes a finger because the
law says instrument or object. The law does not say instrument or object or any part of the body except
private organ. Nakalagay dun instrument or object, eh. So, any instrument or object is something that is
not part of the body, kasi instrument or object, eh. So, a man now, if a man touches the private organ of
a male, a male person touches the private organ of male person against his consent, is that covered by
sexual assault as a form of rape?

S: Sir, what sir.

P: Okay, you insert a vibrator into the private organ of the female against her consent, there is no
problem. Thats covered. You insert an instrument or object into the anal orifice of any person that
becomes also a crime of sexual assault. As long as the purpose is to satisfy ones sexual lust, ha,
because these are all crimes involving satisfaction of ones lust. You touch the you use your finger in
touching the private organ of the female, what is that?

S: Sir, act of lasciviousness sir.

P: He use the hand of a male third person. He touches the private organ of a male person. Whats the
crime?

S: Act of lasciviousness, ata.

P: Hindi ba covered yan ng ano, sexual assault? That is covered by sexual assault. The Supreme
Court already interpreted that instrument or object includes fingers or any part of the body other than the
private organ of the male. If it is the private organ of the male, then it becomes a crime of rape. If any
part of the body, the tongue, the fingers, that is sexual assault as a form of rape. Kaya yung genitalia
na sinasabi mo. That also applies to male person. Oh, lets say a male person forces another male.
Okay. You undress and then touch his private organ. Ginanun niya. Thats covered by sexual assault
as form of rape. Okay. So, thats not anymore acts of lasciviousness. Thats already been settled, ano
ha. But if you touch the private organ of the female, then afterwards in one occasion you went up and
then touch the breast of the woman. Yun, dalawang crimes yun. The touching of the private organ of the
female is a sexual assault as a form of rape and the touching of the breast or you fondle the breast.
Thats a crime of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336. Do you follow?

Okay. Now, sexual assault as a form of rape, that is insertion of the instrument or object or the insertion
of the private organ. It maybe male-female, female-male, or the same sexes. Now, if the victim of the
crime rape dies, whats the crime committed?

S: Sir, it is qualified rape.

P: No, thats a crime of rape with homicide. That is a special complex crime. That is a crime of rape with
homicide. If the rape is attempted but the victim dies, what is the crime? It is attempted rape
with homicide. If the victim of rape did not die, is he committed a crime of rape? The victim did not die,
what is the crime? Rape. What about the injuries? She almost died.

S: Attempted qualified rape, sir.

P: Rape? Qualified rape? No. All the injuries now will become the element of violence as a crime of
rape. Qualified rape, why? Because the victim is suffering injuries?

S: It could be, sir, qualified rape.

P: If this is already unnecessary, is there such a crime as rape with attempted homicide? Or rape with
frustrated homicide? There is none because that is a special complex crime. That is not a complex crime
under Article 48. What about if a vibrator is inserted in the private organ of the female, and then
the
female died? You inserted a vibrator into the private organ of the female, and then the female die. Of
course, the insertion is without consent. What is the crime?

S: Sir, rape with homicide.

P: Thats a crime of sexual assault as a form of rape with homicide. That is also a special complex
crime. Nakalagay sa law. If the victim dies on occasion of sexual assault, then the penalty shall be
reclusion perpetua. So, that becomes sexual assault with homicide as a special complex crime.
Okay. We continue, ah. Hindi na pala kayo nag-break. Kawawa naman kayo.

Now, next Wednesday, so that you can follow the sequence, ano, you read the paragraph, you read
Section 5 of Republic Act 7610, child abuse. Section 5 of Republic Act 7610, child abuse. So, that we will
make a connection between 8353 on statutory rape, and then, likewise, sexual violence under Republic
Act 9262. That is the law on domestic violence. Republic Act 9262, VAWC. So, you look at
sexual violence under 9262 and then we will connect it with the crime of rape. Kasi, there are some
problems kasi dito, eh. Anong law ang applicable, 7610? Meron din Rev. 7610. Meron din sexual
violence sa 9262. Ano ang i-apply mo, Revised Penal Code 7610 or 9262? Di ba? And then afterwards,
we go to 267 kidnapping and serious illegal detention up to Article 267, all crimes involving deprivation
of liberty. You read together with Article 286 grave coercion, ano, 267 crime involving deprivation of
liberty. You read together with Article 286, and then Article 342 on forcible abduction. Kasi
magkakapinsan itong crime na ito, eh. Magpipinsan. And then, Section 7 of Republic Act 7610, human
trafficking and child trafficking. Section 7 of Republic Act 7610 and Section 4 of Republic Act 9208 on
human trafficking para alam nyo ang distinction, ano ha. Is the crime either be forcible abduction, maybe
grave coercion, maybe kidnapping, maybe child trafficking, maybe human trafficking? Pano mo i-apply
yan? Ang dami. Then afterwards, I will give another assignment.

Sir, is slightest penetration rule apply also to the what sexual assault as a form of

rape? No, there is none.

So, there must be insertion.

Consummated parati yun.

RA 7610 (Anti-Child Abuse Law) and RA 9262 (Anti-VAW C Law) in Relation to Article 266-A.

Article 266-A. Rape: When And How Committed.

So we took up sexual assault as a form of rape and then we also took up rape as defined in Article 266-
A. And then we also took up assault, sexual assault with homicide, rape with homicide as a special
complex crime. Not complex crimes under Article 14. So you know already sexual assault as a form of
rape. You know what is missionary rape, you know what is dog-style rape. And then I told you that it will
depend on the ages of the victim. If the victim is less than 12, what do you call this rape? Statutory rape.
If the age of the victim is more than 12 and less than 18, consented with carnal knowledge, usually, there
is no rape. Except when it is committed by the father on the daughter because the moral ascendancy as
arising from parental authority substitutes the force or intimidation required under the law of rape.
And then if the victim is more than 18, consented with carnal knowledge, definitely there is no rape. If
it's committed by the father, the father is still liable for the crime of qualified seduction under the second
sentence of Article
337. So walang escape ang father.

Qualified Rape
Then there is another group of crime which is rape. This is what they call the crime of qualified rape.
But qualified rape because of Republic Act 9346, they say the qualified rape has been mooted by 9346
because you can not anymore impose the penalty of death. Why? Because a qualified rape is, one,
when
the rape is offended by a qualifying circumstance mentioned by law when it is properly alleged
and proven during the trial then the mandatory penalty of death shall be imposed.

So because of the Death Penalty Law and therefore the penalty of death can no longer be imposed, sabi
nila wala daw qualified rape. Meron pa rin qualified rape. Only that you can not impose the penalty of
death because there will be a difference between saying that there is there is no crime. So that is the
crime of qualified rape. It's not mooted because there is still a crime of qualified rape. What is only
prohibited with the imposition of the penalty of death.

So what is then qualified rape? If the rape is attended by any of the 10 circumstances in the law on
rape:
If the victim is less than 18 years of age and the offender is the father or stepfather, or common law
husband, or stepdaughter, or the daughter of the common law wife. Now, if you properly allege minority
and then the relationship and then prove them during the trial, then the penalty of death shall be imposed
because you can not impose the penalty of death, then you invoke the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. Kaya lang, you know, in Supreme Court, probably they do not really want to impose the
penalty of death. Yung allegation of minority in that crime of qualified rape is not merely to allege that the
victim is a minor. You have to allege what is the actual age of the victim at the time of the commission of
the crime of rape. So, if you allege with the information that she was then 18 years of age - that is not
correct. You have to allege that she was 17 or 16 or 14 at the time of the commission of the crime of rape
and the accused is her biological father or stepfather. If prove those during the trial, then the penalty of
death shall be imposed.

There are many. If the victim is7 years of age. If the accused was suffering from a sexually-transmitted
disease and, at that time, he knows that he was suffering AIDS or sexually. And then if the victim was
pregnant and the accused knew that she was pregnant. The offender is a police or member of the
military and the victim is under the custody. The victim is of a religious calling, nun, nirape yung madre,
naku po, penalty of death 'yun. So those are the circumstances that will qualify the crime as a crime of
qualified rape, properly alleged and proven during the trial.

Republic Act No. 7610 Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination
Act

Now, before we go to 267, then we go to other laws that may alter or change your answer if you know
what is the law that is applicable. So, let's go to Republic Act 7610 which is the Law on Child Abuse.

Now, 7610 or Child Abuse became effective sometime in 1993. So, 1993 came ahead than the Law on
Rape because the new law on rape became effective sometime October 22 -I think it's October 22, 1997.
So nauna yung Child Abuse Law than Republic Act 8353.

Republic Act No. 7610 Section 5 Child Prostitution and Other Sexual
Abuse

If you go to Section 5 of Republic Act 7610 and then you read, likewise, Section 5, the law says that if
the victim of crime of rape is less than 12, then the law that is applicable is the law on rape in the
Revised Penal Code. So, therefore, if the victim is less than 12 under Section 5 Paragraph B, then the
law that is applicable is the Revised Penal Code because that is a statutory rape. Provided, however,
that if the victim is more than 12 and less than 18, then the law that is applicable is Republic Act 7610
unless the crime is acts of lasciviousness, then the penalty to be imposed is the penalty under Republic
Act 7610, that's Paragraph B.
So what do you mean by that? It simply means that if the victim is less than 12, then in the crime of rape
then the law that's applicable is Republic Act 8353 or the Law on Rape in the Revised Penal Code. If the
victim who is raped is more than 12 and less than 15 then the law that is applicable is Republic Act 7610
because she is more than 12 and less than 18. Okay? Do you follow?
Twelve to 18, rather. Because the statutory rape is 12 to below. It should be its good that you
corrected me. It should be 12 to 18. Thats 7610. Not more that 18. More than 12, but not more than 18.
The other one is less than 12 because that is statutory rape.

Republic Act 9262 Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children

Act

Now, if however there is a relationship between the offender and the mother of the victim or the offender
has a relationship with the victim, covered by Republic Act 9262, that is the Law Of Domestic Violence
Against Women And Children, then the law that is violated is 9262 because Republic Act 9262 is the
Law On Domestic Violence Against Women And Children.

The VAWC or 9262 covers four kinds of violence:

1) Physical violence.
2) Sexual violence.
3) Psychological violence.
4) Economic violence.

Apat ang violence sa RA 9262. Of physical violence, of course, you know is physical violence. Pag
sexual violence, then those sexual violence that may be punishable under the Revised Penal Code.
When you speak of psychological violence then it is a violence that is committed against the victim
psychologically. Tinatakot mo, tine-threaten mo, yon ang psychological. Or when the violence is
economic violence. When the woman is prohibited from enjoying your property and, therefore, the
husband does not give her any money. Sabi, "Sweetheart, punta ako sa Rockwell." "Wala.
(unintelligible) maglakad ka!" "Bigyan mo ako ng kwarta. "Magnakaw ka nalang. In other words, he does
not allow his wife to enjoy, then that is what they call economic violence.

Now in 9262, however, that's the problem, there are penalties for physical violence,
psychological violence, and economic violence. But, there is penalty of sexual violence, but the 9262
covers sexual violence. Life, nakalagay doon, rape, acts of lasciviousness. There are many choices in
9262, but there is no penalty of sexual violence.

Now, when is 9262 applicable? It may apply to the following relationships: When the act is committed
against a wife, former wife or has a common child. Naanakan niya, common child or has had dating
relationships or has had sexual relationships, and their children. That means that committed against
women; those I mentioned wife, former wife, has a common child, has had dating relationships or has
had sexual relationships, and their children. Therefore, these are the victims.

So, if these are the victims, therefore, the law covers sexual violence, what law now will be if the offender
is the stepfather? The offender is the stepfather of an 11-year-old girl. So, a man is living with a woman
who has a child of their own, and they had sexual relationship. They are living together as husband and
wife. But the stepfather of the child later can be and then 11-year-old girl surrendered herself,
consented to a sexual intercourse requested by the stepfather. So, he will find now that is a crime of
rape that his statutory rape because the woman, the girl is less than 12 even if she consents, that is
always rape.

But, the law says in 9262, that if the victim is the child of a common law wife and there's a
sexual violence, the law that is applicable is Republic Act 9262. But, there is no penalty for sexual
violence in
9262. So what rule is violated? The laws violated would be Republic Act 9262 in relation to the law and
rape in the Revised Penal Code. Do not answer it immediately as Revised Penal Code because the
relationship of the offender and the offended party is covered 9262. So, violation of Republic Act 9262,
otherwise known as the Law on the Violence Against Women and Children in relation to statutory rape
under the Revised Penal Code.
Now, if however, there is no relationship between the offenders. So, a man was walking and then he saw
a little girl, 11 years old, not related, comes up to the girl, then gives her candy. Then after giving candy,
the girl consented to a sexual intercourse or carnal knowledge. What is the crime committed? Then
the
offender will now be liable under the Revised Penal Code because that is statutory rape and there is no
relationship covered by 9262, in so far as the offended and the offender are concerned.

Okay. Now, if the victim is more than 12 and less than 18, so a man raped a girl between the ages of 12
and 18. What is the law violated? Definitely the Republic Act 7610 as provided for in Paragraph 2 of
Section 5 in relation to the law on rape in the Revised Penal Code.

But if there is a relationship between the offender and the offended parties covered by 9262, then the law
that is violated is Republic Act 9262 in relation to the law on rape in the Revised Penal Code. Do you
follow?

Republic Act 9262 Section 5 Acts of Violence Against Women and Their
Children

Okay. So, let's go to Section 5. Now, Section 5, as I've said, covers victims of child abuses less than 18
years of age or those more than 18 years of age who cannot properly manage themselves. That means
those are suffering from mental disorder, covered yun by child abuse because they think like a
child. Hindi lang less than 18 yon and also those who cannot properly manage themselves because of
mental deficiency.

Now, in letter A, that is now the indifference between a woman who is more than 18 years of age who is
raped. If a woman is raped beyond and her age is beyond 18years of age, then the law that is
violated is the law on rape in the Revised Penal Code.

Okay. So, a girl was sold by her mother. A girl was sold by her mother. Probably, the girl was 11 years
of age to a foreigner who likes to have young children. The girl was, likewise, raped. The 11-year-old girl
was, likewise, rapes. And then because he's a foreigner, you went to the highest court in Pasig. What is
the highest court in Pasig? Victoria Court. Andun sa (unintelligible). That is the highest court. And with the
consent of the owner of the motel, allowed the foreigner and the girl to rent a room where he could
use the girl for sexual abuse. But the girl consented, she was raped. The mother, likewise, was raped.
Ganon ang nangyari kay Inday eh. Mamaya sabihin ko sa'yo.

So what happened? So, consented? What is the crime or what are the crimes? Are there
crimes committed? There are three crimes committed there because she is less than 18 years of age.
In fact, she is 11 years of age. The mother will be liable under Section 5 Paragraph A as a procurer.
Thats the meaning, pimp, under Section 5 Paragraph A.

The foreigner will be liable to the crime of rape. Why crime of rape? Because the girl is less than 12
years old, that is always rape under the Revised Penal Code.

Now, the administrator of the motel who knew of what the man did to the girl because he allowed them to
go inside the room will be liable for violation of Section 5 Paragraph C. The owner, the administrator, of
the place where the act is committed is likewise liable under Paragraph C.

Now, if however the girl is more than 12, but less than 18, what's the crime committed? There could be
no rape. Why no rape? Because the woman consented, more than 12 na eh, less than 18, di ba? But still
the foreigner or the mother would still be liable under Paragraph A, still a procurer. And then the man
could still be liable under Section 5 under the second part for the crime of child abuse. Thats the
meaning of child abuse or sexual exploitation. And then the place where it took place is still liable under
Paragraph C of Section 5. Walang lusot diyan eh.

But, supposedly, if the victim is more than 18, allowed herself to be used, it doesn't anymore fall under
Republic Act 7610 because she is already of age. She is not considered as a child for purposes of
Republic Act 7610.
So, the bar exams last year or 2 years ago, the examiner combined the provisions of Section 5 and the
law of rape. Maganda yung tanong eh. Ang ginawa niya, the mother allowed her daughter to be used by
a
foreigner, and the foreigner instead of having sexual intercourse with the girl, he inserted a vibrator in the
private organ and she dies, di ba? She dies inside a motel where the administrator or the manager
allowed the foreigner to engage in that lascivious act inside the motel.

Ang tinanong ngayon anong crimes committed. Anong crimes? Yung mother is still liable as a pimp,
procurer. What about the foreigner in so far as the girl is concerned? He is liable for the crime of assault
sexual assault with homicide. Ang sabi nila homicide daw eh. Ang sagot nila homicide, why? Because
there was no intent to kill from the very beginning. He did not intend to kill the girl, and she died. Kako,
no. Ano yan, sexual assault because if the sexual assault - there is also what they call statutory sexual
assault. Di ba kung rape, statutory rape. But if you do not insert your private organ, but instead the
instrument or object, it becomes sexual assault. Therefore, you do not also prove consent in material
consent is immaterial instability is less than 12. So, if she died, if the girl consent, immaterial. Consent is
immaterial if the victim is less than 12. If she dies, if the girl consented to the insertion of a vibrator
and she is less than 12, then the crime is sexual assault with homicide under the Revised Penal Code as
amended by Republic Act 8353. And, then, the man who the (manager) of motel will still be liable under
Paragraph C pf Section 5. Do you follow?

Yon ganon. Maraming sumagot homicide daw eh, because there was no intent to kill. Hindi kako sexual
assault yan with homicide because she is less than 11. So, everybody agreed that that should be the
answer. So, that was the answer in the bar exams. Eh buti nalang ganon lang ang tanong he. Mahirap
kase pag pinag they ask you a question, and then probably the answers could be found in two or three
special laws. Yun ang mahirap. Like in the next topic, of course, you know already what is
battered woman syndrome, di ba? Under 9262, we took that up when we took up Paragraph 1 of Article
11, the defense of battered woman syndrome, okay.

Revised Penal Code Article 267 Kidnapping and serious illegal

detention

Let us go now to kidnapping and serious illegal detention under 267. Before we go to 267, I told you to
read those 267 together with 286. Yung grave coercion. yung forcible abduction under Article 342, child
trafficking under Section 7 of Republic Act 7610, and then the Section 4 of Republic Act 9208 on human
trafficking. Kasi lahat ito taking yan eh of person. It is involved the taking of a person.

Now, when you speak of 267, the intention of the offender is to deprive the liberty. 'Pag 267,
deprivation of liberty. Para mas madali ninyo maintindihan. 'Pag 286 sa grave coercion causing
somebody to do something against his will ang grave coercion 286. You force somebody with the use of
violence or intimidation against his will whether it is punishable by law or not.

Revised Penal Code Article 342 Forcible abduction

Then we go to 342, to forcible abduction, it may only be committed against a woman. The purpose
there is to commit lewd design. In other words, you force a woman to go with you in order to commit
lascivious acts, lewd design, ano? Excluding rape. Only lewd design. Lewd design does not include rape.

Republic Act 7610 Section 7 Child Trafficking

And then when you talk of child trafficking under Section 7 of Republic Act 7610, then it is the sale of a
child or when the child is used in a barter, in a sale, sale or barter of a child.

Republic Act 9208 Section 4 Acts of Trafficking in Persons

Now, when you talk of violation of Section 4 of Republic Act 9208, then it simply means that the person
likewise is sold, recruited, in exchange, and so on, but there is a purpose in Section 4. It's like also sale
or barter ano ha. But in Section 7 of Republic Act 7610, the mere act of selling or barter is
already punishable under Section 7 of Republic Act 7610.
But in Republic Act 9208, aside from the selling, aside from the exchange, abduction, aside form
marriage for convenience, there is a purpose. Merong purpose. Bakit binibenta mo yung bata? For
sexual exploitation. May purpose yun. For involuntary servitude, for bondage, for sexual abuse, and so
on, prostitution. May purpose, which may be included in Section 7. Okay, do you follow?

Kidnapping and grave coercion

Now, as we go over to kidnapping and grave coercion, para alam ninyo ang ibig sabihin. The
kidnapping is a serious illegal detention, there must be an element of lock up. Ang grave coercion,
there is no yet lock up.

Example ng lock up. Lock up doesnt necessarily mean (detaining) a person, kidnap in an enclosure.
Ang kidnapping and serious illegal detention, there is no need that you should be placed in an enclosure
or inside the house or inside the (unintelligible) and so on. What is sufficient is lock up. Ano yung lock
up? When your freedom or your liberty or your freedoms have already been completely restrained.
Meron ng lock up yon. Like what? You are tied with your hands or your feet. Tinali ka sa punongkahoy,
tinali ka doon, nilagyan ka ng blindfold. Nilagyan ka sa bunganga mo ng handkerchief so that you cannot
talk and, therefore, you cannot see, you cannot talk, you cannot move. Yun ang lock up. If there is
already lock up, then from that moment, your liberty is already restrained. Kidnapping yan. Do you
follow?

Now, even if the intention of the offender is to kidnap. If at the time that they were arrested, there was no
lock up, grave coercion lang yan. That is the meaning.

Example: A child was taken against her will. She was being brought inside the car. But before the child
could be brought to the car, the person was arrested. That cannot be kidnapping because at the time that
he was arrested, the child was not yet lock up because there was no yet complete loss of freedom, wala
pa. Pwede pa siyang sumigaw. Pwede pa siyang tumakbo.

In other words wala pang loss of freedom at that time. But that will not be a crime of kidnapping, that
cannot be a crime of kidnapping, but there should be a crime, 'di ba? Ano ang crime doon? Then that is
grave coercion under 286 because somebody is forced to do something against his will. And what is the
force? He is taken against his will, but theres no lock up, then it becomes grave coercion.

Sir, doesn't that make it an attempted

kidnapping?

Mahirap i-prove yung attempted kidnapping here, hija sa totoo lang. Very hard to (conceive) a crime of
attempted kidnapping. Puwede pa nga niyan kidnapping for ransom, attempted, but I will tell you the new
doctrine in kidnapping for ransom later on. Hindi. Walang attempted because of that doctrine laid in
People versus Arnulfo Astorga. That is the meaning of because it was first held in the case of People
versus Arnulfo Astorga on lock up.

Kidnapping and serious illegal detention, and forcible

abduction

Now, if it is now a woman, pag ang inabduct mo iyong babae, dalawa ang possible crime yon. It maybe
kidnapping and serious illegal detention or forcible abduction under Article 342. The only difference
is that, iyong forcible abduction youre also making a woman against her will, eh. The only difference is
that is the purpose.

You abduct a woman against her will in order to commit to lewd design. Lewd design except rape ha.
Lewd design is you commit lascivious acts, eh. Your purpose of taking the woman is to commit
lascivious acts. Probably, ayaw ka nya. Ayaw 'yong lalaki panget, eh. Iyong lalaki gusting-gusto, so he
abducted the woman and then started kissing her against her will, 'yon ang forcible abduction. The
purpose is not to deprive her liberty, 'yon.

Kidnapping and serious illegal detention, and child

trafficking
Now, so 'yon ang mga main distinctions, but I will tell you later on what are the doctrines to all these
crimes. Now, if you go to Section 4 of Republic Act 7610, child trafficking, you will find there in 267, that if
the victim of kidnapping is a minor regardless of the period of detention, that is always kidnapping and
serious illegal detention. Basta minor yan o babae yan, if the purpose is to deprive her liberty, that is
always kidnapping and serious illegal detention, di ba, under the last enumeration in Article 267.

But, there is a crime of a child. The victim of a trafficking under Republic Act 7610 under Section 7,
there is also a crime of trafficking. Okay. Now, in Section 7 of Republic Act 7610, the child is not taken
against his will or her will. The child is sold. Binebenta 'yong bata or ipinapalit sa iba, barter, yon. So,
that could not be kidnapping because the taking is with the consent of the custodian probably or the
mother or the father. But, it becomes a child trafficking, because it is punished by Section 7 as selling or
use in a barter. Okay.

Kidnapping and serious illegal detention, and human

trafficking

Now, you go to Republic Act 9208, the law on human trafficking under Section 4, hindi ba? Sa Section 4,
tingnan natin 'yong enumerations dun. It may include maraming acts that are punished. I think it's from
GA, B, C, D, E, F, G, H up to eight enumerations, ano ha, eight enumerations. But you look at the acts
punished under Section 7, recruitment, employment abroad, sale, barter, employment abroad,
adoption, marriages for purposes of going abroad, and then you have also employment abroad, or
also getting arranging travels abroad for the purposemay purpose dun, except in Paragraph G.

In other words, all the enumerations from A to H, because the last one is when persons are used
in armed activities, iyong ginagamit na mercenaries. That's the last part. Except in Paragraph G, the only
act that is without the consent is found in Paragraph G. Nakalagay dun sa second part of Paragraph G,
when a child is abducted against his will or with violence, nakalagay dun.

In other words, in Paragraph G, when the child is abducted with violence or against his will,
nakalagay dun eh. Why is it not that is not kidnapping? Because when you talk of human trafficking or
even child trafficking, it's supposed to be that the transfer of the person is with the consent of the mother
or the victim. 'Yon ang ibig sabihin ng trafficking.

Unlike in kidnapping and serious illegal detention, the taking is always against the will, and, therefore, it
becomes deprivation of liberty. Bakit sa Paragraph G, nakalagay dun the abduction of a child, di ba, with
violence, but still it is not kidnapping. Bakit human trafficking under Section 4? Because of the purpose.
Because of the purpose, and what is to sell? Nakalagay dun what is the purpose, for the purpose
of selling his or her organs.

In other words, let's say, I got a child against his will with violence. If my purpose there is to deprive his
liberty, then that is kidnapping and serious illegal detention. You cannot deprive his liberty. But if a child
against his will, I take him, then I forced him to donate, I forced him to sell his organ, the kidney or
any vital organ, di ba? Then the law that is violated is Section 7 of 9208.

Now, if you now go to the enumerations from A to H, ano ha, except the Paragraph G, 'yang purpose ng
trafficking enumerated by law is either for prostitution, sexual exploitation, involuntary servitude, debt
bondage, then on the last Paragraph, Paragraph H, for the purpose of armed activities, mercenaries.

In other words, to differentiate it from Section 7 of Republic Act 7610, iyong Section 7 of Republic
Act
7610 basta nagbenta ka ng bata 7610 na 'yon. Walang purpose eh, ibinenta mo inexchange mo, 7610
'yon. Ngunit kung nagbenta ka, adoption by a foreigner, arranging a marriage so that you can go abroad,
arranging a group tour in order that you can go abroad, di ba, employment abroad to bring you abroad,
lahat yan for the purpose of may purpose dun, either sexual exploitation, involuntary servitude, debt
bondage, prostitution, and so on. The law that is violated is in Section 4, 9208. Except ang isa
lang.
Except that if the child is abducted for the purpose of selling his or her organs under section in
the
Paragraph G, even if he is abducted against his will, if the purpose is to sell his organs, that is
not
kidnapping and serious illegal detention. That will fall under Section 4 of Republic Act 9208 by express
provision of law, hindi ba?

Ngayon, the problem however is - we now go back to 267. There is another crime of kidnapping of
a minor under article 270. So, do not be confused. So, therefore, if you are asked a problem in my class
or in the bar exam and the victim is a minor, you read very carefully the questions.

Oo, pag deprivation of liberty, sigurado ka 267. Ngunit kung walang lock up, grave coercion. Ngunit kung
child trafficking, then Section 7 Republic Act 7610. For purposes of exploitation or any of the purpose or
any of the purposes mentioned by Section 4 Republic Act 9208. But, there is also a crime of
kidnapping of a minor under 270. Kaya kung kidnapping ng minor yan, dapat and complete answer is if
the answer falls under 267, they can denominate the crime as kidnapping and serious illegal detention if
the victim is a minor.

Revised Penal Code Article 270 Kidnapping and failure to return a

minor

Because if your answer is kidnapping of a minor, mali 'yan. Because that is different 270 is
different from 267. Iyong 270 kidnapping of a minor is committed when the person in custody of
the child is required to return that child to the person who has lawful custody of that minor and he
refuses, the crime is 270.

Kidnapping of a minor or failure to return a minorbuti pa sagutin mo na lang failure to return a minor.
Kasi ang time frame ng kidnapping or failure to return a minor. It is different from kidnapping and serious
illegal detention in 267. Nakita nyo ba sa 270? Do not be confused with that provision with 267. Okay.

Let's go to some problem areas in 267. Although the problem was already in the bar exams two
years ago in the case of People versus Larraaga, et al, ano ha. Kaya lang dun sa question na 'yon
meron kaunting diperensya. But anyway, it was already decided by the Supreme Court. The Supreme
Court just recognized that when the victim in kidnapping is killed or a crime of homicide is committed or
murder is committed or rape then it is now a special complex crime. It is now special complex crime, not
a complex crime under Article 48. So, you denominate the crime as kidnapping and serious illegal
detention with homicide, tapos sinabi nila puwede pang murder or rape as special complex crime. Okay.

Now, when the victim is not a child or is not a female, then the detention should last for more than
How many? Three days. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. Or when the crime is committed by
simulating public authority, simulated publicpumunta ka binuksan ka sa bahay mo then sabi mo
pulis ka, hindi ka naman pulis, that is simulating public authorities, sumama ka then that is kidnapping
and serious illegal detention regardless of the number of days or detention or when physical injuries or
threat are committed, then kidnapping and serious illegal detention. Madali 'yon.

The problem is kidnapping for ransom. What you read in the book, the crime becomes kidnapping for
ransom when there is an actual demand for ransom even if your ransom is not paid. In other words,
if your child is taken against his will and then the kidnapper calls up the parent, O, give me your money
or else something will happen to your child. Even if the money is not given, under the old doctrine, that
is kidnapping for ransom even though if there is no - mere demand for the payment of ransom is
kidnapping for ransom.

Ayun ang bagong decision ng Supreme Court 2006. Even if there's no demand for ransom, if there is
already intent to demand ransom that is already kidnapping for ransom.

So, even if there is no actual demand, if there is intent to demand ransom that is kidnapping for ransom.
Yon ang bagong decision. Paano malalaman mo kung may intent to demand ransom. If there is no
demand, paano mo malaman? Because under the law kasi nakalagay dun, because the law itself says, if
the purpose is to demand ransom, then it becomes kidnapping for ransom. So they interpreted when
there's a purpose, if the purpose is to demand ransom, then it becomes kidnapping for ransom, di ba?
So iinterpret nila ang purpose, if there is an intention then it becomes kidnapping for ransom. How will
you determine if there is no demand, hindi ba? But, anyway, that's the decision of the Supreme Court so
we have to follow. So its not only mere demand. But if there is intent to demand ransom, then it
becomes kidnapping for ransom.

Revised Penal Code Book 2: Articles 269-302 with Cattle Rustling Law

We will have to leave some of the Articles after 271 and 272, although there are some important
provisions. So I think we ended up in Article 267. And then, we discussed some provisions of part of P.D.
9208 on trafficking in Section 4, and also trafficking in Republic Act 7610 under Section 7. Then, we
discussed kidnapping and serious illegal detention in 267. And then I think we took up also slight illegal
detention under 268. If the circumstances do not fall in relation to the provisions in 267, then the crime he
committed is slight illegal detention under Article 268. And then, we took up, I think, a part of Article
342 on forcible abduction of a woman. If the purpose includes lewd design against a woman, then the
crime is
forcible abduction under Article 342.

So, I assume that you know already the distinctions between trafficking under 7610, which is merely the
sale or barter of the child without any purpose, and then versus Paragraph 4 Section 4 of 9208. Then, if
purpose or purposes of the trafficking will be those mentioned in Section 4, then the crime that is
committed in 9208 is sexual exploitation, servitude, debt bondage, the use of mercenaries, sale
of organs. Then the law that is violated is Section 4 of Republic Act 9208.

Article 269: Unlawful Arrest

So, we'll proceed to 269. Then, I told you also that if there is no lock-up and the initial intention of the
offender is to deprive the liberty of an individual, but there is no real lock-up, then the crime is grave
coercion under 286. Now, if there is intent to demand ransom, then the crime is kidnapping for ransom. If
the victim dies, then kidnapping with serious illegal detention with murder or homicide.

Now, 269 is the crime of unlawful arrest. The counterpart provision of 269 is Article 124. In Article 124,
arbitrary detention is committed by a public official who detains any person without any legal ground,
whereas unlawful arrest is committed by a private individual. Probably, this refers to a citizen's arrest.
When the arrest is not with any legal ground committed by a private citizen, then the crime is unlawful
arrest.

Article 270: Kidnapping and Failure to Return a

Minor

And then 270, the one that I reminded you last time, that when the custodian of a minor is ordered to
deliver to the lawful custodian the minor, then the crime is kidnapping and failure to return a minor under
Article 270. I told you last time under 270. I told you last time that do not confuse with the crime of
kidnapping and serious illegal detention where the victim is a minor and if not, with a failure to return a
minor under Article 270.

Now, 271, 272, 273, 274, you just read them. They refer to crimes involving abandonment, forcing
a minor to abandon his home. They have slavery, when one is taken against his will in order to
enslave him. You just read them.

Article 275: Abandonment of Person in Danger and Abandonment of One's Own

Victim

Now, we'll go to 275. That's very important. Abandonment of one's victim and abandonment of a minor
under 275, or a person in the verge of death. So, there are actually three acts that are punished
under
4D 2007 1
275.

1) If you caused injury to another through reckless imprudence. So you are driving a vehicle and
then you hit a bystander. Then, you injured him. And then, you abandoned him. That is a crime, aside
from

4D 2007 2
reckless imprudence. So, aside from reckless imprudence resulting to physical injuries, if you abandon
your victim, you are, likewise, liable for a separate crime of violation of Article 275, abandoning
your victim. But that provision is only applicable to reckless imprudence, not applicable to intentional
crimes. So, if you stab somebody else with the intent to kill, but your victim does not die and then you
leave your victim, you will only be liable for frustrated or attempted, but no separate crime of
abandonment because abandonment of one's victim is applicable only in reckless imprudence.

2) The other one is abandonment of a person in the verge of death. This one was asked in the bar
exams, I think, eight or nine years ago. A person was dying at 12 o'clock in the evening somewhere in
Luneta Park, Luneta in Manila. He was already dying. A person saw him already dying but did not give a
helping hand. So, the question is: Is he liable under Article 275 for abandoning a person in the verge of
death? That question can be answered by first knowing if that place is uninhabited or inhabited. That law
is only applicable when the place is uninhabited. Now, whether or not Luneta at 12 o'clock is uninhabited
or inhabited, then that will give you the proper answer. Sabi daw nila uninhabited because at 12 o'clock
there are no persons in Luneta, but that should be inhabited. So, there is no crime because Luneta
Park is not uninhabited. It is inhabited. Even if there are no persons at Luneta Park at 12 o'clock, that
does not make the place uninhabited because Rizal is there. Nandun si Jose Rizal.

Now, what is an uninhabited place? When there are no people at any given time. If it so happens that
there are no people at that time, that does not make the place uninhabited. Let's say, in the evening at
12 o'clock, there are no persons around the area. There are many houses. Is that uninhabited? That is
not uninhabited. That is inhabited. So, there is no crime. 275 is not applicable.

3) Then, the other one is when you abandon a child less than seven years. That is also abandonment
under 275.

Article 277: Abandonment of Minor by Person Entrusted With His Custody; Indifference of
Parents

Now, 276, you just read. Walang mahirap sa 276, abandonment also. It is in 277 that's also very
important indifference of parents. There are two acts that are punishable actually in 277.

1) The first part is that you deliver the person without the consent of the guardian or the parent to any
institution.

2) The second part is indifference of parents. When the parents have financial capability if they are
financially capable and they do not give education to their children, that's a crime under Article 277.
That's a crime of indifference of parents. Kinakailangan daw' yan, 'pag may kuwarta ka, paaralin mo
'yung anak. What if 'yung anak ayaw mag-aral? Wala ka nang magagawa. So, that's the second part of
277.

Article 278: Exploitation of Minors

278, I believe, has already been amended by Republic Act 7610 exploitation of minors. It may fall
under child abuse. 'Yung act is punishable. Why? Because the minor children is less than 16 years of
age or below, or sometimes 12 years of age or below, they are required to perform dangerous tricks.
'Yung kumakain ng apoy, espada, circus. That's true. That's 278. 'Yung dangerous falling, 'yung
acrobats, 'yung kumakain ng apoy, o kumakain ng espada, yung mga acrobats, circus. Those are
punished under Article
278. But if the acts fall under child abuse, then the law that is applicable is Republic Act
7610.

Article 280: Qualified Trespass to Dwelling

Now, 279, you just read 279. Let's go to 280, which is more important grave threat. Grave threat and
light threat under no, that's dwelling rather. Qualified trespass to dwelling. And then 281, other forms of
trespass. Now, there are two crimes punished under 280.

1) One is trespass to dwelling.

2) And the other one is qualified trespass to dwelling, which is different from your violation of domicile
under Article 128. Because in Article 128, it may only be committed by public officers tasked to make
seizures or searches in dwellings or domicile; whereas in Article 280, it is committed by persons
other than public officials, when one enters the dwelling of another without the consent of the owner of
the house. The other one is when the entry is done with violence, threat, or intimidations, then it
becomes qualified trespass already.

So, if it a mere entry without the consent of the owner, then it becomes a crime of trespass to
dwelling. But if the entry is attended by violence, then it becomes a crime of qualified trespass to
dwelling. The question that is usually asked is: Supposing the entry is not done through violence, but
right after you enter the dwelling you commit violence against the owner of the house? So, if the problem
is you are prevented from entering, then you box the owner of the house and then you enter. So,
there's no problem. The crime is qualified trespass to dwelling.

But supposing you enter and then later on you caused injury to the owner of the house. What's the crime
committed? The entry is not accompanied by violence. But if the entry is accompanied by violence, there
is no problem. But if the entry is not accompanied by violence and then after the entry, violence is
committed, what's the crime committed? Will it be trespass to dwelling and another crime? Or qualified
trespass to dwelling?

Now, the violence required of qualified trespass to dwelling should not be so serious. It is merely
violence in order to cause entry. Now, if you enter the dwelling without any violence, but right after the
entry the owner of the house says, "Why did you enter?" and then you box the owner of the house. In
other words, if the violence is still in connection with the entry, then it's still qualified trespass to dwelling.
Pag pasok niya, "O, ba't ka pumasok?" Sinuntok mo. In other words, if the violence has something to do
with the entry, even if the violence took place after the entry, the crime is still qualified trespass to
dwelling. But if the violence has nothing more to do with the entry, then dwelling now becomes
aggravating circumstance if there is another crime committed.

So, you entered the dwelling then you killed the owner of the house right after the entry. That is not the
violence required of qualified trespass to dwelling. The violence should not be so serious. It is merely an
act in order to it is an act because you are prevented to enter. That's the meaning of violence. But if
you commit more than what is required as violence, then there will only be one crime committed. That's
homicide or murder, or frustrated murder, or even attempted murder or frustrated homicide, or attempted
homicide. If there is an intent to kill, dwelling now becomes an aggravating circumstance. Dwelling
now will become an aggravating circumstance.

Article 281: Other Forms of Trespass

Now, 281 is other forms of trespass. You correlate this with Article 312 on occupation of real rights or
occupation of real property. 312. Now, other forms of trespass, there are two things that may
happen. This involves a vacant property. Now, if the vacant property is not fenced, it is not fenced and
then you enter, then nobody is preventing you from entering. Open space. If it is an open space, you
enter, there is no crime committed because nobody is preventing you. But if the owner is in the property
and then he prevents you from entering, that is other forms of trespass because you are being
prevented from entering a vacant property.

But supposing the owner is not there, but he fenced the property, so that's now the application of 281. An
enclosed estate, you enter that enclosed estate, what is the crime committed? That is other forms of
trespass. Why? The putting up of a fence of a vacant property is a manifestation on the part of the
owner of the property that he does not allow anybody to enter. So, if it is an enclosed estate and then
you enter, then it becomes a crime of other forms of trespass under Article 281.

Is there a need for an express prohibition? Do you need to be there during entry or a sign will
suffice?
No. Thats what the law says you have a sign of "No Entry," that will be sufficient because that's a
manifestation. The only reason why it is a crime of other forms of trespass under 281 is the putting up of
a fence. The putting up of a fence is a manifestation on the part of the owner of the property that anybody
is prevented from entering.

Now, you connect this with Article 312 because 312 is likewise an entry to a real property. The only
difference, however, in 312 is that if the entry is attended with intent to gain. Sa 312, there is an intent to
gain. When the entry is done with violence, and there is an intent to gain, then the crime is found in
Article
312. Usually they call it the crime of occupation of real rights or occupation of real property. It is like
robbery. It is like robbery of real property. However, it does not fall in robbery because robbery is
carrying away of the personal property. You cannot carry away the land. Otherwise, if you dig the land
and then carry away the property, then by the time you finish it, then you will see beautiful women on
the other side. Why? Because on the other side is Brazil, di ba? Ang daming magagandang babae dun!
So, you do not call it robbery, you call it occupation of real rights. 'Yun ang pagka-iba ng 281. If it is
merely an entry without the owner of the property or without the consent of the owner, other forms of
trespass.

So, in other words, supposing you enter a property, you are contesting that you are the owner of the
property when, in fact, you are not the owner. Then you started building your house inside that property
because you claim that that is your property. Wala nang anti-squatting. That used to be a crime of
P.D.
772, anti-squatting, because what is punished in P.D. 772 was to enter and then build a makeshift. 312 is
when you enter and then claim that that is your own property. That is the meaning of intent to gain, so
the crime will be 312.

But if you just merely enter an enclosed estate period, the crime is Article 281. If you enter and then
build a house, claim that that is your property, then the crime is 312 under crimes against property.

Article 282: Grave Threats

Now, 282, grave threats. Itong grave threat, sometimes they confuse grave threat for robbery with grave
threat, or sometimes grave threat with grave coercion. Some of the students do not know how to
distinguish between grave threat, grave coercion, and robbery because there are two kinds of
grave threat under Article 282.

1) One is a threat constituting a crime, when the threat will constitute a crime and subject to a condition,
which condition may take place in the future, either fulfilled or not. So, it is a threat constituting a
crime and subject to a condition, which condition shall take place in the future and it may be fulfilled or
not.

2) And Paragraph (b) is any other form of

threat.

Grave threat is where the threat is bodily harm against your property, you person, your honor, in any of
those mentioned in Article 282, that is grave threat. So, pag sinabi lang,"Papatayin kita", that is grave
threat because the threat is serious. Bodily harm. But if you say, I will kiss you, does that constitute a
crime? It may fall under Article 285 which we will discuss later.

So let's take the case of the first part of grave threat. Ang grave threat at saka grave coercion hindi
parehas 'yan. Ang grave coercion is to force somebody to do something against their will, against his will,
whether allowed by law or not. Yun ang grave coercion. Grave coercion is continuous, persistent and
continuous. May ibang purpose ang grave coercion. There is a purpose of grave coercion. In
grave threat, what is punished actually is the threat employed.

So, let's take the case of the first form of grave threat which I will use as an example. Supposing I tell Mr.
Zosa, "Give me your money tomorrow or else I will kill you." So, there is a threat of bodily
harm constituting a crime because "I will kill him" is a crime. And then it is subject to a condition, I will kill
him if he will not give his money tomorrow. So, there is a threat of bodily harm, so that's the first element.
It constitutes a crime because killing is a crime, and then it is subject to a condition that will take place
in the future and the condition is that he will give me money tomorrow or else I will kill him. So, what is
that
crime? Okay. But supposing, "Mr. Sosa, give me your money now or else I will kill you," so there is also
a threat. "Give me your money" also, the same purpose, is to extract the money from you.

What's the difference between the first one and the second one? The first one is that the threat is subject
to a condition that will take place tomorrow. The second example is that it is immediate. So, "Give
me your money now or else I will kill you." So the only difference is that the giving of money now takes
place right now or else something will happen to you right now. In the first example, give me you money
tomorrow or else I will kill you. So, so it is subject to a condition. But in the same manner, in both cases,
it would appear that the purpose of the offender is to get money from you. "Give me your money or
else I will kill you." "Give me your money tomorrow or else I will kill you." So, almost the same.

But they are not the same for purposes of 282. The first one is a crime of grave threat. The second one is
a crime of robbery. Why? The only difference is the condition that will take place in the future. So, let
us try to analyze why the first example is a grave threat. "Give me your money or else I will kill you
tomorrow." Then the law says, whether that condition is fulfilled or not. So, I threatened him now. If I
threaten him now, "Give me you money tomorrow or else I will kill you." Is it not that I'm
already committing a crime? "Give your money or else I will kill you tomorrow." Is it not that I'm already
committing a crime? Meron na. What is the crime I'm now committing? I'm now committing grave
threat because there is a bodily harm. "Give me you money or else I will kill you tomorrow," so there is
already grave threat because there is threat of a bodily harm and the threat constitutes a crime, that is
killing.

So tomorrow, let's say, the time now comes for the fulfillment of the condition. Nagkita kami. Wala akong
kuwarta. "Give me your money." Wala akong kuwarta. Kahit ano, gagawin ko. So, if he does not give me
the money, you are liable for a crime of grave threat because the threat was employed the day
before. So, let's say, "Give me money tomorrow or else I will kill you." Is it not that the day before there is
already a grave threat? So that if it is tomorrow now, whether they have money or not, there is already a
consummated crime of grave threat. There is no need for you to fulfill that condition because the law
says even fulfilled or not.

Now, if the money is there, you give the money, that is still grave threat. That is not a crime of robbery
because the giving of the money is not immediate. So, "Give me your money or else I will kill you," and
then you give now the money. What is the crime? Is that grave threat? No, that will now be a crime of
robbery because the threat that you employed now is the element of robbery with violence or
intimidation. So, now it becomes a crime of robbery.

Now, in the second example of grave threat or the one that is the part of the second Paragraph of 282,
then it is not subject to a condition. You just point a gun, "Papatayin kita," of course, do not pull the
trigger because there will be another crime committed. "Papatayin kita." Walang kondisyon. That is grave
threat.

Article 283: Light Threats

Now, if the threat, however, does not constitute a crime, then it may be Article 283. There is a demand
for money, that is the meaning of light threat, or even 285 under Paragraph (c), any form of threat.

I will give you an example. You are a writer in a publication. "You give the money or else I will
expose your wrongdoings as a government official." So, I'm a journalist. "Give me money or else I
will publish your criminal acts that you are committing as a public official." Is publishing criminal acts a
crime? That is not a crime so it does not constitute one. But there is a threat and the threat is if you do
not give money, then I'll do something, then I will publish it in the newspaper. So, that is not a
crime. The act is accompanied with threat not constituting a felony or a crime, but it also takes place
in the future. It will take place in the future. "If you do not go and give the money tomorrow, then I will
publish an article about your wrongdoings." That is a crime of light threat under 283.

But be careful because under Article I think its 356, kaya may conflict na mga writers. In 356, that may
be punished as a crime of blackmail. That's 356. You look at your 356. When you threaten to publish
if
that writing will amount to a libelous article, then it may be a crime of blackmailing under 356 if
the purpose is to extract money from the private offended party. Tingnan mo sa 356, parang almost the
same as 283. But 283 is committed when it is likewise subject to a condition. As long as the wrong
threatened to be committed does not amount to a crime or a felony, and then it is subject to a condition
that may take place in the future, that is Article 283.

Now, but if there is no demand for money, let's say, I will publish libelous articles against you. There is no
demand for money but there is a threat. What is the crime committed? Then the crime would
be Paragraph (c) of Article 285. The mere threat is a crime of other light threats under Paragraph (c)
under
285. To differentiate it from 283, yung 283 kasi subject to a condition. Yung 285, it is not subject to
a
condition. So any other form of threat is punished under Article
285.

Now, in so far as the other threats in 285, yung you arm yourself during a quarrel, as long as it is not in
self-defense in the heat of anger, I think 285, yes, that's Paragraph 2, other forms of threat. Yung
284, that is a useless provision. Wala 'yang 284 na 'yan.

Article 285: Other Light Threats

There are three other forms of threat in 285. Today, during quarrel, you arm yourself as long as it is not
valid self-defense. Yung Paragraph 3, in the fit of anger, nagmumura ka, lahat-lahat. Light threat 'yan
and any other threats without any condition, in Paragraph (c) that is 285.

Article 286: Grave Coercions

So, let's go to grave coercion. Medyo mabigat ang grave coercion. Bakit mabigat? Sometimes, grave
coercion is actually taking the law into your own hands when there is a legal remedy. 'Yan ang unang
isipin niyo sa grave coercion. One of the forms of grave coercion is taking the law into your own hands
when there is a proper remedy.

Example, somebody is renting your apartment and he does not want to pay. What is your remedy?
Apartment dweller. Youre the owner of the apartment. He is not paying. What are you supposed to
do?
'Di ba File a complaint for unlawful detainer? That's your remedy. But supposing, in order to require him
to pay or in order that he can get out from the premises, you cut off the water line, you cut off the
electricity. That's a crime of grave coercion. That is taking to your own hands when there is a proper
remedy. Or somebody is indebted to you, then you force him or you force her to pay. That is,
likewise, grave coercion.

The other form of grave coercion is you force somebody to do something against his will. In order words,
like a woman, the woman does not like you. You forced her to go with you. That's grave coercion.
There is violence, which is different from grave threat. In grave threat, what is punished is the threat.
When you threaten somebody else, then it becomes grave threat or light threat. When it is grave
coercion, the threat may be the element of the coercion. So, if I threaten you and the purpose is to force
you to do something against his will, then it becomes grave coercion because the threat is now utilized.
It is now the element of the grave coercion.

Then, the other one is light coercion. You force somebody else to pay your debt. That is light coercion.
Or you force somebody else to work dahil may utang. Coercion 'yan. Lahat ng pamimilit, coercion 'yan.
Because it is against the law, because you are putting the law into your own hands, but the
most important one is light coercion or the unjust vexation as a form of light coercion.
Ano yung unjust vexation? Unjust vexation is a form of light coercion. Light coercion is causing
annoyance or you are vexing the senses of the offended party short of causing injury. Because once you
cause injury to another, it may no longer be a crime of unjust vexation. Kaya lang diyan sa slander by
deed, may sinasabi kasi ang Supreme Court let's say, slander by deed, I think, is punished in 359 to
explain what is light coercion.
Unjust vexation is a form of light coercion. Unjust vexation is merely pang-iinis. Nanilip ka ng babae,
peeping Tom. That is unjust vexation. Kissing a woman without lewd design is also unjust
vexation. Stolen kiss, that is unjust vexation, if the woman does not like it. Or peeping a woman is unjust
vexation. Short of injury, if there is no crime but there is an act committed, and the act is against the will
of the offended party, the safest crime is unjust vexation. 'Wag lang may injury.

Okay, like for example, the one that we studied in Article 132, I think. 'Yung offensive to religious feeling.
Yung nang-iinis, yung procession, nanggulo ka. If you did not harm anybody, there is a crime of unjust
vexation. Ganun din ang unjust vexation. Anything that will vex the senses of the offended party is unjust
vexation.

Now, I am reminded there was slander by deed sa 359. If you slap somebody else in the face in the
presence of other person, that is a crime of slander by deed, 359. Slander by deed. You know, slapping
is actually putting a person to shame. Buti pa sinuntok mo na. 'Pag sinuntok mo, probably injury 'yan, but
kung slap, slapping in our Filipino tradition, ano yan, pambabastos. So if somebody saw you slapping
somebody else, that is slander by deed. But if nobody saw the slapping, that cannot be slander by deed.
Lets say, there are only two persons inside the room, one slapped the other. That cannot be slander by
deed because you cannot besmirch the honor or reputation of somebody else if there are no witnesses.
Pero sa libel or defamation, meron parating witness 'yan. Kung walang witness, ini-slap ko, what is the
crime committed?

Now, if the person is injured and it requires treatment even only for a short time in other words, you
go to the clinic and then ginamot ka, ang crime diyan ill treatment because there is an injury, but the
crime will be slight physical injury under 266 that may become a crime of ill treatment. But if there is no
injury sustained, that may become a crime of unjust vexation because there is no injury kung walang
nakakita. So, that's the meaning of unjust vexation.

But supposing a woman is being followed by a man. The woman does not like the suitor. So, she goes to
school, followed by the man. The woman is not being touched. She goes to the church, followed by the
man. She goes to the house, followed by the man. Lahat ng pinupuntahan, sinusundan. Stalker
ba. Ngunit ayaw ng babae. Pangit, eh. Wala tayong magagawa. What is the crime committed? Unjust
vexation ba 'yan?

Now, there is a specific crime under Republic Act 9262. Under yung VAWC, yung violence
against women and children. That may no longer be a crime of unjust vexation. That is a crime of
stalking. That is now a crime of stalking. No more unjust vexation. Yung naninilip, yan. Peeping Tom is
actually unjust vexation. Now, if the woman does not complain or likes it, then you have to go nearer.
Gawin mo, while di nagrereklamo, you go nearer.

Then, the other crimes of unjust vexation, the non-payment of debt, they'll be forcing to pay, that's
coercion likewise. When you force somebody to work in order to pay the debt, other forms of
coercion
'yan.

Now, I told you the distinction between grave coercion and kidnapping and serious illegal
detention. When there is no yet lock-up, grave coercion. If there is lock-up, it could now be a
serious illegal detention.

I was reading a book. It was saying that there is a crime of frustrated kidnapping and serious illegal
detention. Mahirap yung frustrated sa kidnapping and serious illegal detention because of the
doctrine laid down in the People versus Arnulfo Astorga, that when there is no yet lock-up, it becomes a
crime of grave coercion. And the case that is cited in that book is a case where it was decided when I
was not yet born. So, Philippine Reports...hindi na applicable 'yung case na' yun.
Mahirap because, let's say, if the man is taken against his will, but there is no yet lock-up, how do you
know if that is frustrated kidnapping? How will you know that the intention is to deprive his liberty?
You can only prove deprivation of liberty when there is lock-up. But if somebody has been taken
against his
will, how can you conclude that the purpose is to deprive his liberty? But there is a crime committed. The
Supreme Court said that it's a grave coercion because you are forcing somebody to go with you against
his will. That is grave coercion. People versus Arnulfo Astorga.

Articles 290, 291, 292: Discovery and Revelation of

Secrets
So, 200the other discovery of secrets, merong tatlo. The discovery of secrets are discovered through
a correspondence or the crimes involving revelation of trade secrets. They all are committed in so far as
revelation of industrial secrets. Tatatlo lang naman yan eh. Tatlo lang yan. Discovery of secrets through
opening of correspondence, revelation of secrets. You just read 289 , 290, 291 and 292.

Let's go to the more important ones. That's why I'm in a hurry so that we can finish robbery. 293 to
Article
319. 320 up to 326 have been amended by the law on arson.

Crimes Against Property

So, let's go to robbery, theft, estafa, qualified theft. Yan ang importante. Now, like in crimes against
persons, like what we did in crimes against persons, if you want to know what are the crimes committed
in crimes against persons, we first determine if the victim dies. So, if the victim dies, then you can
choose what is the crime committed as long as you know the essential elements.

Likewise, in crimes against property. Crimes against property are those involving unlawful taking of a
property, involving receiving of property through deceit or fraud, or even destruction of a property. So, it
may be unlawful taking, receiving of property through deceit, or even destruction of a property. So, they
under this chapter, Crimes Against Property.

Now, when you speak of unlawful taking, then we are talking of those crimes involving asportation that
means unlawful taking. So, when I use the word "asportation," then that is the generic term for unlawful
taking. So, what are we going to do in order to determine what are the crimes committed?

Then, you have first to determine, one, the subject matter of the asportation. You look for the subject
matter of asportation, because by knowing the subject matter, then probably you can already answer the
question. As to the subject matter:

A) If the subject matter is a member of the bovine family. You know what is bovine family? Cattle.
Bovine.
'Yung ganun ang paa. 'Yung kabayo, cattle. Then the crime is violation of P.D. 533. That is included
in
your bar exams. P.D. 533, otherwise known as Cattle Rustling. That is the meaning of cattle
rustling.

Now, if the subject matter is a motor vehicle. Then, there will beanyway, I will discuss all of these.
Parang ano lang eh, sinasabi ko lang so that when we discuss and then you review, then it will be easier
for you to remember.

B) If the subject matter is a motor vehicle, then the crime will either be qualified theft of a motor vehicle
under Article 310 or carnapping under Republic Act 6539. Alam nila Mr. Nolasco yan. So, it will either be
carnapping or qualified theft of a motor vehicle.

C) Then paragraph C, if the subject matter is fish taken from a fishpond, the crime is qualified theft
under
Article 310. If it is not, then it may be simple
theft.
D) If the subject matter is coconut taken from a coconut plantation, qualified theft. If it is not, simple theft.

E) The other one is mail matters. If the subject matter is mail matters, that is qualified theft under

Article
310.

Then, you go to the next category, place where the crime is committed. Place as to the place where it
is committed. If it is committed along a highway, if the crime of asportation is committed along the
highway,
then the crime may be a violation of P.D. 532, otherwise known as the "highway robbery." If it is not, it
may be simple robbery under 293.

Now, if the robbery, if the asportation takes place on the occasion of natural calamity. Natural calamity,
let's say, flood, typhoon, the crime is qualified theft under Article 310.

Now, if the asportation takes place in the place where there is a vehicular accident, and the victims
are the passengers, the crime is likewise qualified theft under Article 310.

If there is a fiduciary relationship between the offender and the offended parties, the crime is
qualified theft under Article 310. Eh, di tapos na.

We'll go first to robbery. What are the crimes of robbery? So, that we'll understand. Robbery. I will tell
you what are the laws that are applicable. Robbery - you can include one category as to the manner of
committing the crime of asportation.

One, if the unlawful taking is attended by violence or force upon things, the crime is robbery under
Article
293. If the unlawful taking is not attended by violence or force upon things, the crime is simple theft
under
Article 208 of the Revised Penal Code, under 208.

So, let's go to another topic. Let's go to robbery. What are the two kinds of
robbery? There are two kinds of robbery:

1) Robbery with violence, and the applicable articles are from Articles 294 to
298.
2) Robbery with force upon things, and the applicable provisions are found in Article 299 and Article
302.

So, I will explain. What do you mean by robbery with violence? So, there are two kinds of robbery. One
is robbery with violence. The other one is robbery with force upon things. When the robbery is directed
against a person, you want to deprive the possession or the property of another person, and then you
use violence, that is robbery. That is the meaning of robbery with violence. "Give me your money or else
I will kill you!" That is robbery with violence.

But when the subject matter of the asportation pertains to inhabited or uninhabited houses, therefore, you
enter the house and then rob the house. Then, the crime is robbery with force upon things.

But the subject matter of robbery with force upon things, dalawa
lang:
1) Inhabited, which is Article 299.
2) The other one is uninhabited, which is Article 302.

Now, when we speak of robbery with force upon things, they only refer to those shelters which may
include either houses or buildings, whether public or private, or even ships. Barko, kasama 'yan. So,
outside of those mentioned by law, the crime cannot be robbery with force upon things.

Example, kotse mo, nandyan sa parking. Somebody broke the window in order to enter the car and then
valuables were taken from inside the car. The entry was done through the breaking of a door or
a window, the crime cannot be robbery even if there is force. Why? Because the car is not an
uninhabited or inhabited place, that's what I mean. So, only the uninhabited or inhabited places may be
the subject matter of robbery with force upon things.
Now, when you talk of theft, then the taking is without the consent of the owner, but there is no
force, there is no violence, there is no intimidation or even threat. If you are just sitting there, then
somebody took your book without your knowledge, 'yan ang simple theft, because the asportation is not
attended by violence or intimidation.

Robbery with Violence

So, lets now go to robbery with violence. Robbery with violence are those found in Article 294-298. So,
you have 294, Paragraphs 1-5, 'yan ang pinakamahirap. Itinanong na sa bar ito, nag-away away na kami
sa UP.

Number one when homicide, rape, intentional mutilation, or arson is committed on the occasion of
robbery, then the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. This is the one that I was telling you
about the special complex crime because the law recognizes the commission of any of those four crimes
on the occasion of robbery. But the word there "on the occasion" should now include by reason thereof.
Kasi nakalagay, when on the occasion of robbery, homicide, rape, intentional mutilation, or arson is
committed, that meaning of "on the occasion" should now include by reason thereof.

So, if the killing is because of robbery, then it's still robbery with homicide. Thats why even if the killing
takes place after robbery, it may still be a crime of robbery with homicide. The law does not require that
the killing should take place before, during, or after as long as the robbery or as long as the killing is by
reason of the robbery, that is still a crime of robbery with homicide. Now, the killing there, under the law,
does not only include intentional killing. It may also include killing through culpa or reckless imprudence.

So example, there are three robbers who entered the bank. Now, if the robbers killed one of the guards,
walang problema yan because the killing is by reason of the robbery. Now, three robbers entered the
bank, the guards fired their guns, one robber was killed, that is still robbery with homicide. Because the
law does not require that the victim should be the robber or the offended party. Supposing three robbers
were inside the bank, and then later on they ran. One drove the vehicle. Then while driving the vehicle, a
bystander was hit by the vehicle. The bystander died. And therefore, he was not killed on the occasion of
the robbery. He was killed rather because he was bumped by the car. That is still robbery with homicide.
As long as the killing occurs by reason of robbery that's why the law is not limited to occasion thereof,
it may include by reason thereof.

So, that was the question in the bar exams you asked two Sundays ago. Sabi nila, hiwalay daw
'yun.
'Yung ibang nagtuturo sa ibang school, sabi, "hindi, separate crimes of robbery and homicide 'yan
because the homicide has nothing to do with the robbery." Hindi lang sinasabi ng law na "on the
occasion of robbery." It now includes by reason thereof. Basta may mamatay, kahit na anong klase,
basta tungkol sa robbery, robbery with homicide 'yan. Walang pinipili 'yan.

Now, if however, the killing took place ahead of the robbery, so the intention of the offender is to kill, like
what happened to a certain colonel. He was ambushed then he was killed. The intention was to kill, and
then later on they took his Rolex watch when he was already dead. Ano ang crime? Dalawang
crimes
'yun. Crime is murder for the killing. The taking of the watch is theft. Because when the watch was taken,
there is no more violence employed because the victim is already dead. The violence is employed
in order to force the private offended party from giving his personal property. But if the victim is
already dead, you cannot commit a crime of robbery because the victim is already dead. So there will be
two crimes committed, murder and theft, not robbery.

Now, the other thing here is that - of course, I told you last time I think in Article 48 that if two or more
persons died on the occasion of robbery, then you denominate the crime as robbery with homicide.
There is no such thing as robbery with multiple homicide or double homicide. The excess killings will be
included under the generic term "homicide." So, regardless of persons who died, we denominate the
crime as robbery with homicide because that is a special complex crime. So, you do not anymore create
the additional homicides as analogous to aggravating circumstances of cruelty. Wala na yan. The old
doctrine has been overtaken by the doctrines later on in People vs. Rutan and People vs. Regala.

Also, in a crime of robbery with rape, if the victim is raped three times, there is only one crime of robbery
with rape. The other two crimes, never mind. It can no longer be treated as analogous circumstances,
analogous to ignominy. Wala na 'yon.

Now, if on the occasion of robbery, some died, some were killed, some survived, therefore, physical
injuries, whats the crime committed? Merely robbery with homicide. Those who survived or those
who
suffered serious physical injuries are included likewise in the generic term "homicide." Walang crime na
robbery with homicide and physical injuries, no crime. Injuries there are included in the generic term
"homicide."

Now, if the victim does not die on the occasion of robbery, what is the crime committed? No crime of
robbery with attempted or frustrated homicide. No crime of attempted or frustrated murder. If the victim
does not die, then denominate the crime as robbery with serious physical injuries if the injuries are
serious. But if the injuries are only less serious, or slight physical injuries, then denominate the crime as
simple robbery. Walang robbery with slight physical injuries. Walang robbery with less serious physical
injuries. Less or slight physical injuries are covered by Paragraph 5 of Article 294. That is simple robbery.

Now, if on the occasion of robbery, somebody is killed and likewise somebody was raped, how will you
denominate the crime? Is it robbery with homicide? Then denominate the crime as robbery with homicide
and rape because rape is not necessarily included in the crime of homicide. So, if the victim is raped and
then later on killed, then robbery with homicide and rape. Why? Because homicide is killing. Rape
is giving occasion for birth. So, it cannot be included under the term "homicide." Rape is the other way
around.

Okay, then intentional mutilation, of course you know what is intentional mutilation. If on the occasion of
robbery, he is intentionally mutilated or arson, so only one crime. So, robbery with homicide, if all of
these crimes take place on the occasion of robbery, that is only one crime, a single indivisible crime.

Now, the one that I was telling you in serous physical injuries, dun the Paragraph 2, yung robbery with
serious physical injuries. When the victim became insane, imbecile, that is Paragraph 1 of Article
263,
'yung Paragraph 2. 'Yung paragraph 1 saka Paragraph 2 ng Article 294 will now become important
when
the robbery is committed by four armed men. 'Di ba 'yung four armed men under Paragraph 6 of
Article
14 - when four armed men commit a crime, then there are four or more armed men, malefactors, then
they belong to a band.

Now, under 295 and 296, the law recognizes that when the crime is committed by a band, then the
maximum penalty shall be imposed. 'Yun ang nakalagay. It's the same as band as an aggravating
circumstance because in aggravating circumstance, we increase the penalty but in no case shall exceed
the maximum. Alam natin 'yun. But supposing you are asked a question, what is the proper
denomination of the crime? Dun ka magkakaproblema.

So, four armed men killed somebody else on the occasion of robbery, whats the crime committed?
There is no problem. That is robbery with homicide but what about those four armed men who killed the
victim? How will you treat now the band? Then, the jurisprudence says that when the robbery is 294
Paragraph 1, then denominate the crime as robbery with homicide. The band is now considered as an
ordinary aggravating circumstance.

Now, when the robbery with serious physical injuries is what is found in Paragraph 2 of Article 294, then
denominate the crime as robbery with serious physical injuries aggravated by a band. So you
consider the band as an aggravating circumstance.

Now, when the robbery falls under Paragraphs 3 and 4, other forms of serious physical injuries where
the medical assistance required is more than 90 days or more than 30 days of incapacity, when any part
of the body that is cut off, a finger, if there is a permanent scar, serious physical injuries lahat' yon. But
the victim does not become blind, I mean, does not imbecile, does not become insane, then these
physical injuries will fall under Paragraph 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Article 263 on serious physical injuries.

So therefore, if on the occasion of robbery, there were four armed men who committed the crime of
robbery, and then the victim fought back, and then they boxed the victim then they got his money. But he
4D 2007 1
stayed in the hospital for more than 30 days. He did not become totally blind. He did not become
insane or imbecile, but he suffered serious physical injuries. Apat ngayon 'yung armed men. So, how will
you classify the crime? That will now become a crime of robbery in band. Do not call it a simple
robbery

4D 2007 2
aggravated by a band. Why? Because the serious physical injuries fall under Paragraph 2, 3, 4 and 5
of
Article 263.

So, if the robbery therefore is in Paragraph 3, 4 and 5 of 294 committed by a band, then denominate the
crime as robbery in band. When the robbery, however, is Paragraph 1 or Paragraph 2 of Article 294,
committed by four armed men, then denominate the crime as robbery with violence attended by an
aggravating circumstance of a band or robbery with serious physical injuries under Paragraph 2 of 294,
with the attendance of an aggravating circumstance of a band. Anong ibig sabihin 'nun? Kaya lang,
walang robbery with violence in band na ngayon. Robbery with homicide by a band na ngayon. 'Yung
3,
4, 5 lang, robbery with band. 'Yung 3,4,5 ng
294.

Now, if the victim dies, as I said, thats robbery with homicide. But supposing the victim dies, and then
the robbery is not consummated because the victim woke up, what is the crime committed? That is still a
special complex crime, but you denominate the crime as attempted or frustrated robbery with homicide.
Yung robbery, pwedeng mag-attempted, frustrated, tapos homicide. Kung consummated robbery,
'yung victim hindi namatay, hindi mo pwedeng sabihin robbery with attempted homicide, frustrated
homicide. Saka walang crime na robbery with murder because homicide is used in it's generic sense.

Although in the case of People vs. Escote, sabi ni Justice Callejo, "In the crime of robbery with homicide,
treachery may be appreciated as long as the treachery attended the killing." You know, the general rule
is that there is no treachery in crimes against property because treachery can only be appreciated in
crimes against persons. Treachery, evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength can only be
appreciated in crimes against person. Therefore, if it is a crime against property, there is no treachery
because robbery is a crime against property.

But in one of the cases in People vs. Escote, sabi ng Supreme Court, "If the victim was killed
treacherously" so let say in a robbery, natutulog 'yung victim. Natutulog 'yung victim tapos nung
tinutukan, nagising. Pag gising niya, bang! Treacherous ang pag patay. So, he was sleeping when he
was killed. His personal belongings were taken. Ano ang crime? That is robbery with homicide. But sabi
ng Supreme Court, "Because the killing was attended with treachery, then the crime is robbery with
homicide, and then the killing is aggravated by treachery." It is not the robbery that is aggravated by
treachery because treachery is always inherent in a crime of robbery. Inherent crime 'yan. Pag
magnanakaw ka anong sasabihin mo? "Hoy, bukas nanakawan kita." You will not say that.

Also in robbery with homicide, cruelty can also be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. If the
killing is attended with cruelty - habang ninanakawan, itinali s'ya tapos ipinakagat mo muna sa langgam,
tapos kiniliti, tapos unti-unting pinitik-pitik, tik, tik, tik, tikat ginanun-ganun then isang saksak lang. You
can kill him with only one fatal blow tapos pinahirapan mo 'yan. The crime is robbery with homicide, but
there is cruelty committed against the victim, 'yun robbery with homicide aggravated by cruelty in so far
as the killing is concerned. But you are not supposed to appreciate cruelty in crimes against property
because cruelty is only appreciated in crimes involving personal violence.

Article 299: Robbery in an Inhabited House or Public Building or Edifice Devoted to

Worship

Then we go to 299. 'Yung 299 you read that together with Article 302. The 299 is robbery in inhabited
places. So, we are now moving to robbery with force upon things. The 302 is robbery in
uninhabited place. Now, the commission of the crime of robbery with force upon things under 299 is
divided into two. Two groups yan, eh. The manner of committing a crime of robbery with force upon
things.

1) The first one madali lang naman intindihin yan. Bakit kamo? Eh kasi when we speak of force upon
things, then the subject matter is a house, or public or a private building. But it becomes a robbery with
force upon things because there is an unlawful entry. Unlawful entry. In other words, you enter the
premises. So, in other words, when you enter the premises, as long as there is an unlawful entry
regardless of the manner of the unlawful taking, that is always robbery.

Example: There are how many ways I think there

are
a) When you enter by breaking a wall, or a roof, or a window. You enter. Kumuha ka ng nasa mesa. Let
say, you broke open the window, even if the valuable was on the top of the table, robbery 'yan because
what makes it a crime of robbery with force upon things is the unlawful entry. 'Yun ang first mode of
committing a crime. So, you broke open a window kahit na hindi ka ano ang kukunin mo dun, robbery
with force upon things yan because what makes it a robbery with force upon things under the first
group or manners of committing the crime is the entry. The entry is unlawful.

b) Or you enter a window there is no force, but you are entering an opening which is not intended
for entry or exit. Because if you enter an opening not intended for entry or exit, that is unlawful entry.
'Yung window para saan ba ang window? Di ba para sa hangin. Hindi naman daanan ng tao 'yan eh.
So, kung hindi daanan ng tao 'yan, tapos pumasok ka. Kinuha mo yung nakalagay sa table yung kwarta,
robbery pa rin 'yun because the entry is unlawful.

c) Or by using any fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public authority. Kumatok ka sabi, "Hoy,
pulis ako." Naniwala. Pinapasok mo, unlawful entry 'yun. Regardless of the taking that takes place the
manner of taking the place like inside the house that is robbery with force upon things. 'Yun ang the
manner of committing the crime.

d) And the other is the use of a picklock, false key. Nabuksan mo then you enter. You take something
inside the house even you did not break open anything that is also robbery with force upon things.

2) Now the second mode there is an entry. So, what the law provides in 299 is the entry now is
lawful. It does not fall under unlawful entry. And what is it?

You enter an opening intended for entry or exit. Nakabukas 'yung pintuan. Di ba pasukan ng tao 'yan?
Pumasok ka sa loob ng pintuan. Therefore, there is no unlawful entry because it is an opening intended
for entry or exit. Somebody did not prohibit you from entering. Nakapasok ka eh. Nakabukas eh. Now,
the valuable at the top of the table, you took that valuable on the top of the table. Is that robbery with
force upon things? That cannot be robbery with force upon things. Why? Because the entry is lawful.
There is no unlawful entry. There is no breaking. But it will still become robbery with force upon things if
after entering when the entry is not unlawful you break open the receptacle, or cabinets, so the watch is
inside the cabinet. Pumasok ka. Binasag mo 'yung cabinet, kinuha mo 'yung valuables that is still robbery
with force upon things even if the entry is not unlawful. Or pamasok ka, the entry is not unlawful and
then you brought out the cabinet. Nilabas mo sa labas ng bahay. Pag labas mo sa labas ng bahay break
open mo
'yung cabinet. It is still robbery with force upon
things.

So, dalawang group yan sa 299. When the entry is unlawful, that is always robbery with force upon
things regardless of the manner of taking the valuables. But when you enter the inhabited house and the
entry is not unlawful. In other words, it does not fall in any of the enumeration in the first part in 299, but
the manner of taking the property is you broke open the receptacle or a cabinet in order to get the
valuables, robbery with force upon things. Or without opening it, you broke it outside and then break it
open outside, that is still robbery with force upon things.

Now, you go to 302 robbery in uninhabited places, halos magkaparehas 'yan sa 299 except for one. Ang
diperensya lang ng 299 inhabited at saka uninhibited, walang simulation of public authority. Kasi
'yung
299 sumagot pa kasi may tao, eh. "Hoy, pulis ako." Kumatok ka, syempre may tao. Binuksan mo
ngayon,
299 'yun because there are persons inside, robbery in inhabited
place.

Ngayon, pag uninhabited 'yan, you cannot commit that manner of committing a crime. Hindi pwedeng
kumatok at buksan. Walang tao, eh. Kumatok ka, uninhabited walang tao. So, you cannot commit the
crime of robbery with force upon things through simulation of public authority because they are
no persons inside. 'Yun lang ang diperensya ng 302 at saka 299. All the other acts committed that will
constitute robbery with force upon things under 299, pareho lang sa Article 302 except that.
Pag kotse, pumasok ka sa loob ng kotse walang roberry 'yan, theft lang' yan. Pumasok ka sa inhabited
or uninhabited even if you used force, there is no robbery. Robbery with force upon things only applies to
inhabited or uninhabited places, public or private buildings. Ngunit kung squatters area, robbery pa
rin
'yun because the law does not say, "The house will be big or small," basta sinabi natin, inhabited
or
uninhabited."

Anyway, I've told you already. Then what we will do next Wednesday, I will continue then you read what
I've told you. 'Yung robbery, 'yung qualified theft. At least when you come here, alam ko magagaling
naman kayo eh. So, we'll just review it. Madali lang ang criminal law eh. Sabi niya, "The questions are in
the book of ano?"

You know, we had a quarrel about the first question in the bar, "What are the penalties that can be
served simultaneously." The answer in the book of Reyes is only his opinion. The law does not say so.
The law does not enumerate. So, we wanted to protect the examinees. Kasi pag sinabi mo, "What are
the penalties that can be served simultaneously?" Marami 'yun. You try to enumerate, but that will
consume two pages of your booklet. So, sabi ko, "Dapat 'yan tama na kung inanseran niya triple penalty
rule because the answer is found in Article 70. So, I said, "Okay." So, they allowed alternative answers.
Eh, opinion niya lang 'yun eh.

But, do you know what I was telling you sa 247? Tinanong 'yun eh. I told them yung penalty sa
exceptional circumstances, 'yung destierro be careful ika ko. The penalty of destierro is not a penalty
under 247. That is for his protection. Marami yata ang nakakuka.

'Yung nagdrive ng vehicle, the one I was telling you that in a robbery with homicide whether it is through
negligence lahat-lahat, that is part of robbery with homicide because it does not only cover on the
occasion thereof, by reason thereof. Alam ng mga estudyante rito. Dun lang sa served simultaneously
because that is crazy yung question na 'yun eh. Sabi ko nalang, "What are the penalties that can be
served simultaneously?" Penalty of imprisonment. Fine, bahala ka na ng idagdag mo doon kung ano
man ang nandun. There's perpetual disqualifications, ilagay mo nalang lahat. Pahabaan lang 'yan eh.
Lahat ng penalties ilagay mo kung gusto mo, ganun lang 'yun eh. Syempre, you exaggerate. Then
what are the acts that are punished as inciting to sedition under 139 and 142? Scandalous libel,
seditious work, speeches, madami 'yun eh. And they were only asking for three.

For instance, sir, is it only enumeration?

Oo. Enumeration lang 'yun eh.

Three categories lang po ba 'yun?

Three categories, oo. And then the other one is sa remedial nun medyo ano eh, except for the one
question "What is global injunction?" It should not have been asked. Global injunction was actually
there is an old case I think its Maravilla. But it's actually enforcement of a foreign judgment. In injunction
issued by a foreign court in order to be effective here, then you have to follow what are the requirements
under the rules. A varied judgment, you go to court. Ganun lang. Ganun din sabi namin, "Any answer will
do." It is not part of remedial law. More on international law kasi intellectual property yan eh, Republic
Act 8293. But other questions sa remedial law are very easy.

Revised Penal Code: Book Two: Articles 303-315 with Carnapping

I think I jumped to 299 and then to Article 302. I was explaining about robbery with force upon things.
The only difference, as I said, that 302 cannot be committed by simulation of public authority.
Article 298 Execution of deeds by means of violence or intimidation.
We go back to Article 298 because there is a counterpart under 298, when one is forced or
compelled with the use of violence or intimidation into signing a document with intent to defraud, that's a
crime of robbery under Article 298. So, you are in front of somebody who signed a document, 'yun pala
nililipat mo na yung property sa pangalan mo with the use of violence or intimidation, that's a crime under
Article 298. He committed a crime of robbery, this is compelled, there is compulsion, and there is
violence or intimidation.

Article 315 Swindling (estafa).

Now, you go to Article 315, under Paragraph 3 Subparagraph A, you will find there also a crime of estafa
when one signs a document through fraudulent act attended by deceit. You go to 315, 'di ba they are
almost the same? You look at 298, you compel somebody to sign a document attended with violence or
intimidation that is a crime of robbery. You go to Article 315, which is a crime of estafa, under
Paragraph
3, any other fraudulent act as follows:

Number 1: When a person signs a document through fraudulent act and it is attended with deceit. So, in
other words, in both articles, they refer to the signing of the document, but when one is compelled to
sign a document with violence or intimidation, that is a crime of robbery under Article 298. But if the
signing of the document is attended by deceit, then the crime is under Article 315 that is a crime of
estafa.

You just read Article 301, 302, 303, 334, and 335, you just read them. They pertain to what are inhabited
and uninhabited places.

Article 306 Who are brigands; Penalty.

Let's go to Article 306, which is more important. Who are brigands? Now, under Article 306, if there are
more than three armed men, formed for the purpose of committing a crime of robbery in the highway
or for the purpose of extorting ransom, and then the crime then there is already a consummated crime
under Article 306. The crime is brigandage under Article 306.

So, the mere formation of at least four armed men for the purpose of extorting ransom or for the purpose
of committing highway robbery, then that becomes a consummated crime. If, however, the four armed
men actually committed highway robbery, then they will now be liable for a crime of highway robbery, no
longer liable under Article 306. What is punished in 306 is that before the highway robbery, there are
four armed men formed for the purpose of committing any of those crimes mentioned in Article 306. That
is already a consummated crime under Article 306.

But, if they actually committed a crime of kidnapping for ransom, then they will be liable for kidnapping
for ransom. Probably the four armed men now will be considered as a band as an ordinary aggravating
circumstance for highway robbery committed by a band as an aggravating circumstance. But if they
do not actually commit the crime of robbery in a highway or for the purpose of kidnapping in order to
extort ransom, they are liable under Article 306.

The problem, however, is that when there are only three armed men for the purpose of committing
a crime of highway robbery, and then they do not fall under Article 306 because under Article 306 there
must be more than three armed men. So, if there are three armed men for the purpose of committing a
crime of highway robbery or for the purpose of committing a crime of kidnapping with ransom or for the
purpose of extorting ransom, will they be liable under Article 306? No, they cannot be liable
because there must be at least four armed men. Then they will be liable under illegal assembly. They will
be liable under 146, I think.
Illegal assembly. Why? Because under illegal assembly, when there are armed men for the purpose of
committing a violation of a penal law, then they are considered as violating Article 146 that will be illegal
assembly. Because there are armed men for the purpose of committing any act punishable under our
penal statutes, then it becomes a crime under illegal assembly 146. But if there are four armed men
for
the purpose of committing a crime of highway robbery, then the law that is violated is Article 306,
because it is specified kung ano ang purpose niyan. The law specifically cites the purpose of the crime.

Article 307 Aiding and abetting a band of

brigands

So 307, I think, you will find there the definition of inhabited or habited. And then picklocks or false
keys Never mind. Picklocks, those or false keys, for that matter. There are three kinds of false
keys. Just read them.

Simple robbery versus highway robbery

Let's go to the crime of theft under Article 308. Before we go to Article 308, let's go back to the crime of
simple robbery under 293 and highway robbery. If a crime of asportation is committed along the
highway, four armed men committing a crime of highway robbery or commit a crime of asportation along
a highway, is that a crime of highway robbery, because the crime of asportation is committed along
the highway? Just because it is committed along the highway it becomes a crime of highway robbery
under PD 532.

Highway robbery is now defined in Presidential Decree 532 where the unlawful taking takes place along
the highway, then it is highway robbery. That's what you find in the PD 532, but the Supreme Court
said, in the case of People versus Puno et al, the two brothers, Puno, no relation to Mr. Puno in 4-D.
Kaya hindi mo makalimutan, People versus Isabelito Puno, et al. Both of them are Punos. The Supreme
Court made a distinction between simple robbery under 293 and highway robbery under PD 132. Of
course, if the crime is committed along the highway, then it may be a crime of highway robbery, but that
is not the only factor that you will have to consider if that is a highway robbery.

There are three essential requirements of highway

robbery.

1. The asportation should take place along the

highway.
2. That the victim is not a predetermined
victim.
3. The asportation and the act of robbery should not be an isolated one. There must be acts of
robbery committed indiscriminately.

So, I will give you an example how the Supreme Court explained the alleged ruling. What happened to
that case of Puno is that, she was robbed by their own driver and the boy. The driver is Mr. Puno, he
had also a brother working for the old woman. So they boarded the vehicle, the two brothers were driving
the vehicle along North Diversion. One of the drivers told the employer, "Ma'am, sorry na lang, my son is
sick. He is very sick, we need money and then we need money to buy medicine. So, sorry na lang. Do
you have money? We will not release you if you do not give us money because my son is very sick."

Then, they went to a bank and then withdrew money. After withdrawing money, she gave to the brothers
Puno and then they set free the old woman. So, they were charged with kidnapping for ransom from the
ground that there was deprivation of liberty and that the purpose of the deprivation of liberty was to exact
ransom from the employer. But when the judgment came out in the RTC through Judge Salazar, he
convicted the accused for highway robbery, because according to him, their purpose was not to deprive
liberty, but rather to take the money of the old woman because the statements were, "May sakit ang
anak ko. Kailangan niya ng medicine, kailanagan namin ng kwarta. Magwithdraw ka sa bangko,
bigyan mo kami ng kwarta. Kung di mo kami bigyan ng kwarta, hindi ka namin ire-release." So the
purpose, therefore, is not deprivation of liberty but in order to get money.
So, she said that is highway robbery because the crime was committed along a highway. Then the
Supreme Court said, "No, that is not highway robbery. You are correct. There is no kidnapping, because
the intention is not to deprive the liberty, but that is not highway robbery," the Supreme Court said. That
is a crime of simple robbery under Article 293. Why?

1. It is committed along the highway. So, there is element of asportation committed along the
highway.
2. The victim was not a predetermined victim. In this particular case, the victim is
predetermined because they choose their victim who is their employer.
3. There must be indiscriminate acts of robbery, not only an isolated

one. Therefore, that is simple robbery.

So, what they said in highway robbery is that, highway robbery is like bandoleros. Yung mga
nagkakabayo sa Paso de Lima. Yun yung mga Mexican film when there is a train, they would run
after the train in their horses. Ganun ang highway robbery, they are like bandoleros. When they post
themselves along the highway and then anybody who passes there, any person who passes becomes a
victim of the robbers. So, they do not choose their victims. The act of robbery must not be an
isolated one. There must be acts of robbery committed indiscriminately. So, lahat ng dumadaan dun,
ninanakawan. That is highway robbery. So, if it's only one act of robbery, that's not highway robbery,
that is only simple robbery under Article 293. So, those are the basic distinctions between highway
robbers and simple robbers under Article 293.

The problem is, supposing it is a crime of robbery committed inside a bus. So, there are 10 passengers,
there are three robbers. All the passengers are robbed by the four robbers. So there are ten victims.
Question: Is that highway robbery or simple robbery because this time there are now ten victims?

Ang Supreme Court minsan, iba-iba. In one of the cases where the victims were all robbed somewhere in
Caloocan, sabi ni Justice Reyes, I think she was the one who gave the decision, that is highway robbery
because there were ten victims in one jeepney where one of the passengers died. A policeman died. In
other cases, that is simple robbery, applying the principle of continuado delito. If there are 10 victims on
a single occasion of the crime of robbery, regardless of the number of victims, as long as the robbery is
committed on one occasion, then the offenders are motivated with one intention and, therefore, that
is only one crime of robbery. It cannot be indiscriminate robbery just because there are ten victims under
Article 48, 'yung continuado delito. That should be only one crime of robbery. But if after robbing one
vehicle and then another vehicle is robbed by the same persons, 'yun ang highway robbery, where there
will already be two acts of robberies committed. But if it's only one act of robbery regardless of the
number, as long as the act of robbery is committed inside the jeep or a bus, that is only one act of
robbery or one crime of robbery.

Article 308. Who are liable for theft.

Then let's now go to the crime of theft. Theft, of course when the asportation or unlawful taking is not
attended by violence or force or intimidation, then it becomes a crime of simple theft under Article 308.
Before we go to Article 308, I'm reminded of one of the questions in the bar exams two years ago. Di ba
yung robbery with force upon things is committed when there is an unlawful entry. So, there is an
unlawful entry. Even if there is no unlawful entry, if later on a cabinet is broken inside or a receptacle is
brought out from the cabinet and then broken, then that is still robbery with force upon things. But
supposing, the robbers entered unlawfully and their intention is to rob the house and, therefore, there
is robbery with force upon things. But supposing while inside the house, they killed one of the owners of
the house, he was killed on the occasion of robbery, so how will you classify that crime?

It is robbery with force upon things from the very beginning because there is an unlawful entry. But on
the occasion of robbery, somebody is killed, so how will you classify that crime? Then the crime
becomes a crime of robbery with violence because on the occasion of robbery, somebody is killed. So, it
now becomes a crime of robbery with homicide because somebody is killed on the occasion of robbery.
Then the house will now be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in dwelling. So that's a
decided case in involving a director before in the Department of Education who usually announces no
classes in the morning as early as 4 o'clock in the morning. Ano'ng pangalan nun? Dr. Nilo Rosas. He
almost died because of that case.
Of course, you know already that there is no more frustrated theft. Did I tell you that? There is no more
frustrated theft. Valenzuela versus People June 21, 2007. That might be asked in your bar exams
next
year. Tanggalin yung ulo ko kung di itatanong yun. You know why that question will be asked in the bar
exams? The chairman of the bar exams next year is Justice Tinga, the one who wrote the decision in
Valenzuela versus People is Justice Tinga. Impossible kung di niya itatanong 'yan because the old
doctrines has been overturned by his doctrine.

Before, there is such a crime as frustrated theft, ngayon, wala na. Why? Because according to him, and
probably tama rin, because when you consider a crime of theft or robbery consummated, under the old
doctrine, there are two things that you will have to determine:

1. One, the offender is in full possession of the thing

stolen?
2. And the other one, can he really dispose of the things
stolen?

So, if he is already in actual possession of the things stolen and he can really dispose of the property
stolen in any manner that he would like to, then that is a consummated crime of theft or robbery. The
new doctrine now is that, why do you have to add another element of a consummated crime of robbery?
Robbery or theft is unlawful taking. So, once the property is unlawfully taken from the owner, it becomes
consummated. Why do you have to determine first if he can already really dispose of the property, why
should you think that is an element? In fact, in the definition of theft, there is no essential element of free
disposal of the property. It is the unlawful taking. So, they removed that second requirement
and, therefore, if they remove that second requirement, wala nang consummated theft.

Example, under the old doctrine, if you are caught inside the mall so here comes a shoplifter. Of
course, always a lady. Wala pa kong nabasang lalaki na naging shoplifter eh. Di ba? Meron na
ba? Wala. Bibihira. Why? They cannot conceal the thing stolen. Mga babae kasi they can pretend to be
no offense to the ladies ha? They can pretend to be pregnant. Itatago niya lang or they can insert the
most of those commit the crime of shoplifting or the shoplifters, rather, usually concealed the things
stolen inside their bras. They use oversized bra. Doon ipapasok then they pretend to be pregnant.
Ipapasok dun. Eh sa lalaki saan itatago? Wala namang bra ang lalaki. Kasi kung nagba-bra yung lalaki,
bibili pa ng wig yan para magmukhang babae, di ba? So, usually ganyan.

So, under the old doctrine, if one is caught before he could get out from the mall, that is frustrated theft
because he cannot really dispose of the property stolen if he will not bring it outside. So, that is
frustrated theft. But because of this new doctrine where free disposal or freedom to dispose is no
longer an element, the moment that you took property from another without his consent, it becomes now
consummated crime of theft.

Article 308 Paragraph 1

So, let's now go to the crime of theft. So, by merely taking the property of another without violence or
force or intimidation that becomes a crime of simple theft. But there are enumerations 1, 2, 3 under 308
where theft can likewise be committed hindi ba? You find something that does not belongs to you, you do
not return to the owner or to the authorities, theft yan. Pag kayo nakapulot nyan ibalik nyo ha. Theft yan
under Paragraph A.

Article 308 Paragraph 2

Then Paragraph 2 has something to do with malicious mischief in Article 327. When you maliciously
destroy or damage the property of another and then make use of the damaged property, you are not an
accessory. You become liable for the crime of theft, hindi ba? When we took up Article 19, sinira mo
yung gulong or pinatay mo yung aso, di ba? You kill the dog because the dog bit your maid and you love
your maid very much and then you eat the dog meat with some of your friends. The one who killed the
dog is liable for malicious mischief. Those who benefited from the dog meat are liable not as an
accessory under Paragraph 1 of Article 19 but liable to the crime of theft by virtue of Paragraph 2 of
Article 308.

Article 308 Paragraph 3

And then the other one is Paragraph 3, you have to connect Paragraph 3 with Article 281 under forms of
trespass and the Paragraph 3 of Article 308 and Article 312, occupation of real property. Di ba we took
up Article 281? When you enter an enclosed estate that means that the owner prohibits the entry of
other persons. You'll become liable for other forms of trespass, is it not?

Now, when you enter an enclosed space and the later on you claim that that is your property, you use
violence or intimidation in entering the property, then you become liable for Article 312, occupation of
real right, because it is the entry of a real property which he intends to gain.

Now, what is Paragraph 3 of Article 308 which is a crime of theft? When you enter an enclosed estate,
then you start harvesting farm products or fish, di ba? The crime is or fruits from the trees, enclosed,
walang tao, naka-enclose, may punongkahoy diyan, may isda diyan, ninakawan mo yan. Theft yan as
long as it does not fall under qualified theft in Article 310 di ba? You fish from a fishpond, that is qualified
theft under Article 310 or you gather coconuts from coconut plantation that is qualified theft. So,
therefore, what is contemplated in Paragraph 3 of Article 308 would be the gathering of fruits other
than that coconut from plantation or the fishing of fish other than fish ponds because if the fish is
gathered from a fish pond, qualified theft. Usually, the law that is applicable here or the situation that is
applicable here yung enclosed estate ng mga prutas, nagnakaw ka ng prutas sa puno, theft ka niyan
under Paragraph 3 as long that estate is enclosed.

Article 309 Penalties

Okay, then let's go to 309, you want to memorize? You want to memorize the

309? No.

What is important in 309 is that the penalties there are like those in the crime of estafa. Theft and estafa
are the only two crimes where there penalties sometimes are dependent on the value of the thing stolen
for the subject matter of the crime of estafa. So, we usually consider 309 as a law that allows
incremental penalty. So, if you are asked What is an incremental penalty? in your bar exams, then they
are referring to a penalty of estafa and the penalty of theft. Because the penalty sometimes will depend
on the value of the thing stolen in theft and the damage caused in the crime of estafa. Yung ano, when
the value of the thing stolen is more than 22,000 pesos, that is found in Article 309 then for every 10,000
pesos in excess of 22,000 pesos, an additional penalty of 1 year imprisonment but in no case shall the
maximum penalty be reclusion temporal.

So, let's say the value is 33,000 di ba? So, in excess of 22,000 pesos for every 10,000 pesos in excess
of
10,000 pesos, there is an incremental penalty of 1 year. So, the penalty I think the penalty of theft is
prision mayor minimum and medium eh. Prision mayor minimum and medium if the amount does not
exceed to 22,000 pesos. But if the amount exceeds 22,000 pesos, then it shall be imposed in its
maximum and an additional penalty of 1 year in excess of 10,000 pesos. So, that means if it is 22,000
prision mayor ka. Pag meron kang 10,000 in excess of 22 dadagdag mo isang taon ha. But in no
case that the maximum penalty shall be 20 years or reclusion temporal. That's the meaning of
incremental. Only in the crimes of estafa and theft where the provisions provide incremental penalty.
Kung ako examiner diyan ang dami kong pwedeng i-tanong diyan eh tungkol sa penalty. Two-tiered
penalty, three- fold penalty, incremental penalty para mahirapan na sila. But they will ask you what
is incremental penalty, kung ako nagbakasyon yan baka examiner na ko, di ba?

Article 310. Qualified theft

Okay. Let's go to Article 310. Si Justice Callejo ang examiner ng Criminal Law. I thought they would be
asking the two-tiered penalty rule eh. Hindi niya tinanong eh. Favorite niyang subject yun eh, two-tiered
penalty rule. So he was the examiner. I'm surprised that he did not ask a question of two-tiered penalty
of which I will explain later on. Or the two-witness rule, paborito niya rin eh. He asked question of three-
fold penalty rule, but the question is enumeration eh. What are the penalties that can be simultaneously
served? You find that in Article 70, three-fold penalty rule.
Okay, so let's go to Article 310, qualified theft, where the penalty is two degrees higher that simple theft.
So, it becomes qualified theft because of the enumerations in Article 310 if committed by a domestic
servant or through grave abuse of confidence. Now, I really have to explain that.

Now, supposing the crime is committed by a domestic servant, is that always qualified theft? Because
some authors say that if it is domestic servant or grave abuse of discretion, their effect are two different
situations. So, therefore, if it is a domestic servant, there is no need to establish that is attended by
grave abuse of confidence. The grave of confidence pertains to other offenders. Like, for example, you
have a visitor. In old cases found in your book, you have a visitor. So, you allowed him to sleep in your
house. Ikaw pa ang ninakawan. Yun ang grave abuse of confidence because you trusted him, you
allowed him to sleep in your house, siya pa nagnakaw. Yun ang grave abuse of confidence. Because the
element is not only abuse of confidence eh.

Like in a crime estafa under Article 315 Paragraph 1. What is required in the crime of estafa is only
abuse of confidence. Grave abuse of confidence is different. It is more that abuse of confidence. So,
when it is the domestic servant, is it required that he gravely abuses the confidence of the master or the
employer? No. The grave abuse of confidence there refers to other offenders. But what is the
requirement then of a domestic servant? Just because she is a domestic servant, she stole from you
and, therefore, qualified theft. There is also some sort of confidence. There must be abuse of confidence
by the domestic servant.

Example, you are here in the classroom. I always use that as an example. Then later on your domestic
servant is left in your house, but she has no access to your room. You lock your room, you lock your
cabinet, di ba? But she is your domestic servant. You went home and your domestic servant is no longer
there. She broke open your cabinet and then you have to take a bath because you've been out of the
house for the last 18 hours or 15 hours. You look for your underwear or bra and no longer there. It was
already gone. She ran away with your underwear. Question: Is that a crime of qualified theft just
because it is committed by domestic servant? That is not qualified theft. There must be some sort of
abuse of confidence not necessarily grave abuse of confidence. Mere abuse of confidence, yes, it will be
crime of qualified theft which is committed by domestic servant.

Example, you came here to school. She has access to your cabinet. In other words, you left if open
because you trust her. And then when you came home, she is no longer there and, therefore, ran away
your personal belongings, yun ang qualified theft. Because you allowed her to have access to your
personal belongings. But that is not grave abuse of confidence. It is merely abuse of confidence. So,
therefore, if it is a domestic servant, there must be some sort of abuse of confidence. Not just
because she is a domestic servant qualified theft na yan. Hindi.

And also in ano - one of the cases decided by the Supreme Court which is about the teller of a bank. She
receives deposits from a depositor, and then at the end of the day, she did not truly reflect in the deposit
slip the amount actually received by their deposits. Kinulangan niya. Instead of 300,000 pesos ang ni-
reflect lang niya 100,000 pesos and then 200,000 pesos, of course, she went home with the 200,000
pesos. Ang charge dun eh estafa. Anong crime yun? That is qualified theft. Why? Because there is
unlawful taking. We will take that up again when we take up estafa. What I'm saying here is that, in
relation to qualified theft, the teller is like a domestic servant. She is now entrusted to keep the money of
the bank, but she steals the money of the bank, then she becomes liable for a crime of qualified theft.
What is only required is abuse of confidence, not grave abuse of confidence. That becomes a crime of
qualified theft. Okay.

Now, the other thing is that when the subject matter of the theft is mail matters, then that's qualified theft.
Nagnakaw ka ng sulat, that's qualified theft. Or if the subject, when it is cattle, it is no longer a qualified
theft. What is the crime committed? Cattle rustling under PD 533, but under cattle rustling, it is not
merely the unlawful taking of a member of the bovine family. It also includes butchering of a
member of the bovine family without the consent of the owner. So, PD 533 does not only cover unlawful
taking. It also covers killing of a member of the bovine family without the consent of the owner. Baka
akala niyo yung
PD 533 nagnakaw lang eh. Pag kinatay mo yung baka walang alam yung may-ari eh, yan. So, you
have to get the consent before you slaughter a carabao or a cow. Okay.

Then if the subject matter, likewise, is fish from a fish pond, coconut from a coconut plantation, it is also
qualified theft. The most important one yung ano theft committed on any or during natural calamity,
qualified theft yan. During flood, typhoon, qualified theft yan. Or when the victims are victims of vehicular
mishap or accident, qualified theft din yan. May nadisgrasya tapos yung nadisgrasya kinuha mo yung
relo niya, qualified theft yan. Not only simple theft, but qualified theft under Article 310.

And then when a subject matter is a motor vehicle, it is likewise qualified theft or even carnapping. Okay.
So, this time we have to explain. Now, if the subject matter of the asportation is a motor vehicle, what
crime is committed? Is it carnapping or qualified theft of a motor vehicle? Okay.

Now, RA 6539 or the law of carnapping may be committed in two ways. There are two ways to
commit the crime of carnapping:

1. One, when the taking is attended by violence or intimidation or threat. So, when you are driving your
vehicle and then somebody pointed a gun at you, "Give me your vehicle or else I will kill you," that is
carnapping. Because the taking is attended with violence, threat or intimidation.
2. The second manner of committing a crime of carnapping is under Paragraph 2 of the law, in any
other unlawful means. So, if the taking is unlawful, then that is also likewise carnapping.

Example, your car is parked at the basement, you are here inside the classroom, I hope it will not
happen ano. Just an example, when you went down after classes your car is no longer there.
Somebody took your car without your knowledge. What is the crime? That is, likewise, carnapping. The
taking is not attended by violence or intimidation, but the taking is in any other unlawful means. Why is it
unlawful? Because you did not allow him to get your car or your car is parked in your drive way, while
you are sleeping, somebody ran away the vehicle that is carnapping because that is also unlawful or in
any other unlawful means. That means that if the taking is not attended by violence or intimidation, but
the taking is without the consent of the owner, then it becomes likewise under unlawful means that is a
crime of carnapping.

But supposing you went to a car repair. So, you have your car repaired. Your agreement is that you will
reclaim your car after a period of 1 month. Then when you went to the car repair, the car is no
longer there. The owner of the motor shop ran away your vehicle with your vehicle. Question: That is a
crime of carnapping? That cannot be a crime of carnapping because the taking must be unlawful from
the very beginning. You allowed him to take your property because you want him to repair the car and,
therefore, that is not carnapping because carnapping is the taking is unlawful that means that the taking
from the very beginning is unlawful. That could not be carnapping.

Could that be a crime of estafa? No. What are the requirements of estafa? Minsan magkakamali minsan
yung when you speak of estafa, there are two essential requirements di ba? Sinasabi natin there must
be physical possession and there must be juridical possession, while in the crime of theft only physical
possession.

So, what's that juridical possession that we are talking about? How do you determine if it is attended by
juridical possession? When do you say there is juridical possession? Madali lang. You just ask yourself.
If you now file a case against him, can he put up a defense of ownership or unlawful possession of the
property? That is the meaning. If you now file a case against him and he can put the defense of being
the lawful possessor or can put up the defense of he being the owner of the car, meron juridical
possession. In other words, there is a juridical tie between the offender and the offended party. That is
the meaning of juridical possession. But in one case decided by the Supreme Court in People versus
Santos that one that I gave you as an example. Sabi ng Supreme Court don qualified theft yan ng motor
vehicle because there is no juridical possession to speak of, because the repairer cannot claim as the
4D 2007 1
owner of the property of the vehicle after one month because he is supposed to surrender the car to the
owner. Hindi ganon ang juridical possession.

4D 2007 2
The other example is this: You have a driver he is suppose to wait for you at 9:00 in the evening. He is
supposed to wait for you. So, he waited for 9:00. You assume that he is waiting for you at 9:00. The car is
with him, you authorize him to use the vehicle and, therefore, he is supposed to wait for you at 9:00. And
after 9:00, you can no longer find your driver on the basement. In other words, he ran away with your
vehicle and went to another town or province, you could no longer locate him. What crime did he
commit? That cannot be a crime of estafa because you only allowed him to take physical
possession of the vehicle, hindi ba? Walang juridical possession. Why juridical possession? Is there a
juridical tie between the owner of the vehicle and the driver, there is none. If you file a case against him,
can he put up the defense of ownership or can he put up the defense that is he is a lawful possessor? He
cannot, hindi ba? Walang estafa ron because there is no juridical possession.

Okay, crime, what is the crime committed? Is that a crime of carnapping? It cannot be a crime of
carnapping. Why? Because the taking of the vehicle must be unlawful from the very beginning. Because
nakalagay dun sa number 2, in any other unlawful means. The taking of the vehicle was lawful because
you allowed him to take possession of the property. Therefore, what is the crime committed? That now
becomes a crime of qualified theft of a motor vehicle. When the taking is lawful from the very beginning,
but if it's becomes unlawful later on, that is a crime of qualified theft. That is what the Supreme Court said
in People versus Santos. So, therefore, there is still a crime of qualified theft of a motor vehicle. Hence,
in carnapping, the taking must be unlawful from the very beginning. If the taking is lawful from the
very beginning but such became unlawful afterwards, it will be qualified theft of a motor vehicle.

Now, the problem there is that when in the occasion of carnapping, a person is killed, not necessary the
owner, nakalagay don if on the occasion of carnapping a person is killed, then the crime is what do you
call the crime? You cannot denominate the crime as carnapping with homicide because in Republic
Act
6539, the law does not use the word or the term homicide. What the law uses is the word killed. So, in
the occasional of carnapping, a person is killed it, becomes a special complex crime. That is a special
complex crime. And, therefore, the crime should be denominated as qualified carnapping or what Justice
Davide said, that's what Justice Davide said yung case of People versus Medina. Qualified carnapping or
carnapping in its aggravated form, not a carnapping with a homicide because the law does use the term
homicide.

You only use the word homicide in a special complex crime when the law uses the word homicide. Like,
for example, when on the occasion of robbery, homicide is committed, gamitin mo yung robbery with
homicide. Or when on the occasion of kidnapping with serious illegal detention, homicide is committed,
gamitin mo yung homicide. Ngunit kung hindi ginamit yung homicide, killed lang, you make it qualified
carnapping.

Unless, of course, if the law itself says that that is a qualified crime like in the crime of qualified piracy.
Sa Article 123, the law already denominates the crime as qualified piracy. Nakasulat yun sa title e. Kung
yun ang ginamit ng law, qualified piracy, yun ang sundin mo. Although under Paragraph 6 of Article 123 if
homicide or rape is committed, do not denominate as piracy with homicide because the law
itself denominates it as a crime of qualified piracy. Ngunit kung walang nakalagay sa law on the proper
denomination of the crime, then you use qualified, that means qualified carnapping because the law does
not use the word homicide, killed. But if the law does not denominate what is the crime, but uses the
word "homicide," then denominate the crime as robbery with homicide because that is what is used by
the law, okay? Now, yes?

S: Sir, what if a motor vehicle was taken. The taking was lawful from the beginning and so it is a crime
of qualified theft. But then someone was killed later on. What is the crime?

P: That's a good question. Kasi yan when it is a qualified theft of a motor vehicle under Article 310 and
then supposing on the occasion so the driver ran away the vehicle. If two days or three days after,
policemen ran after him, and then as a result, there was a fire fight, one of the policemen was killed. So,
on the occasion of qualified theft, a policeman was killed. So, how will you denominate the crime?
Now, you could denominate the crime as qualified theft? Okay, so that's a good question. Kasi if it is
carnapping - if on the occasion of carnapping, somebody is killed then it becomes special complex crime
because under 6539, it recognizes the killing as a crime that really committed on the occasion
of carnapping. But if it is a qualified theft, the law does not recognize a crime of killing on the occasion of
qualified theft eh. So, if therefore, somebody dies on the occasion of the qualified theft, then you can still
complex the crime as qualified theft with murder or qualified theft with homicide, but no longer under the
principle of a special complex crime. It will be under the principle of Article 48 as a complex crime.

Ang maganda roon kung tatlo ang namatay. Suppossing in a carnapping, three died. How will you
denominate the crime? Regardless of the death because that is a special complex crime, you always
denominate the crime as qualified carnapping whether it is done with treachery or not, it is qualified
carnapping because that is a special complex crime. But if it is a qualified theft, if the crime committed is
murder, of course, you can qualify the crime as qualified theft with murder because that is a complex
crime under Article 48. That's a good question.

Article 311 Theft of the property of the National Library and National
Museum

Okay, so lets now go to the other crimes no, 311, theft in the national Museum, pabayaan mo na yan. I-
memorize mo na yan, memorize, memorize lang ninyo yan, ano ha.

Article 312. Occupation of real property or usurpation of real rights in

property.

So we are trhough with PD 352, PD 533 and the other crimes covered that we are supposed to take up.
Article 312 that is very important. That's where you find the doctrine alid down in People versus
Honorable David Altex, this has not yet been asked in the bar exams. So, if I am the examiner, I will
ask it. What is the principle of the two-tiered penalty rule and what is occupation of real right? So we
studied that when we also took up other forms of trespass. It is the occupation of a real property with the
use of violence or intimidation. With violence or intimidation with intent to gain, so it is actually a crime
of robbery, but you do not call it a crime of robbery because the subject matter is not a personal
property it is a real property. There is no such thing as robbery of a real property as I've told you. Kasi
pag robbery you have personal property and ran away. How can you run away with the real property?
Eto parang land grabbing. In other words, it is a crime of land grabbing under Article 312, but then
grabbing is the term used by the laymen, but actually it is a crime of occupation of real right or
occupation of real property with intent to gain.

What is the two-tiered penalty rule? You look at the penalty in Article 312 there are two penalties that
may be imposed:

1. Penalty of the imprisonment.

2. Payment of a fine.

Now the payment of a fine is fixed in Article 312. Maliit lang fine niyan. Di ba maliit lang? What is the
fine in Article 312? It's 200 to 500 lang e. Almost equivalent to arresto menor. That's a light penalty.
Supposed to be that's equivalent to arresto menor. Two hundred pesos fine, that is fixed. But if you look
at the penalty of imprisonment, the penalty of imprison is not fixed. The law does not provide for a
specific imprisonment under 312. But the penalty of imprisonment is dependent on the extent of violence
that is employed.

So that's why it is a two-tiered penalty rule because although the amount of fine is fixed by the law,
imprisonment is dependent on the extent of the violence that is used in occupying that property. So, if the
violence is equivalent to grave threat then the penalty of grave threat plus fine. If the violence
is committed and is attended or is committed through killing and, therefore, you commit a crime of
homicide, then the penalty will be the penalty of homicide. So, that is the meaning of the two-tiered
penalty rule. The penalty of imprisonment will be dependent on the extent of violence that has been
employed in order to gain entry into the property with intent to gain.
Article 314. Fraudulent insolvency.

Now, 313 is just simply 313 basahin na lang yan. Article 314, fraudulent insolvency. Of course, that is
a crime. You make it appear that you are insolvent in order to escape payment of credit or debts. That is
fraudulent insolvency under 314. Walang masyadong mabigat yan, just read it. But it does not mean that
I will not ask you a question on fraudulent insolvency.

Article 315. Swindling (estafa).

Okay, lets go to the crime of estafa under we will finish estafa and then we will go to the (unintelligible)
para may break kahit na konti. (Unintelligible). Okay na. I am only joking, I'm only joking. Okay. Let's go
to the crime of estafa. Yan may tinanong sa bar sa estafa, on falsification. Request yun ni where is
that?

Okay, what is the difference between estafa and theft before we go to the crime of estafa? I've told you
already, yun sa estafa, when we speak of theft or robbery, the taking is always without the consent of the
owner. Unlawful yan. But when you commit a crime of estafa, the offended party actually gives his
property. There is no unlawful taking. He practically gives the property. In the other words, she
consents to the property, subject matter, of estafa. The offended - in fact, the law says or in fact
authorities say that in a crime of estafa, the offender receives the property from the offended party. In
theft, the offended party does not give the property. It is taken against her will because of the unlawful
taking. Yan ang main difference.

Of course, the other difference will be there is physical possession and, likewise, juridical possession and
what is juridical possession? -There is a judicial tie so that he can put up the defense of being the lawful
possessor or he can put the defense of ownership. Yun ang juridical possession. Kailangan magbigay ng
problems. Like in the case, an old case, it was reiterated in the case of Roble versus yun nga,
yung bank teller. The bank teller received deposits. Sabi ng Supreme Court dyan that is theft, qualified
theft not estafa. So, yung bank teller nag receive ng deposit di ba? And then later on she did not turn
over the amount of P200,000 as part of the deposit during the day, that is a crime of qualified theft, not
estafa. Bakit? You try now to apply the two tests. One, meron bang juridical? Meron bang physical
possession? Number two, is there a lawful taking or was the crime it offended party- did she consent to
the parting of her money- of his or her money? So, the teller understood.

Bakit qualified theft? Because when a teller receives the money from the depositor, that money becomes
the money of the bank. So, if the money now deposited in the bank is now the money of the bank, and
then she does not declare all those that were deposited during that day, she is actually unlawfully taking
the property from the bank owner. Because when it is already received in the bank as deposit, that
money becomes the money of the bank. So, if she gets a part of that, there is unlawful taking. Therefore,
that's a crime of theft. There is no juridical possession. Because if you charge now the bank teller, can
the bank teller put up a defense that she owns the property or the money taken by her? Can she
put up the defense that she the lawful possessor of the property? Can you now charge her? So,
therefore, there is no juridical possession of the money of the bank teller, do you follow?

Now, it would be different before we go to the it would be different if you are an employee
salesman. Pag salesman ka, your work is to sell the products of your employer. So, you get out in
the morning, you're a soft drinks salesman. In the morning, you bring out the sales or the products of
your company with the obligation to remit the proceeds in the afternoon, and entitled to a commission.
You base your pay on commission basis and, therefore, you have a duty to return the unsold products
or to remit the proceeds of the sale. But you did not remit the proceeds of the sale in the afternoon. You
ran away with the money, yon ang estafa, not qualified theft.

Why estafa under the second example? You charge him now, is there a juridical tie? There is a juridical
tie. He is entitled to a commission. So, if you charge him now, can he put up the defense that he
possesses the property? Yes, because he is entitled to a part of it, part of the money. Crime of
estafa yon, not a crime of qualified theft. That is covered by Paragraph 2. I mean, subparagraph B of
Paragraph
1 of Article 315.
Let's now go to estafa, 315. The crime of estafa may be committed in three
ways:

1. When by virtue of abuse of confidence or unfaithfulness, that's number one, which is not actually
deceit, because deceit is different from unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence. Deceit is deception.
Panloloko. Abuse of confidence or unfaithfulness is that you enjoy some sort of confidence from
another, and then you abused that confidence. So, that is not deceit. Because you are party to it.
The private offended party actually is a part of the transaction in Paragraph 1. So, that's not deceit. It
is abuse of confidence.

2. But when the element, however, is found in Paragraph 2, when prior or simultaneous with
the commission of a fraud through misrepresentation of false pretense committed prior,
simultaneous with the commission of the fraud, number two yan, yan ang deceit kasi may panloloko
from the very beginning.

3. Through any fraudulent acts and then you have the enumerations, do you
follow?

Okay. So, let's go one by one. When it is in Paragraph 1, you will read in Paragraph 1 of Article
315, abuse of confidence or unfaithfulness, dun sa Paragraph 1 it refers to alteration of the substance,
quality or quantity. And there is an obligation to do so even if the consideration is illegal. That's
Paragraph 1, hindi ba? So, yong Paragraph 1 ng 315, it is a borderline between a civil obligation and a
criminal obligation because if you read Paragraph A or Paragraph 1 by altering the substance quantity or
quality under obligation, even if the consideration is legal, it becomes a crime of estafa.

I'll give you an example; contract of sale. Is contract of sale civil in character or criminal in character?
Contract of sale? Civil in character yan, why? Because if the other party does not perform his act
required in the contract of sale like payment, he does not want to pay, anong remedy mo? Are you going
to file a case of estafa? No. Your remedy is specific performance, and therefore, that is civil in character.
But what makes it a crime of estafa in a contract of sale? When there is an alteration.

So, if the agreement, therefore, is to deliver a contract of sale of 100 bags of rice, and it specified that the
quality should be Milagrosa or the best rice ano ba yon? Milagrosa ba yon? Masarap na kanin sa Nueva
Ecija. Anyway, the best rice in Nueva Ecija. So, it is a contract of sale of 100 bags or 100,000 sacks of
rice, the best rice. So, if there is a breach of the contract of sale, that is not a crime of estafa. It is civil in
character. You cannot be imprisoned for a breach of contract, because that is not criminal. But what
makes it a crime and what make it an abuse of confidence?

You could have not entered into a contract for the delivery of 100,000 bags of rice, if it later on what he
delivers would be NFA rice. Yon. Ang pinag-agreehan nyo 100,000 sacks of rice, the best rice in Nueva
Ecija, ngunit ang dineliver nya NFA rice. What makes it now a crime of estafa? It is the alteration of the
quality that makes it a crime of estafa. Not the nonpayment, because it is nonpayment or non-
delivery, that is not a crime of estafa. That will be only civil in character. That's why there is no deceit
here. It's not deceit that makes it a crime, but it is the unfaithfulness or the abuse of confidence.

Or you entered into a contract, delivery of 100,000 sacks of rice, ang dineliver mo lang 80, so you
alter the quantity it is not a breach of contract of sale. What is an issue? It is the alteration of the
quantity that makes it a crime of estafa. Yon ang alteration from Paragraph 1. Pati yong illegal
consideration sa gambling. Hindi ka nagbayad. Delivery of shabu, you sold shabu, illegal yan. Ang
binenta mong shabu tawas. The agreement is to sell worth 100,000 of shabu, then afterwards what you
deliver is tawas, you altered the substance, that is a crime of estafa under Paragraph 1. Because even if
the consideration is illegal, but are you going to file? Di kulong ka. Ang penalty ng drugs ilan? Life
imprisonment to death. Estafa is prision correctional maximum to prision mayor, minimum. Of course,
there is also incremental penalty. So, that's the meaning of Paragraph 1.

Even in Paragraph 2. It should have been a civil obligation only, but it becomes a crime of estafa
because it specifically provides in Paragraph 2, yan yong sale on commission basis. Sale on commission
basis is a
civil contract. Trust, based on all by trust, administration or any obligations when there is a duty to
deliver, it becomes a crime of estafa. But all those contracts that are mentioned in Paragraph 2 are civil
contracts. But what makes it a crime of estafa? Because there is an obligation to do so in any
obligation to do so, and there is a duty to deliver. But in a contract of sale, there is also a duty to deliver.
Why it's not covered by no, contract of sale is not covered in Paragraph 2. Ang covered ng Paragraph
2 are only those mentioned by law, sale on commission basis, trust, administration, and with the duty
to deliver. Yung sale there is no duty to deliver. What happens in a contract sale is the exchange of
delivery and payment, hindi ganun ang duty to deliver that's required under Paragraph 1.

I'll give you an example. Sale on commission basis, what that does mean? You sell pieces of jewelry
within a certain period of time. If sold, then you have to remit or you deliver the proceeds. If not
delivered, if not sold rather, then you return the unsold pieces of jewelry within the period of one
month. Hindi ba civil contract lang yan? But what makes it a crime of estafa? Because you
misappropriated or you converted the thing or the subject matter. What makes it a crime of estafa is that
instead of returning, you converted it or you misappropriated it for your personal use. That makes it a
crime of estafa. Yung trust or yung administration, pumunta ka sa America, bestfriend mo, "Pare itong
kotse wag mong gagalawin ha, babalik ako after two months. Puwede mong gamitin, but after I returned
ibigay mo sa akin." O di administration. Pagbalik mo dito binenta nya. Usually, that is not a crime
because that is a duty to return. Probably your remedy under your contract is to file a case for a specific
performance, yong kotse. But because it is for administration purposes, and you converted it or you
misappropriated it for your own benefit, it becomes a crime of estafa. Yon ang estafa that will make it a
crime of estafa when you misappropriated or you converted it to your own.

Yan obligation with a duty to return. Humiram ka ng libro, hindi mo ibinalik, hindi estafa yon. Humiram
tapos hindi mo binalik yong libro, hindi estafa yon because you have only a duty to return. But if you
misappropriated it, you converted it for your own benefit binenta mo tapos yong kwarta sa iyo na yon,
that will now become a crime of estafa.

So, what makes it a crime of estafa is that you misappropriated it, you converted it for your own personal
benefit. Ganun, kaya ingat kayo diyan ha kasi may tinanong sa bar, manager ng rice mill. May utang so
ang ginagawa, yong sa kita ng rice mill binabawasan nya, kinukupitan, may ledger. So sabi nya anong
crime yan? Kako plunder yan may ledger pala. Tawanan sila sa ledger. Plunder yan may ledger eh. So
sabi nila that is qualified theft because applying yong doctrine sa Roque versus People, yong teller, bakit
qualified theft? But if you'll try to read the past, estafa yon because she has the duty to deliver. She
misappropriated it for her personal benefit. The money, that she has a duty to remit, to deliver. She
misappropriated it, estafa yon.

What about the act of falsifying the ledger? Nag-agree kami that should be considered as
private document. Ang hirap kasi sa estafa through falsification of private documents. Hindi kako
dalawang crimes yon. Hindi puwedeng magcomplex ang estafa through falsification of private document.
It's either estafa or falsification of private document. Hindi ba natin pinag-aralan yon? Walang estafa
through falsification of private document. It is either estafa or falsification of private document. Why?
Because they have common elements. Estafa damage, falsification of private document aside from
falsification, there must be intent to cause damage. Hindi puwedeng mag-complex. Parehong may
damage e.

Sabi ng mga taga hindi ko na mentionin, tatlong professor ang nandun eh." Hindi, estafa yan, through
falsification of private document." Bakit? The act of falsification was committed in order to commit a crime
of estafa. Sige na, yan ba ang tinuro nyo? O sige.

Walang estafa through falsification of private document. It could have been better if there are two
crimes if the act of falsification was for the purpose of concealing the crime of estafa, puwede yon. But
not complex crime, two separate crimes. When the crime of estafa - I mean, when the crime of
falsification of private document was committed in order to conceal a crime of estafa, two crimes.
Now let's go to Paragraph 1 subparagraph C, taking advantage of a signature in blank. That is estafa.
Let's say you entrusted the document, may signature doon, then later on you placed there she
is
counterfeiting all the properties in favor, estafa yon. Yong taking advantage of the signature in blank
document, yon. So that is abuse of confidence.

What is important likewise in estafa is this - what is novation? Yung novation, an original contract is
practically altered by agreement of the parties. Pag nag-alter, the old contract is practically abandoned
and then a new contract is entered by the two parties. Di ba ganun ang novation? When the subsequent
contract changes the first contract, then that is novation. So the question is, what is the effect
of novation? Does it extinguish criminal liability? No, it does not, as a rule. It is not found in Article 89 in
your Revised Penal Code.

Novation is not a ground to extinguish criminal liability, whether total or partial. But there is only one
crime where novation maybe a in the ground of extinction of criminal liability in estafa, but not all
estafa. The only estafa that can be novated is estafa under Paragraph 1 of Article 315. Novation is not
allowed in Paragraph 2 or in Paragraph 3. Why? Because in Paragraph 2, estafa, the act is false
pretense or misrepresentation. You cannot novate a misrepresentation. Or in Paragraph 3, you cannot
novate a fraudulent act. What you can only novate will be Paragraph 1 of Article 315 because the
enumerations there specifically A and B, ha? The estafa in A and B in Paragraph 1 can be novated
because it is a borderline between a civil contract and an obligation arising from a crime. Hindi kasama
yung C kasi taking advantage of a signature in blank yon.

So, if therefore - example, you entered in to a contract of sale on commission basis. So, the
offender failed to remit what should have been remitted by virtue of the sale of those items on a
commission basis. Nakita mo nga yung tao, sabi mo, "Hoy, hindi ka pa nagre-remit ah? 200 thousand."
He misappropriated it. He converted it to his personal use, then sabi nung offender. "Pwede mo ba ako
pagbigyan?" "Paano gusto mo?" "Pwede ba hulugan ko na lang?" Hinulugan niya. The payment will
now be on installment. Ino-novate na yung una. Instead of commission basis, it may now become a sale
by installment, ah wala na yung estafa roon because the second contract novated the other contract.
That's the meaning of novation. But, you cannot novate something that is false or fraudulent from the
very beginning. That will only apply in Paragraph 1.

Let's say yung quantity, diba? Kulang yung quantity, otchenta lang. 100 ang pina-deliver mo, otchenta
lang ang diniliver, tapos sabi niya, pwede ba mag-enter ng contract, babayaran ko na lang ng cash yung
kulang tapos nag-agree kayo, ang nangayri ngayon unpaid. Binayaran mo, that already novated the
other contract because you accepted something that is different from the first contract. In other words,
they are no longer the same, ah wala nang estafa doon, but only in Paragraph 1, A and B. Thats the
meaning of novation. But that is the only crime that can be novated in our criminal law statutory. It
cannot be appreciated in any other crime. Even in the crimes of estafa under 316. Other forms of
swindling or other forms of deceit under Article 318 or 319 or swindling of a minor under 318 or other
deceit in 319. Hindi pwedeng ma-novate yun in Paragraph 1 of Article 315.

But, let's go the second crime, our second estafa, when the act of misrepresentation or fraud pretenses
prior or simultaneous with the commission of defraud. So, what does that mean? Madali lang yung ano,
ehyung prior or simultaneous. Now, the reason why there is estafa in Paragraph 1 is the
misappropriation of convention or the cause of abuse of confidence sa Paragraph 1. What is the crime
of estafa under Paragraph 2? What is in the crime of estafa? The crime of estafa is that under Paragraph
2; the private offender party could not have parted her goods for these goods. Hindi ko sana ibinigay
sa'yo itong property ko if you didnt employ misrepresentation or false pretenses. On other
words, the motivating factor why I parted with my goods is the fact that you fooled me through
misrepresentation.

Article 315 Paragraph 2 (a)

So, let's take the case of Paragraph 2 (a). Let's the case of a job recruiter. By pretending to have
influence; we will use that as example by helping, by pretending to have influence. You are pretending to
have possessed influence or authority, and so on panloloko. So, here comes a job recruiter, she
announces "I can bring you to Iraq for employmentjob employment. I'm a registered job recruiter, and
therefore I can bring you to Middle East in Iraq or Iran, or in Burma to work as domestic helper." So,
you
were enticed by the advertisement, then you go to that person, then you ask him "Pare, ma'am, or sir, I
read in your advertisement that you can employ me to Iraq." "Oh, yes. I am a licensed recruiter. I
can bring you to Iraq or to any part of Middle East. I can give you employment, but you have to pay filling
fee or placement fee." "Oh, sige! Are you sure that you can?" "Yes! You're a carpenter, you're a
skilled worker, and I can bring you there if you need so." He was asked to fill up all the papers, okay?
"You come back tomorrow; you prepare P15,000 or P25,000; that will be used for the passport,
placement fee, and your ticket." The following day, he went there then pay the P15,000 only to find out
later on that he's not a recognized, authorized job recruiter.

Question: What is the estafa there? But, where is the crime of estafa that is committed by the recruiter?
He made it appear that he has the authority to bring workers and the reason why the private offended
party parted with her good is that she believed the misrepresentation of the offender that she could be
brought to the Middle East to work. And what is the damage? The amount P25,000. So, Where is
the prior or simultaneous? The crime of simultaneous is that I couldnt have parted with my goods if
not for the fact that you misrepresented yourself, if not for the false pretenses that you employed that
you can bring me abroad. Thats the meaning of estafa under Paragraph 2.

Article 315 Paragraph 2 (b)

But, of course, there are five enumerations. Yung altering of the substance or altering your own work or
your business. That is also (a crime). So, you make it appear. You prepare your work, diba? Your art or
business. Sabi mo, ito genuine ito. Gold ito, gold ring. Because I was the one who made it. So,
you sweet-talk the victim. Nabola mo siya, naniwala sa'yo, then you bought the ring. Question: It
turns out that the ring is not gold. If that is your own art, that is covered by Paragraph 2 (b) of 315.
Why? Because you altered if not for your sweet-talk or your misrepresentation, then I could not have
parted with my money. So, the reason why I bought that is because of your misrepresentation or
false pretense. Therefore, it must be simultaneous.

In other words, the act of misrepresentation must be prior or simultaneous with the parting of the goods.
Otherwise, if the parting of the goods is not simultaneous or the commission of the misrepresentation is
not simultaneous with/or prior with the parting of the goods, there is no estafa.

Article 315 Paragraph 2 (d)

Example, yung tseke. Issuance of a check, postdating a check. Diba under the paragraph, thats the most
important one. Subparagraph D of Article 315, Paragraph 2 yung may postdating a check, or issuing a
check will presented for payment. The same it is honored for insufficiency of funds. Yun ang the best
example under Paragraph 2.

What happens is this, sometimes you read in the book, when the check is used in payment of a
contractual of the existing or pre-existing contractual obligation, there is no estafa. Nababasa yon diba?
What is the explanation? The best way to understand that is like this. I'll give you two examples.

Mr. Zosa is the owner of a general store. So, I went there. So, sabi ko sa kanya, "Mr. Sosa, I want to
buy a ring for my wife." Sabi niya, "Sir mahal yan P100,000 yan." "Oo, sige. I can pay, but I'm sorry I
didnt bring my cash" "Hindi sir, may deposito ka ba?" " Siyempre! Ano akala mo sakin, manloloko! I
have sufficient funds, in fact my deposit is P1 million." So, I was able to sweet-talk him. "Okay, sige sir,
dahil may deposito ka, I will now give the ring to you, but you issue the check." So, therefore, the issue
once of the check is simultaneous with the parting of the goods of the pieces of jewelry that I bought,
diba? Because I assured him that upon presentment for payment, the check will be honored, he was
convinced of what I told him then he parted will be ring. Do you follow?
Now, supposing in the second example, the same example that I got going. I want to buy a P100,000
worth of jewelry, the he asked me, "Sir, meron ka bang cash?" "Wala eh! Ngunit may tseke naman ako
eh." "Saan yung tseke niyo, sir?" "Ay, sori. Nakalimutan ko yung tseke ko eh. But, I can come back
tomorrow, and then I will give you the check." So, thereanywhere, I trust you so you will give me
the
ring and P100,000 thousand pesos. I do not have the check, but you already gave me the ring. The
following day, I went to him. "Okay, this is now the payment P100,000. I have the deposit of P1 million
pesos. If this check will be presented for payment, I will be honored because I have sufficient funds." In
both cases, in both examples, when the checks were presented for payment, the checks were
dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Therefore, the checks bounced.

In the first example, is there a crime of estafa? In the second example, is there a crime of estafa? Yan, in
the first example, that is a clear case of estafa. Why? He couldnt have parted with the ring if not for the
fact, if not for the false assurance or the misrepresentation that if the check will be presented for
payment, it will be honored. In other words, the motivating factor why he parted with the jewelry is my
misrepresentation that if the check will be deposited or presented for payment, it will be
honored. Tinangap niya, dahilan sa inassure ko siya, may deposito ang tseke. Therefore, the act or
misrepresentation is prior or simultaneous with the parting of the jewelry.

Do you follow? Now, in the second example, is there a crime of estafa? There is none. Because when he
parted with the ring, there was no yet check to speak of. There was no yet assurance that the check
will be in other words, the reason why he parted with the ring is not for the assurance that a check is
honored or dishonored because the check only was paid to him after he parted with the goods or the
ring. In other words, if I went there the following day, and then I told him that the check will be honored
upon presentment for payment, the jewelry was already with my possession. So, the reason why he
parted with the ring is not based on a misrepresentation, because the misrepresentation took place the
following day. And, therefore, it is not prior or simultaneous with the parting of the gold, therefore
there is no estafa, di'ba

Ganon lahat lahat sa 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. even in Paragraph E yung obtaining food from a restaurant. O-order
ka ng pagkain sa restaurant, hindi ka nagbayadestafa yan. Saan ang prior or simultaneous doon when
the parting of the goods? You sit in a restaurant, and then you order, the presumption is you will pay. In
other words, the restaurant owner could not have served you food if he knew from the very beginning
that you have no money to pay - kaya estafa yan. Or, when you leave surreptitiously an apartment. In
other words, you own the apartment, you did not pay, and you leave surreptitiously, estafa yan by
express provision in Paragraph E, 2-E. So very easy yung Paragraph 2, basta prior or simultaneous with
the parting of the goods.

If it is not prior or simultaneous - in other words, the parting of the goods or the money takes place
ahead of the misrepresentation, walang estafa yan. It must always be prior or simultaneous. That's why I
said while ago, that Paragraph 2 cannot be novated because there is always fraud from the very
beginning, only that is prior or simultaneous. Hindi mo pwedeng i-novate yan. Your remedy is to go to
jail. So, in Paragraph 2 walang novation yan because if you pay later on, what is the effect? Unlike in
Paragraph 1, if you fall under Paragraph 2, and then you pay later on the subject matter of estafa,
what is the effect? That is only a mitigating circumstance equivalent to a plea of guilty. But that will not
erase your criminal liability. Unlike in Paragraph 1, you novate it, wala ng crime. In Paragraph 2, you pay
after a crime of estafa that is an admission of guilt. The only effect is, it is a mitigating circumstance
tantamount or analogous to brutally surrender or even plea of guilty, di ba? Ganun.

Article 315 Paragraph 3

Sa Paragraph 3 A, B, and C, mentioned naman eh. In Subparagraph A, and other fraudulent acts
enumerated yan. Sinabi ko na eh. Yung paragraph A. ano yung A? Signing of a document with the intent
to deceive concurrent with Article 298. In 298, you sign a document with violence or intimidation, that is
crime of robbery under 298. But if the signing of the document is attended by fraud with the intent to
deceive, estafa yan under Paragraph 1.

Yung Subparagraph C of Paragraph 3, we already took that up in relation to infidelity of the custody of
the document, hindi ba? You destroyed documents or records of the court with deceit. Hindi ba estafa
yan? Yes. But if it is not court records, then it's a crime of infidelity in the custody of documents that
committed by public officers. Kasi infidelity in the custody of documents can only be committed by
public officers.
Doon sa crime of estafa in Subparagraph C in Paragraph 3 that can be committed by any person with
the intention to decieve. Kinain mo yung ebidensiya para manalo ka. Sirain mo yung ebidensiya para
manalo. You destroyed court records.

So, we'll continue. We'll take up the BP 22,

yes?

Sir, what about nonpayment of credit card bills? May it also fall under

estafa? Nonpayment? (Unintelligible) Civil lang yan.. Nonpayment of credit

cards.

Sir, even if at the time you used the credit card, you knew that you had no sufficient
funds?

Wala yun. But, there was a question in the bar exams about credit card. Be careful. When the question
specifically mentions credit card, but then you take the bar exams, be careful with the question because
if it is a violation of a credit card, it is not a crime of estafa that may be committed. Ang crime diyan is
violation of the it is illegal use or unauthorized use of access device. It is a special law. I think RA 8484.
The law on access devices. Yung credit card fall under the term access device. Like for example, a credit
card was stolen. Credit cards, and then you use the credit card, anong crime? Anong crime? That will fall
on unauthorized use of access device. That is specifically punished by special law. Credit card is at risk,
a risk access device. That was asked in the bar exams. Nagnakaw ka ng credit card. Bumili ng TV.
Stolen. Everybody says that is estafa. Ako na lang ang nag-register ng objection, eh. Sabi ko that is not
a crime of estafa. That is a crime violation of a special law, unauthorized use of an access device and
then we agreed to it.

So stealing a credit card is a theft of device?

Yeah, of course.

And then after that he thinks about using it, so thinking na either criminal _ 1:26:07, so two crimes sya?

Two crimes yan. Kasi special law yung unauthorized use. Access device.

But if he stoleif he stole the car

You know kasi it's not theft. It's like this. You can not commit the crime of theft if there is no value. If you
merely stole a credit card, walang crime yon because there is no value, eh. Anong contained in your
personal property _ 01:26:31 because the crime of estafa is the penalty of estafa is determined by
the value of the thing stolen. Now, if you use that, then you may be committing a crime under the
Revised Penal Code but at the same time, you will be committing a crime also under special law,
unauthorized use of an access device. Credit card, 'pag ginamit mo yon. Now, if you are about to file a
case of theft because there will be now be unlawful taking, ginamit mo, you can charge him with theft
likewise under the Revised Penal Code. But if it is merely unauthorized use then there is no-you can
not prove how much was stolen, then the crime is only unlawful use, unauthorized use of access device.
That was asked in the bar exams. Ang sagot nga nila, estafa for the falsification of commercial
document. Kako, hindi puwedeng commercial document ang credit card because there is a special law
about it. We agreed that that-hindi pa nga estafa ang sagot naming dun. We agreed that the crime is
unauthorized use of access device, not even estafa. It is only one crime of unauthorized use of access
device. You know what's the penalty? Mataas ang penalty of access device, higher pa ng theft,
unauthorized use of, ano? Access device, higher than theft because theft is determinedthe penalty of
theft is determined by the value of the thing stolen.

Regardless of the amount like with

Hindi. Unauthorized use? Kasi madami ang 01:28:08 na prohibited. Yung unauthorized, illegal use,
maraming acts that are punished. But if you stole a credit card then used it, the crime is unauthorized
use of access device.
Sir, regardless of the amount?

Regardless of the amount. Mataas ang penalty niyan. Kasi ang theft or estafa, dependent on the amount,
eh. It cannot be even be more than reclusion temporal. At saka mataas ang amount, ang estafa or theft
before you reach the crimes, before you reach the penalty of reclusion temporal. Pwede ka ng reclusion
temporal, the amount should be more than 100,000 na yan, in order to be reclusion temporal. Okay?

Sir, unauthorized use din ba yung duplicated credit

card?

That's also under the special law. That's a crime if that will be illegal use or illegal manufacture or illegal
production of access devices.

Under Paragraph A of Paragraph 2 of _01:29:09 hold in preventing to protect the _ 01:29:12. So

what

Power, power to influence.

01:29:21. For example, an extension of a credit of a company to a credit card sir. That's why a -

No, it's not the credit card. An example there is that, you make it appear that, you go to a bank then you
make it appear that you have money. As long as it does not fall under PD 115 kasi under PD 115,
it's there in PD 115. Trust Receipt Law. Yung Trust Receipt Law, let's say you open a letter of credit and
then you make a promise that based on your business, you will pay religiously the amount that you
borrowed under the trust receipt. Pinapapirmahan ka ng trust receipt. Then if you do not pay, if you do
not comply with the provisions of the trust receipt which includes nonpayment, you're liable for the
crime of estafa. What is punished there is not the nonpayment of the debt but what is punished there is
the violation of the conditions in the trust receipt. Yon sa PD 115 there, I put it up there, that should be
included. That is included in the bar exams, PD 115. Yung possessed credit or agency, you make it
appear that you have money where in fact, you do not have.

Kasi marami sa Paragraph A, e. Possessed influence, having bribed a government official. Itong
Paragraph A, ito yung manloloko, yung magaling mag-sweet talk. Yung pinapaniwalaan mo lang ang
sinasabi. Sabi niya, "Uy, meron akong bahay ibebenta ko sa'yo. "Yun pala, wala namang bahay.
Nagbayad ka ng kwarta, alis, ayun, that's estafa. But we must be always-the motivating factor why
the
01:31:05 is that the misrepresentation should be always prior and simultaneous. Hindi pwedeng you
gave money and then niloko mo siya, walang estafa roon. That is the meaning of prior or simultaneous.
Parang ano yan, parang yung simple seduction under Article 338, yung simple seduction. Nakalagay
dun, when a woman between the ages of 12 and 18, virgin, who consents to a sexual intercourse
through deceit. Ganon din yon, prior or simultaneous din. Yung babae, girlfriend mo, 15-year-old, you
brought her to a motel. Tapos sasabihin niya, "O, sige, surrender mo na ang sarili mo." Girlfriend ka na,
matagal na, eh. 16. Sabi naman nung babae, "Ay, hindi. Gusto ko, we'll first get married." Tapos sabi ng
lalaki, "Ikaw naman. Iba na ang mundo ngayon. Dati, ang bilang 1,2,3. 1,2,3. Ngayon iba na. 1,2,3,
1,2,3,4, let's go. Hindi na 1,2,3."

So in other words, "Iba na ang mundo," sabi nya. Dati nakakaabot lang sa buwan, dati hindi pa
nakakaabot ng buwan, iba na ngayon. Then sabi nung babae, "A, hindi. Maria Clara." "Ay, matagal na
kami ni Maria Clara, ikaw naman." Then sabi nung lalaki, "Huwag kang mag-alala, pakakasalan kita. I
will take care of you, papakasalan kita, ayusan kita, lahat-lahat. Bigyan kita ng bahay, hindi kita iiwanan.
Magka-anak ka man, hindi kita iiwanan." Lahat sinabi mo na. Then, eventually, the girl, because of the
persistence of the boy, the boy succeeded in having sexual intercourse with the girl. Simple
seduction yon. Bakit? Because had it not been for the misrepresentation of the boy, she could not have
surrendered herself.
4D 2007 1
Ganon din sa estafa sa Paragraph 2. You reverse that. Pumayag muna yung babae and then yung
babae, iyak ng iyak. Sabi niya, "Paano ako ngayon?" "Hindi, eh, pumayag ka e. Pakakasalan naman
kita,

4D 2007 2
eh, di ba?" So in other words, pumayag muna yung babae bago niya pinangako na pakakasalan at lahat-
lahat. Yun pala, hindi nya pinakasalan. Walang simple seduction doon. Because the decerit is not prior
or simultaneous with the sexual intercourse. Ganon din ang estafa sa Paragraph 2. If the act of
the misrepresentation or false pretenses could not be prior or simultaneous with the parting of the goods,
walang estafa yon. Because the motivating factor why you gave your money or your property is the
misrepresentation. Kaya dapat prior or simultaneous.

Unlike in fraudulent under Paragraph 3 because that's not required, prior or simultaneous. Because
the act in Paragraph 3 is fraudulent from the very beginning. What's mentioned there is the crime of
estafa is the act of fraud. Yung sa Paragraph 2, what makes it a crime of estafa, yung sweet talk,
pangbobola. Yung pangbobola iba sa fraud. Doon sa Paragraph 1 naman, what makes it a crime of
estafa, yung abuse of confidence. Yung abuse of confidence don, I could not have parted if not for the
fact that I have confidence in you. Yon.

Ngayon, yung other forms of estafa, swindling, under 316. If the swindling does not fall in 315, then
the law that is violated is 316. Pati yung reading of the palm, yung mga palmers, those who interpret
dreams. Estafa yan sa 319. Oo, other forms of deceit yan. Pupunta ka dun sa nagbabasa ng ano, palm
reader. "O, anong ibig sabihin nitong kuwan?" "Naku, maganda ang maging asawa mo kasi" Ganon
ganon. Ang dami na nyang nasabi, yun pala hindi totoo. "Nanaginip ako kagabi, interpret mo."
"O, magbigay ka muna ng kwarta." O bigay mo. That is the damage. Tapos interpret nya ung dream.
"Anong" "Wet dreams." Sabihin, "Interpret ko." E, umihi ka lang, eh. Alam mo, ang other form of deceit,
tarantadong yan, eh. That is a crime under 319. Kaya wag tayong mag-ano. Okay, who are late?
Malabanan, Karen? Kim Po. Soza. Ladores.

Here.

O, Chua, Jun?

Sir.

Only one is absent? Si Quimpo, andyan, no? Kim Po? Sinong absent? Malabanan? Zoza? Karen
Malabanan? Maria Christine Quimpo. Nagra-raise ka din kasi, dalawa pala ang nandito, eh. O ako ang
mali? Okay. Now, so we still have two meetings by Monday and Wednesday. I will make it a point-no,
except Wednesday. Probably I cannot see you anymore on Wednesday. I'll be going to Davao for a
lecture. I thought that tama na sana ngayon. So anyway, we'll try to finish by Monday. Those that we'll
not
we can't finish it. Qualified seduction, simple seduction, forcible abduction, alam ninyo na yan. Acts of
lasciviousness, alam ninyo yan. Malayo sa libel probably or--madali lang, 10 minutes tapos na tayo nyan.
Oo. Ano lang ang libel? Libel in writing articles, television shows or radio programs. Anong oral
defamation? Oral. Anong slander _ 1:36:52? Sampal. Ano pang hanapin mo dyan? If it is not attended
or it is not witnessed by anybody, what's the crime? You uttered oral defamatory statement. Nobody
saw. Anong crime? Between the, if what is already uttered is364 yan. _ 1:37:19. Kasi ang libel,
oral defamation and slander by deemed, the number one element is there must be publication.

Yung publication, there must be witnesses. Because you can not defame the honor of somebody else if
nobody heard it, if nobody saw it, nobody read it. If nobody read it, nobody saw it, nobody- you know,
the definition of libel? The crime is committed against the honor. But if it is slander by deed, it may either
be it ill treatment if there is injury. If there is no injury, it is unjust vexation. Sinampal mo, di ba? Pag may
injury yon, ill treatment yan. Then it will not require at least one day of medical treatment or incapacity.
Kung if it requires seven days or six days of incapacity, slight physical injuries yan.

But if there is no prolonged medical treatment or there is no incapacity, then that is still slight physical
injury but the crime actually is ill treatment as a slight physical injury. But if there is no ill treatment,
there is no injury or whatsoever, the crime is likewise unjust vexation. But if somebody saw you;
however, just slight, that is already slander by deed. Basta may nakakita. Oral defamation naman, oral
defamation kung may nakarinig. Kung walang nakarinig, as long as the defamatory statements are really
defamatory, then it will fall under the crime of intriguing against honor under 364. Madali lang yan.
Then you should know what are the two kinds of malice in law and malice in fact. If the defamatory
statement is a libelous article, malice in law is always presumed. But that is not the requirement in
order to be liable. There must also be malice in fact. Ano yung malice in fact? Intended really to
malign. If it does not fall in any of the privileged communication under Article 354, yung fair reporting.
Anyway, madali lang yan. Bigamy.

There is one case that I would like you to read in bigamy by a new doctrine labeled by the Supreme
Court in the case of Manuel versus Republic of the Philippines. Because of the amendment of the Civil
Code. Sa bigamy, hindi ba? Sain your Civilis there a need to go to the court and then ask for a
judicial declaration that somebody is already dead? Because there is a presumptive death, di ba?
Kasi nung kami kumuha ng law, yung more than seven years yan, you're already presumed dead. You
do not go to court and then ask for a judicial declaration. Under your new Civil Code, di ba you have to
get a judicial declaration?

Question: In bigamy, you marry for the second time. The husband has been absent for more than 20
th
years. No way. We cannotdi na makita. After 1:40:24, nag-asawa after 20 years. On the 27 year,
biglang nag-appear yung first husband. Question: Is the wife liable for bigamy? Yes. Under the law,
you
are liable for bigamy. You have now to go to court and then declare. You get a judicial declaration of
presumptive death. Ngayon, liable ka na dyan. That's now the new doctrine. Under the old doctrine, hindi
kinakailangan. But because of the amendment in the Civil Code, your persons and family, that there
must be a judicial declaration or presumption of death, kinakailangan yan. That's the new doctrine. Kaya
lang, hindi ako nag-aagree don. Twenty years absent? Anung gagawin namankaysa kumuha ng
partner in the absence of marriage. Hindi ba mas masama yon? Hindi ba? Absent yung husband ng 20
years. Anung gagawin mo? Kawawa naman yung babae, walang katabi. After 20 years, na-realize nya to
get married, and then she is still liable for the crime of bigamy because he did not go to court and then
ask for a declaration of the husband to be presumed dead. That is the case of Manuel versus People of
the Philippines. That's a new case. New doctrine. Let's pray.

END

BP 22 Bouncing Checks Law to Article 365

BP 22 Bouncing Checks Law

BP 22 punishes the mere act of issuing a worthless check. It is mala prohibita. You cannot, therefore,
include intent as an element of the crime.

Applicability to Closed Accounts

What is covered in BP 22 is when the check is drawn against insufficient funds. Question, if the check is
presented for payment and then it is dishonored on the ground of account closed, is that covered by
BP
22? That's already covered in the case of People vs. Nitafan, although account loss is not mentioned in
the law as one of the grounds for a check to be dishonored. The Supreme Court said it is covered
because that is even worse than a check drawn against insufficient funds.

Applicability to Foreign Checks

Next question, is BP 22 applicable to foreign checks or are we going to apply the violation of BP 22 to a
foreign check? A foreign check is one that is drawn against a drawee bank located outside of the
Philippines. So, you open an account in Merced County, California. Then a tourist came to the
Philippines and then later on when he paid his hotel bills he used his check drawn against a drawee bank
in America but the check was used to pay his bills in Manila Hotel. Then later on when the check was
presented for payment, it was found that the check was not funded then therefore, dishonored for the
reason drawn
against insufficient funds. But the only issue is whether or not Batas Pambansa 22 is applicable because
the check is a foreign check. Now the judge, that's also the case of People vs. David Nitafan, he said
that it is not applicable because Batas Pambansa 22 is only applicable to local checks or checks
drawn against a bank here in the Philippines. Supreme Court said BP 22 is applicable as long as one of
the elements is committed here in the Philippines, whether that is a Philippine check or a foreign check,
our Philippine law will apply. Why? Because the check was drawn here; the check was issued here. It
was used to pay an obligation here in the Philippines. Our Philippine Law will apply. The argument
of the judge jokingly, sabi namin dun, "Judge, talo ka kasi bouncing check yun eh." Sabi niya, "Baki?"
You said that a foreign check is not applicable but the Supreme Court said it is applicable. Then he
said, "I think the Supreme Court was wrong because the title of the Law is Batas Pambansa 22. So, it
does not apply to foreign checks. Batas Pambansa 22, in tagalog so it is not applicable." Anyway, that's
not the decision.

When does a check become stale?

Number 3, when does a check become stale in BP 22? That's the case of People vs. Joseph Wong. A
check becomes stale when the check is not presented for payment within the 180-day period or six
months provided for in the Negotiable Instruments Law. It is not the 90-day period that you will find in
Section 2 of BP 22. It is the 180-day period or six months under the Negotiable Instruments Law. But it
might be used as a defense in BP 22. If the check is already stale and therefore it is already worthless,
one can no longer be liable for violation of BP 22 because a worthless check is not a check under BP
22. It becomes only worthless when the check is presented for payment beyond the 180-day period or
six months from its due date.

Guarantee Checks

Next question, what about if a check is used as guarantee to pay an obligation? Is it a defense with
violation of BP 22 just because the check was issued to accommodate a borrower and that the check
was only issued in order to guarantee the payment of a loan? Supreme Court says even if it is used as a
guarantee check, he may be liable for BP 22. There are two cases actually where the Supreme
Court said that the drawer may not be liable even if the check is used as guarantee check. One is the
case of People vs. Francisco Sycip, 2001 where the Supreme Court said that the defense of one's right
may be the defense in BP 22 if the check is used to guarantee an obligation. What happened in that
case is that the drawer bought a condominium unit. Now the agreement because the condominium unit is
usually pre- sale, so the agreement is that Mr. Sycip bought a unit condition that the payment shall be
made on staggered basis, depending upon the rate of completion. Checks shall be paid and then he
issued post- dated checks. So, corresponding to an agreement of let say 10% of completion, then the
amount that amounted to 10% shall likewise be issued and presented for payment. So, that was
agreement. So, every month of completion, there is a corresponding payment of a check until the
condominium is finally constructed.

After several months, the condominium builder reneged on his obligation. So what Mr. Sycip did was to
call up the bank and order the bank to stop the payment in check because according to him his right was
violated because the time table as agreed upon by the builder and Mr. Sycip was already being violated
by the builder. He was not complying with the agreement to complete the condominium unit. So, he
stopped the payment of the check. But when the check was presented for payment, it showed that there
was no sufficient fund. If there is an order to stop the payment of the check then the bank is mandated to
indicate if at the time the order was made there was sufficient fund. Let's say, I called up the bank.
"O, you stop the payment of the check because the payee violated one of our agreements." Of course
the drawee bank will agree to an order because he is a customer. But if there is an order to stop the
payment, the bank should indicate if at the time the order was made, there was sufficient fund or not.
Now, even if there is order to stop payment, if at the time the order was made there was no sufficient
fund, the drawer is still liable, is it not? Now, what happened to the case of Mr. Sycip is that he stopped
the payment of the check but at the time he ordered to stop the payment of the check there was
insufficiency of fund and therefore, he should be liable even if there was an order to stop the payment of
the check.
He was convicted in the RTC, convicted in the Court Appeals, but when it went to the Supreme Court, he
was acquitted on the ground of exercise of a right under Article 12, exercise of a right or an office as an
exempting circumstance. What is that right? Because under the Condominium Law, the buyer can stop
the payment if the condominium builder on pre-sale, sa pre-sale lang, does not fulfill his obligation in
completing the condominium within the agreed period. So, they have all the right to stop the payment
and therefore under this case of Sycip, he has every right to stop the payment and therefore he should
not be liable. Not because he used the check as a guarantee check but because he has every right under
the Condominium Law. If we do not agree with that decision, never mind. Why? Can you apply a
defense under the Revised Penal Code, to a malum prohibitum crime? But they applied that. Usually,
can you apply defense under the Revised Penal Code in malum prohibitum? No, because there is no
intention as an element of the crime but they use that as defense.

Now the other one is the case of People vs. Pacheco. What happened in the case of Pacheco was that
Pacheco was a small time vendor, a merchant. He wanted to borrow money from a usurer but the usurer
said, "Okay, I will lend you money but in so lending you, you have to issue a check to guarantee the
payment of the loan." Madam Pacheco had no checking account. Let's say she was borrowing for 50,000
pesos. And then the lender, "Okay, I will lend you the money. I will accompany you. We will go to my
bank." So they went to the bank and then the lender enticee the borrower to apply for a checking
account. And she was made to deposit an initial amount of 10,000 because that is the lowest amount so
that you can open a checking account. Once the checking account was issued, the 10,000 pesos that
she used as deposit became part of the loan that she borrowed from the borrower. So, she gave the
amount of 50,000 pesos plus interest then used the 10,000 pesos to open a checking account. When
there was already a checking account, she required Mrs. Pacheco to issue a check in the amount of
60,000 to guarantee the payment of the loan. She wanted payment of 50,000 plus10,000 interest. So, in
other words it was the complainants who required the borrower to issue a checking account so that once
she has a checking account, she will use the check to guarantee the payment of the loan. So, there
was initial deposit of
10,000 pesos but she required to her to issue an amount of 60,000 pesos. When the check was
presented for payment by the lender, the check was dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Of
course!
Because the amount deposited was only 10,000 pesos. Sabi ng Supreme Court she cannot be liable
for
violation of BP 22 because at the time that she issued two checks, the payee knew that she had no
sufficient fund. Loko yun ano. But in all other cases on guarantee check, the BP 22 will apply.

Effect of Lack of Written Notice of Dishonor

Then you have the difficult questions that might be asked when you take up the Bar examination is
actually new doctrines that came about since the case of King vs. People. That was a 1999 case
followed by another case in Domagsang vs. Court of Appeals. What is the effect of lack of written notice
and dishonor? We did not have cases on written notice of dishonor before 1999. Probably, we never
realized the importance of a written notice of dishonor. So, probably the Supreme Court realized that
time the courts and fiscals are being use as collection agents. So, probably they tried to find a way to
prevent the filing of too many cases in BP 22. They found one which is written notice of dishonor.

Now, there are actually three essential elements of violation of BP

22:

1. The issuance of a check in favor of the drawee or the issuing of a check for
valuable consideration. So, you issue a check to pay the obligation, that's it.
2. At the time the drawer issued a check, he had knowledge that he had no sufficient funds.
3. When the check was presented for payment, the check was dishonored for insufficiency of
 fund which will now includes account closed.

Now, the problem is not in element number one because that is the easiest to prove, when the check is
issued for valuable consideration. You just prove that it was issued for valuable consideration then you
shall have satisfied element number one. Element number three likewise is very easy to satisfy. You
present the check on its due date and then if it is dishonored for reason of insufficiency of fund or
account closed then you have satisfied element three.
The problem however is element number two because the law says at the time the drawer issued the
check, he had knowledge that he had no sufficient fund. If you interpret that element, that element is a
state of mind. The drawer, at the time he issued the check, he had knowledge that it had no sufficient
fund. Therefore, it is only the drawer who knows that he had no sufficient fund. But the one who will
prove that element was existing at the time it was drawn, is the payee. So how can the payee prove that
at the time the drawer issued the check, he had knowledge that he had no sufficient of fund? Now, the
answer is found in the law itself. And the law says that there is a presumption. In other words, in order to
prove second element, you have to prove that you are entitled to a presumption that at the time the
drawer issued the check he had knowledge that he had no sufficient fund. And how do you create that
presumption? The law says that despite receipt of a written notice of dishonor, the drawer failed to make
good the check within five banking days from receipt of the written notice of dishonor. Therefore, what is
the real effect of a written notice of dishonor? The effect of a written notice of dishonor because the
procedure is once the check is presented for payment and then it is dishonored, then he will receive a
copy of a written notice of dishonor the official paper from the bank where the bank now will state the
written notice of dishonor. So you will receive a written notice of dishonor from the bank, the drawee
bank will send a copy of that written notice of dishonor to the payee. And then, the payee will have to
send the drawer the written notice of dishonor so that he is warned that failure on his part to make good
the check within five banking days from receipt of the notice of dishonor will allow you to file for violation
of BP 22. That is a sort of warning, okay.

What is the effect of a written notice of dishonor? The effect of a written notice of dishonor, therefore, we
create a presumption that at the time the drawer issued a check, he had knowledge that he had no
sufficient fund. So, if you want to be entitled to a presumption that at the time the drawer issued the
check and that he had knowledge in issuing it, is to for you to give a copy of the written notice of
dishonor. So, that is the only way to fulfill the requirement in the requirement number two. There
must be a written notice of dishonor. So, in those cases of Betty King and Domagsang, because there
was no written notice of dishonor sent by the payee, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused
because you could not prove the second element of, at the time the drawer issued a check he had
knowledge that he had no sufficient fund. Now, several cases after since 2000, the Supreme Court
however did not realize that if that is the requirement that there must be a written notice of the dishonor,
what will happen now is the drawer hides from the payee. That's what they did. Ang dami. Yung mga
abogadong magagaling, pinagtatago nila yung drawer in order that he will not receive a written notice of
dishonor. So, came two cases later on in 2005, the cases of People vs. Yulo and People vs. Shama,
where the Supreme Court said that what is only required is not the actual receipt by the drawer but by
giving a copy of the written notice of dishonor in the residence of the drawer or given address of the
drawer that can be sufficient written notice of dishonor. Kasi kung tatago. Yun. That is sufficient.

Now, the other problem there is that there was this case later on penned by Justice Callejo, the lender
case. What happened there is, I forgot the title, 2005 case. Anyway, the facts are these. He is also a
Chinese. Thats the problem if he is a Chinese, he loves to talk. It is like this. The case was filed
before the court although there was no written notice of dishonor. Probably the lawyer did not file any
motion to dismiss because there is no written notice of dishonor. There is no probable cause to issue the
warrant of arrest at that time but the trial proceeded. There was written notice of dishonor. When the
accused testified, the private prosecutor was able to illicit from the accused that at the time that he drew
the check, he knew that he had no sufficient fund. In other words, what is the effect of a judicial
admission that he had knowledge that he had no sufficient fund if there was no letter of notice of
dishonor? Will that admission that he had knowledge of insufficient fund sufficient to cure the effect of a
lack of written notice of dishonor? Do you follow? So, he was convicted by the Lower Court. He was
convicted by the Court Appeals. He was acquitted by the Supreme Court through Justice Callejo. Sabi
niya, "Even if he admitted that he had knowledge that there was insufficient fund, if there was no letter
notice of dishonor, he should be acquitted." Why? So, they analyzed the provision on BP 22. Nakalagay
dun, that upon the receipt of the written notice of dishonor, he failed to make good the check within five
banking days from receipt thereof. What's the purpose of the five baking day? You are giving the drawer
time to replenish the check, make good the check, or pay the check. Now, if the drawer now pays the
check or even replaces it or make the necessary deposits to cover the check involved, what is the
effect? Sabi nung Supreme Court, the effect of within that five day period, you replenish it or place
the necessary deposit, that will be
sufficient to what? That will rebut the presumption that at the time the drawer issued the check, he had
knowledge that he no sufficient fund. Because what is the presumption that is created is only
disputable in character and you can rebut it. And how do you rebut it? Within the 5-day period, he
makes good the check. So, if that requirement now is rebutted, then the drawer may no longer be liable
for violation of BP
22. So, because you failed to give a written notice of dishonor, then you did not give him the chance to
rebut that presumption. So, he was acquitted.

Effect of Payment

Now, what is the effect of payment in B.P. 22? Payment of B.P. 22 before that, sabi that
cannot extinguish criminal liability, why? Because what is punished in B.P. 22 is the issuance of a
bouncing check. The main issue was the bouncing check by the drawer. That makes the drawer
criminally liable. So, even if he pays, he is still liable. 'Yan ang mga doctrines noong nakaraan. But in the
case of People vs. Teresita Vergara, it's a 2005 case of the Supreme Court and also another case of
Chua vs. Court of Appeals, and later on People vs. Teresita Vergara. The Supreme Court said payment
will now extinguish criminal liability in B.P. 22. No more violation of B.P. 22. The argument of the
Supreme Court is that or the reason of the Supreme Court is that when the reason of the law is already
satisfied, then there is no more law to speak of. When the purpose of the law is already satisfied, then
there is no more reason for the law to exist. Kasi maraming kaso ang B.P. 22, ang kaya Supreme Court
gumawa ng paraan para matapos na lahat 'yan.

The 90-day Period vs. the 180-day Period in Checks

Now, by the way, what's the purpose of the 90-day period in B.P. 22? Because under Section 2,
the check must be presented for payment within the 90-day period. But in the case of People vs. Wong,
the check will only become stale after 180 days. So, is there a conflict between the 180-day period in the
Negotiable Instruments Law and the 90-day period in B.P. 22. Meron 90 at saka 180. So, how will you
reconcile the two? And also the doctrine, take note, in People vs. Joseph Wong that it can only be
considered stale after 180 days. Now, there is no conflict. Now, the 90-day period in B.P. 22 is the
period wherein a payee is entitled to a presumption that at the time the drawer issued the check, he had
knowledge that he had no sufficient fund.

So, I'll give you an example to apply that 90-day period. You were issued a check some time in July 1.
July, August, September. So, July 1 then the 90-day period expires at the end September, is it not? You
have to present the check for payment from July 1 up to the sixth-month period in order that it's not
considered stale. But we check the bank stale after the 180-day period. What is now the 180-day
period? So, once the first day of due date and the end of September is the end of the 90-day period. If I
presented for payment on the first week of October, then the 90-day period had already lapsed. It is
already lapsed. But the check is not yet stale, why? Because the 180-day period is the one that will
determine if the check is already stale. What is then the effect of a check that is presented for payment
beyond the 90-day period, but within the 180-day period? Now, if that check now is presented for
payment in the month of October, and then it is now dishonored for insufficiency of fund, is it not? I will
now send a written notice of dishonor to the drawer. Now, will I be entitled to a presumption that at the
time the drawer issued the check he had knowledge that he had no sufficient fund although I sent a
written notice of dishonor? No, you are not entitled even if you send a written notice of dishonor. In order
to be entitled to a presumption that at the time the drawer issued the check he had knowledge that he
had no sufficient fund. The check must be presented for payment within the 90-day period. So, it is not
for the purpose of determining if the check is stale, but for the purpose of determining if you are still
entitled to a presumption that at the time the drawer issued the check, he had knowledge that he had
no sufficient fund. So, you tell your friends. He had to present that for payment within the 90-day period
because it will be very hard to prove the liability of the offender or the drawer if you are not entitled to a
presumption. You may, of course, you can prove it in some other ways, but how will you know if he had
the knowledge that he had no sufficient fund. Mahirap. Unless you can read a mind. Lagariin mo, tapos
buksan mo, basahin mo.

Article 315 Paragraph 2 (d) Estafa Through the Issuance of a Bouncing

Check
Let's go now to estafa through the issuance of a bouncing check. Now, under paragraph 2 (d) of 315, I
told you that the issuance of the check must be prior or simultaneous with the bartering of the good. So,
the distinction will be determined by, when that false pretense or misrepresentation was committed. Is it
prior to the bartering of the goods or after the bartering of the goods? Now, if the misrepresentation or
false assurances took place before the bartering of the goods, then that is estafa. But if the
misrepresentation or false assurances came after the bartering of the goods, there is no estafa. But still
the offender will be liable in both cases. He'll still be liable for violation of B.P. 22 because it is a separate
violation not under estafa.

So, you go to Mr. Zosa. He is a seller of pieces of jewel. You bought jewelry from him. You do not have
any cash. Then, you told him, "You sell to me the pieces of jewelry. I will issue to you these paid checks
and then when presented for payment. I assure you that they will be honored." Convinced of what the
buyer told Mr. Sosa, Mr. Sosa agreed to accept the check because of the assurance that they will be
honored upon presented for payment, and then barter this piece of the jewel. When the checks were
presented for payment, all checks were dishonored for insufficiency of fund.

And the other example, he agreed to barter with these pieces of jewelry, although the buyer promised
that he will return the following day and pay the pieces of jewelry. Mr. Zosa already gave the jewelry. So
the following day, he went to Mr. Zosa. "This is my payment, checks. When presented for payment, I
assure you it will be honored because I have enough money deposited in the bank." He accepted the
payment of the checks because he believed what his friend told him. All checks were dishonored for
insufficiency of fund.

You see the difference between the two examples. In the first example, he convinced Mr. Zosa to accept
the checks because they will be honored upon presentment for payment. Mr. Sosa was convinced
of what he said. Mr. Zosa bartered his pieces of jewelries. So therefore, there is a prior or simultaneous
commission of misrepresentation or false assurances. And because of the misrepresentation of false
assurances, Mr. Susa bartered with his pieces of jewelry. That is a crime of estafa because the reason
why he bartered with his good or pieces of jewelry is the misrepresentation of the buyer that the checks
will be honored. And then there'll be 10 violations of B.P. 22 because there are 10 checks involved.
There are just as many crimes committed as there are number of checks involved. In the second
example, there is no estafa because the misrepresentation took place after he bartered with his goods.
So therefore, sometimes they're the same. The checks were issued in payment of pre-existing
contractual obligation, but liable likewise for violation of B.P. 22.

Drawn Against Uncollected Deposit (DAUD)

The other one that I forgot in B.P. 22 is DAUD. Have heard about DAUD? People vs. Elisa Tan. That's
the case of People vs. Elisa Tan. DAUD Drawn Against Uncollected Deposit. Have you heard about
drawn against uncollected deposit? No. There are many agreements. This is an agreement that is
usually extended to a valued customer of a bank. A customer has a checking account to the bank, but
they have an agreement that if the check is issued which is more than the amount deposited or more
than the fund owned by the drawer, before the bank would dishonor that check, the bank will follow up
the drawer, and then the bank says, "Ma'am, you issued the amount of 50,000 pesos, but you have only
10,000 pesos deposit. What shall I do with this check?" Then, the drawer will say, "Okay, you can hold
on the check. Anyway, before 3 o'clock this afternoon, the end of bank transaction on that day, I
will make the necessary deposit." Do you follow? But if the drawer now does not make the
necessary deposit, the check was already honored. But later on, when it is cleared, they will dishonor it
on the ground of drawn against uncollected deposit. There is a column there in the notice of dishonor.
Meron nakalagay dun DAUD. So, what happened with Mrs. Tan is that she issued a check more than the
fund in the bank. Now, before the check could be presented for payment, she called up the bank. She
called that bank that if this check will be presented for payment, do not honor it. In other words, she
ordered the bank to stop the payment of the check. There was an order. So, when the check was
presented for payment by the payee, the bank dishonored it on the ground of stop payment. But under
B.P. 22, when there is an order to stop the payment of the check, the bank is supposed to indicate if at
the time the order was made there was sufficient fund. That's a requirement under Section 3. The bank
must indicate if there was sufficient fund.
What the bank did because he wanted to protect the drawer? Nilagay niya dun stop payment and then
DAUD, drawn against uncollected deposited. That was the statement. So, I convicted the accused. That's
my case actually. I convicted the accused. The Court of Appeals through Justice Villarama sustained my
decision. He called me up later on. Sabi niya maganda itong kaso mo. Tama ang ginawa mo. Syempre.
Tama ako. The amount of the check was 55,000 pesos. Then, the Supreme Court came up with the
decision. The Justice who wrote it is already retired. The Supreme Court said the accused should be
acquitted on the ground that B.P. 22 is not applicable when the dishonor is drawn against uncollected
deposit. Anyway, when we speak of drawn against uncollected deposit, actually there is no fund. It's not
really sufficient. DAUD, drawn against uncollected deposit. When the bank was requested to testify pero
mas gusto minsan ng bank, they only wanted to protect their valued client. So, sabi ni Justice, I forgot
the name, never mind the name. One time, I and Justice Bersamin confronted him. Why is it that he was
acquitted? "Justice, why did you acquit the accused in this case? 'Di ba DAUD is insufficiency of fund?"
di iniisip yung istory nya. He went around and then he did not answer the question. Anyway, he was
already retired. Now, we are both members of the committee on the rules of evidence. So, I just kept
quiet na lang kasi consultant siya. We just came out with the papers on DNA, the evidence on DNA. We
were the ones who prepared that. Anyway, so acquitted. Then when the decision was read by Justice
Villarama, he called me up. "Hoy, 'yung decision mo," sabi sa akin na-reverse. Bakit? Ay hindi, 'di ko
decision 'yun. Decision n'yo yon. Well, yun ang nangyari.

You know, when that Justice retired, another case similar facts, the same as that case that I recently
handled. I think in 2004, 2005. Same set of facts brought to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court
changed its decision. Sabi ng Supreme Court, "If the check is dishonored for the reason drawn against
uncollected deposit and there is no sufficient fund, B.P. 22 is applicable. But if the check is honored
by the bank, no violation of B.P. 22." Of course, who will file the case if it is honored? So, that's not the
present doctrine. If it is drawn against uncollected deposit and there is no sufficient fund, that in my
case, then violation of B.P. 22. So, when that case came out, Justice Villarama called me up. Kasi pinag-
istoryahan 'yung case na 'yan, accounted because this is really the issue. Then, he called me up. Do.
Oh, Bakit? 'Yung desisyon mo kay Elisa Tan parang sinustain uli. Bakit? Sabi ng Supreme Court. Ano?
'Yung desisyon namin. Sabi niya. Bakit sinustain na kami kasi there's now a latest desisyon. DAUD is
now covered by B.P. 22. Hindi, hindi 'yun desisyon n'yo. Desisyon ko yon. Now, that's not the
present doctrine. Pwede bang DAUD? 'Pag DAUD, 'pag walang sufficient fund, covered na ngayon. It's
only used to protect a valued customer.

Estafa vs. BP 22

Let's go back to estafa through the issuance of the bouncing checks. So, that's it. There would be as
many crimes violated of B.P. 22 as there are number of checks involved. But if it is estafa through the
issuance of a bouncing check, regardless of the number of checks issued on one occasion, the crime is
estafa through the issuance of a bouncing check. Kahit na isang daan 'yan if they were issued on one
occasion, only one crime of estafa because there is only one intention, that is to cause damage through
deceit. But there will be as many crimes committed as there are number of checks involved, because
B.P.
22 is a malum prohibitum.

Article 315 Paragraph 2 (e)

Now, the other crimes of estafa yung sa Paragraph E. Kapag kumain ka sa restaurant, dapat bayaran
n'yo. Youre staying in apartment then, without permission, you leave out without paying, estafa yun.
If you asked permission to leave your apartment, there is no crime of estafa. What makes it crime of
estafa is that you bring out your baggage and you do not pay the rent. 'Yun ang estafa. But if you asked
permission to leave, and you have a check paid. Walang estafa doon. That is only civil in character.
What makes it a crime of estafa is that you left the apartment without paying rent with intent to defraud.

Article 316 Other Forms of Swindling

And then, other forms of swindling under 316. If you read the enumerations, all those enumerations that
are related in 316 are not found in Article 315. Because 315, 'yung Paragraph 1, limited lang sa
tatlo.
'Yung Paragraph 2, limited lang sa lima. 'Yung Paragraph 3 fraudulent acts limited lang sa tatlo. Now,
what are those in 316? Lahat na klaseng estafa dun, panloloko. You sell a property that does not belong
to you. You sell a property that is encumbered. You sell a property that is subject of a bond. You
execute a contract which is fictitious. All of these are other forms of swindling under 316 because they
do not fall under 315. Ang problema lang dun sa 316, unlike in 315 where the law specifically provides
the manner of committing it. Sa Paragraph 1, abuse of confidence. In Paragraph 2, prior of
simultaneous, sa Paragraph 3 fraudulent. But if you go in Article 316, the law does not make or
mention of the form of deceit that is employed. Entering into a fictitious contract, that is estafa.
Selling a property that is encumbered, that is estafa. Selling a property that does not belong to you,
that is a crime of estafa. A property that is subject to bond and it is sold without the bond being canceled,
that is also a crime of estafa. So, lahat ng panloloko that are not found in Article 315, then it will fall
under 316. But they are specifically mentioned. Anyway, there are only six enumerations if you want
to memorize. Madali lang
'yan i-memorize. And then 317, swindling with minor. That is self-explanatory. 318 is self-
explanatory.
'Yung other forms of deceit where the penalty is only six months. If there is a deceit but it does not fall
in
315, 316, and 317, and you can still file a crime of other forms of deceit under Paragraph 318. But under
the second example of 318, you have a form of deceit probably you don't know that is a crime. 'Yung
mga nag-iinterpret ng dreams. 'Yung mga palm readers and so on. They fall under 318. Why estafa?
Because they are giving you false hopes but you have to pay. Because if it is voluntarily given
without any payment, walang estafa because there is no damage. Still there must be damage. Of
course, if there is no damage, walang other forms of deceit under 318.

Articles 320 326-B Arson and Other Crimes Involving

Destructions

Let's go to crime against property involving arson, Article 320 up to Article 326-B. Now, the problem with
arson is that this was amended by, the original provisions of the Revised Penal Code from Article 320
to
326-B were amended by Presidential Decree 1613. That was during time of Marcos. And under the
repealing clause of P.D. 1613 for this purpose, Articles 320 to 326-B of the Revised Penal Code had
been amended. But if you read the amendments in P.D. 612, what are actually amended are arson in
small value. Sa 321 to 326, these are arsons under small value.

So in other words, what are provided in P.D. 1613 are forms of arson excluding arson of small value.
Kasi under the Revised Penal Code, meron pang 50 pesos, destroying property through burning and the
value is, I mean, 200. That is arson of small value under the Revised Penal Code. But P.D. 1613
amended. So therefore, when P.D. 1613 amended, the provisions of the Revised Penal Code, what
remained as crime in arson are destructive arson and simple arson. Destructive arson because to the
subject matter of the arson. Malalaking bahay, lahat-lahat. Destructive. You burn a vehicle then that is
simple arson. You burn a house that is destructive arson. There's no more arson of small value.

Now, however, in 1993 or on December 31, 1990, when the death penalty law came about Republic
Act
7659, it again amended the law on arson but the amendment in 7659 only refers to simple arson and
destructive arson. Yung scope ngayon ng destructive arson under 7659, broader, and then the penalty is
higher. So ang question do'n, because it came out in the bar exams two years ago, whether or not
there is still a crime of arson of small value.

If you try to study the sequence of the laws on arson, there is no arson of small value because of the
amendments in PD 1613 and likewise because of 7659. The 7659 did not revive arson of small value.
Thats why we had a lengthy debate when we were answering the questions two years ago on criminal
law. The question was this, the brother gave a bag to his own brother for him to finish law. The value is
P500. Now, the brother failed to pass his subjects, so the brother who gave him the bag burned the bag.
Sinunog nya yung bag ng kapatid nya. Ang sagot nila arson of small value because any destruction of a
property as long as it is not arson of small value. But the second question, what are the criminal
liabilities. So, the first question was, what is the crime committed? Number 2, is the brother criminally
liable? So the question therefore is hypothetical and also interesting questions because if your answer is
arson then the brother is liable, but if your answer is no arson but malicious mischief, then the brother is
not liable because of Article 332. Because under Article 332, the crimes of malicious mischief,
swindling or theft, under 332, if it is committed by the ascendant against the descendant or spouse
including
relatives within the same degree of affinity, thats number 1 or number 2, the property of the widowed
wife in so far as the property of the widow, and then number 3, nakalagay do'n, crimes committed
between and among brothers and sister including brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law if living together. So
therefore, if your brother committed a crime of malicious mischief against you, there is no criminal liability
by reason of Article 332 Paragraph 3.

If your answer however, is arson of small value, then the brother is criminally liable because
the absolutory cause, 332 is an absolutory cause because the absolutory cause in 332, arson is not
included, limited only to malicious mischief, theft , and swindling. In other words, if therefore, your
answer is arson of small value, the brother is liable, but if your answer is malicious mischief, the brother
is not liable because of Article 332. So, some of those in the committee gave the answer to that, there is
still a crime of arson of small value. But sabi ko there is none because by clear provisions of PD 1613,
Article 320-
326-B had been amended by that law. So that if 7659 amended PD 1613, 7659 does not state that
crimes of arson of small value are never touched in 7659. What is touched in 7659 is the broadened
scope of destructive arson. So as it is, therefore, there is no such thing as arson of small value.

Now, the other thing is that after PD 1613 was amended by 7659, you can now be liable for the crime of
arson even if you put on fire your own property. Yes, why? For purposes of claiming insurance, you
can be liable for a crime of arson. So, if it is a destruction of a property, well, you will become liable for
the crime of arson. And then the other thing is when do you consider arson attempted,
frustrated, or consummated? I think we studied that when we took up Article 6. Slightest burning is
consummated arson. If there is no yet burning but you already started burning, then that is consummated
arson. If you have not yet started burning it but you have already prepared the materials in order to
burn a building, that is attempted arson. Parang rape din ano? Slightest penetration. Pero if you burned
this building, isigurado niyo sunog lahat.

Sir, when burning your own property, is it a requirement that we have insurance for
that?

No, you can be liable even if it is not insured. What I am only saying is that, just to give you an example
that you can be liable. Intentional burning can be liable for the crime of arson with more reason if it is
intended to claim insurance.

Article 327 Malicious Mischief

So lets go to malicious mischief, Article 327. Whats the crime of malicious mischief? Basically
a destruction of you know, the law is not accurate with its definition. Kasi nakalagay lang don,
deliberately causing damage to property. If damage to property is not done deliberately then the crime is
reckless imprudence and causing damage to property. So, the word "deliberate" is placed in 327,
because if the damage to properties done through reckless imprudence then the law that is violated is
Article 365. But deliberately cause damage to the property of another there must be a reason. There
must be a reason
in order to annoy the owner of the property. Parang unjust vexation, you to want to annoy him but
you do not touch him or do not touch her, pang iisnab. Ito naman is some sort of evidence because
something was done to you ng nakainitan mo. So instead of doing harm against the person or cause an
injury, you might do harm to a property owned by the person. Like for example, the one that I told
you, your maid that you love very well was bitten by the dog of your neighbor. You killed the dog
because the maid was bitten by that dog that is malicious mischief. Or when you are courting a lady,
there are two rivals. The
lady will not answer the both of them, ganun yun, di ba? Siyempre isa lang ang sasagutin nyan. The
one
who lost punctured the tires of the one who won the heart of the woman. That is also malicious
mischief. In other words, it is done intentionally because there is a reason to do it. If there no reason to
do it, then he will become liable under reckless imprudence, by reckless impudence. But because of the
word "deliberate," that means there is a reason why he destroyed the property. Thats the
4D 2007 1
meaning of deliberate to differentiate it from reckless imprudence.

Articles 328-332

4D 2007 2
The other crimes of malicious mischief in 328 and 329. Other forms of malicious mischief are on National
Library and National Museum. Just read. And then 332 thats an absolutory cause. You know already,
what is an absolutory cause? Limited only to three kinds. Now, if the brothers and sisters are not living
together, the absolutory cause is not applicable. So you destroy the property of your brother, malicious
mischief. Nagka rival silang magkapatid But the other brother is not living with the other brother or
separately, then the absolutory cause will not apply because the condition in Paragraph 3 is that they
should be living together.

Article 333 Adultery and Concubinage

333, Adultery. Who is liable for the crime adultery? Married women. But the requirement in adultery is
that the married woman should indulge in sexual intercourse with a man not her husband. Unlike in a
crime of concubinage which is committed by a married man, there are three ways to commit a crime of
concubinage. One is having sexual intercourse with a woman not his wife under scandalous
circumstances, the other one bringing a mistress of the conjugal dwelling and number 3 is for cohabiting
with a woman, with his mistress. Mas mahirap yata i-prove yung sa babae. Because adultery is having
sexual intercourse of a woman with a man other than her husband. Sa lalake madali. Bringing a mistress
to into the conjugal home, yari ka diyan. Sobra naman yon, may asawa ka tapos meron kang dadalhing
iba. Or cohabiting with a woman not your wife. The problem there is having sexual intercourse and under
scandalous circumstances. Having sexual intercourse with a woman, not the wife, scandalous na yan.
Natural lang naman yung scandalous circumstances. Should the sexual intercourse done in public
with the public viewing it with other persons viewing? Or must it be that sexual intercourse are done
openly? Minsan yung mga writers ng batas natin ano - But the Supreme Court interpreted that as they
thought you could mean to catch the man in the act of sexual intercourse. Ang interpretation ng Supreme
Court, ibinahay mo yung babae, you placed her in an apartment building, although you do not sleep
there regularly but you hold her every now and then. Regularly you go there and it is known by those
nearby, that you are a married man and that you also living with that girl, not your wife, yun daw
scandalous circumstances, because it is immoral, yun ang scandalous. Pero mas mahirap ang
babae, kasi ang babae you have to catch them in the act of sexual intercourse. But there are many
ways to catch a woman under sexual intercourse. Pag nanganak yan at hindi mo anak, yun that is
evidence. Ang problem kung di nanganak problema mo yan. Because if you saw your wife in the act of
sexual intercourse with the man, better kill both of them. Yun di ka liable under 247. Then under
exceptional circumstances, you will be liable for a penalty of destierro. If you want to catch them in the
act of sexual intercourse, immediately interrupt her, kill both of them.
Do you know that Viagra is now promoted by the church? Viagra is now being promoted by the church,
but do not tell them baka alisin ako sa pagtuturo. I received a text, Viagra and Cialis are now accepted by
the CBCP, Catholic Bishop Conference of the Philippines. They are now being promoted by the
church for the simple reason that it is consistent with their belief that there is resurrection after death.
There is resurrection after death.

Article 336 Acts of Lasciviousness

Now lets go to 335. 335 has been brought to crime against persons. So, we took that up. So, because
of
336, the acts of lasciviousness, you know already what are acts of lasciviousness. There is no intent to
lie down with a woman. It is merely a commission of lascivious acts, sufficient to satisfy the sexual lust of
the accused because if it is not to satisfy the sexual lust but merely to annoy then it becomes a
crime of unjust vexation.

Article 337 Qualified Seduction

337, thats a crime of qualified seduction. I told you already what is qualified seduction, when we took up
rape. The age of the victim must be between 12 and 18 of good reputation or the one physically
virgin, that sexual intercourse is done through abuse of confidence committed by those mentioned by the
law, domestic servant, priest, teachers and those who will influence over a woman. Except that, if the
one that is seduced is the daughter, under second Paragraph of 337, even if the daughter is more than
18 years of age or if the daughter is not of good reputation, the crime committed is qualified seduction.
So therefore,
the Paragraph 2 of 337, is an exception of the first paragraph. Because the requirements in Paragraph 1
are different from the requirements of Paragraph 2. Meron age bracket 12 and 18. Yung Paragraph 2 sa
father. Generally, the crime of qualified seduction cannot be committed against a woman who is a
prostitute. Unlike in the crime of rape, a prostitute can be a subject matter of a rape. But under qualified
seduction or even simple seduction, a prostitute cannot be the subject matter because the requirement is
virgin or of good reputation. Except if the victim is the daughter. Even if she is a prostitute if it
is committed by the father, qualified seduction yan under Paragraph 2. So do not have the wrong
notion, that the victim in the crime of qualified seduction is always a virgin and is always of good
reputation. She may be a prostitute, the offender is the father and the victim is the daughter.

Article 338 Simple Seduction

Now, simple seduction. The reason why the girl under 337 consented to sexual intercourse of carnal
knowledge is abuse of confidence.

S: Sir, with respect to that of the father and daughter, is there any instances like when a daughter is
adopted by somebody else? So this is

P: The law is very clear father. Biological father. Only the biological father will be liable, not the adoptive
father.

Now, in so far as Simple Seduction is concerned under 338, the reason why the woman consented to
carnal knowledge is deception. That is like estafa under 315 Paragraph 2. The deception should be
employed prior or simultaneous to the carnal knowledge. In other words, the reason why the
girl consented the carnal knowledge is the deceit employed by the man. Like what? The one that I told
you, promise of marriage. Sabi nya sige papakasalan kita. I will take care of you. Then the
woman consented, believing what the man said, simple seduction. But if the deceit was committed
after the sexual intercourse or the girl consented to sexual intercourse, and then the girl started crying
and then the man said, he consoled the woman, "never mind I will marry you" and so on then the girl
gave birth, the man did not appear anymore. No crime of simple seduction, because the deception took
place after sexual intercourse. Its like estafa prior or simultaneous.
Article 339 Acts of Lasciviousness with the Consent of the Offended
Party

And then, 339 Acts of Lasciviousness with the Consent of the Offended Party. So there are actually two
types of Acts of Lasciviousness. The Acts of Lasciviousness in 336 refers to 335. That means it should
have been a crime of rape but there was no penetration or slightest penetration, so, acts of
lasciviousness lang.

In Article 339, the Acts of Lasciviousness pertain to 337 or 338. In other words, the victim consented only
to lascivious acts. So, what took place in 337 and 338, it is merely lascivious acts where the woman
consented, then the crime is Acts of Lasciviousness in Article 339. If there is no carnal knowledge or
sexual intercourse, then 339 is applicable.

Articles 340 and 341

Now, Articles 340 and 341. If the victim is a minor under 340 or 341 then the law has been amended by
Republic Act 7610. But if the victim is not a minor RA 7610 is applicable. The Revised Penal Code is
applicable only when the victim is a minor.

Article 342 Forcible Abduction

342 for simple abduction, when the woman is abducted against her will, we could _. So what is the
purpose of the offender? To commit lascivious acts thats all. Nanliligaw, ayaw naman nung babae.
Siyempre pangit ka, then you waited for her outside of the building, and then took her against her
will, then tried to kiss her or you actually committed lascivious acts against her, thats a crime of forcible
abduction, under 342. But if the intent is to rape and rape is committed, there is no more forcible
abduction. The abduction of the woman by intimidation becomes the element of force or intimidation in
rape. That is required of the crime of rape. So therefore, lewd design does not include rape. Rape is not
done with lewd designs, this is more than your lewd designs. So if the purpose to take her against her
will and have sexual intercourse with her, then the crime is rape. The forcible abduction there
will be absorbed as an element of rape (force or intimidation). But you know, the case of Laraaga,
because from the time the women were taken and the two sisters were taken, the purpose of the
offenders in lying down with two women was not yet evident. Because what happened in that case is that
they were first taken against their will. Without any lewd designs and then later on, placed in a van and
then later on in a house and then later on they were raped. So the Supreme Court said, that is a crime of
kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape. Because it was not evident from the very beginning
if their intention was rape. They were raped actually while under detention and where their liberty was
deprived.

Now, if the purpose, however, is only to abduct her with lewd designs... So, there is already a
consummated crime of forcible abduction. But later on she was brought somewhere and then later on
raped, then the crime is forcible abduction with rape. It will be a complex crime because it is not evident
from the very beginning if the intent was to lie down. So if the forcible abduction is already committed
and then later on brought on another place and then raped, then the crime is forcible abduction with rape.
It was in the case of People vs. Desiree Garcia, its a 2003 case. Now, if a woman is raped three times,
whats the crime committed? On a crime of forcible abduction with rape, the woman was rape three
times. There will be three crimes committed. One is the crime of forcible abduction with rape, the
succeeding rape should be treated as 2 separate crimes of rape. The first rape will be complexed with
forcible abduction. The other 2 rapes will be separate crimes. Because it is only the first rape where
forcible abduction was committed in order to commit another crime.

Now, supposing the woman was raped twice under kidnapping and serious illegal detention. It was not
evident from the very beginning as to the purpose of the offender but she was kept, they deprived of her
liberty. While deprived of her liberty, the woman was raped twice. How many crimes are committed?
Only one crime. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape. Why? Because that is a special
complex crime. If it is a special complex crime, regardless of the number of rapes, it is only one crime
an indivisible crime. But because 342 is not a special complex crime, it is a complex crime under Article
48, then the succeeding rape shall be treated as separate for the crimes of rape. Like consented
abduction, it
is the same as the victim is less than 18 or more than 12, consents to the abduction, the woman is
physically a virgin. I mean, she has good reputation, that is consented abduction.

Article 344 Prosecution of the crimes of adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, rape and acts of
lasciviousness

Now, 344, 345 and 346. Probably we can read that together. What is important in 344, 'yung second,
third and the last paragraph. Now, you will find out that in the first paragraph, 'yung adultery at saka
concubinage, these are private crimes. It can be a subject matter of pardon. You can forgive. But
it cannot be extinguished by reason of marriage because in adultery and concubinage, married yung
mga yun. So, the effect of marriage is not an issue in adultery or concubinage, it is the pardon. Because
that is a private crime under Article 344 in relation to your Article 23 of the Revised Penal Code, that a
private crime, pardoned by the private offended party, can extinguish criminal liability for those crimes in
344.

Now, you read 344. Dun sa first part, first sentence, adultery and concubinage. That cannot be
extinguished by marriage because the offenders there are already married. On the second part,
nakalagay dun, what can be extinguished by marriage? Abduction, acts of lasciviousness and seduction,
and rape. But rape is no longer included. Rape is not supposed to be included in 344 because rape is no
longer a private crime. But what is the effect? In other words, if it is acts of lasciviousness, abduction,
seduction and the accused married the victim, then it will already extinguish the criminal liability including
the accomplices and accessories. Nakalagay sa last part of 344, including the accomplices and the
accessories. Now, that will now make a big problem. Why?

So, if in a crime of act lasciviousness, if there is an accomplice or accessory, and the accused
is pardoned by the private offended party, then the liability of the accomplices and accessories are
likewise extinguished. But supposing in the crime of rape, the rapist was married to the private
complainant. They got married but there are also accomplices and accessories or a charge because
probably one left the room and so on. So, there are accomplices and accessories. If the private
offended party now pardons the accused by marriage in other words, the accused gets married with
the private complainant. What will happen now with the accomplices and accessories? Will their liability
also be extinguished? Because under Article 344, the marriage of the private offended party and the
accused in the crime of acts of lasciviousness, seduction and abduction, the liabilities can be
extinguished, which will include the liability of accomplices and accessories. Paano 'yung rape? Rape is
no longer found in 344.

Now, the law that will now cover the crime of rape will be Article 266-C of Republic Act 8353. Nakalagay
dun sa 266-C under the first part, marriage by the accused and the private offended party
extinguished
'yung criminal liability under the first paragraph. The second paragraph of 266-C is a pardon by the wife.
That means marital rape. So, ang pardon ng private offended party, in so far as crime of rape is
concerned, is no longer 344 because 344 pertains to a private crime. And rape is no longer a private
crime. It is now found in Article 266-C. Will the marriage of the accused and the private offended party in
the crime of rape exonerate the accomplices and accessories? Will the extinction of the liability inure to
the benefit of the accomplices and accessories? No. They will be liable if it is a crime of rape because it
is now found in 266-C, crimes against persons. The pardon under 344 which also exonerates
accomplices and accessories is not carried over by 266-C. It only refers to a pardon by the wife and
marriage of the accused and the private offended party. It does not include the accessories or the
accomplices.

Article 345 Civil Liability of Persons Guilty of Crimes Against

Chastity
Now, 345 would be the effects of crime of rape, acknowledging of the child, and so on. So you just
read
345. 'Yung 345, ano ang dapat gawin? You have to acknowledge the child. It's your child to support.
But
you all heard, what is the decision of Supreme Court? You have now to prove that the date of conception
is consistent with the conception of the child. Hindi mahirap, madali lang yan. Bakit 'yung date
of conception should jive with the conception of the child? Eh kung may korposrasyon 'yun? In other
words, the girl has a boyfriend and probably they engaged in sexual intercourse as boyfriends and
girlfriends, and then the woman was raped by Mr. B. And then the woman gave birth. Almost the same.
Dapat DNA na lang. Subject her to DNA. Subject the child to DNA.
Article 346 Liability of Ascendants, Guardians, Teachers, or Other Persons Entrusted with the Custody of
the Offended Party

Then 346, what is important in 346 is the first part, liability of curators, teachers, guardians, ascendants in
the crime of rape. If the guardians, or the teachers, or the curators, or parents, or custodians of a victim
of a crime of rape are charged as accomplices in other words, they participated prior or simultaneous,
but their participation is not indispensable in the crime of rape they are therefore liable as accomplices.
Their penalty shall be that of a principal under express provision of 346. I think that's the only law where
the law recognizes that the offender is an accomplice, but the penalty is a principal, the penalty of a
principal, in Article 346. Matindi yan.

Articles 349-352

Now, bigamy, illegal marriages, I think you studied your illegal marriages in your Civil Law. A person who
is not authorized to solemnize a marriage is liable. A widowed woman is not supposed to marry within
the prescribed periods. Repeated marriages, 'yung within 300 days after your husband died. If you
get married within the 300-day period, the marriage is valid, but you are criminally liable. This is what we
find in this chapter.

Now in bigamy, you read the case of Manuel vs. People. This is a new doctrine because of the
amendment in your Civil Code. Kasi ang bigamy, you marry for the second time while the first marriage
is still subsisting, without the first marriage being declared void or without the husband being declared as
presumed dead.

Now, supposing the man got married. The husband has been absent for 20 years. No way to verify. In
other words, nobody knows that he is still alive. Ang nakakaalam lang 'yung lalaki. That's what happened
in Manuel. So after 20 years, the wife got married. Then after that, all of a sudden, the husband
appeared. So, she was charged with bigamy and then the woman put up the defense that under the Civil
Code, under the old law, wherein when you go to war, there is presumption of death, seven years or
more than seven years. You go to war, may presumption of death. But the problem with that woman, the
married woman, she did not go to court and ask the court to declare the husband as presumed dead.

Now, one of the defenses in bigamy is good faith. The best defense in bigamy is good faith. In other
words, you got married for the second time. What is your defense if the woman appears? Suddenly, the
former spouse appears. Ano ang defense mo? Good faith, hindi ba? How do you prove good faith? You
prove good faith by availing of the requirements of the law. You have to get a declaration of presumptive
death. So, if you believe that the first marriage is void or voidable, what are you supposed to do? You
file. You go to court and then have the first marriage declared as void or voidable. Because under the law
here, you also have to go to court and ask a declaration that the marriage is void. Hindi ba under the
present law? Oo, kina-kailangan yun, may declaration.

So therefore, if you got married, and then you have a judicial declaration that the marriage is voidable or
void, then you cannot be liable for bigamy, because you acted in good faith. Now, your husband has
been absent for 20 years. You got married, and then your husband appears. What is your defense that
the marriage is not bigamous? Ano ang defense mo? Of course, your defense should be good faith. How
will you prove now that you acted in good faith? Can you just go to the court and say, "Sir, my husband
has been absent for more than 20 years, and therefore I can marry?" That's not in good faith. You have
to get a declaration of presumptive death. That's required by law. So, sabi ng Supreme Court sa Manuel
vs. People, it was under the new Civil Code that there is a requirement that you have to go to get a
judicial declaration of presumptive death. If you do not get one, even if your husband has been absent
for more than 20 years, you did not act in good faith, and therefore liable for the crime of bigamy.

Na-convict ng bigamy. Now understood lang kasi noon, although that's what the law says under your
Civil Code. Will that amendment in the Civil Code affect the crime of bigamy? Hindi naman sinasabi sa
crime of bigamy. Ang sinasabi lang nyan, judicial declaration of presumption of death. Ang interpretation
ng Supreme Court, because under the old law, hindi kina-kailangan ng presumption of death. So, hindi
kina-
kailanganan ng presumption of death under the old law, then that should continue. Pero sabi ng
Supreme Court, "Hindi. Under the new law, kina-kailangan na." So, she was convicted of the crime of
bigamy, although the husband has been absent for more than 20 years. So, mabigat.

Libel

Then we go to libel. Anong importante sa libel?

1) Identification. The victim must be identified with certainty in a crime of libel. Hindi pwedeng, "Hoy,
yung class D. Meron isang estudyante dyan, panget, babaero yan, tatrantado yan, magnanakaw,
madaming mga babae yan." Walang libel yun because it cannot be identified. It may be Mr.
Dykimching. It can be Mr. Puno. Yun ang ibig-sabihin. So, in a crime of libel, that is the first one.
There is no need to mention the name in a crime of libel. What is only important is that based from
those printed or published, you can determine who is the main person mentioned there. Kagaya kung sa
atin, pag sinabi, "Hoy, yung isang justice dun magnanakaw," then you identified him. Pinakamatanda,
nagsasalamin, lahat-lahat, he can be identified. Matanda, hindi naman ako matanda. Lahat-lahat ng
description pointing to that. That is sufficient identification.

2) It must be imputation of a wrongdoing or a crime or even if it's not a crime or wrongdoing vice or
defect that will defame or that will besmirch the honor or reputation even to blacken the memory of a
dead person. So, dalawa 'yan. Imputation of a crime and the other one is vice or defect.

What you will have to determine is that there are two kinds of malice in the crime of libel. One is malice in
law, which is always presumed. What does that mean? It is always presumed. If you publish a libelous
article and it appears that the invitations are libelous, there is a presumption of malice. But that cannot
make the offender criminally liable of the crime of libel because he still has to prove the other malice,
which is malice in fact. And what is malice in fact? That he was ill motivated. That there is an act of crime
against the person. Nag-away sila. Ganun ha? Ganun. The one that is more important is malice in fact. If
you cannot prove malice in fact, then there is no crime of libel, if it's only malice in law.

What is the other thing? You should memorize 354. What are the privileged communications? What do
you mean by privileged communication? In a privileged communication, even if there is malice in law, if
you are covered by privileged communications, there is no crime committed. And the privileged
communication would either be absolute or qualified. 'Yung absolute, kahit anong pinag-dadaldal nila,
kahit may sinabi ka na, "Ikaw ang pinaka-masamang tao sa mundo." Walang libel yun. 'Yung mga
speeches ng congressman, senator. The absolute privileged communication is found in Paragraph 2 of
Article 354. Fair reporting of judicial, executive, legislative proceedings. Fair reporting, ha. What does
that mean? There is a trial ongoing in the Sandiganbayan about the former president. Pag ni-rereport mo
anong nangyayari convicted sya, plunder, ganito walang libel 'yun. Why? Because that is
fair reporting of a judicial proceeding. What is happening in Congress? You reported what's happening in
the investigation by the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee. Kahit ano o sinong itinuturo dun, babae yan,
babae ni Abalos, kung anong sinabi dun, absolute yan, because that is fair reporting. As long as you
do not make conclusions or any remarks, absolute 'yun. Or somebody delivered a privilege speech by a
senator, Congress, whatever he says, kahit na pinaka-masama ang sinabi nya, walang libel yun. That is
absolute, which is different from a privilege, which is not absolute or qualified under the first paragraph.

Yung under the first paragraph that is a privileged communication wherein it applies when there is
a lawful duty or a moral duty or exercise of a legal right. Example, 'yung mga prediction sa courtroom.
You are charged with a crime of let's say, theft, and then you submitted your counter affidavit. You said,
"O, ikaw magnanakaw." That's privileged communication because that is exercise of the right. But that
privileged communication under Paragraph 1 can be waived. Like what? It's a case in 2006. What
happened there is that, may kaso ang association against a lawyer. The members of the association lost
in that case. So, that is supposed to be covered by the privileged communication under Paragraph 1
because it is an exercise of a legal right. It's your legal right to question. Ang ginawa ng losing party, he
wrote a letter to Atty. Pieras. I don't think that is the Jose Pieras that I read in an obituary. Pero nakalagay
dun, Atty. Jose Pieras. Baka sya 'yun, a. So what the accused did was to write a letter to Atty. Pieras. He
placed it in an envelope. Ang nilagay dun, "Atty. Pieras, Gago. You are not a good lawyer." Sabi
dun,"
Your English is carabao, inutil." Ang daming sinabi dun. Lahat ng adjectives. Magnanakaw, tarantado,
lahat-lahat. And then on the last part, he signed in the name of Sarah.

Now, the problem is that that is a privileged communication because that's what he feels about the
services that he received. But the problem is that he put it inside the envelope. If that letter was
sealed and for him only to write, there is no element of publication. Because in publication, there must
be somebody who should read the article.

So, if nobody read it and then Mr. Pieras read it, the privileged communication still applies.
Why? Because it is only between the two. But you know why the writer became liable? The writer put
copy furnished. Copy furnished, iba-ibang parties dun. Sabi ng Supreme Court, you waived the
privileged communication and he is therefore liable because that is not absolute communication that is a
qualifying privilege.

Now, the other one is the case of Soliven and Borjal where they were convicted by the RTC, and
acquitted by the Supreme Court. Ang question dun is, whether that privileged communication under 354
extends to columnists. Yung columnist, hindi fair reporting 'yan. Ang fair reporting of proceedings in
executive, legislative, and judicial. When a writer writes a column and then he starts maligning persons in
the column, actually that writings are not covered by 354. Walang nakalagay sa 354. Hindi fair reporting
yan because you are not reporting of a proceeding. You are actually making your opinions.
Question: Can you be liable for a crime of libel? Ang sinabi ng Supreme Court dun, you can invoke
privileged communication but not under 354. Inextend ng Supreme Court. You can still invoke privileged
communication under the freedom of speech in the Constitution. So, sabi ng Supreme Court that is the
best privileged communication. That is the greatest privileged communication. Ang sabi ko, kung ganun
pala yung intention ng Revised Penal Code, eh dapat ini-include dun eh, wala na dun eh. But there are
two conditions there. You can invoke privileged communication or the constitutional provision on freedom
of speech when:

1. The statements are addressed against public officers.

2. The columns are based on established facts and circumstances.

In order words, there should be basis of making those writings and those writings should be
against public officials because if the writings are against private individual then that decision may
not apply. Why? Because there is a higher degree of tolerance in cases of these writings in so far as
government officials are concerned. In fact those are all, I think, is basically yung proof of truth in a crime
of libel. In proof of truth in a crime of libel, you can put up as a defense proof of truth in the crime of libel.
But the degree of truth as a defense will differ if the victim is a government official or a private individual.
Pag government official, when it is imputation of crime, the degree of tolerance is higher than the private
individual. You do not need to prove truth. Kasi imputation of a crime, that can be defended by saying
that he was charged in a court, that is sufficient. You cannot be liable. But when you impute a
crime committed against a private individual, a proof of truth is very hard to prove then therefore you
may be liable for libel, unlike when you are the government official. In other words, pag government
official kasi, kawawa ang government official. Mas mahaba ang pasensiya ng batas kasi maramingkasi
government official ka eh.

And then the other one that you will have to remember also in the crime of libel is that when the
appearances when you speak of libel it is not only in writing that is covered by the libel. It may also
include appearances in any radio programs or television, audio tape or orally. So, sa question ng bar
noon, supposing I uttered the powerful statement in a radio program and that was done orally, what is
the crime committed? I was interviewed in the radio program and television program, and then I said,
"Mr. Cais, magnanakaw, babaero, tarantado, gago." Lahat na sinabi mo. Question: Is that a crime of
libel or oral defamation? Because in oral defamation it is done orally. That is a crime of libel, not oral
defamation by express provision of law.

Now, also in oral defamation, there must be a witness. The same here, that there must be a statement,
imputation of a vice or a crime, the same. The only difference is that 'pag ikaw anuhin mo si Mr.
Zosa,
frontal na inano mo yun ang oral defamation. But if I slap him in the face in the front of others, that is a
crime of slander by deed.

So, in other words if there is no publication in a crime of libel, no witnesses in oral defamation, no
witnesses in slander by deed, the crime is not libel, the crime is not oral defamation, it will be another
crime because you cannot defame the honor of another if nobody read it. How can there be imputation
of a crime made against the other in order to besmirch his honor kung wala naman nakabasa, wala
naman nakakita. So, that's the number one element, there must be publication or witnesses. Now, if
there are no witnesses in the slander by deed, what is the crime? It will depend. If there is an injury, then
ill treatment. If there is none, it will become unjust vexation.

Now, in oral defamation, if there are no witnesses then he will be liable for the crime of what? Under
intriguing against honor, 364. Even the libel, nobody read it but what you had defamed intrigued the
honor of somebody else, then that is intriguing against honor under Article 364.

Lastly, who has jurisdiction to try libel cases or what's the proper venue in libel cases? Tatlo yan. It will
depend on who is the private complainant. If the complainant is a private individual then it would be
on the place where the libelous materials was first printed and published, or at the residence of
the complainant.

Now, if it is a government official then the rule is that it should be in the place where it was first printed or
published, and number 2, where he was holding his office. If he was holding his office in Manila, then it
may be in Manila. But if he is holding an office in any place in the Philippines, then there the
place. Dalawa ang rules dyan. In depend on private individual or a public official. Marami ng cases ang
Supreme Court nyan eh. Maraming nagkakamali.

Merong isang professor dito noon who was charged with a crime of libel by a law student. I do not know if
you have heard about that. Si Catherine Yu? So, he was charged. The girl is from Bacolod City and then
the girl filed the case in the Bacolod for a crime of libel. Then the professor who was teaching
remedial law in UP and Ateneo filed a case of certiorari in the Court of Appeals. He said that there was
wrong venue because allegedly the libelous materials were first written and published here in Manila.
But the private complainant chooses to file the case in Bacolod City, went to the Court of Appeals,
syempre talo siya because since she is a private individual, it's either the place where the article is first
published or printed or where the private complainant residences. Takot siya dun sa Bacolod mai-file
eh. So, ayaw niya roon, doon nag-file. Then later on, he lost in the case then went to the Supreme Court
to ask for a change of the venue under the constitution but his life was not in danger. So, anong change
of venue? Di ba sa murder cases, kidnapping, yung mga heinous crimes. Eh, ano ang libel dun? But later
on, I think they already settled that. I think he gave a public apology in writing yata. You know that? Nag
public apology. But do you know about the girl, because they're rich family, she went to Harvard after the
bar. A good friend of mine. Ako good friend ko yung babae. The boyfriend is a son of the judge so I know
the family. But this case went to my wife and he lost there. Anyway, tapos na.

RA 4200 Anti Wire-Tapping Law

What about wire tapping for R.A. 4200? What are you supposed to do in wire tapping? Yung wire tapping
only covers those that are included the law. What is prohibited is the use of a gadget in order to hear the
conversation. Question: You use a telephone. You keep track the conversation of two persons through
the use of an extension line. Nakinig ka through extension lines. Is that covered? That is already decided
by the Supreme Court. Not covered.

Supposing there are two persons who are conversing or members of the board of directors. All of the
members of the board of directors brought a tape recorder and then recorded the conversation of those
attending the meeting without the knowledge of the other board members. He was the only one who
knew because he was the one who brought a tape recorder. The other board members did not know and
then recorded the conversation. Is that covered by 4200? Yes, that is covered. That is now a new
doctrine. Unlike before, you can only be covered when an outside recorded a private conversation
without the
knowledge of those involved in the conversation. But under the present doctrine now, even those who
are involved in the private conversation, if they recorded the private conversation without the
knowledge of the others, liable under 4200.

What about cell phones? Is cell phone included in 4200? I was listening in the argument in the Supreme
Court about that Garci tape, and then there was one justice who gave the opinion that is not covered
because cell phone is not included in 4200. It is not included in the similar device.

Cell phone is included. Why? Because if the conversation through the cell phone is recorded by a tape
recorder, it is not the cell phone that is the subject matter, it is the recorder eh.

So, if you record a conversation between two or more persons without a cell phone, hindi ba
covered yun? Now, if therefore you record a conversation between two persons through telephone, hindi
ba covered yun? Now, if you record a conversation through cell phones, you use a tape recorder. Yung
tape recorder ang covered. Yung cell phone is not the one covered. The cell phone now is the means of
communication. What is prohibited is the eavesdropping on a conversation through the use of
any gadget. Kaya covered yun, ang cell phone.

Sir, what if what was used was the recording feature of the cell
phone?

You are included there because that is now included in the term. With any similar device is included. But
under 4200 it may be allowed or authorized, the wire tapping, if you get a court order. There must be a
court order. But only limited to those crimes enumerated in 4200. Hindi naman lahat ng crimes eh, yung
mga heinous crimes lang, kidnapping, murder, rape, included yan. Dangerous drugs, illegal possession
of fire arms, or other heinous crimes covered yan. You can get an authority.

However, if you get an authority under 4200, all those items that are confiscated by the seizing officers
should be surrendered to the court. It cannot be opened until a case is filed. Hindi gaya ng search
warrant, di ba search warrant. The items confiscated will now be in the possession of the
arresting officers if there is consent. Sa 4200, hindi. Sealed lahat yan pati tape. Nobody is allowed to
open until a case is filed and until it is used. Ganun ang 4200 hindi basta-basta.

Ang problema dun, there was a case involving me. Victor Corpus applied for authority to wiretap a cell
phone. So, that's the height of the Las Palmas kidnapping. Yung dalawang mag-asawa. He
applied before me then he wanted that I will allow the wiretapping of cell phone conversations between
and among Abu Sabaya and the other Abu Sayaf in Mindanao. And then I asked him, how do you
wiretap cell phones? Then sabi niya, they will wiretap it through the cell sites, kasi may cell sites. Alam
mo naman si Victor Corpus, very imposing. Nobody talked to me, but at the end of the day I denied him.
I denied his request kaya galit na galit sa akin' yan because under 4200, the RTC Judge has only
jurisdiction to issue authority to wiretap and enforce only within his territorial jurisdiction. So, my
argument is that a cell phone is mobile. You can go anywhere, so I did not have any jurisdiction.
Because of that, he did not know it. It was Justice Bersamin who called me because he was on other
side. All the lawyers of Smart, I think, or Globe, they were waiting outside waiting for my resolution. Had
I granted it, there's potentially disaster in their business because every conversation could be heard
there. Hindi ko naman naisip yun, sabi ko lang,"Denied. I dont have jurisdiction." Nagalit pa sa akin. But
later on, he went to apply in Zamboanga City, it was also denied because of my reason kasi that's the
problem if you authorize. In cell phone kasi mobile yan eh and the jurisdiction of the judge that issued
this can only be enforced within territorial jurisdiction. It cannot be enforced outside of your territorial
jurisdiction. So, I became friends with Globe and Smart, but now they are my enemies. Bakit? Nago-over
charge. So, Sun nalang kayo.

Article 365 Imprudence and Negligence

In 365, Reckless Imprudence. Be careful with a decision of the Supreme Court in 2006. Di ba kung
reckless imprudence, I told you, the act must be lawful. But you only neglect to perform the required
negligence of the good father of a family. There is a case in 2006, attended by Justice Chico-Nazario
where there was a quarrel among boys. And after the quarrel, he threw a stone at the back of the boy,
sa
likod. Without the intention of real injury. There was no external injury, but all of the sudden, the boy
suffered from fever. He was suffering from fever. So, he was brought to the hospital. They traced the
cause of the illness of the boy. The spinal column was affected by the throwing of a stone. Naapektohan
ang spinal column niya and later on the boy died. So the question is what is the liability of the one who
threw the stone? Sabi ng Supreme Court, reckless imprudence. Hindi puwedeng reckless imprudence
yun. Why? Is throwing a stone lawful? It should have a different if he was playing a joke because there
was no intent. But you know, he was not playing joke, he threw a stone. The act was unlawful from the
very beginning. He should then be liable for intentional crime of homicide under the principle
enunciated in Paragraph 1 of Article 4 that you are liable for the penalty although the act done is different
from what he really intended to commit and therefore entitled to a mitigating circumstance of lack of
intention to commit. So, he maybe wrong. But sabi ng Supreme Court reckless imprudence.

Now, the other thing in 365 is that, 365 is considered as a complex crime under the case of the Isabelita
Reodica versus Court of Appeals. So, for example you bumped a vehicle. One died, one suffered slight
physical injuries. The vehicle that you bumped suffered total damage. So there are three effects of your
reckless imprudence: slight physical injury, homicide, and damage to property. What is the crime
committed? Is there one crime or there are two crimes?

Now, probably in your study of criminal law 1 that is only one crime because what is punished in
reckless imprudence is not the result of recklessness. What is punished is not the result. What is
punished is the act of recklessness. So, therefore, you cannot separate one from the other because the
injuries, or the death, or the damage to property came from one act of reckless imprudence and
therefore that is one crime. Ang sabi ng Supreme Court sa Isabelita Reodica versus Court of Appeals,
the Supreme Court split into two crimes under the principle of complex crime. Why?
Why did they split?

Slight physical injury is a light felony because that is punished by aresto menor or 200-peso fine. Slight
physical injury is a light felony. Homicide is a less grave felony or grave felony. Damage to property
likewise is less grave felony because of total damage of vehicle. So, therefore, you have one
grave felony, the other one is less grave felony and light felony. Because it is a complex crime under
Article 48, ang sabi ng Supreme Court, there are two crimes committed. One will be reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide and causing damage to property. That is one crime. And the other is reckless
imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries. Why? Because slight physical injury cannot be complex
with grave or less grave felonies under Article 48. That's what they did in Isabelita Reodica versus Court
of Appeals.

As I always tell my students, when the crime is reckless imprudence, start the denomination of the crime
with reckless imprudence. Do not start it with homicide. Pag sinabi niya homicide through reckless
imprudence, it's as if what is punished with the homicide. Tingnan mo yung pagkakaiba? Reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide at saka homicide through reckless imprudence, malaking pagkakaiba
niyan. When it is reckless imprudence, then denominate the crime as: Start first with reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide, reckless imprudence resulting in physical injuries, reckless
imprudence causing damage to property. That's the way to denominate it.

4D 2007 1