Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 9

TITLE ELEVEN

CHAPTER ONE

ART. 333. ADULTERY


 ELEMENTS OF ADULTERY:
a. That the woman is married (even if marriage subsequently declared void);
b. That she has sexual intercourse with a man not her husband;
c. That as regards to the man with whom she has sexual intercourse, he must know her to
be married.
 The offended party must be legally married to the offender at the time of the commission of
the crime.
 EACH SEXUAL INTERCOURSE CONSTITUTES A CRIME of adultery. Thus, the crime of
adultery is not a continuing offense, but rather, an instantaneous crime. Which means, it is
consummated and completed at the moment of carnal union.
 The essence of adultery is the violation of marital vow.
 If the person guilty of adultery committed the offense while being abandoned without
justification of the offended spouse, the penalty lower in degree shall be imposed.
 With regards to the man (whether single or married), to be convicted of adultery, he must
have the knowledge that the woman with whom he had sexual intercourse is married,
which is an essential element. However, a married man who is not liable for adultery,
because he did not know that the woman is married, may be held liable for concubinage.
 EFFECT OF PARDON (REQUISITES:)
a. The pardon must come before the institution of the criminal prosecution; and
b. Both offenders must be pardoned by the offended party.
 Under the law, there cannot be an accomplice in the crime of adultery, although in fact,
there can be such an accomplice.

ART. 334. CONCUBINAGE


 3 WAYS OF COMMITTING CONCUBINAGE:
a. By keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling; or
b. By having sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who
is not his wife; or
c. By cohabiting with her in any other place
 ELEMENTS:
a. That the man must be married
b. That he committed any of the acts enumerated above
c. That as regards to the woman, she must know him to be married.
 Like adultery, concubinage is a violation of the marital vow,
 The offender must be a married man. The woman becomes liable only when she knows
him to be married prior to the commission of the crime.
 A married man is not liable for concubinage for mere sexual relations with a woman not his
wife.
 Scandalous circumstances are not necessary to make a husband guilty of concubinage by
keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling.
 CONJUGAL DWELLING refers to the home of the husband and wife even if the wife
happens to be temporarily absent on any account.
 It is only when the mistress is kept elsewhere (outside of the conjugal dwelling) that
“scandalous circumstances” become an element of the crime.
 THE SCANDAL PRODUCED BY THE CONCUBINAGE OF A MARRIED MAN OCCURS
WHEN:
a. He and his mistress live in the same room of a house
b. They appear together in public
c. Performs acts in sight of the community which gives rise to criticism and general
protest among the neighbors.
 In the third way of committing the crime, mere cohabitation is sufficient. Proof of
scandalous circumstances is not necessary.
 COHABIT – means to dwell together, in the manner of husband and wife, for some periods
of time for unlawful intercourse. Thus, there is no concubinage if a married man is surprised
in the act of sexual intercourse with a woman not his wife in a hotel.
 A married person who keeps a mistress in an apartment furnished by him is not guilty of
concubinage if he does not live or sleep with her in the same apartment.
 Adultery is more severely punished than concubinage because the former makes possible
the introduction of another’s blood into the family that the offended husband may have
another man’s son bearing his (husband) name and receiving support from him.

CASE DIGEST
PILAPIL V. SOMERA 174 SCRA 563

FACTS: The petitioner, Filipina citizen, Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil, and private respondents Erich
Ekkehard Geiling, a German national, were married before the Registrar of Births,
Marriages, and Deaths in Germany on September 7, 1979. However, due to some
circumstances, the two got divorced on January 15, 1986 in Germany, after having a child
on April 20, 1980. The child was given under the custody of the petitioner. However, just
more than five months after the issuance of the divorce decree, on June 27, 1986, the
private respondent filed two complaints for adultery before the city of Manila, alleging that,
while still married to the petitioner, the latter had an affair with men named William Chia
and Jesus Chua in 1982 and 1983, respectively.

ISSUE: Whether the petitioner be adjudged guilty of adultery even if she is no longer married to the
private respondent, when the case is filed after the divorce decree took effect and the act
alleged to the petitioner is committed while the two are still married.

DECISION: The private respondent, Erich Geiling, is no longer the husband of the petitioner. He has
no standing to sue the petitioner in the case since by virtue of the divorce decree filed in
Germany, which was honoured in Philippine court, the two got totally separated. Thus,
Geiling is no longer a husband of Pilapil, but rather, a private person. Under the law, it is
the offended spouse who should file the case, nobody else. But in this instance, it is not.
The court then decided to dismiss the case.
CHAPTER TWO
Section One

ART. 335. RAPE (WHEN AND HOW COMMITTED)


 Article 335 has been repealed by R.A. No. 8353, otherwise known as the “Anti-Rape Law of
1997” which took effect on October 22, 1997. As a result, RAPE is now crime against persons
and no longer crimes against chastity.
 Under the new law, RAPE IS COMMITTED;
a. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances:
1.a. Through force, threat, or intimidation;
1.b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
1.c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
1.d. When the offended party is under twelve years of age or is demented, even
though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present
b. By aby person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof,
shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another persons’ mouth
or anal orifice, or any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another
person
 ART. 266-A and ART. 266-B further explains the crime of rape. The crime of rape is
enumerated twice in the Revised Penal Code.

ART. 336. ACT OF LASCIVIOUSNESS


 ELEMENTS;
a. That the offender commits any acts of lasciviousness of lewdness.
b. That the act of lasciviousness is committed against a person of either sex
c. That it is done under any of the following cricumstances:
c.1. By using force or intimidation;
c.2. When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c.3. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority’
c.4. When the offended party is under 12 years of age or is demented.
 LEWD – obscene, lustful, indecent, lecherous. It signifies the form of immorality which has
relation to moral impurity; or which is carried on a wanton manner.
 Embracing, kissing and holding girl’s breast is act of lasciviousness if tainted by lewd designs.
Otherwise, unjust vexation only.
 Lover’s embraces and kisses are not acts of lasciviousness.
 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ABUSE AGAINST CHASTITY (ART 246) AND CRIMES AGAINST
CHASTITY (ART 336):
ARTICLE 246 ARTICLE 336
Committed by a public officer, and The offender, in majority of cases, is
that a mere immoral or indecent a private individual, and it is
proposal made earnestly and necessary that some actual act of
persistently is sufficient. lasciviousness should have been
executed by the offender.
 ATTEMPTED RAPE VS. ACT OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
ATTEMPTED RAPE ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
The lascivious acts are but the The lascivious acts are themselves
preparatory acts to commit the crime the final objective sought by the
of rape. offender.
The acts performed by the offender There is no intent to have sexual
clearly indicate that his purpose was intercourse.
to lie with the offended woman.
 Desistance of the offender in the commission of attempted rape constitute acts of
lasciviousness.
 THERE IS NO CRIME OF ATTEMPTED OR FRUSTRATED ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS.
This is because from the moment the offender performs all the elements necessary for the
existence of the felony, he actually attains his purpose and, from that moment, all the essential
elements of the offense have been accomplished.
 If the act of kissing, embracing and touching the offender’s breast and private organs is only by
accident or merely to satisfy a “silly whim”, the act is just unjust vexation. Otherwise, acts of
lasciviousness.

CASE DIGEST
PEOPLE v SANICO GR 208469

FACTS: The accused-appellant Samuel “Tiw-tiw” Sanico was convicted of one count of rape and acts
of lasciviousness by the Court of Appeals. Sanico now filed an appeal for certiorari in the
Supreme Court.

The accussed-appellant live near the house of the offended party AAA, where her (AAA)
mother, BBB, is a cook, and her father, CCC, is a “trisikad” driver. AAA was only more than
12 years of age, but under 13 at the time of the acts complained of were allegedly
committed by the accused-appellant. The offended party claims that the accused-appellant
raped her for several times, but she endured the harrowing experience in silence due to the
latter’s threat to kill her. Until on April 19, 2006, at around 1:00 p.m., AAA was napping in a
room with her niece. Just then, the accused-appellant entered the room, held AAA tightly,
pulled up her clothes, mashed her breast, and inserted his penis into AAA’s vagina despite
the repeated fighting of the latter. Her father, CCC, was just sleeping in another room at that
time, but out of fear, AAA kept quit. Being merely made up of woods, the house shook,
which caused CCC to woke-up, however, lost consciousness for a while when caught the
accused-appellant performing the lascivious acts against AAA. This gives the opportunity for
the accused-appellant to flee. According to the examination by Dr. Orais, medico-legal
officer, on AAA, the latter have suffered from sexual abuse and her hymen was lacerated.

On the other hand, the accused-appellant denies the allegation and claims that AAA, tries to
search the formers pocket for money while he was asleep on the sala of AAA’s house after
he and CCC drink. The accused-apellant, in turn, touched AAA’s chest and asked the latter
to remove her short pants, which she obeyed. As the accused-appellant was touching AAA’s
breast, CCC woke up from sleep and upon seeing what was taking place, CCC got a bolo to
hack the accused-appellant. However, the latter escaped. Sanico testified that he had never
inserted his penis on AAA’s vagina and only touched the victim’s chest because she initiated
it.

ISSUE: Whether or not the accused-appellant raped AAA when the prosecution failed to prove
beyond reasonable doubt the allegations against him.

DECISION: By taking the testimonies of the offended party truthful and sincere, the Supreme Court
affirm the CA’s verdict convicting the accussed-appellant of the charges against him of one
count of rape and acts of lasciviousness. The penalty, however, set by the CA, was modified
by the Supreme Court.

ART. 337. QUALIFIED SEDUCTION


 TWO CLASSES OF QUALIFIED SEDUCTION:
a. Seduction of a virgin over 12 years of age and under 18 years of age by certain
persons, such as a person in authority, priest, teacher, etc; and
b. Seduction of a sister by her brother, or descendant by her ascendant, regardless of her
age or reputation.
 ELEMENTS OF QUALIFIED SEDUCTION OF A VIRGIN:
a. That the offended party is a virgin, which is presumed if she is unmarried and of good
reputation.
b. That she must be over 12 yeasrs of age but under 18 years of age.
c. That the offender had sexual intercourse with her.
d. That there is abuse of authority, confidence or relationship on the part of the offender.
 WHO COULD BE THE OFFENDERS IN QUALIFIED SEDUCTION?
1. Those who abused their authority:
a. Person in public authority
b. Guardian
c. Teacher
d. Person who, in any capacity, is entrusted with the education or custody of the
woman seduced.

2. Those who abused confidence reposed in them:


a. Priest
b. House servant
c. Domestic

3. Those who abused their relationship:


a. Brother who seduced his sister
b. Ascendant who seduced his descendant
 If the woman is married and the offender knows it, having sexual intercourse with her is
ADULTERY.
 If the victim is less than 12 years of age, the crime is RAPE. But if the victim is over 18 years
of age, and there is no force or intimidation, or the woman is not unconscious or otherwise
deprived of reason, there is NO CRIME at all.
 There MUST be SEXUAL INTERCOURSE in qualified seduction. If there is no sexual
intercourse and only acts of lewdness are performed, the crime is ACT OF
LASCIVIOUSNESS under Art. 339.
 DECEIT is not an element of qualified seduction.
 in qualified seduction by seducing a sister or descendant, virginity is not required and she may
be 18 years of age. Relationship, however, must be by consanguinity but need not be
legitimate. If the sister or descendant is under 12 years of age, the crime would be RAPE. If
she is married and over 12 years of age, it would be ADULTERY.

CASE DIGEST
A. PEOPLE V. FONTANILLA 23 SCRA 1227

FACTS: On or about September 1960, victim Fe Castro, aged 15 and virgin, was brought by her
mother to the house of the accused, Mariano Fontanilla and his second wife, Magdalena
Copio, sister of Fe’s mother, to serve as a helper. One night in September, just a week after
Fe arrived at their home, Fontanilla intruded into her bedroom and consummated the first
sexual intercourse. Prior to this, the accused had made amorous overtures and advances
towards the victim. The accused succeeded in having carnal knowledge of the victim
repeatedly for about three months from September to December. The accused made to her
during the day when his wife was away and at night when the latter was already asleep. Fe
repeatedly yielded to the carnal desires of the accused, as she was induced by his promises
of marriage and frightened by his acts of intimidation. Their intimacies lasted for almost
three months until her aunt, the wife of the accused, caught them in flagrante on the kitchen
floor. The following day, the victim returned to her parents and revealed everything to her
mother. The accused denied all of these allegations because Fe locked her room at night
and during the day, he was out in the farm. In addition, the accused’s sexual capabilities had
waned considerably because he was already 52 years old at the time, thus the promise of
marriage is impossible.

ISSUE: The municipal trial court found the accused, Mariano Fontanilla guilty of qualified seduction.
Whether or not the verdict against him is true.

DECESION: The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court. It is settled that deceit,
although not need to be an element of qualified seduction, does not need to be proved or
established. Deceit is replaced by abuse of confidence. The seduction of a virgin over
twelve and under eighteen years of age, committed by any persons enumerated in Art 337,
“is constitutive of the crime of qualified seduction…even though no deceit intervenes or even
when such carnal knowledge was voluntary on the part of the virgin, because in such case,
the law takes for granted the existence of the deceit as an integral element of the said
crimes and punishes it with greater severity than it does the simple seduction……taking into
account the abuse of confidence on the part of the culprit, an abuse of confidence which
implies deceit or fraud”.

B. PEREZ v. CA 168 SCRA 236

FACTS: Petitioner Eleuterio Perez was initially charged with consented abduction in the Court of First
Instance (CFI) of Pampanga. Perez plead not guilty, but the trial merits ensured and a
judgement of conviction was rendered against Perez. On appeal, the CA reversed and
acquitted Perez of the crime of consented abduction. However, subsequent to petitioner’s
acquittal, complainant Yolanda Mendoza filed another criminal complaint against Perez, but
this time, is for qualified seduction. The petitioner filed a motion to quash involving double
jeopardy.

ISSUE: Whether or not subsequent filing of the case in the form of qualified seduction after acquittal
to consented abduction constitutes double jeopardy.

DECESION: The Supreme Court said NO. In the case at bar, the issue posed by the petitioner
relates to the identity of the two offenses of consented abduction and qualified seduction.
While it is true that the two offenses for which the petitioner was charged arose from the
same facts, this, however, does not preclude the filing of another information against him if
from those two facts, two distinct elements arose.

A single act may be an offense against two statutes and if each statutes requires proof of an
additional fact, which the others does not, and acquittal or conviction under either statute
does not exempt the defendant from prosecution and conviction under the other. The plea of
double jeopardy cannot therefore be accorded merit, as the two indictments are perfectly
distinct in points of law, however, closely they may appear to be connected in fact.

ART. 338. SIMPLE SEDUCTION


 ELEMENTS:
1. That the offended party is over 12 years of age and under 18.
2. That she must be of good reputation, single or widow.
3. That the offender had sexual intercourse with her.
4. That it is committed by means of deceit.
 The offended girl must be over 12 and under 18 years of age. If she is under 12 years old, the
crime is RAPE, even if the offender succeeds in having sexual intercourse with her by means
of deceit. However, even if by deceit, the offender had sexual intercourse to a victim over 18
yrs. Of age, but without using force or intimidation, or she is not unconscious or otherwise
deprived of reason, THERE IS NO CRIME.
 Willingness of the offender to marry the victim presupposes deceit and thus, guilty of simple
seduction.
 If a woman under 18 yrs. of age but over 12, agreed to a sexual intercourse with a man who
promised to give her precious jewelry, and the man never fulfils it, THERE IS NO
SEDUCTION. The woman proves she is of loose morals – high class prostitute.
 The crime of seduction is not a continuing crime since a woman cannot lose her virginity twice.

ART. 339. ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS WITH THE CONSENT OF THE OFFENDED PARTY

 ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender commits acts of lasciviousness/lewdness.
2. That the acts are committed upon a woman who is virgin or single or widow of good
reputation, under 18 yrs. of age but over 12, or a sister or descendant regardless of her
age or reputation.
3. That the offender accomplishes the acts by abuse of authority, confidence, relationship,
or deceit.
 MALE CANNOT BE THE OFFENDED PARTY in this crime. Unlike in Art. 336, Art. 339 does
not mention “persons of either sex” as the offended party.
 In order that the crime of acts of lasciviousness with the consent of the offended party be
committed, it is necessary that the crime is committed under circumstances which would make
it qualified or simple seduction had there been sexual intercourse.
 The phrase “with consent of the offended party” means the offended party may have
consented to the acts of lasciviousness being performed by the offender on her, but the
consent is obtained by abuse of authority, confidence or relationship by means of deceit.
 ART. 336 compared to ART. 339
ART. 336. Acts of Lasciviousness ART. 339. Acts of lasciviousness
with the consent of the offended
party
The acts committed under The acts of lasciviousness are
circumstances which had there committed under the
been carnal knowledge, would circumstances which had there
amount to rape. been carnal knowledge, would
amount to either qualified or simple
seduction.
Both are acts of lasciviousness

ART. 340. CORRUPTION OF MINORS


 This article punishes any person who promote or facilitate the prostitution or corruption of
persons under age to satisfy the lust of another. Therefore, one who casts for his own ends is
not punishable under this article.
 It is not necessary that the unchaste acts shall have been done. What the law punishes is the
act of a pimp who facilitates the corruption of, and not the performance of unchaste acts upon
the minor. A mere proposal will consummate the offense.
 The victim under this article are persons below 21 yrs. of age. However, he/she must be of
good reputation, not a prostitute or corrupted person.
ART. 341. WHITE SLAVE TRADE
 ACTS PENALIZED AS WHITE SLAVE TRADE:
a. Engaging in the business of prostitution
b. Profiling by prostitution
c. Enlisting the services of women for the purpose of prostitution.
 One of the three above-mentioned acts is sufficient to constitute the offense.
 A person engaged in the business of prostitution need not be the owner of the house.
 The presence of the maintainer or manager of a house of ill-repute at the time of a raid or an
arrest or while illicit traffic is being conducted is not a condition to a criminal prosecution
against such manager or maintainer.

Вам также может понравиться