Article 260. Responsibility of Participants in a Duel Acts punished 1. Killing one s adversary in a duel; 2.

Inflicting upon such adversary physical injuries; 3. Making a combat although no physical injuries have been inflicted. Persons liable 1. The person who killed or inflicted physical injuries upon his adversary, or b oth combatants in any other case, as principals. 2. The seconds, as accomplices. Penalty: n RT = if he kills his adversary n Penalty for physical injuries = if only inflicted PI n AMayor = no PI (if inflicted only slight PI, penalized with AMenor) Duel = a formal or regular combat previously consented to by two parties in the presence of two or more seconds of lawful age on each side, who make the selecti on of arms and fix all the other conditions of the fight to settle some antecede nt quarrel. Article 261. Challenging to a Duel Acts punished 1. Challenging another to a duel; 2. Inciting another to give or accept a challenge to a duel; 3. Scoffing at or decrying another publicly for having refused to accept a chall enge to fight a duel. Penalty: PC min Illustration: If one challenges another to a duel by shouting Come down, Olympia, let us mea sure your prowess. We will see whose intestines will come out. You are a coward if you do not come down , the crime of challenging to a duel is not committed. Wh at is committed is the crime of light threats under Article 285, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. Chapter 2: Physical Injuries Types of Physical Injuries: 1. Serious physical injuries (lesions graves) 2. Less serious physical injuries (lesions menos graves) 3. Slight physical injuries (lesions leves) 4. Mutilation Article 262. Mutilation = lopping or clipping off of some part of the body Acts punished 1. (Castration) Intentionally mutilating another by depriving him, either totall y or partially, of some essential organ for reproduction; (RT to RP) Elements a. There be a castration, that is, mutilation of organs necessary for generation , such as the penis or ovarium; b. The mutilation is caused purposely and deliberately, that is, to deprive the offended party of some essential organ for reproduction

2. (Mayhem) Intentionally making other mutilation, that is, by lopping or clippi ng off any part of the body of the offended party, other than the essential orga n for reproduction, to deprive him of that part of his body. (PM med to max) n The intent to deliberately cut off the particular part of the body that was re moved from the offended party must be established. If there is no intent to dep rive victim of particular part of body, the crime is only serious physical injur y. n There must be no intent to kill n This cannot be committed through criminal negligence. SITUATION: Husband caught his wife in the act of sexual intercourse with her par amour. Husband cut off paramour s organs ANS: Husband cannot avail of exception under Art 247 since mutilation is different from serious PI. Article 263. Serious Physical Injuries How PI is committed: Any person who shall 1. wound, beat, or assault another 2. without intent to kill n penalty will differ depending on the injuries How is Serious PI committed: 1. By wounding; 2. By beating; 3. By assaulting; or 4. By administering injurious substance. homicide since toattempted No intentat leastserious PI homicide intent no injury conclusively Crime There is intentwhenkill victim dies, even ifto kill is was sustainedpresumed but tomost but the victim died kill the can avail of mitigating circumstance of not intending to commit so grave a wron g Serious physical injuries 1. When the injured person becomes insane, imbecile, impotent or blind in conse quence of the physical injuries inflicted; (PM) 2. When the injured person [PRINICIPAL MEMBERS OF THE BODY](PC med to max) a. Loses the use of speech or the power to hear or to smell, or loses an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm, or a leg; b. Loses the use of any such member; or c. Becomes incapacitated for the work in which he was theretofore habitually eng aged, in consequence of the physical injuries inflicted; 3. When the person injured [NON-PRINCIPAL MEMBERS OF THE BODY] (PC min to med) a. Becomes deformed; or b. Loses any other member of his body; or c. Loses the use thereof; or d. Becomes ill or incapacitated for the performance of the work in which he was habitually engaged for more than 90 days in consequence of the physical injuries inflicted; 4. When the injured person becomes ill or incapacitated for labor for more than 30 days (but must not be more than 90 days), as a result of the physical injurie s inflicted. (AMayor max to PC min) n The crime of physical injuries is a crime of result because under our laws the crime of physical injuries is based on the gravity of the injury sustained. So this crime is always consummated Par 1: n was distinction cut themutilation and Art to cut the organ ItSame only There is(para1result ofthe organ Art 262 intent to between attack, no intent 263(2) 263 impotence)

n blindness = refers to total blindness since if lost sight only of one eye, then it falls under par 2 Par 2: n WORK = means vocation -- devoted in a certain pursuit; thus, can still be liabl e under 2-c if victim is unemployed n incapacity here is permanent Elements of Deformity: (1) The injury must produce ugliness; (2) It must be visible; (3) The ugliness will not disappear through natural healing process. SITUATION: The offender threw acid on the face of the offended party. Were it n ot for timely medical attention, a deformity would have been produced on the fac e of the victim. After the plastic surgery, the offended party was more handsom e than before the injury. What crime was committed? In what stage was it commi tted? The crime is serious physical injuries because the problem itself states that the injury would have produced a deformity. The fact that the plastic surgery r emoved the deformity is immaterial because in law what is considered is not the artificial treatment but the natural healing process. SITUATION: A boxed B, knocking off B s front tooth ANS: Serious PI even if B subsequently acquired a false front tooth. Par 3: n ill = refers to the effect of the injury SITUATION: A boxed B, wounding B which did not heal for 90 days but B was able t o work. ANS: Serious PI because there can be illness without incapacity Par 4: Duration Slight PI Less Serious PI SeriousPIof illness or incapacity: * (par 3) more than 90 days do not medicalconsider daysperiod to treat thedaysdays only consider durationattendance requiredof medical1treatment;is considered the period when t * (par 4)of incapacity or treatment: 10toinjury 30 days 31-90 the 9 to he offended party is rendered incapacitated for labor n par 4 mentions incapacity for labor, unlike par 3 and 2 which used incapacity for work which he was habitually engaged n When the injury created a deformity upon the offended party, you disregard the healing duration or the period of medical treatment involved. At once, it is c onsidered serious physical injuries. Serious physical injuries is punished with higher penalties in the following cas es: (1) If it is committed against any of the persons referred to in the crime of pa rricide under Article 246; (2) If any of the circumstances qualifying murder attended its commission.

Article 264. Administering Injurious Substances or Beverages

Elements 1. Offender inflicted upon another any serious physical injury; 2. It was done by knowingly administering to him any injurious substance or beve rages or by taking advantage of his weakness of mind or credulity; 3. He had no intent to kill. n The injurious substance must be taken internally the victim shall fall under Art 263 Penalty: same as Art 263 throwing acid on the face of

but not committed by wounding, beating and assaulting

Article 265. Less Serious Physical Injuries 1. Offended party is incapacitated for labor for 10 days or more (but not more t han 30 days), or needs medical attendance for the same period of time; (AMayor) 2. The physical injuries must not be those described in the preceding articles. Require Medical Attendance: The phrase does not refer to the expected or estimated healing period bu t to the number of days that the victim is under actual medical attendance. Serious PIgo PI because60coverscannot walk for 10 daysbecause of the because X wasserious hospital illnessdaysevidenced by medical attendance (notillness of Less hospitalized forfor daysas medical attendance or incapacity did in the to theof itof10medical attendance not because doctor but since not medical attendance) Qualified as to penalty 1. A fine not exceeding P 500.00, in addition to arresto mayor, shall be imposed for less serious physical injuries when b. There is a manifest intent to insult or offend the injured person; or c. There are circumstances adding ignominy to the offense. 2. A higher penalty is imposed when the victim is either a. The offender s parents, ascendants, guardians, curators or teachers; or b. Persons of rank or person in authority, provided the crime is not direct assa ult. Article 265 is an exception to Article 48 in relation to complex crimes as the latter only takes place in cases where the Revised Penal Code has no specific p rovision penalizing the same with a definite, specific penalty. Hence, there is no complex crime of slander by deed with less serious physical injuries but only less serious physical injuries if the act which was committed produced the less serious physical injuries with the manifest intent to insult or offend the offe nded party, or under circumstances adding ignominy to the offense.

Article 266. Slight Physical Injuries and Maltreatment Acts punished 1. Physical injuries incapacitated the offended party for labor from one to nine days, or required medical attendance during the same period; (AMenor) 2. Physical injuries which did not prevent the offended party from engaging in h is habitual work or which did not require medical attendance; (AMenor, P200 fine , censure)

3. (Maltreatment) Ill-treatment of another by deed without causing any injury. ( AMenor, P50 fine) Par 2: n No incapacity nor medical attendance n Example: black eye Par 3: n Slapping the offended party is a form of ill-treatment which is a form of slig ht physical injuries. o But if the slapping is done to cast dishonor upon the person slapped, the crim e is slander by deed. o If the slapping was done without the intention of casting dishonor, or to humi liate or embarrass the offended party out of a quarrel or anger, the crime is st ill ill-treatment or slight physical injuries. SITUATION: Using a knife, I stabbed X causing a wound on his arm. Serious If 30 PI has24;since filed:wound still see a Slight did afterwards fact that he did not 9 not heal X did dayspar 2;the and 1continued working but the wound did not heal Crime notinformationdoctortherequires medical attendance or incapacity What XifPIgo topassedisparXduring the nextdiddaysdoctor is immaterial bec. medic 31 par the al attendance is not required in Art 263 Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse, Explo itation and Discrimination Act), in relation to murder, mutilation or injuries t o a child Killing Homicide Penalty a child under 12 is murder, not homicide, Crime (if victim is a child under 12 years old) because the victim is under no position to defend himself as held in the case of People v. Ganohon, 196 SCRA 4 Art 262(2) RP (as Murder (as amended by RA 7659) 31 to Dprovided by Ra 7610) 263(1) Republic Act No. 8049 (The Anti-Hazing Law) n Penalty depends on what happens to the victim; penalty is doubled or tripled n To charge a person under this law, do not use the term physical injuries but NG CRIMES Hazing -- any initiation rite or practice which is a prerequisite for admissio n into membership in a fraternity or sorority or any organization which places t he neophyte or applicant in some embarrassing or humiliating situations or other wise subjecting him to physical or psychological suffering of injury. n These do not include any physical, mental, psychological testing and training procedure and practice to determine and enhance the physical and psychological f itness of the prospective regular members of the below. Organizations = include any club or AFP, PNP, PMA or officer or cadet corps of the CMT or CAT. Section 2 requires a written notice to school authorities from the head of the organization seven days prior to the rites and should not exceed three days in duration. Section 3 requires supervision by head of the school or the organization of th e rites. (2 representatives) Section 4 qualifies the crime if n Death, rape, sodomy or mutilation results therefrom, (RP) n if the person becomes insane, an imbecile, or impotent or blind because of suc h, (RT max) n if the person loses the use of speech or the power to hear or smell or an eye, a foot, an arm or a leg, or the use of any such member or shall have become inc apacitated for the activity or work in which he was habitually engaged in (RT me d) n any of the serious, less serious, or slight physical injuries. n if the victim is below 12, or becomes incapacitated for the work he habitually engages in for 30, 10, 1-9 days. HAZI

It holds the parents, school authorities who consented or who had actual knowl edge if they did nothing to prevent it, officers and members who planned, knowin gly cooperated or were present, present alumni of the organization, owner of the place where such occurred liable. Makes presence a prima facie presumption of guilt for such. TITLE IX. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY Chapter 1: Crimes against Liberty Article 267. Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention Elements: (RP to D) 1. Offender is a private individual; 2. He kidnaps or detains another, or in any other manner deprives the latter of his liberty; 3. The act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal; 4. In the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is prese nt: (Qualifies the offense) a. The kidnapping lasts for more than 3 days; b. It is committed simulating public authority; c. Any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or deta ined or threats to kill him are made; or d. The person kidnapped or detained is a minor (except when the accused is any o f the parents), female, or a public officer G If committed by a public officer, the crime is arbitrary detention (Art 124) committed by a private Serious Illegalpublic person Arbitrary Detention officer who detains adetains,without legal grounds anothe Detention kidnaps, person or otherwise deprives A crime libertypersonal liberty r of hisagainst fundamental law

Restriction of Freedom The victim is not necessarily tied as long as his freedom of movement is restricted. Ex.: You can move around the house but cannot go out = falls here G G o o Detention must be the primary objective of the offender Instances NOT considered detention: Bank robbers momentarily curtailed the movements of clients and employees Forced the victim to go somewhere to kill him (momentarily detained only)

Instance #b: X pretended to be a policeman. He says, "Let's go there and inspect something . When they went, X kidnapped him. So, there is an element of usurpation but the usurpation is already absorbed here. It should not be treated as a separate crime of usurpation of authority. I t is only the manner of enticing you so that you will go with him. Instance #c: The serious PI should not be treated as another crime but a qualifying c ircumstance which makes it serious. The threat to kill the victim should not be treated also as a separate c rime of grave threat. It is already absorbed by serious illegal detention. Instance #d If the father takes his child from the mother, the crime is under Art 27 0 Kidnapping and Failure to Return a Minor, not under Art 267

Mandatory Penalty of Death is imposed: 1. if the purpose of the offender is to extort ransom either from the victim or from any other person, even if none of the circumstances above are present 2. When the victim is a. killed or b. dies as a consequence of the detention or c. is raped, or d. is subjected to torture, or dehumanizing acts (RA 7659, Heinous Crime Law) Ransom = money, price or consideration paid or demanded for redemption of a capt ured person or persons, a payment that releases a person from captivity. G by provision of law, there is now a composite or special complex crime of Ille gal Detention with murder (Kidnapping with Rape, Kidnapping qualified by Torture ) G Article 48, on complex crimes, does not govern anymore BUT effects are the sam e If a woman is transported from one place to another by virtue of restraining her Forcible abduction If aher illegal and that just to restrain her of designs Serious liberty,detention act is coupled with lewdher liberty. There is no lewd of woman is transported If a coercioncarried Gravewoman lewd intentaway just to break her will, to compel her to agree to the design or is demand or request by the offender (no lewd design)

Article 268. Slight Illegal Detention Elements: (RT) 1. Offender is a private individual; 2. He kidnaps or detains another, or in any other manner deprives him of his lib erty. 3. The act of kidnapping or detention is illegal; 4. The crime is committed without the attendance of any of the circumstances enu merated in Article 267. G One who furnishes the place where the offended party is being held generally a cts as an accomplice. But the criminal liability in connection with the kidnapp ing and serious illegal detention, as well as the slight illegal detention, is t hat of the principal and not of the accomplice. Privileged Mitigating Circumstances: (PM min to med) (2) The offended party is voluntarily released within three days from the start of illegal detention; (3) Without attaining the purpose; (4) Before the institution of the criminal action. G Voluntary release will only mitigate criminal liability if crime was slight il legal detention. If serious, it has no effect. A kidnapped B for the purpose of ransom. After kidnapping B, A sent a note to th e family of B, I'm giving you one week to raise P5 million. Otherwise, after one week, if there is no money, I will kill B. However, after 2 days, A changed his m ind. He told B, Go home!" So, he released him within three days. There is no rans

om paid. So, he did not attain the purpose. If prosecuted for the crime of illeg al detention, can A invoke the privileged mitigating circumstance under the last paragraph of Art 265? ANS: NO, because when A kidnapped B and demanded ransom, the crime, is not sl ight illegal detention but under Art 267 Serious illegal detention. Article 269. Unlawful Arrest Elements: (AMayor) 1. Offender arrests or detains another person; 2. The purpose of the offender is to deliver him to the proper authorities; 3. The arrest or detention is not authorized by law or there is no reasonable gr ound therefore. G This felony can be committed by public officers and private individuals G Private individuals can make arrests under Rule 113, Sec 5 Citizen s Arrest the offender is a public Unlawful Detention (124)officer whose normal duty is law enforcement (policeman ArbitraryArrest (269) )f the person who causes the arrest of another without authority of law is a pri i vate individual or even a public officer but he is not a peace officer and he ar rested another illegally although his purpose is to deliver the person arrested to the proper authorities

the victim is detained Unlawful Arrest (269) with legal ground because Delay in the Delivery of Detained Person (125) he was caught committing a crim e in the presence of the arresting officer or private individual. Only, the arre the victim is arrested or beyond in any case period sting officer detained himdetainedthe allowableother than those authorized by la w or without reasonable ground therefore. The crime exists from the moment the o ffender arrests and detains another because he is not authorized by law and ther e is no reasonable ground to do it although his intention may be to deliver the arrested person to the proper authorities Article 270. Kidnapping and Failure to Return a Minor Elements: (RP) 1. Offender is entrusted with the custody of a minor person (whether over or und er seven years but less than 21 years of age); 2. He deliberately fails to restore the said minor to his parents or guardians. G What is punishable is not the kidnapping of the minor but the deliberate failu re or refusal of the custodian to restore the minor to his parents or guardians G Such failure or refusal must not only be deliberate but must also be persisten t as to oblige the parents or guardians of the child to seek the aid of the cour ts in order to obtain custody Article 271. Inducing a Minor to Abandon His Home Elements: 1. A minor (whether over or under seven years of age) is living in the home of h is parents or guardians or the person entrusted with his custody; 2. Offender induces said minor to abandon such home. Penalty: 1. PC 2. AMayor = if person committing Art 270 or 271 shall be the father or the mothe

r of the minor Article 272. Slavery Elements: (PM) 1. Offender purchases, sells, kidnaps or detains a human being; 2. The purpose of the offender is a. to enslave such human being b. assign offended party to some immoral traffic (penalty is maximized) G This is distinguished from illegal detention by the purpose. G The crime is slavery if the offender is not engaged in the business of prostit ution. If he is, the crime is white slave trade under Article 341. Article 273. Exploitation of Child Labor Elements: (PC min & med) 1. Offender retains a minor in his services; 2. It is against the will of the minor; 3. It is under the pretext of reimbursing himself of a debt incurred by an ascen dant, guardian or person entrusted with the custody of such minor.

Article 274. Services Rendered under Compulsion in Payment of Debt Elements: (AMayor max to PC min) 1. Offender compel a debtor to work for him, either as household servant or farm laborer; 2. It is against the debtor s will; 3. The purpose is to require or enforce the payment of a debt. Chapter 2: Crimes against Security Article 275. Abandonment of Persons in Danger and Abandonment of One s Own Victim Acts punished: (AMayor) 1. Failing to render assistance to any person whom the offender finds in an unin habited place wounded or in danger of dying when he can render such assistance w ithout detriment to himself, unless such omission shall constitute a more seriou s offense. 2. Failing to help or render assistance to another whom the offender has acciden tally wounded or injured; 3. By failing to deliver a child, under seven years of age, whom the offender ha s found abandoned, to the authorities or to his family, or by failing to take hi m to a safe place. G An uninhabited place is determined by possibility of person receiving assistan ce from another. Even if there are many houses around, the place may still be u ninhabited if possibility of receiving assistance is remote. Article 276. Abandoning a Minor Elements: (AMayor) 1. Offender has the custody of a child; 2. The child is under seven years of age; 3. He abandons such child; 4. He has no intent to kill the child when the latter is abandoned. Circumstances qualifying the offense

1. When the death of the minor resulted from such abandonment; or (PC med & max) 2. If the life of the minor was in danger because of the abandonment. (PC min & med) Article 277. Abandonment of Minor by Person Entrusted with His Custody; Indiffe rence of Parents Acts punished: (AMayor) 1. Delivering a minor to a public institution or other persons without the consent of the one who entrusted such minor to the care of the offender or, in t he absence of that one, without the consent of the proper authorities; Elements a. Offender has charge of the rearing or education of a minor; b. He delivers said minor to a public institution or other persons; c. The one who entrusted such child to the offender has not consented to such ac t; or if the one who entrusted such child to the offender is absent, the proper authorities have not consented to it. 2. Neglecting his (offender s) children by not giving them the education whic h their station in life requires and financial condition permits.

a. b. c. ts

Elements: Offender is a parent; He neglects his children by not giving them education; His station in life requires such education and his financial condition permi it.

Article 278. Exploitation of Minors Acts punished: (PC min & med) 1. Causing any boy or girl under 16 years of age to perform any dangerous feat o f balancing, physical strength or contortion, the offender being any person; 2. Employing children under 16 years of age who are not the children or descenda nts of the offender in exhibitions of acrobat, gymnast, rope-walker, diver, or w ild-animal tamer, the offender being an acrobat, etc., or circus manager or enga ged in a similar calling; 3. Employing any descendant under 12 years of age in dangerous exhibitions enume rated in the next preceding paragraph, the offender being engaged in any of the said callings; 4. Delivering a child under 16 years of age gratuitously to any person following any of the callings enumerated in paragraph 2, or to any habitual vagrant or be ggar, the offender being an ascendant, guardian, teacher or person entrusted in any capacity with the care of such child; and 5. Inducing any child under 16 years of age to abandon the home of its ascendant s, guardians, curators or teachers to follow any person engaged in any of the ca llings mentioned in paragraph 2 or to accompany any habitual vagrant or beggar, the offender being any person. But remember RA No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act). It applies to minors below 18 years old, not 16 years old as in the RPC. As long as the employment is inimical even tho ugh there is no physical risk and detrimental to the child s interest against mora l, intellectual, physical, and mental development of the minor the establishment will be closed. Article 278 has no application if minor is 16 years old and above. But the e xploitation will be dealt with by RA 7610.

If the minor so employed would suffer some injuries as a result of a violatio n of Article 278, Article 279 provides that there would be additional criminal l iability for the resulting felony. (employer shall be liable for said physical injuries in addition to his liability for exploitation of minors) Article 280. Qualified Trespass to Dwelling Elements 1. Offender is a private person; 2. He enters the dwelling of another; 3. Such entrance is against the latter s will. Kinds of Trespass to Dwelling: 1. Simple This may be committed by any private person who shall enter the dwelli ng of another against the latter s will (AMayor) 2. Qualified - if the trespass is committed by means of violence or intimidatio n (PC med & max) Consists only by committed by actsamentioned in Committed of private Violationof 3Domicileindividual Art 128 Trespass to Dwellingpublic officer or employee Dwelling This is the place that a person inhabits. G It includes the dependencies which have interior communication with the house. G o G G It is not necessary that it be the permanent dwelling of the person. So, a person s room in a hotel may be considered a dwelling. It also includes a room where one resides as a boarder (Pp v. Silvano) Dwelling does not necessarily mean the entire house

Against the will G This means that the entrance is, either expressly or impliedly, prohibited or the prohibition is presumed G It is not merely against the permission or without the consent of the owner G Entered through a window in the middle of the night = committed trespass since there was implied prohibition not to enter SITUATION: Offender entered the room of the boarder while she was asleep. The do or was closed but the seal was merely a string attached to a nail. ANS: There is trespass to dwelling since there was an implied prohibitio n to enter. Violence: On violence, Cuello Calon opines that violence may be committed not only agai nst persons but also against things. So, breaking the door or glass of a window or door constitutes acts of violence. Our Supreme Court followed this view in People v. Tayag. Violence or intimidation must, however, be anterior or coetane ous with the entrance and must not be posterior. But if the violence is employe d immediately after the entrance without the consent of the owner of the house, trespass is committed. If there is also violence or intimidation, proof of proh ibition to enter is no longer necessary. Exempting Circumstances; (1) When the purpose of the entrance is to prevent serious harm to himself, the occupant or third persons; (2) When the purpose of the offender in entering is to render some service to hu manity or justice; (3) Anyone who shall enter cafes, taverns, inns and other public houses while th ey are open PROBLEM: At about 11 pm, Leo forced his way inside the house of Randy. Hero, Ran dy's son, saw Leo and accosted him. Leo pulled a knife and stabbed HERO in his a bdomen. Randy, who heard the commotion, went out of his room. Leo, who was about

to escape, assaulted Randy. Randy suffered injuries that incapacitated him for 25 days. What crimes did Leo commit? 1. Leo is guilty of frustrated homicide when he attacked Hero by stabbing him in the abdomen-- not frustrated murder since there were no qualifying circumstance s. 2. He is also guilty of less serious PI for attacking Randy since there is no sh owing of intent to kill. 3. He is also guilty of qualified trespass to dwelling because he forced his way into Randy's house at 11:00 PM with violence to the occupants Why is there a separate crime of trespass to dwelling? ANS: It is not absorbed in the crime of frustrated homicide and less serious physical injuries because it was accidental that he was seen by Randy s son. However, if the purpose of Leo in forcing his way is to kill somebody inside , then there is no more trespass to dwelling. There will be an aggravating circu mstance.

Article 281. Other forms of trespass Elements: (AMenor) 1. Offender, who is any person, enters the closed premises or the fenced estate of another; 2. The entrance is made while either of them is uninhabited; 3. The prohibition to enter is manifest; 4. The trespasser has not secured the permission of the owner or the caretaker t hereof. Closed Premises = It may be a building which is uninhabited, like a bodega or an y other building that is not used as a dwelling. SITUATION: My property is not fenced and there is no signboard of "No Trespassin g". You kept on entering the land without doing anything. The first time you ent ered. I told you, "Next time, don t come back here anymore! But after a while, you are back again. ANS: Other form of trespass was not committed since there was no fence nor manifest prohibition. I can only sue him under Vagrancy, Art 202(4) He offenderofdwelling fenced estate is because Theenters theisTrespassofmay or expressor inhabited Other Forms Dwellingpersonperson fenced notimpliedanother Trespass topremisesenter(281)be express estate ofthe law says it must be manifes prohibition a private another closed dwelling closedor must be to premises inhabited any (280) te enters the dwelling of anotherfenced estatelatter s will H He closed premises or against the of another without securing the p ermission of the owner or its caretaker Article 282. Grave Threats Threat A declaration of an intention or determination to injure another by the commi ssion upon his person, honor or property or upon that of his family of some wron g which may or may not amount to a crime: (1) Grave threats when the wrong threatened to be inflicted amounts to a crime. The case falls under Article 282. (2) Light threats if it does not amount to a crime. The case falls under Articl e 283. Acts punished under Grave Threats:

1. Threatening another with the infliction upon his person, honor or property or that of this family of any wrong amounting to a crime and a. demanding money or b. imposing any other condition, even though not unlawful, and c. the offender attained his purpose; (1 degree lower for the crime threatened) 2. Making such threat without the offender attaining his purpose; (2 degrees low er for the crime threatened) 3. Threatening another with the infliction upon his person, honor or property or that of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime, the threat not being subj ect to a condition. (AMayor) G Penalty is maximized if threat was made in writing or through a middleman as t hey manifest evident premeditation. 1st Type: Examples: 1. Give me P1M or I will kill your family = crimes against persons 2. I will plant some unlicensed firearm if you do not give me money (incriminati ng an innocent person) = crime against honor 3. I will burn your house if you do not give me P10T (arson) = crime against pro perty 4. Give me P2M or I will kidnap your son (crimes against personal liberty) = sti ll grave threats since the words person, honor or property is not interpreted as c rime against persons, honor or property 5. If you will not marry my daughter I will kill you = grave threat since demand for money not necessary; it can be a condition (what is punished here is the th reat) 6. If you will not marry my daughter, I will prosecute you for abduction and you will die by lethal injection = not grave threats since no crime 3rd type: Watch out, one of these days, I will kill you G Intent to gain is an element under the 1st and 2nd type, but NOT under the 3rd type essence threat coercionis violence or intimidation; there is no condition involved; hence, ther the The no futurity in and harm or and done. e iswrong is direct theis futurewrongconditional or harm done personal Article 283. Light Threats (Blackmailing) Elements: (AMayor) 1. Offender makes a threat to commit a wrong; 2. The wrong does not constitute a crime; 3. There is a demand for money or that other condition is imposed, even though n ot unlawful; 4. Offender has attained his purpose or, that he has not attained his purpose. It offender theis offender always necessary with wrong for money or an imposition of Light notthreatens somebodythat aademand constituting a crime Grave Threatsthreatens somebody with a wrong not constituting a crime a conditi There is always a demand for money or an imposition of a condition on be done Article 285. Other Light Threats Acts punished: (AMenor min) 1. Threatening another with a weapon, or by drawing such weapon in a quarrel, un less it be in lawful self-defense; 2. Orally threatening another, in the heat of anger, with some harm constituting a crime, without persisting in the idea involved in his threat; 3. Orally threatening to do another any harm not constituting a felony. Par 2: G Same as Art 282(2), the only difference is that under 285(2), it was made in t

he heat of anger Par 3: Threat does demand for money a There is notnot constitute crimeno condition is Art 285(2) demand for moneyaorandcondition imposedimposed 283(3) a Article 284: The law imposes the penalty of bond for good behavior only in case of grave and light threats. If the offender can not post the bond, he will be b anished by way of destierro to prevent him from carrying out his threat. Additional penalty Bond forKeep Peace imposed only for the crimes of grave threats under Article 28 to Good Behavior The consequence OF under general Applicable threatsthe failure of the accused threats a light threats 2 and Lightto felonies in Art 283 except graveto put upandbond for good behavior If the accused fails sentenced tobond to keep the peace, he shall be confined fo is that he shall be to put up a destierro r a period not exceeding 6 months if he is prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, or for a period not exceeding 30 days if he is prosecuted for a light fe lony Article 286. Grave Coercions Acts punished 1. Preventing another, by means of violence, threats or intimidation, from doing something not prohibited by law; 2. Compelling another, by means of violence, threats or intimidation, to do some thing against his will, whether it be right or wrong. Elements: (PC) 1. A person prevented another from doing something not prohibited by law, or tha t he compelled him to do something against his will; be it right or wrong; 2. The prevention or compulsion be effected by violence, threats or intimidation ; and 3. The person that restrained the will and liberty of another had no authority o f law or the right to do so, or in other words, that the restraint shall not be made under authority of law or in the exercise of any lawful right. Penalty next higher in degree: If coercion 1. violated the right of suffrage 2. compel another to perform or prevent him from exercising religion act G Grave coercion arises only if the act which the offender prevented another to do is not prohibited by law or ordinance. If the act prohibited was illegal, he is not liable for grave coercion o Public officer, using violence, prevents ceremonies of any religion = not grav e coercion but Interruption of Religious Worship under Art 132 o X prevented councilor from attending session = not grave coercion but under Ar t 143 ESSENCE: No man may take the law in his own hands Illustration of grave coercion: G Debtor refuses to pay his debt so creditor pointed a gun to him to compel paym ent G Tenant refuses to pay landlord thus he was thrown out of the apartment G Squatter constructed their houses on your land thus you got a platoon of soldi ers to bulldoze them * BUT if squatters were entering my land and I used force to prevent them = not grave coercion SITUATION: A thief tried to snatch my wallet so I punched him. The thief subsequ ently sued me for grave coercion. ANS: I am not liable for grave coercion, invoking the Doctrine of Self-H elp (Art 429 of NCC)

Article 287. Light Coercions 1st paragraph: (not a light felony) Elements: (AMayor min) 1. Offender must be a creditor; 2. He seizes anything belonging to his debtor: 3. The seizure of the thing be accomplished by means of violence or a display of material force producing intimidation; 4. The purpose of the offender is to apply the same to the payment of the debt. 2nd paragraph: (light felony) Unjust vexation = any act committed without violence, but which unjustifiably annoys or vexes an innocent person amounts to light coercion. G Light coercion minus violence Article 288. Other Similar Coercions (Compulsory purchase of merchandise and pa yment of wages by means of tokens) Acts punished: (AMayor) 1. Forcing or compelling, directly or indirectly, or knowingly permitting t he forcing or compelling of the laborer or employee of the offender to purchase merchandise of commodities of any kind from him; 2. Paying the wages due his laborer or employee by means of tokens or objec t other than the legal tender currency of the Philippines, unless expressly requ ested by such laborer or employee. Article 289. Formation, Maintenance, and Prohibition of Combination of Capital or Labor through Violence or Threats Elements: (AMayor) a. Offender employs violence or threats, in such a degree as to compel or force the laborers or employers in the free and legal exercise of their industry or wo rk; b. The purpose is to organize, maintain or prevent coalitions of capital or labo r, strike of laborers or lockout of employers. Chapter 3: Discovery and Revelation of Secrets G Listening over an extension line or party-line is not wire-tapping. Wire-tappi ng involves an instance when you place a device in the telephone that will recor d your conversation. (RA 4200: Anti-Wire Tapping Act) Article 290. Discovering Secrets through Seizure of Correspondence Elements 1. Offender is a private individual or even a public officer not in the exercise of his official function; 2. He seizes the papers or letters of another; 3. The purpose is to discover the secrets of such another person; 4. Offender is informed of the contents of the papers or letters seized. Does not apply: G To parents, guardians, or persons entrusted with the custody of minors placed under their care or custody, and G to the spouses with respect to the papers or letters of either of them G The teachers or other persons entrusted with the care and education of minors are included in the exceptions.

Article 291. Revealing Secrets with Abuse of Office Elements: (AMayor) 1. Offender is a manager, employee or servant; 2. He learns the secrets of his principal or master in such capacity; 3. He reveals such secrets. Article 292. Revelation of Industrial Secrets Elements: (PC min & med) 1. Offender is a person in charge, employee or workman of a manufacturing or ind ustrial establishment; 2. The manufacturing or industrial establishment has a secret of the industry wh ich the offender has learned; 3. Offender reveals such secrets; 4. Prejudice is caused to the owner. TITLE X. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY Chapter 1: Robbery in General Article 293. Who Are Guilty of Robbery Robbery This is the taking or personal property belonging to another, with inten t to gain, by means of violence against, or intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything. Types of Robbery: 1. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons (Art 294 to 298) 2. Robbery by the Use of Force Upon things (Art 299 to 305) Elements of robbery in general 1. There subject matter is personal property 2. The property belongs to another; (Impossible Crime Rule) 3. There is unlawful taking of that property; (ASPORTATION) 4. The taking must be with intent to gain; and (Animus Lucrandi) 5. There is a. violence against or intimidation of any person, or b. force upon things Element #1: r I somebody, through force, got my land = crime is USURPATION not robbery r X robbed Y s shabu = X liable for robbery since articles outside the commerce of man can be subject matter of robbery Element #2: r The person robbed need not be the owner of the property robbed r A stole B s watch. C then robbed A of the stolen watch = C guilty of robbery eve n if A doe not own the watch. What is important is that the watch does not belon g to C. Element #3: r From the moment the property is completely under the possession or control of the accused, the crime of robbery is consummated, no matter how momentary his po ssession or control might have been.

Element #4: r ACTUAL gain is not necessary r Robinhood -- robbing the rich gives him inner satisfaction = still considered as gain SITUATION: A robber stole my watch. While the thief was running away, he was app rehended by the police. ANS: The robber is guilty of robbery since the crime was consummated the moment he has control over my watch. The fact that the robber did not gain anyt hing is of no moment since INTENT to gain is necessary, not ACTUAL gain. The Gaingain to matter intent to personal He there isimmediate. gain may referisimmediate is refersintent to to property it maysubjectthegain an intimidation writinggain getting element futurenature is personal essential intermediary actualintimidationnotor honor anfuture As to Threat of intimidation Graveisbeintentisperson,or in the property Robberyandinconditional throughorthe money or thing now gain the conditional r Creditor intent to gain There is noforced gain Grave Coercion Robbery intent todebtor to pay = liable for grave coercion since creditor has n o intent to gain If you Bribery Robberywill not give us money, we will arrest you and claim that these shabu are You were caught with shabu thus you talked to the police to let you go in exchan yours Offended party did not commit the crime but is compelled to pay because the offi ge for cash Offended party committed the crime; parted with cer threatened him with malicious prosecution one s money voluntarily Chapter 1, Section 1: Robbery with Violence against or Intimidation of Persons Article 294. Robbery with Violence against or Intimidation of Persons Acts punished 1. When by reason or on occasion of the robbery (taking of personal property bel onging to another with intent to gain), the crime of homicide is committed; (RP to D) 2. When the robbery is accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson; ( RP to D) 3. When by reason of on occasion of such robbery, any of the physical injuries r esulting in insanity, imbecility, impotency or blindness is inflicted; (RT med t o RP) 4. When by reason or on occasion of robbery, any of the physical injuries result ing in the a. loss of the use of speech or b. the power to hear or to smell, or c. the loss of an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm, or a leg or d. the loss of the use of any such member or e. incapacity for the work in which the injured person is theretofore habitually engaged is inflicted; (RT) 5. If the violence or intimidation employed in the commission of the robbery is carried to a degree unnecessary for the commission of the crime; (PM max to RT) 6. When in the course of its execution, the offender shall have inflicted upon a ny person not responsible for the commission of the robbery any of the physical injuries in consequence of which the person injured becomes a. deformed or b. loses any other member of his body or c. loses the use thereof or d. becomes ill or incapacitated for the performance of the work in which he is h abitually engaged for more than 90 days or e. the person injured becomes ill or incapacitated for labor for more than 30 da ys; (PM max to RT) 7. If the violence employed by the offender does not cause any of the serious ph ysical injuries defined in Article 263, or if the offender employs intimidation

only (covers less serious & slight PI). (PC max to PM) r This is not a complex crime as understood under Article 48, but a single indiv isible crime. This is a special complex crime because the specific penalty is p rovided in the law. On robbery with homicide On the Occasion of: 1. By reason of means because of 2. On the Occasion of means in the course of r the killing may come before, during or immediately after the robbery SITUATION: I had a grudge with A so I killed him. When I was about to leave, I s aw his watch so I took it. ANS: No robbery with homicide because intent to gain came after the kill ing. There are 2 crimes: 1. homicide or murder; and 2. simple theft r controlling factor is intent to gain SITUATION: I killed my father during a robbery ANS: The term homicide is used in the generic sense, and the complex crime ther ein contemplated comprehends not only robbery with homicide in its restricted se nse, but also with robbery with murder, parricide or infanticide. In short, there is no crime of robbery with parricide, robbery with murder, r obbery with infanticide any and all forms of killing is referred to as homicide. SITUATION: I robbed A but the police chased me and I shot the police ANS: I committed robbery with homicide since the victim of robbery and h omicide is not necessarily the same person. The law does not distinguish as to who is killed (it could be one of the robbers). What is important is homicide is committed by reason of or on occasio n of the robbery. People v. Domingo, 184 SCRA 409 On the occasion of the robbery, the storeowner, a septuagenarian, suffered a stroke due to the extreme fear which directly caused his death when the robbers pointed their guns at him. It was held that the crime committed was robbery with homicide. It is immat erial that death supervened as a mere accident as long as the homicide was produ ced by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, because it is only the result w hich matters, without reference to the circumstances or causes or persons interv ening in the commission of the crime which must be considered. (similar to prae ter intentionem)

GR: Evident Premeditation is not an aggravating circumstance in crimes against p roperty, especially robbery because it is inherent in the crime EXCEPTION: Evident premeditation could be aggravating in the crime of robbery wi th homicide if, besides killing, there is evident premeditation to kill. r When two or more persons are killed during the robbery, such should be appreci ated as an aggravating circumstance. (no such crime as robbery with multiple hom

icide) Pp v. Fernando Sultan (4/27/2000; 132470) F: victim was raped twice during the robbery H: The additional rapes will not increase the penalty Pp v. Regala (329 S) The additional rapes committed should NOT be appreciated as an aggravating c ircumstance despite a resultant anomalous situation wherein robbery with rape woul d be on the same level as robbery with multiple rapes in terms of gravity. The Court realized that: 1. There was no law providing for the additional rape/s or homicide/s for that m atter to be considered as aggravating circumstance 2. The enumeration of aggravating circumstances under Art. 14 of the RPC is excl usive, unlike in Art. 13 which enumerates the mitigating circumstances where analogous circumstances may be considered 3. The remedy lies with the legislature Consequently, unless and until a law is passed providing that the additional r ape/s or homicide/s may be considered aggravating, the Court must construe the p enal law in favor of the offender as no person may be brought within its terms i f he is not clearly made so by the statute. SITUATION: A was charged with robbery with homicide but only death of the victim was established there was no clear evidence that some property was taken. ANS: Convicted only of homicide or murder. Pp v. Peroles (226 S 554) The crime of robbery with homicide is a crime against property. Do not think it is a Crime against person. The principal offense is robbery, not homicide. H ence, ii must be shown that homicide was committed on the occasion of or in conn ection with robbery as originally planned and independently thereof. This cannot be presumed unless the robbery itself is established. The crime committed is si mple homicide or murder as the case may be. You must also prove the elements of robbery. Personal property is taken Pp v. Cagurao (202 S 179) The law does not require the production of the things stolen or robbed as a condition sine qua non for the conviction of the person accused of robbery. You can prove the fact of loss without necessarily presenting in court the property stolen because it may not be recovered anymore. In another case, a band of robbers entered a compound, which is actually a su gar mill. Within the compound, there were quarters of the laborers. They robbe d each of the quarters. The Supreme Court held that there was only one count of robbery because when they decided and determined to rob the compound, they were only impelled by one criminal intent to rob. r Spanish used resultare, thus the word ulted committed must be correctly translated to res

SITUATION: Robber fired his gun at the ceiling, not knowing that the owner was t here hiding. The owner died. ANS: Robbery with homicide is committed On robbery with rape The RPC does not differentiate whether rape was committed before, during or i mmediately after the robbery (Pp v. Bello; 12/4/1998). It is enough that the ro

bbery accompanied the rape. Robbery must not be a mere accident or afterthought . People v. Dinola, 183 SCRA 493 If the original criminal design of the accused was to commit rape and after committing the rape, the accused committed robbery because the opportunity prese nted itself, two distinct crimes rape and robbery were committed not robbery wit h rape. In the latter, the criminal intent to gain must precede the intent to r ape. Both robbery and rape were committed: The crime is Robbery with Homicide. The rape shall be treated as an aggravating circumstance. (adding ignominy) SITUATION: Woman was robbed inside her house but was brought outside to be raped . ANS: Robbery with rape was committed. Pp v. Angeles (222 S 451) F: Woman was robbed at her house. After the robbery, thief dragged her across a railroad track 2 streets away. She was forced to ride a taxi, brought to the mot el and was raped there. H: 2 crimes were committed: robbery and forcible abduction with rape (since she was abducted with lewd design) The act constitutive of the robbery at the house of the victim and the a ct of comprising the rape was separated by both time and space. The rape was com mitted after the completion of the robbery. The situs of the rape was far away f rom the situs of the robbery. The robbery was not accompanied by rape neither was the rape committed b y reason of or on occasion of the robbery. Rather, the robbery and the rape were committed successively or in sequence. Is there a crime of robbery in a band with multiple rape? No such composite crime. The crime is Robbery with Rape, with band as an aggravating circumstance. It is penalized under Art 294(2) penalized by death. (Pp v. Lutao 250 S 45) Consequently, no such composite crime as Robbery in a Band with Multiple Homicide If during the robbery, attempted rape were committed, the crimes would be sep arate, that is, one for robbery and one for the attempted rape. The rape committed on the occasion of the robbery is not considered a private crime because the crime is robbery, which is a crime against property. So, eve n though the robber may have married the woman raped, the crime remains robbery with rape. The rape is not erased. This is because the crime is against proper ty which is a single indivisible offense. If the rape is attempted, since it will be a separate charge and the offended woman pardoned the offender, that would bring about a bar to the prosecution of the attempted rape. If the offender married the offended woman, that would ext inguish the criminal liability because the rape is the subject of a separate pro secution. The intention must be to commit robbery and even if the rape is committed bef ore the robbery, robbery with rape is committed. But if the accused tried to ra pe the offended party and because of resistance, he failed to consummate the act , and then he snatched the vanity case from her hands when she ran away, two cri mes are committed: attempted rape and theft. There is no complex crime under Article 48 because a single act is not commit ted and attempted rape is not a means necessary to commit theft and vice-versa. On robbery with physical injuries (covers serious, less serious and slight PI; A

LSO intimidation

even without violence)

SITUATION: After the robbery had been committed and the robbers were already fle eing from the house where the robbery was committed, the owner of the house chas ed them and the robbers fought back. only less serious physical injuries were i nflicted ANS: There will be separate crimes: one for robbery and one for less serious physical injuries because par 4 (or #5 act) requires that violence was committe d in the occasion of SITUATION: I take your wallet without violence. They you start shouting and I maul you. You are hospitalized for 30 days serious PI ANS: 2 separate crimes since par 4 (#6 act) requires that it be d in the course of its execution. IF you became insane, then I am liable of Robbery with Physical since it falls under par 2 (act #3) it covers injuries inflicted by occasion of. for help committe Injuries reason or on

SITUATION: Robber said give me your money or I will kill you ANS: falls under par 5 (act #7) since there was intimidation. BUT if the wallet was taken without intimidation and victim only shouted after robbery was consummated. As a result, the robber threatened the victim = 2 crimes were committed: 1. theft; and 2. grave threats It law uses theintimidationvictimbemust notoccasionoftaking Theis not requiredphysical injuriesbemadeor AFTERrobbers AFTER the taking Art violence may phrase the reason of oneon theone ofthe robbers but someone e victim ofor bethat BEFORE,courseor only BEFORE or 294 (1,2,3) (4) the made by the DURING, of be the in must of lse If, during or on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, a killing, rape or serious physical injuries took place, there will only be one crime of robbery w ith homicide because all of these killing, rape, serious physical injuries -- ar e contemplated by law as the violence or intimidation which characterizes the ta king as on of robbery. You charge the offenders of robbery with homicide. The rape or physical injuries will only be appreciated as aggravating circumstance a nd is not the subject of a separate prosecution. They will only call for the im position of the penalty in the maximum period. On robbery with arson Another innovation of Republic Act No. 7659 is the composite crime of robbery with arson if arson is committed by reason of or on occasion of the robbery. T he composite crime would only be committed if the primordial intent of the offen der is to commit robber and there is no killing, rape, or intentional mutilation committed by the offender during the robbery. Otherwise, the crime would be ro bbery with homicide, or robbery with rape, or robbery with intentional mutilatio n, in that order, and the arson would only be an aggravating circumstance. It i s essential that robbery precedes the arson, as in the case of rape and intentio nal mutilation, because the amendment included arson among the rape and intentio nal mutilation which have accompanied the robbery. Moreover, it should be noted that arson has been made a component only of rob bery with violence against or intimidation of persons in said Article 294, but n ot of robbery by the use of force upon things in Articles 299 and 302. So, if the robbery was by the use of force upon things and therewith arson wa s committed, two distinct crimes are committed.

Article 295. Robbery with Physical Injuries, Committed in an Uninhabited Place and by A Band Robbery with violence against or intimidation of person qualified is qualified i f it is committed 1. In an uninhabited place; 2. By a band; 3. By attacking a moving train, street car, motor vehicle, or airship; 4. By entering the passengers compartments in a train, or in any manner taking th e passengers thereof by surprise in the respective conveyances; or 5. On a street, road, highway or alley, and the intimidation is made with the us e of firearms, the offender shall be punished by the maximum periods of the prop er penalties prescribed in Article 294. r Applies only in subdivision 3,4,5 (act # 4 to 7) SO it does not apply to robbe ry with homicide, robbery with rape, robbery Aggravated under Art 14, a under Art uninhabited offset Robbery with homicide, bynotband, in an295 = can be place by ordinary mitigatin Aggravated under Robbery w/ mutilation or = cannot be g circumstance Art 295 serious PI offset by ordinary mitigating circumstance Article 296 defines a robbery by a band as follows: when at least four armed ma lefactors take part in the commission of a robbery. Requisites for liability for the acts of the other members of the band 1. He was a member of the band; 2. He was present at the commission of a robbery by that band; 3. The other members of the band committed an assault; 4. He did not attempt to prevent the assault. Used unlicensed firearm The penalty is maximized w/out prejudice to the penalty imposed by PD 18 66 If Robbery under Art 295 is committed by a band, the penalty is maximize d. The maximum of such maximized penalty will be imposed if the band used unlice nsed firearm. (Art 77) SITUATION: A is a look-out as his 3 other companion committed robbery. Can he be liable for robbery with homicide even if he does not know what was happening in side the house? ANS: yes, because the law requires that you attempt to prevent the assau lt. It is of no moment if you are not in a position to prevent the assault. If A was able to prevent it, he will be liable for robbery only. Pp v. Marias (248 S 165) F: One of the robbers raped the victim. Will the look-out be liable for robbery with rape? H: There is nothing on record pointing to appellant as the rapist or as being aw are at the very least of its commission. It would appear that the decision, to r ape Feliza Caprizo was a spontaneous act of one of the robbers. Appellant was ou tside the house and could not be assumed to have acquiesced to the commission of rape or to have been in a position to prevent his cohorts in deviating from the plan to merely rob the victims. The look-out can only be held accountable for r obbery in band.

Art 297. Attempted and frustrated robbery committed under certain circumstances

r This is a special complex crime known as Attempted or Frustrated Robbery with Homicide. The use of Homicide is generic covers murder, parricide. r What is attempted is robbery but the homicide is consummated r If homicide is attempted while robbery is consummated = not a special complex crime, so Art 48 applies o If the attempted or frustrated homicide was necessary for the commission of th e robbery, it is a complex crime of robbery with frustrated or attempted homicid e under Art 48 o If the attempted or frustrated homicide was not necessary, then there are 2 se parate crimes robbery and attempted or frustrated homicide Penalty: 1. RT max to RP 2. unless the homicide committed shall deserve a higher penalty SITUATION: if I kill my father during attempted robbery ANS: my penalty is not RT max to RP but D since parricide carries a high er penalty Article 298. Execution of Deeds by Means of Violence or intimidation Elements: (guilty of robbery penalized under here) 1. Offender has intent to defraud another; 2. Offender compels him to sign, execute, or deliver any public instrument or do cument. 3. The compulsion is by means of violence or intimidation. Chapter 1, Section 2; Robbery by the Use of Force Upon Things 2nd type of robbery robbery with force upon things. This is penalized by: 1. Art 299 = inhabited house, public building or edifice devoted to worship 2. Art 302 = uninhabited place or private building Article 301 defines an inhabited house, public building, or building dedicated t o religious worship and their dependencies, thus: Inhabited house Any shelter, ship, or vessel constituting the dwelling of one or more persons, even though the inhabitants thereof shall temporarily be absen t therefrom when the robbery is committed. Public building Includes every building owned by the government or belonging to a private person but used or rented by the government, although temporarily u noccupied by the same. Dependencies of an inhabited house, public building, or building dedicated to religious worship All interior courts, corrals, warehouses, granaries, barns, co ach-houses, stables, or other departments, or enclosed interior entrance connect ed therewith and which form part of the whole. r Orchards and other lands used for cultivation or production are not included, even if closed, contiguous to the building, and having direct connection therewi th.

SITUATION: A vessel, X, a ANS: s there does

vessel sank. The owners plan to salvage it but before floating the scuba driver went under the ocean and ransacked the vessel. A is liable for robbery under Art 299. The mere fact that nobody wa not make the vessel uninhabited place. It is still inhibited house

within the meaning of the law. SITUATION: X ransacked my garage and took my things. ANS: It will fall under Art 299 if the garage can ency. A dependency is that which is contiguous to the house. d to the house. But not just attached to the house, there trance, linking the garage to the house. (ex. a sari-sari house) be considered a depend Meaning, it is attache must be an interior en store in front of the

Article 299. Robbery in an Inhabited House or Public Building or Edifice Devote d to Worship Elements under subdivision (a) 1. Offender entered an inhabited house, public building 2. The entrance was effected by any of the following means: a. Through an opening not intended for entrance or egress; b. By breaking any wall, roof or floor, or breaking any door or window; c. By using false keys, picklocks or similar tools; or d. By using any fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public authority. 3. Once inside the building, offender took personal property belonging to anothe r with intent to gain. Elements under subdivision (b): 1. Offender is inside a dwelling house, public building, or edifice devoted to r eligious worship, regardless of the circumstances under which he entered it; 2. Offender takes personal property belonging to another, with intent to gain, u nder any of the following circumstances: a. By the breaking of doors, wardrobes, chests, or any other kind of locked or s ealed furniture or receptacle; or b. By taking such furniture or objects away to be broken or forced open outside the place of the robbery. r The force must be used to enter the building o X forcibly removed the knob of the car, its caps and tires = not robbery but t heft since although he used force, he did not enter a building r The whole body must enter the building o While walking, X saw an open window. X got a pole and hooked the polo hanging inside the house = not robbery but theft since he did not enter the house o The house is low so X only stretched his hand and took the hanging shirt = not robbery but theft since the whole body must enter the house (A-1) entering into an opening not intended for entrance or egress r X entered through an open window, although there was no actual force, there wa s still force within the meaning of the law because of Constructive force upon t hings r X entered through a window but got out through the door = robbery since what i s important is that he entered the house through an opening not intended for ent rance r X entered through an open door but left through a window = theft since the law does not care how you got out r X entered through fire escape = robbery since fire exit door is not intended f or ordinary entrance but only for emergency (A-2) Breaking any wall, roof, floor, or any door or window r There is actual force r Removed a sliding door = not robbery since he did not break the door SITUATION: X entered SM as a customer. He hid inside and waited until everybody went home. He then robbed the store and left by breaking a window.

ANS: X committed theft, not robbery since the breaking should be done in order to enter the building. Manner of exit is immaterial r If X broke the lock, robbery is committed since the breaking of the lock rende rs the door useless and it is therefore tantamount to the breaking of the door. Hence, the taking inside is considered robbery with force upon things. r If X broke the padlock = not robbery since padlock is not part of the door (Pp v. Puson) If in the course of committing the robbery within the premises some interior doors are broken, the taking from inside the room where the door leads to will o nly give rise to theft. The breaking of doors contemplated in the law refers to the main door of the house and not the interior door. (A-3) Use of picklocks or false keys or similar tools Picklock = a device used by people o open locks in order to get inside False Keys include: (Art 305) 1. Tools mentioned in Article 304 -- picklocks 2. Genuine keys stolen from the owner; 3. Any key other than those intended by the owner for use in the lock forcibly o pened by the offender. SITUATION: X told the owner Give me your keys or I will kill you ANS: Robbery with Intimidation under Art 294 If the picklock or false key was used not to enter the premises because the o ffender had already entered but was used to unlock an interior door or even a re ceptacle where the valuable or personal belonging was taken, the use of false ke y or picklock will not give rise to the robbery with force upon things because t hese are considered by law as only a means to gain entrance, and not to extract personal belongings from the place where it is being kept. SIMPLE THEFT was comm itted. If I used a key to open one room of a boarder in a boarding house = Robb ery with Force upon Things since the room of each boarders are considered separa te entities. (A-4)Use of fictitious name or pretension to possess authority r This may be called Robbery by Means of Deceit. It is classified as Robbery wit h Force upon Things because the force is constructive force by fiction of law r Only applies if the place being robbed is an inhabited place, a public buildin g or a place devoted to religious worship A found B inside his (A s) house. He asked B what the latter was doping there. B claimed he is an inspector from the local city government to look after the electrical installations. At the time B was chanced upon by A, he has already e ntered. So anything he took inside without breaking of any sealed or closed rec eptacle will not give rise to robbery because the simulation of public authority was made not in order to enter but when he has already entered.

Par B: r Not necessary that the entrance was effected by any means mentioned in par A B-1: X entered a house through the door. He did not find anything thus he broke the bedroom door and took the things there.

ANS: Robbery under par B(1) since this refers to inside door like door o f a bedroom, or chest B-2: X took the small locked chest to open it outside. The moment he stepped out of the house, he was caught by the police. ANS: Robbery under Par B(2) was already consummated the moment X took it with intention to open it. It is not the opening that consummates the crime but the taking. Penalty: 1. offender is armed and property exceeds P250 = RT 2. offender not armed & property exceeds P250 = next lower in degree 3. offender is armed but property does not exceed P250 = next lower in degree 4. unarmed offender & property does not exceed P250 = minimum of #2 & #3 5. robbery committed in dependencies = next lower in degree r Once the robber used arms against the owner, it is no longer robbery with forc e upon things but robbery with violence or intimidation For as with Violenceis Things committed by Robberylong asForce Uponviolence(299) (294) the robber, the crime in taking th using there and Intimidation e property is robbery whether the victim died or merely sustained injuries. Rega rdless of what is the effect of the violence, whether it causes death, near deat Not physical injuries, the taking take property is make the crime robbery h orevery force used upon things toof theproperty willautomatically robbery. be cause the force contemplated by law is the use of force to enter a house or bui lding. Even if I used force to enter your car to steal your property inside, th at is not robbery because there is no building which I entered. Therefore, not e The force used property taken make the taking is not taken into consideratio veryvalue of theupon things willis irrelevant. Itof the property robbery. n in fixing the penalty. If I take from you P1 Million or P1 and kill you, it is The valuewithtaken into The penalty isin determining the appropriate penalty. robbery is homicide. consideration RP to D. Napolis v. CA If on the occasion of the robbery with homicide, robbery with force upon thi ngs was also committed, you will not have only one robbery but you will have a c omplex crime of robbery with homicide and robbery with force upon things. This is because robbery with violence or intimidation upon persons is a separate crim e from robbery with force upon things. Thus, the penalty is based on the higher offense, to be maximized. Article 302. Robbery in an Uninhabited Place or in a Private Building Elements 1. Offender entered an uninhabited place or a building which was not a dwelling house, not a public building, or not an edifice devoted to religious worship; 2. Any of the following circumstances was present: a. The entrance was effected through an opening not intended for entrance or egr ess; b. A wall, roof, floor, or outside door or window was broken; c. The entrance was effected through the use of false keys, picklocks or other s imilar tools; d. A door, wardrobe, chest, or any sealed or closed furniture or receptacle was broken; or e. A closed or sealed receptacle was removed, even if the same be broken open el sewhere. 3. Offender took therefrom personal property belonging to another with intent to gain. r Manner of commission is the same as Art 299 except tending to exercise public authority using fictitious name or pre

Penalty: (does not matter whether the offender is armed or not) 1. property exceeds P250 = PC med & max 2. property does not exceed P250 = next lower in degree Penalty for all kinds of robbery is 1 degree higher if offender took: 1. mail matter; or 2. large cattle

Under Article 303, if the robbery under Article 299 and 302 (robbery with the us e of force upon things) consists in the taking of cereals, fruits, or firewood, the penalty imposable is lower. r Privileged mitigating circumstance for robbery with the use of force upon thin gs r X stole sacks of rice = cannot invoke Art 303 since Spanish word for cereal is se milla alementicia. Semilia means for seedling purposes. Since you cannot plant rice , it is not covered by the word cereal. Article 304. Possession of Picklock or Similar Tools Elements: (AMayor max to PC min; if he makes such tools then PC med & max) 1. Offender has in his possession picklocks or similar tools; 2. Such picklock or similar tools are especially adopted to the commission of ro bbery; 3. Offender does not have lawful cause for such possession. Chapter 2: Brigandage Brigandage This is a crime committed by more than three armed persons who form a band of robbers for the purpose of 1. committing robbery in the highway or 2. kidnapping persons for the purpose of extortion or to obtain ransom, or 3. for any other purpose to be attained by means of force and violence. Article 306. Who Are Brigands

Elements of brigandage: 1. There are least four armed persons; 2. They formed a band of robbers; 3. The purpose is any of the following: a. To commit robbery in the highway; b. To kidnap persons for the purpose of extortion or to obtain ransom; or c. To attain by means of force and violence any other purpose.

Article 307. Aiding and Abetting A Band of Brigands Elements: (PC med to PM min) 1. There is a band of brigands; 2. Offender knows the band to be of brigands; 3. Offender does any of the following acts: a. He in any manner aids, abets or protects such band of brigands;

b. He gives them information of the movements of the police or other peace offic ers of the government; or c. He acquires or receives the property taken by such brigands. r In robbery committed by a band, actual robbery took place. But under Brigandag e, mere formation of the band is punishable r Highway = includes any street, even city streets refers robbery/brigandage highwayto under the RPC a band of robbers by more than three armed persons fo brigandagethe formation of under PD 532 r the purpose of committing robbery in the highway, kidnapping for purposes of e xtortion or ransom, or for any other purpose to be attained by force and violenc e. The mere forming of a band, which requires at least four armed persons, if f seizure of any person purposes stated in Article any other lawful brigandage or any of the criminalfor ransom, extortion or for306, gives rise topurposes, or the taking away of the property of another by means of violence against or inti midation of persons or force upon things or other unlawful means committed by an refers to the actual commission of y person on any Philippine highway the robbery on the highway and can be committ ed by one person alone People v. Puno (2/ 17/ 1993) F: X, car owner, was cruising somewhere in Manila when her driver allowed severa l hold-uppers to board. They robbed X of her jewelry and belongings when they we re in a highway. Trial court convicted the accused of highway robbery/ brigandag e under PD 532 H: accused guilty of simple robbery as punished in Art 294 (5), in relation to A rticle 295 The purpose of brigandage is, inter alia, indiscriminate highway robbery. An d that PD 532 punishes as highway robbery or Brigandage only acts of robbery per petrated by outlaws indiscriminately against any person or persons on a Philippi ne highway as defined therein, not acts committed against a predetermined or par ticular victim . A single act of robbery against a particular person chosen by the offender a s his specific victim, even if committed on a highway, is not highway robbery or brigandage. Amendments of PD 532 to Article 306 and 307: 1. increased the penalties 2. it does not require at least four armed persons forming a band of robbers 3. it does not create a presumption that the offender is a brigand when he an un licensed firearm is used unlike the RPC. r But the essence of brigandage under the RPC is the same as that in the PD, tha t is, crime of depredation wherein the unlawful acts are directed not only again st specific, intended or preconceived victims, but against any and all prospecti ve victims anywhere on the highway and whoever they may potentially be.

Chapter 3: Theft Article 308. Who Are Liable for Theft Persons liable 1. Those who with intent to gain, but without violence against or intimidation o f persons nor force upon things, take personal property of another without the l atter s consent; 2. Those who having found lost property, fails to deliver the same to the local authorities or to its owner; 3. Those who, after having maliciously damaged the property of another, remove o r make use of the fruits or objects of the damage caused by them;

4. Those who enter an enclosed estate or a field where trespass is forbidden or which belongs to another and, without the consent of its owner, hunt or fish upo n the same or gather fruits, cereals or other forest or farm products. Elements 1. There is taking of personal property; 2. The property taken belongs to another; 3. The taking was done with intent to gain; 4. The taking was done without the consent of the owner; 5. The taking is accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidatio n of persons of force upon things. Person liable #1: Special Laws on Theft: 1. RA 7832 - Anti-Electricity and Electric Transmission Lines, Material Pilferag e Act of 1994 2. RA 8041 - Stealing from the Waterworks System Villacorta v. Insurance Commission (100 S 407) F: Villacorta parks his car at a gasoline station due to a prior agreement. With out his knowledge, the gasoline boys drive the car for a joyride. He only knew t his when the car was bumped. V filed a claim from Insurance Co invoking theft. H: there was theft It is not necessary that the taking be permanent for the crime of theft to b e consummated. The taking of a vehicle, even for a mere joyride, is already thef t. SITUATION: Agricultural land is a common property. X, in good faith and with a c olor of title, entered the land and harvested the crops. ANS: No crime of theft because there is not intent to gain. SITUATION: X was praying in the church when he felt his wallet being taken. Not wanting to disturb the ceremony, he did not object. ANS: Theft was committed even if X did not object. The law says without t he latter s consent not without the latter s knowledge. SITUATION: A pickpocket stole your wallet. While he was leaving, you noticed you r wallet missing. You accosted the pickpocket and he: Theft close your mouth or I ll kill robbery, the intimidation must be before or said & Grave Threats; to constituteyou Theft & you andPI; NOTslight PI punched the taking,to fall under Art 294 (4,5), violence must accompany the taki during Slight caused AFTER Robbery with killed you homicide since under Art 294 (1,2,3), violence may be before, durin ng g or after the taking Person liable #2: Pp v. Avila F: X found lost properties. He turned it over to the policeman who pocketed it. H: Policeman is liable of theft since he is considered finder-in-law. X, on the other hand is considered finder-in-fact. Thus, the policeman is covered by this article even though he did not fin the article. Upon receipt of the property, the policeman assumes by voluntary substit ution, the same relation as was occupied by the finder. Person liable #3: SITUATION: X s goat entered Y s property and started eating Y s plants. Y killed the g oat. ANS: If after killing, Y cooked the goat and ate it, Y is liable for the ft. Person liable #4: r If X enters an enclosed estate where trespass is forbidden and only walks arou

nd = X is not guilty of theft Art 309. Penalties r Penalty for theft depends on the value of the property taken UNLESS there is a special law providing for different penal (ex. PD 581 providing penalty for hig h-grading or theft of gold) r When you file an information for theft, you must allege the value of the prope rty taken OTHERWISE you will not know the imposable penalty (thus can be dismiss ed for failure to show that the court has jurisdiction) r If it was only during the trial when the parties realized that no value was al leged = the court may take judicial notice of the value of the property r Theft may be a light felony if it falls under par 7 & 8 (not enough that prope rty is below P5) * If offender enters an enclosed estate or land belonging to another and without the consent of the owner, hunt, fish, gather forest or farm product AND the val ue of property does not exceed P5 * If offender acted under the impulse of hunger, poverty, difficulty of earning a livelihood AND value of property does not exceed P5 Article 310. Qualified Theft Theft is qualified if: (2 degrees higher) 1. Committed by a domestic servant; 2. Committed with grave abuse of confidence; 3. The property stolen is a motor vehicle 4. The property stolen is mail matter 5. The property stolen is large cattle; 6. The property stolen consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantat ion; 7. The property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond or fishery; 8. If property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic e ruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident, or civil disturbance. 9. Timber Smuggling (added by Sec 68 of PD 705: Revised Forestry Code) Committed by a domestic servant SITUATION: X, domestic servant, was induced by Y, neighbor, to steal from X s empl oyer. ANS: X (principal by direct participation) is guilty of qualified theft while Y (principal by inducement) is guilty of simple theft. Thus, this circumst ance is personal to the offender. Committed with grave abuse of confidence r This refers to people other than domestic servants r A bank teller who steals is automatically guilty of qualified theft r PD 133: provides different penalty for theft of spare parts by employees SITUATION: X does not trust his domestic servant Y, so he always locks his bedro om door. One day, X forgot to lock the door to Y stole from him. ANS: Y still guilty of qualified theft since he falls under par #1. This is automatic abuse of confidence is not required. SITUATION: My confidential secretary, who has the combination of my safe, stole from me. ANS: Sec committed qualified theft since there was abuse of confidence. SITUATION: when my confidential secretary opened the safe, the janitor was looki ng and saw the combination. The janitor then later opened the safe and stole fro m me. ANS: janitor is only guilty of simple theft because there is no confiden ce.

The property stolen is a motor vehicle r Motor Vehicle = includes all vehicles propelled by power other than muscular p ower, including motorcycle r X stole a motorcycle but he just pushed it, he did not use the motor = liable for qualified theft; as long as it was a motor vehicle, the motor need not be ru nning SITUATION: X only intends to steal the car s wheels so he drove the car somewhere to detach the tires. ANS: X committed qualified theft since the crime was consummated the mom ent he took the car SITUATION: X approached the driver and using a knife, divested the driver of his car. ANS: X is guilty of Robbery with force or intimidation where value of pe rsonal property is immaterial, thus penalty is only PC max to PM med. But if X s tole a parked car instead, he is liable for qualified theft where penalty is RP. To correct this, RA 6539 or Anti-Carnapping Law was enacted. (Penalty does not consider the value of motor vehicle) D RP 30 If If 17 there 14 yrs Ordinary is violence Maximum 4 mos Minimum& 8motor vehicle was not taken by the offender but was delivered by the o Crime theCarnapping death wner or the possessor to the offender, who thereafter misappropriated the same, the crime is either qualified theft under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code or estafa under Article 315 (b) of the Revised Penal Code. Qualified theft of a motor vehicle is the crime if only the material or physical possession was yiel ded to the offender; otherwise, if juridical possession was also yielded, the cr ime is estafa. The property stolen is mail matter Mail matter is also mentioned in robbery in Art 302 where penalty impose d is 1 degree higher. The property stolen is large cattle Cattle = a member of the bovine family, a four-legged hoofed animal r Used in generic sense and not limited to cows NOTE: PD 533, the Anti-Cattle Rustling law of 1974 now governs the penalty for c attle rustling Cattle Rustling and Qualified Theft of Large Cattle the taking by any means, m ethod or scheme, of any large cattle, with or without intent to gain and whether committed with or without violence against or intimidation of person or force u pon things, so long as the taking is without the consent of the owner/breed ther eof. The crime includes the killing or taking the meat or hide of large cattle without the consent of the owner. Note that the overt act that gives rise to the crime of cattle-rustling is th e taking or killing of large cattle. Where the large cattle was not taken, but received by the offender from the owner/overseer thereof, the crime is not cattl e-rustling; it is qualified theft of large cattle. Where the large cattle was received by the offender who thereafter misappropr iated it, the crime is qualified theft under Article 310 if only physical or mat erial possession thereof was yielded to him. If both material and juridical pos session thereof was yielded to him who misappropriated the large cattle, the cri me would be estafa under Article 315 (1b). The property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond or fishery r The word fish is used in a generic sense, thus it includes prawns r What makes this qualified is catching fishes from cultivated fishpond unlike A rt 308 (simple theft) where the pond was not cultivated

Article 311. Theft of the Property of the National Library or National Museum ( AMayor unless higher penalty is provided by RPC) Chapter 4: Usurpation Article 312. Occupation of Real Property or Usurpation of Real Rights in Proper ty Elements 1. Offender takes possession of any real property or usurps any real rights in p roperty; 2. The real property or real rights belong to another; 3. Violence against or intimidation of persons is used by the offender in occupy ing real property or usurping real rights in property; 4. There is intent to gain. Penalty: 1. penalty for the violence committed 2. fine a. 50% to 100% of the gain = there s violence b. value cannot be ascertained = P200 to P500 r Usurpation under Article 312 is committed in the same way as robbery with viol ence or intimidation of persons. The main difference is that in robbery, person al property is involved; while in usurpation of real rights, it is real property . Pp v. Alfeche (211 S 770) F: Dimalanta and Fuentes forcibly occupied the land owned by family Silva. The l and was guarded by their tenant Borreros. Dimalanta and Fuentes threatened Borre ros thus he left and the accused occupied the land. Did the accused commit a complex crime of Grave Threats with Usurpation? Usurpation of real rights and property should not be complexed using Article 48 when violence or intimidation is committed. There is only a single crime, b ut a two-tiered penalty is prescribed to be determined on whether the acts of vi olence used is akin to that in robbery in Article 294, grave threats or grave co ercion and an incremental penalty of fine based on the value of the gain obtaine d by the offender. Is threat used against Borreros absorbed in usurpation? No, because the penalty for threats is higher than the fine under Articl e 312. It is absurd that an article which carries a lower penalty of only a fine will absorb a crime which carries a higher penalty. It is not absorbed. The exp lanation is simple. There is only one crime but we based the penalty on the thre ats, otherwise, if it is absorbed, we will forget the penalty for threats. If it were absorbed, the clause in addition to the penalty incurred for the acts of violence executed by him will be meaningless. Accused were charged by Silva. Is this proper? The offended party is not Silva but it is the tenant-encargado. So, in this particular case, the offended party is not the owner of the land but the encarga do who was threatened. Even though he is not the owner, he has real rights over the land he is occupying. It is not necessary that the victim should be the owner. The tenant has a re al right over the properly ~ that of possession - which both the accused were al leged to have usurped through threats to kill Borreros is not, most unfortunatel y, the offended party cited in the information. The information does not even su ggest that the accused threatened the complainant Silva or their families. At mo st the liability of the accused to the complainant Silva would only be civil in

nature. Therefore, to the extent that it limits the offended parties to just the coowners of the property who were not even in possession thereof, the information in question does not charge an offense. The information should have cited the te nant as the offended party because he was the one threatened, not the owner of t he land. SITUATION: X entered Y s land through strategy or stealth, is this punishable unde r RPC? ANS: No because Art 312 contemplates use of force or intimidation. If X entered public agricultural land, he can be criminally penalized un der RA 947. If X entered private land, owner s only recourse is to file an action for forcible entry (civil action) Article 313. Altering Boundaries or Landmarks Elements: (AMenor) 1. There are boundary marks or monuments of towns, provinces, or estates, or any other marks intended to designate the boundaries of the same; 2. Offender alters said boundary marks. Chapter 5: Culpable Insolvency Article 314. Fraudulent Insolvency Elements: (PM if merchant; PC max to PM med if not a merchant) 1. Offender is a debtor, that is, he has obligations due and payable; 2. He absconds with his property; 3. There is prejudice to his creditors. r Accused concealed his property fraudulently but it turned out that he has some other property with which to satisfy his obligation. He is not liable under thi s article. Chapter 6: Swindling and Other Deceits Elements in general 1. The accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit; a nd 2. That damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the off ended party or third party 3 Variations: 1. You misappropriate; 2. You convert; or 3. You deny Variation #1: You use the money that is not yours the money entrusted to you

The offender Estafa Malversation is a public officer who is accountable forwho is not or property fo private individual. A public officer the money accountable Committedprivate funds Involves public funds or propertytaking or abandonment or negligence, consentin r the money or property, he is also guilty here by misappropriating, by Committed by misappropriating, converting or denying g or permitting another person to misappropriate Variation #2: r If I let you borrow my book but you refused to return it = you are liable for estafa (commodatum) r If I loan you money and you refused to pay me = simple loan (civil case) only not estafa because of the Constitutional prohibition of non-imprisonment of debt

(mutuum) The borrower Mutuum Commodatum is expected to return the verythe amount borrowed.borrowed required pay the lender same thing that he But borrower is Borrower transfer of ownership There is no to return ownership not requiredtransfer ofthe same pesoTherefore, if borrower does not return, he c does not become the owner. bill onverts that which does not belong to him because he has the duty to return the What is the use of borrowing if borrower cannot spend the money? From the moment same thing to lender. borrower gets the money, it is his. If borrower spends the money, he does not m isappropriate. Borrower s only obligation is to pay lender back the same amount, b ut not the same bill r AGENCY: I will entrust you my jewelries and you sell it. If you cannot sell th em, then you must return them to me = agent liable for estafa if jewelries are n ot returned r DEPOSIT: I deposited my good to the warehouseman who sold it = ownership is no t transferred thus warehouseman is liable for estafa r SALE: o I sold you my piano and you can pay me next month. You did not pay so I asked the return of the piano. You refused to return it = not liable for estafa since the sale was consummated the moment I delivered the piano there was already tran sfer of ownership o Seller told prospective buyer to try the typewriter for a week. After 1 week, buyer did not return the typewriter = no estafa since the moment 1 week elapsed without the return of the typewriter, the buyer decided to buy it so sale was co nsummated, there was transfer of ownerhsip r TRUST: tenant of agricultural land did not remit to the landowner his share = farmer committed estafa r COMMISSION: City Hall employee went to the market. 1st vendor gave him money f or his license fee since the employee will return to City Hall. The 2nd vendor a sked the employee to get meat worth P100 and instead of paying the vendor, the e mployee pay the vendor s license fee instead o Employee committed estafa as regards to 1st vendor because when he received th e P100 cash, he was receiving it on commission basis o He did not commit estafa as regards to 2nd vendor since he did not receive P10 0 cash r ADMINISTRATION: administrator of an estate misappropriated property = liable f or estafa Variation #3: I let you borrow my book but 1 week later, while asking for its return, you denied that you borrowed it. Article 315. Swindling (Estafa) Three different ways of committing estafa under Article 315: a. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence; b. By means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts; or c. Through fraudulent means. (The first form under subdivision 1 is known as estafa with abuse of confidence; and the second and third forms under subdivisions 2 and 3 covers estafa by mea ns of deceit.) r Like theft, penalty for estafa depends on the amount of damage to the victim t hus, amount of damage must always be stated r BUT the penalty for estafa for issuing bouncing check (Art 315(2)) is governed by PD 818 which is higher r BP 22, Bouncing Check Law, carries a maximum of 1 year imprisonment, thus, BP 22 cases are cognizable by MTC Elements of estafa with unfaithfulness of abuse of confidence under Article 315 (1) Under paragraph (a) 1. Offender has an onerous obligation to deliver something of value;

2. He alters its substance, quantity, or quality; 3. Damage or prejudice is caused to another. Under paragraph (b) [relate with PD 115, Trust Receipts Law] 1. Money, goods, or other personal property is received by the offender is trust , or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involvi ng the duty to make delivery of, or to return, the same; 2. There is misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offe nder, or denial on his part of such receipt; 3. Such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and 4. There is a demand made by the offended party to the offender. (The fourth element is not necessary when there is evidence of misappropriation of the goods by the defendant. [Tubb v. People, et al., 101 Phil. 114] ). Under paragraph (c) 1. The paper with the signature of the offended party is in blank; 2. Offended party delivered it to the offender; 3. Above the signature of the offended party, a document is written by the offen der without authority to do so; 4. The document so written creates a liability of, or causes damage to, the offe nded party or any third person. Test to determine whether it is estafa or purely civil action: Determine whether there was transfer of ownership or none r If there was transfer of ownership = no estafa since you cannot misappropriate or convert something which is yours r If the personal property or money is in your hand in trust or on commission or for administration = you commit estafa DEFENSE: Novation Theory SITUATION: I will entrust certain goods to my agent --there is commission. He is supposed to sell the goods and remit to me the proceeds. He failed to remit it. The agent then executed a promissory note in my favor binding himself to pa y for these goods that he got from me. But he did not pay me for the goods. So, I charged him with estafa for abuse of confidence. ANS: There is no more crime. When I accepted his Promissory Note, there is, n ow a transfer of ownership of the questioned goods. The agreement is now novated. It is, no longer a contract of agency, but it b ecomes a contract of sale. So, he is no longer my agent. He is already a buyer. SITUATION: My agent received goods from me. He sold it but did not pay me. So , I sued him for estafa. While the case is pending, he says he will pay for the goods. ANS: There is no novation, the agency continues. This is a case where he offe rs to settle the civil liability. Settlement of civil liability does not erase c riminal liability. r The novation theory only applies when there is seemingly an intention to erase criminal liability from the start, not where the settlement is already in court . When the case is already filed, the payment of civil liability does not exting uish the criminal liability. Taking Subject Only Estafa matter may by means personal property Theftpersonal property is orof force upon things or violence against or intimid Robberywas effectedbe realinvolved Offender takes Penalty personson robbery without the Not necessary (likeproperty with intimidation against owner by ation ofdependsthe the amount involved consent of thepersons) using threats, i Offender receives the property ntimidation or violence Offender Estafa receives only the physical possession of the property, NOT juridical po Theft I told my Offender family juridical possession and be back after 2 the offended family ssession receivesdriver to go somewhere of the property fromhours. If the party

driver does not return the case, he is liable for qualified theft since the dri ver s possessionfor not superior to that ofhe did not return my car, X is guilty X rented my car is 5 days but afterwards, the owner After I told by driver lessee s possession my mind and usednature instead. The of estafa because the to leave, I changed is juridical in the car After 2 cannot assertXthatreturn myonly returnreturn his payment, but X refused. driver days I asked to he will car and I the car after 2 hours I cannot do anything since the lessee has a right to assert possession against the owner Juridical Possession = possessor of the thing must have the right to possess, wh ich right is recognized by law and which right can be asserted against the owner SITUATION: I gave my househelper P100 to buy rice. She ran away with the money ANS: She is guilty of qualified theft. BUT if I gave money to my agent and such agent runs away with it, he is guilty of estafa. SITUATION: Taxi driver failed to return the taxi to the operator. ANS: qualified them was committed since the relationship between the ope rator and the taxi driver is an er-ee relationship, NOT that of lessor-lessee PD 115: Trust Receipt Law: Trust Receipt = a commercial document in Mercantile law. You want to import o r buy goods but you do not have the money. So, you go to a bank and ask that you r transaction be financed by it through the trust receipt. The goods are owned b y the bank. And you pay then from the proceeds. If you do not pay, you are liable for estafa. The Trust Receipt Law provides t hat any violation of a trust receipt agreement constitute estafa under Art. 315 par. 1(b). So, acts involving the violation of the Trust Receipt Agreement occur ring after 1/29/1973, when PD 115 was issued, would render the accused criminall y liable for estafa. ALLIED BANKING vs. ORDONEZ (192 S 246) F: Company secured a letter of credit from Allied Bank to import spare parts fo r its machine. The spare parts arrived and were installed but the company failed to pay. Bank sued them for estafa. Company argued it is not covered by PD 115 b ecause estafa is present only if the goods are imported to be sold to consumers. H: PD 115 covers the transaction since there is no distinction under the law. Wh ether trust receipt covers good sold to the public or used by the importer himse lf is immaterial. PEOPLE vs. NITAFAN (207 S 726) F: Julio obtained a Letter of Credit from a local bank to import tires from Japa n. Julio sold the tires, but he did not pay the bank. Julio argued that PD 115 v iolates the Bill of Rights provision on non-imprisonment for non payment of debt . H: There are 2 features of a trust receipt. The loan feature and the security fe ature. If it is purely loan, then it is unconstitutional. In the loan feature, t here is no imprisonment. What the security feature means is the assurance that t he bank will be paid because the goods belongs to it. Therefore, when he violate s the Trust Receipt Law, actually, what he violated is not the loan feature, but the security feature. The goods or merchandise are used as collateral for the advancement made by the bank. The title of the bank for the security is one sought to be protected a nd not the loan which is separate and distinct agreement. The enactment of PD 115 is a valid exercise of the police power of the State

and is thus constitutional. Elements of estafa by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts under Article 315 (2) Acts punished under paragraph (a) 1. Using fictitious name; 2. Falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, cre dit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; or 3. By means of other similar deceits. Under paragraph (b) Altering the quality, fineness, or weight of anything pertaining to his art or business Under paragraph (c) Pretending to have bribed any government employee, without prejudice to the action for calumny which the offended party may deem proper to bring against the offender Under paragraph (d) 1. Offender postdated a check, or issued a check in payment of an obligation; 2. Such postdating or issuing a check was done when the offender had no funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amoun t of the check. Acts punished under paragraph (e) 1st a. Obtaining food, refreshment, or accommodation at a hotel, inn, restaurant, bo arding house, lodging house, or apartment house; b. Without paying therefore; c. With intent to defraud the proprietor or manager. 2nd a. Obtaining credit at any of the establishments; b. Using false pretense; 3rd a. Abandoning or surreptitiously removing any part of his baggage in the establi shment; b. After obtaining credit, food, refreshment, accommodation; c. Without paying. Par A-1: Found a pawnshop ticket and redeemed the jewelry pretending to be the pe rson indicated. Par A-2: Ilagan v. CA (239 S 575) F: X, employee of a subdivision owner was expressly prohibited to collect money from clients. But X approached 7 clients and told them he has authority to colle ct. H: X committed 2 kinds of estafa: 1. estafa through abuse of confidence against the subdivision owner; and 2. estafa through deceit against 7 clients The crime of estafa committed by an agent against his principal is separate from the crime of estafa committed against individual buyers. The failure of an agent to turn over to deliver to his principal the amount collected despite the duty to do so is then operative fact in the crime of estafa through unfaithfulne ss or abuse of confidence.

With respect to the lot buyers, the offense of swindling was committed by de ceit or false pretenses. When the agent falsely pretended to possess the power t o collect dues from said buyers despite the specific prohibition imposed by the principal. Therefore, the act of the agent is swindling the 7 buyers resulted in 8 crimes of estafa. Seven committed against the lot buyers and 1 against the pr incipal. Because it is a combination of estafa by means of deceit and estafa by abuse of confidence, he is liable as several times for the crimes.

Par D: Laws which penalize issuance of bouncing checks: 1. Art 315, par 2(d) = estafa by deceit through issuance of bouncing check 2. BP 22 = violation of Bouncing Check Law Lilius Doctrine The Lilius Doctrine says that if a check is issued in payment of a pre-existi ng obligation, there is no estafa. In order to constitute estafa under the Penal Code, the check must be issued simultaneously with the receipt by the accused o f a money or the goods for which said check was issued. Example: r X approached Y saying he does not have cash so can he exchange his check for c ash = there is estafa if check bounces r X bought supplies in a hardware issuing a check = there is estafa if check bou nces r X borrowed P10T from Y promising to pay next month. Upon payment, X issued a c heck which bounced = no estafa since Y did not loan P10T based on the check Par (1) (2) (3) tee D only applies if The obligation is not pre-existing; The check is drawn to enter into an obligation; It does not cover checks where the purpose of drawing the check is to guaran a loan as this is not an obligation contemplated in this paragraph

SITUATION: X issued check in favor of Y in exchange for cash. After getting Y s ca sh, X called the bank to stop payment of the check. ANS: Under Art 315, there is estafa. (Take note that under BP 22, ruling is different) r Endorser of a bad check is liable for estafa Pp v. Tugbang F: To be sure that investment will be return, the investor asks accused to issue a check. The check bounced. Prosecutor charged accused with estafa and falsific ation there was a false statement that check was valid Is there a crime? There is no crime because the check was not issued in payment of any obl igation. It was issued only as an assurance that the complainant's investment wi ll be returned. Did accused commit falsification? There is no narration of facts here. The amount written on the check is not a narration of facts made by the drawer representing that he has money in the ba nk. He is not narrating that he has money in the bank, but rather, as defined in the Negotiable Instrument Law, a check is an order in writing addressed to the drawee bank to pay the holder of the check the amount slated therein.

Pp v. Singson F: Payee of the check knew that the check was not funded. Is the drawer liable? H: The act of the accused in offering to replace the dishonored checks and later making partial payments show in all probability that complainant knew that the funds to cover the 6 postdated checks subject of this action were to come from t he same sugar which the accused had bought from him. Meaning, the seller knew that the buyer was also going to sell the sugar to other people. This kind of situation is not unusual in the sale of commodities, like sugar and rice. If the complainant has such knowledge, then there is no dec eit, and where there is no proven deceit, there is no crime. r r y r Deceit is presumed if the drawer fails to deposit the amount necessary to cove the check within three days from receipt of notice of dishonor or insufficienc of funds in the bank. Penalty for Art 315, par 2(D) is provided by PD 818 increased penalty

Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 How violated: (imprisonment of 30 days to 1 year; fine of the amount of check up to double its amount) 1st 1. A person makes or draws and issues any check; 2. The check is made or drawn and issued to apply on account or for value; (Thus , it can apply to pre-existing obligations, too.) 3. The person who makes or draws and issued the check knows at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for th e payment of such check in full upon its presentment; 4. The check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the d rawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment. 2nd 1. A person has sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank when he makes or draws and issues a check; 2. He fails to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full a mount of the check if presented within 90 days from the date appearing; 3. The check is dishonored by the drawee bank. r Where the check is drawn by a corporation, the person/s who actually signed th e check is liable there BP 22 is criminal liability if the check is drawn for non-pre-existing obligatio Article 315 (2) (d) knowledge deceit andby propertymaterial the gravamen theissuance of the gravamen is the deceitforthepre-existing obligation, required crime checkliability ifofainsufficient funds is pre-existing obligation If theagainstis drawninterestcheck is (Hence,isanot is no double jeopardy) no criminaldamagedraweremployed check drawn forthere there is criminal liability N public immaterial are reqired r If the accused did not issue a check, he is not liable. THUS, unlike Art 315, par 2(d), endorser cannot be liable of violation of BP 22 r Lilius Doctrine does not apply still liable under BP 22 even if the check was issued to pay for a pre-existing obligation r BP 22 applies if the check bounced because of account closed or insufficient fund s o If check bounced because of stop payment order = not liable under BP 22 Credit: An arrangement or understanding with the bank for the payment of such ch eck. SITUATION: Although I do not have sufficient funds, the bank honored the check s ince I was a good client. r But overdraft or credit arrangement may be allowed by banks as to their prefer red clients and Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 does not apply. If check bounces, it is because bank has been remiss in honoring agreement.

Prima Facie Evidence of Knowledge of Insufficient Funds: There is a prima facie evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds when the c heck was presented within 90 days from the date appearing on the check and was d ishonored. Exceptions: 1. When the check was presented after 90 days from date; (applies to both type o f violations) 2. When the maker or drawer -a. Pays the holder of the check the amount due within 5 banking days after recei ving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee; b. Makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within 5 b anking days after notice of non-payment r 5-day notice is not necessary to make a person liable under BP 22 but it is ea sier to get a conviction since how will you prove knowledge? Lim Lao v. CA [G.R. No. 119178. June 20, 1997.] May an employee who, as part of her regular duties, signs blank corporate ch ecks with the name of the payee and the amount drawn to be filled later by anoth er signatory and, therefore, does so without actual knowledge of whether such ch ecks are funded, be held criminally liable for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilan g 22 (B.P. 22), when checks so signed are dishonored due to insufficiency of fun ds? In the present case, the fact alone that petitioner was a signatory to the c hecks that were subsequently dishonored merely engenders the prima facie presump tion that she knew of the insufficiency of funds, but it does not render her aut omatically guilty under B.P. 22. The prosecution has a duty to prove all the ele ments of the crime, including the acts that give rise to the prima facie presump tion; petitioner, on the other hand, has a right to rebut the prima facie presum ption. 16 Therefore, if such knowledge of insufficiency of funds is proven to be actually absent or non-existent, the accused should not be held liable for the offense defined under the first paragraph of Section 1 of B.P. 22. Although the offense charged is a malum prohibitum, the prosecution is not thereby excused fr om its responsibility or proving beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the offense, one of which is knowledge of the insufficiency of funds. After a thorough review of the case at bar, the Court finds that Petitioner Lina Lim Lao did not have actual knowledge of the insufficiency of funds in the corporate accounts at the time she affixed her signature to the checks involved in this case, at the time the same were issued, and even at the time the checks were subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank. The scope of petitioner's duties and responsibilities did not encompass the funding of the corporation's checks; her duties were limited to the marketing de partment of the Binondo branch. Does a notice of dishonor sent to the main office of the corporation constit ute a valid notice to the said employee who holds office in a separate branch an d who had no actual knowledge thereof? In other words, is constructive knowledge of the corporation, but not of the signatory-employee, sufficient? Because no notice of dishonor was actually sent to and received by the petit ioner, the prima facie presumption that she knew about the insufficiency of fund s cannot apply. Section 2 of B.P. 22 clearly provides that this presumption aris es not from the mere fact of drawing, making and issuing a bum check; there must also be a showing that, within five banking days from receipt of the notice of dishonor, such maker or drawer failed to pay the holder of the check the amount due thereon or to make arrangement for its payment in full by the drawee of such check.

Llamado v. CA [G.R. No. 99032. March 26, 1997.] Petitioner denies knowledge of the issuance of the check without sufficient funds and involvement in the transaction with private complainant. However, know ledge involves a state of mind difficult to establish. Thus, the statute itself creates a prima facie presumption, i.e., that the drawer had knowledge of the in sufficiency of his funds in or credit with the bank at the time of the issuance and on the check's presentment for payment. Petitioner failed to rebut the presu mption by paying the amount of the check within five (5) banking days from notic e of the dishonor. His claim that he signed the check in blank which allegedly i s common business practice, is hardly a defense. If as he claims, he signed the check in blank, he made himself prone to being charged with violation of BP 22. It became incumbent upon him to prove his defenses. As Treasurer of the corporat ion who signed the check in his capacity as an officer of the corporation, lack of involvement in the negotiation for the transaction is not a defense. Petitioner alleges that the respondent court erred when it convicted petitio ner of violation of BP 22 when the check was only a contingent payment for inves tment which had not been proven to be successful, thus the check was not issued "to apply on account or for value" within the contemplation of the batas. This c ontention is untenable. True, it is common practice in commercial transactions to require debtors to issue checks on which creditors must rely as guarantee of payment, or as eviden ce of indebtedness, if not a mode of payment. But to determine the reason for wh ich checks are issued, or the terms and conditions for their issuance, will grea tly erode the faith the public reposes in the stability and commercial value of checks as currency substitutes, and bring about havoc in trade and in banking co mmunities. So, what the law punishes is the issuance of a bouncing check and not the purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and conditions relating to it s issuance. The mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum. Duty of the Drawee Bank: It must state the reason for the dishonor or refusal to pay the check The unpaid or dishonored check with the stamped information regarding refusal to pay is prima facie evidence of (1) the making or issuance of the check; (2) the due presentment to the drawee for payment & the dishonor thereof; and (3) the fact that the check was properly dishonored for the reason stamped on th e check. SITUATION: If payee presented the check after 90-days and it bounced ANS: Drawer cannot be liable under BP 22 since warranty is good only for 90 days. Payee can instead collect under Negotiable Instruments Law. The 2nd check hasfunded at the time of the issuance, 1st Type of Violation at the time of issuance. but it bounced later because of is no funds The drawer's knowledge of the the check. delay in the presentation of insufficiency of his funds or credit, with the dra wee bank on the payment of the check in full when presented is an element of the crime. You must prove that the offender had knowledge of insufficient funds. Th Knowledge of the proven under of his 2. at is prima facieinsufficiency Sectionfunds or credit is not required. The 90-day presentment is not expressly provided but impliedly required in Secti The period of 90 days is expressed in the second offense. on 2. The law expects and compels the drawer either to deposit sufficient funds in or arrange on a credit with the drawee bank to cover the full amount of the checks The presented and compels whenlaw expectsfor payment. the drawer to keep sufficient funds within the 90-da y period for the presentment of the check for payment. Cruz v CA 233 S 301 F: drawer told payee that the check is not funded, thus he should not deposit it ; the payee nevertheless deposited it and the check bounced H: Knowledge of the payee that the check was not funded is immaterial since dece

it is not an essential element under BP 22 r BP 22 is a crime against public interest. It was enacted to punish the act of making or issuing worthless checks which is a public nuisance. It is a valid exe rcise of police power. It does not violate non-imprisonment for non-payment of debt clause. (Lozano v. Martinez 146 S 323) DE VILLA vs. CA (4/18/1991) F: Drawee bank is found abroad. The issuer bank in the Philippines issued a doll ar check. The Philippine bank will forward it to its correspondent bank abroad. The correspondent bank will have it cleared on the drawee bank. The drawee bank will inform the foreign bank which in turn will inform the Philippine bank. The dollar check bounced. H: Offended party can sue under BP 22 Under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, there is no distinction as to the kind of chec k issued. As long as it is delivered within Philippine territory, the Philippine courts have jurisdiction. Even if the check is only presented to and dishonore d in a Philippine bank, Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 applies. This is true in the cas e of dollar or foreign currency checks. Where the law makes no distinction, none should be made. MAGNO vs. CA Is there a violation of BP 22 when the complainant was told by the drawer that h e does not have sufficient funds in the bank? The creditor opened in account for the drawer so that the latter can issue checks. H: Not liable under BP 22 For all intents and purposes, BP 22 was devised to safeguard the interest of the banking system and the legitimate public checking account itself. It did not intend to shelter or favor nor encourage users of the checks of the system to e nrich themselves through recriminations and circumventions of noble purposes and objectives of the law, lest it be used as a means for jeopardizing honest-to- g oodness transactions and to prejudice businessmen who are the pillars of society . r The case of Magno is an exceptional case, and should not be made the basis for the general rule. Memorandum Checks: r BP 22 applies to memorandum check and crossed checks because mere act of issui ng checks is malum prohibitum r Memorandum Check = an evidence of account not intended for encashment

Idos v. CA (296 S 194) If a check is issued not as evidence of debt but represents the share of a person in a partnership, there is no violation of BP 22.

People v. Nitafan As long as instrument is a check under the negotiable instrument law, it is covered by Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. A memorandum check is not a promissory note, it is a check which have the word memo, mem , memorandum written across the face of t e check which signifies that if the holder upon maturity of the check presents t he same to the drawer, it will be paid absolutely. But there is no prohibition against drawer from depositing memorandum check in a bank. Whatever be the agre ement of the parties in respect of the issuance of a check is inconsequential to a violation to Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 where the check bounces.

Vaca v. CA [G.R. No. 131714. November 16, 1998.] Petitioners pray, that in the alternative, the penalty be modified by deleti ng the sentence of imprisonment and, in lieu thereof, a fine in an increased amo unt be imposed on them. In support of their plea, they allege that they do not h ave any record of prior conviction; that Eduardo Vaca is of advanced age (late 6 0s); and, that they come from good families. Petitioners claim that "with their family background and social standing there is no reason why they will refuse to pay a due and demandable debt of only P10,000.00. It is precisely because of th eir founded belief that the subject obligation has been paid that they refused t o be intimidated by a criminal charge." B.P. Blg. 22, 1 par. 1 provides a penalty of "imprisonment of not less than t hirty days but not more than one (1) year or by a fine of not less than, but not more than double, the amount of the check which fine shall in no case exceed tw o hundred thousand pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion o f the Court." Petitioners are first-time offenders. They are Filipino enterprene urs who presumably contribute to the national economy. Apparently, they brought this appeal, believing in all good faith, although mistakenly, that they had not committed a violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Otherwise, they could simply have accept ed the judgment of the trial court and applied for probation to evade a prison t erm. It would best serve the ends of criminal justice if in fixing the penalty w ithin the range of discretion allowed by 1, par. 1, the same philosophy underlyin g the Indeterminate Sentence Law is observed, namely, that of redeeming valuable human material and preventing unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and e conomic usefulness with due regard to the protection of the social order. 10 In this case we believe that a fine in an amount equal to double the amount of the check involved is an appropriate penalty to impose on each of the petitioners. Estafa through any of the following fraudulent means under Article 315 (3) Under paragraph (a) 1. Offender induced the offended party to sign a document; 2. Deceit was employed to make him sign the document; 3. Offended party personally signed the document; 4. Prejudice was caused. Under paragraph (b) Resorting to some fraudulent practice to insure success in a gambling game; Under paragraph (c) 1. Offender removed, concealed or destroyed; 2. Any court record, office files, documents or any other papers; 3. With intent to defraud another.

Par a: X induced illiterate owner to signed a document he said to be a power of atto rney when in fact is was a deed of sale Par c: Lawyer took the folder saying he just wants to verify a certain pleading concerning a pending case. But actually the lawyer removed some documents and d estroyed them. Article 316. Other Forms of Swindling Paragraph 1 by conveying, selling, encumbering, or mortgaging any real property,

pretending to be the owner of the same Elements 1. There is an immovable, such as a parcel of land or a building; 2. Offender who is not the owner represents himself as the owner thereof; 3. Offender executes an act of ownership such as selling, leasing, encumbering o r mortgaging the real property; 4. The act is made to the prejudice to the owner or a third person. r Example: Double Sale: I sold the property to X and later sold it again to Y. I f what was sold is personal property, then it falls under Art 315 r Real property must be existing. If not, it falls under Art 315 Paragraph 2 by disposing of real property as free from encumbrance, although suc h encumbrance be not recorded Elements 1. The thing disposed is a real property: 2. Offender knew that the real property was encumbered, whether the encumbrance is recorded or not; 3. There must be express representation by offender that the real property is fr ee from encumbrance; 4. The act of disposing of the real property is made to the damage of another. r I told buyer that my land is free from lien but actually there was a mortgage recorded in the ROD. Buyer did not check the ROD = I am still liable for swindl ing since there is no law compelling the buyer to check Paragraph 3 by wrongfully taking by the owner of his personal property from its lawful possessor Elements 1. Offender is the owner of personal property; 2. Said personal property is in the lawful possession of another; 3. Offender wrongfully takes it from its lawful possessor; 4. Prejudice is thereby caused to the possessor or third person. r I borrow money from you and pledged my ring. I subsequently stole such ring = I did not commit theft since the ring was mine. I am guilty of swindling since y ou are the lawful possessor of such ring until I pay the debt. Paragraph 4 by executing any fictitious contract to the prejudice of another

r My creditors are running after me so I executed fictitious sales to my friends r Different from Culpable Insolvency (Art 314) since I did not abscond with my p roperty Paragraph 5 by accepting any compensation for services not rendered or for labor not performed Paragraph 6 by selling, mortgaging or encumbering real property or properties wi th which the offender guaranteed the fulfillment of his obligation as surety Elements 1. Offender is a surety in a bond given in a criminal or civil action; 2. He guaranteed the fulfillment of such obligation with his real property or pr operties; 3. He sells, mortgages, or in any manner encumbers said real property; 4. Such sale, mortgage or encumbrance is without express authority from the cour t, or made before the cancellation of his bond, or before being relieved from th e obligation contracted by him. Article 317. Swindling a Minor

Elements 1. Offender takes advantage of the inexperience or emotions or feelings of a min or; 2. He induces such minor to assume an obligation or to give release or to execut e a transfer of any property right; 3. The consideration is some loan of money, credit or other personal property; 4. The transaction is to the detriment of such minor. Article 318. Other deceits Acts punished 1. Defrauding or damaging another by any other deceit not mentioned in the prece ding articles; 2. Interpreting dreams, by making forecasts, by telling fortunes, or by taking a dvantage or the credulity of the public in any other similar manner, for profit or gain. Chapter 7: Chattel Mortgage Article 319. Removal, Sale or Pledge of Mortgaged Property Acts punished 1. Knowingly removing any personal property mortgaged under the Chattel Mortgage law to any province or city other than the one in which it was located at the t ime of execution of the mortgage, without the written consent of the mortgagee o r his executors, administrators or assigns; 2. Selling or pledging personal property already pledged, or any part thereof, u nder the terms of the Chattel Mortgage Law, without the consent of the mortgagee written on the back of the mortgage and noted on the record thereof in the offi ce of the register of deeds of the province where such property is located. (cou nterpart of Art 316, par 2) Chapter 8: Arson Kinds of arson: 1. Arson, under Section 1 of PD 1613; 2. Destructive arson, under Art 320 of the RPC, as amended by RA 7659; 3. Other cases of arson, under Sec 3 of PD 1613 r PD 1613 is the main law Arson under Sec 1 PD 1613 Arson is the act of maliciously destroying another's property by means of fir e. The means used to destroy is fire. That is why in the aggravating circumstanc es in Article 14, the crime is aggravated if the crime is committed by means of fire. But it is not applicable here in the crime of arson because it is already included in the definition of the crime. Can I be liable if I burn my own house? YES, because under Sec 1 of PD 1613 states that The same penalty shall be imposed when a person sets fire to his own property under circumstances which e xpose to danger the life or property of another. Article 320: Destructive Arson (additional acts of Destructive Arson are listed under Sec 2 of PD 1613) Bldg of private ownership devoted to public Ammunition 1 or more buildings by Art 2, (RP simultaneous act Destruction Arson or where 320PD orto (RT in general or where stored Destructivefactoryundersingle act 1613 D) max to RP) of burningpeople usually c Sec explosives, inflammable materials are

Archive, (w/n (public or private) or edifice devoted to culture, education or ongregatemuseumit is inhabited) Train service socialor locomotive, ship or vessel, airship or airplane devoted to transportati Train, airplane, watercraft installation for transportation Building, factory, entertainment Church or building warehouseor usually assemble on or public use orwhere peopleconveyance devoted to service of public utilities persons or prope Burned bldg to conceal or destroy evidence, conceal bankruptcy, defraud creditor rty Bldg collect from is kept s, orwhere evidenceinsurancein legislative, judicial, adm., or other official pr Hospital, oceedings hotel, dormitory, shopping center, public or private market, movie hou Bldg, similar bldgs se, orwhether used as a dwelling or not, situated in a populated or congested ar ea

Other Cases of Arson: (Sec 3, PD 1613) (RT to RP) Property burned is: 1. Any building used as offices of the government or any of its agencies; 2. Any inhabited house or dwelling; 3. Any industrial establishment, shipyard, oil well or mine shaft, platform or t unnel; 4. Any plantation, farm, pasture land, growing crop, grain field, orchard, bambo o grove or forest; 5. Any rice mill, sugar mill, cane mill, or mill central; and 6. Any railway or bus station, airport, wharf or warehouse.

QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES: Burned Committed 1613 intent If 4, arsenal,(penaltybygain more persons or power, fireworks factory, archive Sec 320PDwas committedtois2maximized) military by a group of persons Artarson(RP to D) with shipyard, storehouse, or s, generalfor thestorehouse or factory oftowards the owner or occupant of the pr Offender Inhabited place, benefitspite or hatred inflammable or explosive materials Committedismuseum of the gov another motivated by of t RP to burned Mandatory penalty If DEATH by a imposed (Sec Committedresults: of death 5) opertydeath is syndicate (planned and carried out by 3 or more persons) r Arson is consummated the moment a portion of the building was burned, no matte r how small that portion is r Frustrated Arson = X places flammable materials in a room and lit them. Y saw the fire and put it down before any part of the building was burned r Attempted Arson = Fire may not even start yet. X poured gasoline over Y s airpla ne. When he was still starting the match, he was caught I burned a house without realizing that there were people inside Sec 5 of PD 1613 states that Death will be imposed if by reason of or on occasion of the arson, death results. BUT when 1987 Constitution took effect, thi s was reduced to RP. The Heinous Crime Law did not amend PD 1613 SO penalty rema ins RP. Do not complex arson with murder. Just call it arson resulting to death. There is no crime of arson with homicide. It is called arson, but the pe nalty imposed is RP under Sec 5 of PD 1613 (Pp v. Cedenio, 233 S 356) If I want to kill you and I know you were sleeping inside so I burned the house: Crime is murder since the objective of the murder is to kill and arson w as resorted to as a means to accomplish the crime. I killed you. I want to cover the crime so I burned the house Two crimes were committed: 1. arson 2. murder or homicide SITUATION: Harry, an OFW was invited by his 3 friends to play poker. When he was losing, Harry noticed he was being cheated. So he bought liquor to get his frie nds drunk. When the 3 were asleep, Harry hacked them to death. He searched the v ictims pockets to get his losses then he burned the cottage to hide his crime. Am ong the debris, the body of the caretaker was also found. Prosecutor charged Har

ry of arson with quadruple homicide and robbery. ANS: The prosecutor s charge was wrong. There is no such crime as arson wi th quadruple homicide and robbery. Harry is guilty of: 1. 3 counts of murder since he hacked them to death when they were asleep 2. arson resulting in death for burning the cottage and causing the caretaker s de ath 3. he did not commit robbery or theft since what he got was his own money, there was no intent to gain on his part. SITUATION: Edison wants to construct a new building so he hired Jerry and Vic to burn his own building so that he could collect the insurance proceeds. ANS: The 3 are liable for destructive arson under Art 320, par 5. If they were charged under PD 1613, the effect is the same. They are gui lty of arson with special aggravating circumstance under Sec 4 committed with in tent to gain. r since arson is very hard to prove there are prima facie evidence of arson (Sec 6 of PD 1613) 1. Fire started simultaneously in different parts of building; 2. Presence of substantial amount of flammable material not necessary in busines s or household use; 3. Flammable material or other devises causing fire or traces thereof are found in building burned; 4. Building insured in amount in excess of value; 5. If within term of single insurance policy more than 2 fires have occurred in same premises; 6. If before the fire, substantial amount of effects usually stored in the build ing had been withdrawn; 7. If money or other consideration was demanded in exchange for desistance of of fender, or for the safety of person or property of the victim r Sec 7 of PD 1613 penalizes conspiracy to commit arson Chapter 9: Malicious Mischief Malicious mischief = any person who shall deliberately cause to the properly of another any damage by any means other than fire. r Because, if you use fire, it is arson. Any other means other than fire would b e malicious mischief r Arson is not limited to burning buildings. It can cover burning another person s books. (But Sandoval proposes that malicious mischief covers malicious destruct ion of personal property, except train, airplane, vessel, watercraft or conveyan ce for transportation of persons or property) Article 327. Who Are Liable for Malicious Mischief Elements 1. Offender deliberately caused damage to the property of another; 2. Such act does not constitute arson or other crimes involving destruction; 3. The act of damaging another s property was committed merely for the sake of dam aging it; r There is destruction of the property of another but there is no misappropriati on. Otherwise, it would be theft if he gathers the effects of destruction. SITUATION: A person destroyed another's property because of his negligence. Exam ple is a reckless driver who bumps another car and destroys it. Did he commit ma licious mischief through reckless imprudence? ANS: There is no such thing. There is a contradiction since when you say mali cious mischief there is intent. But when you say reckless imprudence, there is n

o intent. The correct designation of the crime is damage to property through rec kless imprudence. SITUATION: Your neighbor s goat entered your yard and ate your plants. Because of anger, you killed the goat. ANS: You committed malicious mischief since you killed because of spite or re sentment. But if after killing the goat, you decided to cook it and eat it. You are now liable for theft under Art 308, par 3 (malicious mischief is thus convertible) r Penalty for malicious mischief is based on Art 329 & 328 of damage caused Article 328. Special Case of Malicious Mischief Acts punished 1. Causing damage to obstruct the performance of public functions; 2. Using any poisonous or corrosive substance; 3. Spreading any infection or contagion among cattle; 4. Causing damage to the property of the National Museum or National Library, or to any archive or registry, waterworks, road, promenade, or any other thing use d is common by the pubic. Article 329. Other Mischiefs All other mischiefs not included in the next preceding article Example of Malicious Mischief where amount of damage cannot be estimated: (Pp v. Dumlao) X decided to scatter human waste around Y s house. This is only a light felony of malicious mischief since damage cannot be estimated. Article 330. Damage and Obstruction to Means of Communication This is committed by damaging any railway, telegraph or telephone lines. Article 331. Destroying or Damaging Statues, Public Monuments, or Paintings Chapter 10: Exemption from Criminal Liability in Crimes against Property Article 332. Persons Exempt from Criminal Liability Crimes involved in the exemption 1. Theft; 2. Estafa; and 3. Malicious mischief. SITUATION: Son robs his father ANS: Art 332 does not apply but the relationship may be considered mitig ating under Art 15. In Crimes against Property, the effect of relationship between the offen der and the offended party is exempting if the crime committed is one of those m entioned in Art 332. If not, then relationship becomes mitigating under Art 15. Persons exempted from criminal liability: (will only be civilly liable; REASON: public policy) 1. Spouse, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line ; 2. Widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the deceased sp depend on the amount

ouse before the same passed into the possession of another 3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living togeth er. r Third parties who participate are not exempt. r ascendants and descendants = also apply to relation of adopted parent and adopte d child; or step-parent and step-child r The relationship between the spouses is not limited to legally married couples ; the provision applies to live-in partners. r Estafa should not be complexed with any other crime in order for exemption to operate. TITLE XI. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY Chapter 1: Adultery and Concubinage f The crimes of adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction and acts of lascivio usness are the so-called private crimes. They cannot be prosecuted except upon the complaint initiated by the offended party. f But the moment the offended party has initiated the criminal complaint, the pu blic prosecutor will take over and continue with prosecution of the offender. T hat is why under Article 344, if the offended party pardons the offender, that p ardon will only be valid if it comes before the prosecution starts. f The moment the prosecution starts, the crime has already become public and it is beyond the offended party to pardon the offender. Article 333. Who Are Guilty of Adultery Elements: (PC med to max) 1. The woman is married; 2. She has sexual intercourse with a man not her husband; 3. As regards the man with whom she has sexual intercourse, he must know her to be married. Mitigating Circumstance: (1 degree lower) If the offense was committed while being abandoned by the offended spous e. f Sexual intercourse is proven by circumstantial evidence f Every act of sexual intercourse constitute one crime of adultery because the e ssence of the crime is not the relationship f In case the marriage is void, for as long as there is no declaration of nullit y, the crime of adultery exists because the married woman has no right to assume that their marriage is defective f Adultery is a crime not only of the married woman but also of the man who had intercourse with a married woman knowing her to be married. o Even if the man proves later on that he does not know the woman to be married, at the beginning, he must still be included in the complaint or information. I t is the court who will acquit the man, not the prosecutor f There are no accomplices in adultery. o Married woman and her paramour meets through your cooperation = you are not li able as an accomplice. In adultery, while there may be accomplice in fact, there is no accomplice in law Article 334. Concubinage Elements: (PC min & med) 1. The man is married; 2. He is either

a. Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling; b. Having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances with a woman who is not his wife; or c. Cohabiting with a woman who is not his wife in any other place; 3. As regards the woman, she knows that the man is married. (she suffers de stierro) Manner #1: He will take a mistress and let her live with them in the conjugal home. So, if he maintains a querida somewhere else, the law is not violated. Manner #2: Wife hired a private detective who was the main witness. There is no concubin age because sex was not done under scandalous circumstances. Manner #3: Cohabit means living with her as husband and wife. If he only visits her and goes back to his family, that is not cohabitation. If the husband stayed with his mistress for one week and went home, there is still no concubinage. f It is very hard to get a conviction under concubinage, thus, the Family Code a dded sexual infidelity as ground for legal separation. Chapter 2: Acts of Lasciviousness Article 335. Rape: This has been repealed by Republic Act No. 8353 or the AntiRape Law of 1997 Article 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed Elements under paragraph 1 1. Offender is a man; 2. Offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; 3. Such act is accomplished under any of the following circumstances: a. By using force or intimidation; b. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; or d. When the woman is under 12 years of age or demented.

Elements under paragraph 2 1. Offender commits an act of sexual assault; 2. The act of sexual assault is committed by any of the following means: b. By inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice; or c. By inserting any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of ano ther person; (penetration is thus necessary) 3. The act of sexual assault is accomplished under any of the following cir cumstances: b. By using force or intimidation; or c. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or d. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; or e. When the woman is under 12 years of age or demented. n Since rape is now a crime against person, it has become a public crime. It can be prosecuted even if the woman does not file a complaint. (before, it is a pri vate crime and cannot be prosecuted de officio)

Par 1: n This type can only be committed by a man as a principal by direct participatio n. A woman though can still be liable as principal by inducement or principal by indispensable cooperation n Penetration no matter how slight consummates the crime even if there is no eja culation o Offender tried to introduce his big penis but failed = consummated rape since there was slight penetration n Attempted Rape = attempt to penetrate but there was no penetration at all n Frustrated Rape = no such thing (Pp v. Erinia is a stray decision); BECAUSE in rape, either there is penetration or no penetration at all Pp v. Dela Pea (233 S 573) F: Man did not have an erection H: no consummated rape; this was an impossible crime When we said that partial penetration is sufficient to consummate the crime of rape, it assumes that there is an erection. If there is no erection, rape is not consummated. Our decisions finding a case of rape even if the attacker's penis merely tou ched the external portion of the female genitalia were made in the context of th e presence or the existence of an erectile penis capable of full penetration. Th ere is the physiological impossibility of penetration absent the erection. Our past decisions sustaining a charge of rape in cases where complete penet ration has not occurred assume that the male organ is physiologically capable of accomplishing the act of full penetration at the time of the event whether or n ot the latter had actually occurred. Marital Rape: Husband can be guilty of raping his wife based on Art 266-C, par 2 where lega l husband, as the offender, can be pardoned by the wife, the offended party Through force or intimidation: n If the offender and the victim are related, force and intimidation need not be of such nature as would be required in rape cases had the accused been a strang er. o If the offender is a stranger, court expects higher resistance o Mere no, no is not enough resistance if rapist was a stranger. But in the case o f incestuous rape (father raped his daughter), then it is enough n Woman yielded because of authentic apprehension of a real fear of imminent dea th or great bodily harm = there is rape (Pp v. Ngo 202 S 549)

Deprived of Reason: n Sexual intercourse with an insane woman is presumed to be rape. n Rapist did not know that the woman was insane = rapist is still liable since k nowledge of the accused of the victim s mental condition is not an essential eleme nt in rape (Pp v. Canillo 236 S 22) Unconscious: n Woman was asleep when offender has sexual intercourse with her = rape n Woman was under the influence of anesthesia. She was conscious of what was hap pening but she was groggy = there was rape (Pp v. Lintag 126 S 511) o If the ability to resist was taken away by administering drugs, even if the wo man may be conscious, sexual intercourse would have been rape. n Woman was half-asleep. She knew that someone was having sexual intercourse wit h her, but she did not open her eyes thinking it was her boyfriend. = no rape bu t 6 justices dissented (Pp v. Salazar 277 S 578) Woman is under 12 years old or is demented:

n STATUTORY RAPE = rape of a woman under 12 years old; still considered rape eve n if the victim consented o If you has sexual intercourse with a child prostitute who is under 12, even if it was the child who enticed you = still rape n DEMENTED = a girl, although not under 12, has a mind of a child under 12 o In rape of feeble-minded person, intimidation need not precede the sexual inte rcourse (Pp v. Palma 144 S 286) Par 2: n Offender used his finger = no rape since a finger cannot be considered an obje ct Penalty: (1st paragraph / 2nd paragraph) (1) RP / PM (2) RP to D / PM to RT -(a) Where rape is perpetrated by the accused with a deadly weapon; or (b) Where it is committed by two or more persons. (3) RP to D / RT -(a) Where the victim of the rape has become insane; or (b) Where the rape is attempted but a killing was committed by the offender on t he occasion or by reason of the rape. (attempted rape with homicide) (4) D / RP -- Where homicide is committed by reason or on occasion of a consumma ted rape. (rape with homicide) (5) D /RT (10 circumstances of QUALIFIED RAPE) (a) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a pa rent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity wi thin the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victi m; (incestuous rape) (b) When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities o r any law enforcement or penal institution: (c) When the rape is committed in full view of the spouse, parent, any of the ch ildren or other relatives within the third civil degree of consanguinity; (d) When the victim is a religious engaged in legitimate religious vocation or c alling and is personally known to be such by the offender before or at the time of the commission of the crime; (e) When the victim is a child below seven (7) years old; (f) When the offender knows that he is afflicted with Human Immuno-Deficiency Vi rus (HIV/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or any other sexually transm issible disease and the virus or disease is transmitted to the victim; (g) When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or paramilitary units thereof or the Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency or penal institution, when the offender took advantage of his position to facilitate the commission of the crime; (h) When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered perma nent physical mutilation or disability; (i) When the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime; and (j) When the offender knew of the mental disability emotional disorder and/or ph ysical handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime . SITUATION: Woman testified that she saw a weapon on the offender s pocket. The off ender did not use the weapon ANS: The rape was not committed with the use of deadly weapon. To fall her e, the deadly weapon should have been used. Multiple Rape = 2 or more persons rape a girl, one after another, each one is guilty for the rape committed by him and his companions. n If 3 people raped a girl, each will be guilty of 3 counts of rape

Sanchez v. Demetriou (227 S 627) F: Mayor Sanchez and his 6 companions were each charged with 7 counts of rape wi th homicide for raping Aileen Sarmenta and killing her and her companion, Allan Gomez afterwards. Sanchez argues that his is absurd since the victims could not have died 7 times. H: the charge was proper When there are two or more offenders who commit rape, the homicide committed on the occasion or by reason of such rape must be deemed as a constituent of th e special complex crime of rape with homicide. Therefore, there will be as many crimes of rape with homicide as there are rapes committed. In effect, the presence of homicide qualifies the crime of rape, thereby rais ing its penalty to the highest degree. Thus, homicide committed on the occasion or by reason of the rape loses its character as an independent offense and assum es a new character and functions as a qualifying circumstance. n In rape with homicide, the primary crime rape. Homicide is corollary or adjunc t. Since there are 7 rapes, there are 7 charges. Since homicide is only an incid ent of rape, then automatically the 7 homicides are also appended to the 7 charg es of rape. It must be deemed only as a constituent of the special complex crime . So, there are 7 cases of rape with homicide for the death of Sarmenta. The dea th of Gomez serves only as an aggravating circumstance for the 7 counts of rape with homicide. Pp F: ed H: v. Laspardas (93 S 638) A man wanted to kill a woman. So, he stabbed her. While she was dying, he rap her Not a crime of rape with homicide Rape with homicide presupposes that the accused rapes and then kills the vic tim. The case at bar is the other way around. The accused killed the victim and then raped her. It is not rape with homicide. It is murder. The rape is regarded as an aggra vating circumstance. It is a form of ignominy causing disgrace to the victim or as a form of cruelty which aggravated the murder because it was unnecessary to t he commission of the murder and was a manifest outrage on the victim's person. Qualified Rape: n There can be no offsetting when it involves these instances n Indemnity is P75T Rape aggravated by relationship: n relationship is not aggravating * Offender is the live-in partner of the victim s grandmother * Offender is the step-grandfather In filing information, the prosecutor must allege 1. The minority of the victim (exact age of the victim must be alleged o case) 2. Relationship of the offender and the victim Fortillan

n Information did not state that victim was a minor, only that the offender was a parent = simple rape n Mother temporarily left her child to the offender, X who raped the child. X wa s charged of rape being a guardian = X is not a guardian but only a custodian (D ela Quasta case) n Offender is the live-in partner of the mother but information said the victim was raped by step-parent = simple rape since qualifying circumstance not properl y alleged Pardon:

n Under Article 266-C, the offended woman may pardon the offender through a subs equent valid marriage, the effect of which would be the extinction of the offend er s liability. o The marriage should be in good faith n Similarly, the legal husband may be pardoned by forgiveness of the wife provid ed that the marriage is not void ab initio. Article 336. Acts of Lasciviousness (Rape minus sexual intercourse) Kinds of Acts of Lasciviousness: 1. Art 336 = committed under circumstances of rape where the victim may be of ei ther sex 2. Art 339 = committed under the circumstance of qualified or simple seduction a nd the victim is always a woman Elements: (PC) 1. Offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; 2. It is done under any of the following circumstances: a. By using force or intimidation; b. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; or d. When the woman is under 12 years of age or demented. 3. Offended party is another person of either sex. Offender Rape Acts of Lasciviousness Attemptedhas the intention to have carnal knowledge but for some cause or accide Offender has his own spontaneous carnal knowledge, his only it nt other thanno intention to have desistance, he failed to dopurpose is to perfo rm lascivious acts f If offender is not motivated by lewdness, kissing or touching a girl s breast is considered as unjust vexation (Example: offender touched girl s private parts in a church) NOTE: RA 7610, Child Abuse Law provides that if the victim is below 12 year old, penalty is RT med Chapter 3: Seduction, Corruption of Minors, and White Slave Trade Types of Seduction: (victim is always a woman who is over 12 but under 18 unless seduced by her brother or ascendant) 1. Qualified = consented sex due to abuse of authority, confidence or relationsh ip 2. Simple = consented sex due to deceit Article 337. Qualified Seduction Acts punished 1. Seduction of a virgin over 12 years and under 18 years of age by certain persons, such as a person in authority, priest, teacher; and (PC min & med) 2. Seduction of a sister by her brother, or descendant by her ascendant, re gardless of her age or reputation. (1 degree higher) Person liable 1. Those who abused their authority a. Person in public authority; b. Guardian; c. Teacher; (not necessary that the offended woman be his student. It is enough that she is enrolled in the same school) d. Person who, in any capacity, is entrusted with the education or custody of th e woman seduced; 2. Those who abused confidence reposed in them a. Priest;

b. House servant; c. Domestic; (someone living in the same house; like a boarder seduces the daugh ter of landlady) 3. Those who abused their relationship a. Brother who seduced his sister; b. Ascendant who seduced his descendant. Virginity: f For purposes of qualified seduction, virginity does not mean physical virginit y. Where a girl is single and of good reputation, the law automatically presume s that she is a virgin UNLESS proven otherwise that she is a prostitute f Virginity is immaterial if the offender is a brother or ascendant Girl must be over 12 or under 18 f If girl is below 12, it is rape immaterial that the girl consented f Age of the girl is immaterial if the offender is the brother or ascendant Article 338. Simple Seduction

Elements: (AMayor) 1. Offender party is over 12 and under 18 years of age; 2. She is of good reputation, single or widow; 3. Offender has sexual intercourse with her; 4. It is committed by means of deceit. f Unlike in qualified seduction, virginity is not essential in this crime. f widow = obsolete already since under Family Code, only persons over 18 years old are qualified to marry f The failure to comply with the promise of marriage constitutes the deceit ment ioned in the law. f There is no deceit when o The woman knew that the man is married o Man offered to pay for sexual favor and the woman accepted but the man did not pay afterwards (because the woman is a prostitute) Article 339. Acts of Lasciviousness with the Consent of the Offender Party (Qua lified or Simple Seduction minus sex) Elements: (AMayor) 1. Offender commits acts of lasciviousness or lewdness; 2. The acts are committed upon a woman who is a virgin or single or widow of goo d reputation, under 18 years of age but over 12 years, or a sister or descendant , regardless of her reputation or age; 3. Offender accomplishes the acts by abuse of authority, confidence, relationshi p, or deceit. Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995 (RA 7877) Here, the offender need not perform the lascivious conduct to be guilty of ac ts of lasciviousness. Lascivious words or suggestions are enough to constitute a n offense Actually, sexual harassment is not committed just anywhere. 1. It is committed only in a workplace or in an education or training environmen t. 2. It is committed by an employer, manager, supervisor, agent of the employer, t eacher, instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or any other person holding autho rity, influence, or moral ascendancy over another in work or training or educati on environment 3. He demands, requests, or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the offende

d party 4. regardless of whether the demand, request or requirement for submission is ac cepted by her So, mere words, proposal would constitute sexual harassment. This is similar to the crime of abuse against chastity under Art. 245. But Ar t. 245 covers only public officers taking advantage of people interested in matt ers pending before his office. RA 7877 applies to people working in the same pla ce or in an education or training institution. Penalty: 1. imprisonment of 1 month to 6 months 2. fine of P10T to P20T Mere Thereproposalspecified Committedlascivious conduct Applies only to by any person Can ofcommittedcertain places Sexual Harassmentanywhere the ActsbeisLasciviousness personscrime by consummates Article 340. Corruption of Minors (PM & temp. absolute disqualification if publ ic officer or ee including those in GOCC) f This punishes any person who shall promote or facilitate the prostitution or c orruption of persons under age to satisfy the lust of another. f It is not required that the offender be the guardian or custodian of the minor . f It is not necessary that the minor be prostituted or corrupted as the law mere ly punishes the act of promoting or facilitating the prostitution or corruption of said minor and that he acted in order to satisfy the lust of another. Article 341. White Slave Trade Acts punished: (PM med & max) 1. Engaging in the business of prostitution; 2. Profiting by prostitution; 3. Enlisting the services of women for the purpose of prostitution. Chapter 4: Abduction Kinds of Abduction: (victim is always a woman) 1. Forcible Abduction = woman is abducted against her will and with lewd designs 2. Consented Abduction = woman is a virgin over 12 or under 18 Article 342. Forcible Abduction Elements: (RT) 1. The person abducted is any woman, regardless or her age, civil status, or rep utation; 2. The abduction is against her will; (unless the girl is below 12) 3. The abduction is with lewd designs. NOTE: If the offended woman is under 12 years old, even if she consented to the abduction, the crime is forcible abduction and not consented abduction. Lewd: Something obscene, lustful, indecent, lascivious, lecherous. It signifies tha t kind or form of immorality which has relation to moral impurity or that which is carried on in a wanton manner. f If the element of lewd design is present, the carrying of the woman would qual ify as abduction; otherwise, it would amount to kidnapping. f If the woman was only brought to a certain place in order to break her will an d make her agree to marry the offender, the crime is only grave coercion because the criminal intent of the offender is to force his will upon the woman and not really to restrain the woman of her liberty.

SITUATION: A woman is forcibly abducted and brought somewhere else. Then, she wa s raped ANS: This is a complex crime of forcible abduction with rape since one offens e is committed as a necessary means of committing another offense. f But do not confuse this with the ruling in the case of People vs. Angeles, whe re the woman is robbed and dragged for several blocks away, brought to a hotel a nd then raped. The Supreme Court there said that the crime is robbery and forcib le abduction with rape because the two crimes were separated in time and space. SITUATION: A woman is abducted and was raped on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd day. Is the crime forcible abduction with rape or forcible abduction with multiple rape? ANS: The crime is forcible abduction with rape with respect to the first rape . But the succeeding rapes should be treated as separate and independent. Where several sexual intercourses done were continuous after the abduction, t here is only one crime of forcible abduction with rape. If there was a cut-off, the subsequent rapes are separate crimes. (Where several persons participated in the forcible abduction and these persons also raped the offended woman, the original ruling in the case of People v. Jose is that there would be one count of forcible abduction with rape and then each of them will answer for his own rape and the rape of the others minus the first rape which was complexed with the forcible abduction. This ruling is no longer the prevailing rule. The view adopted in cases of similar nature is to the effe ct that where more than one person has effected the forcible abduction with rape , all the rapes are just the consummation of the lewd design which characterizes the forcible abduction and, therefore, there should only be one forcible abduct ion with rape.) Article 343. Consented Abduction (elope) Elements: (PC min & med) 1. Offended party is a virgin; 2. She is over 12 and under 18 years of age; 3. Offender takes her away with her consent, after solicitation or cajolery; 4. The taking away is with lewd designs. Crimes against Chastity where the age of the victim is MATERIAL 1. Qualified Seduction with abuse of authority or abuse of confidence 2. Simple Seduction 3. Acts of Lasciviousness with the consent of the offended party under the same conditions 4. Consented Abduction Crimes against Chastity where the age of the victim is IMMATERIAL: 1. Rape 2. Acts of Lasciviousness 3. Qualified Seduction - with abuse of relationship 4. Forcible Abduction Chapter 5: Provisions Relative to the Preceding Chapters of Title 11 Art 344: Prosecution of the crimes of Adultery, Concubinage, Seduction, Abductio n, (RAPE), and acts of lasciviousness f All these private crimes except rape cannot be prosecuted de officio. f If any slander or written defamation is made out of any of these crimes, the c omplaint of the offended party is still necessary before such case for libel or oral defamation may proceed.

o It will not prosper because the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over these c rimes unless there is a complaint from the offended party. Adultery and Concubinage: Both the offender spouse and the paramour must be included. If during the prosecutor s investigation, it was established that the man did not know that the woman was married, the man must still be charged in court SINCE it is the court who should acquit the paramour, not the prosecutor. If the offended party wants to pardon the offender spouse, he must pardo n both the offender spouse and the paramour. BUT must Given prior to crime is Consent come before the case is filed in court since it is not a mode of exting Pardonafter thethe crime committed H&W executed an agreement saying they are separated and can do whatever they wan uishing criminal liability only a bar to the filing of an action t. Although such agreement is void, it produces an effect in Criminal Law (a def ense in Criminal Law) f If the victim is a minor, the victim cannot pardon without the concurrence of the parents Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera (174 S 663) F: Filipina wife committed adultery so German husband filed a divorce in Germany . After the divorce decree was granted, German came back and sued the Filipina f or adultery H: Case cannot prosper since you must be the husband at the time of filing of th e case. SITUATION: Husband cohabited with his paramour. Now, Husband is suing his wife f or adultery. Wife argues that Husband cannot sue her under the doctrine of pari delicto. ANS: The concept of pari delicto is not found in the RPC. It is only und er Art.1411 of the Civil Code, which relates only to contract with illegal consi derations. The act of the husband in cohabiting with another involves no illegal contract which either of the contracting parties is now seeking to enforce. So, the concept of in pan delicto applies only to contracts and not to crimes under the Penal Code. f If that there is no affidavit-complaint for the information, the remedy is to file a Motion to quash because the court has no jurisdiction to try the offense. Effect of Marriage: In seduction, abduction, and acts of lasciviousness, marriage of the offender and the offended party extinguishes the criminal liability. This benefits co-pr incipals, accomplices and accessories. Principals referred to here are Principal s by Inducement and Principals by Indispensable Cooperation. In the case of rape, since it has ceased being a crime against chastity, the marriage of the offender and the offended party only benefits the husband and no t to the principals and accomplices (Reyes) This principle does not apply where multiple rape is committed since each act is separate and independent. Example: X, Y and Z raped V. A case was filed against all of them. Later, V marries X. This will not benefit Y and Z because they are not the principals referred to b y law. (Art 266-C) f Take note that what extinguishes criminal liability is the marriage, not the p ardon. What extinguishes criminal liability is pardon by the President, not pard on by the offended party. PROBLEM: H is married to W. W had an affair with B. So, W and B were charged wit

h adultery. While the case was pending, H died. W married B. Will the marriage l ead to the dismissal of the case? ANS: No. This law applies only to seduction, abduction, rape, or acts of lasc iviousness. It does not apply to the crimes of adultery or concubinage. Moreover, what the law contemplates is marriage between the the offender and the offended party. This case is a marriage between 2 offenders.

Article 345. Civil Liability of Persons Guilty of Crimes against Chastity Crimes covered: 1. rape 2. abduction and 3. seduction Civil Liability of Offender: 1. indemnify the offended woman 2. acknowledge the offspring, unless the law should prevent him from doing so (l ike in case of multiple rape because of doubtful paternity) 3. support the offspring Indemnification: 1. Rape = minimum of P50T 2. Qualified Rape = minimum of P75T (Pp v. Victor) Reparation: 1. Rape = moral damages of P50T is automatically awarded to girls aged 13 to 18 2. Damages need not be included in the pleading 3. Rape with homicide = P100 since P50T for rape and P50T for homicide (Pp v. Ro bles) Support: In multiple rape, while acknowledgment is not possible, support pro rata will be ordered by the court of the convicted rapists. However, the Supreme Court said that support also should be dispensed with if the woman who is raped is married because this may create disturbance in the fa mily of the victim if from time to time, the rapist would be sending his money t o the child who is presumed to be the child of the husband. But if the victim is single, that is all right. Article 346. Liability of Ascendants, Guardians, Teachers, or Other Persons entr ust with the custody of the Offended Party f In seduction, abduction, rape and act of lasciviousness, the above person will be penalized as principals even though the cooperated as accomplices. f Same as Art 268 where person who will furnish the place for Illegal Detention is penalized as principal TITLE XII. CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVIL STATUS OF PERSONS Chapter 1: Simulation of Births and Usurpation of Civil Status Article 347. Simulation of Births, Substitution of One Child for Another, and C oncealment of Abandonment of A Legitimate Child Acts punished: (PM) 1. Simulation of births;

2. Substitution of one child for another; 3. Concealing or abandoning any legitimate child with intent to cause such child to lose its civil status. Article 349. Usurpation of Civil Status (PM if purpose is to defraud; if not, t hen PC) f This crime is committed when a person represents himself to be another and ass umes the filiation or the parental or conjugal rights of such another person. o The term "civil status" includes one's public station, or the rights, duties, capacities and incapacities which determine a person to a given class. It seems that the term "civil status" includes one's profession. f Thus, where a person impersonates another and assumes the latter's right as th e son of wealthy parents, the former commits a violation of this article. Chapter 2: Illegal Marriages Article 349. Bigamy Elements: (PM) 1. Offender has been legally married; 2. The marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code; 3. He contracts a second or subsequent marriage; 4. The second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validi ty. f Bigamy is not a private crime thus it can be filed by any person other than th e offended parties How is marriage dissolved: 1. annulment, or 2. declaration of nullity, or 3. when the other party dies 4. absence for 4 years and he has been declared by the judge as presumptively de ad. f The second marriage must have all the essential requisites for validity were i t not for the existence of the first marriage. EXAMPLE: I remarried another woman without a license before the barangay captain . There is no bigamy since the marriage is void. f A judicial declaration of the nullity of a marriage, that is, that the marriag e was void ab initio, is now required. Without such declaration, one can be guil ty of bigamy even if the 1st marriage is void. (Mercado v. Tan 8/1/2000) f In Mercado v. Tan, the 1st marriage was declared void only after the 2nd marri age was contracted = bigamy was still committed since the declaration must be be fore the 2nd marriage was contracted PROBLEMS: H & W are first cousins. X told W that her marriage is void thus X & W got ma rried. Now, X is being prosecuted for bigamy. X s defense is that W s first marriage is void. ANS: In Pp v. Mendoza (95 P), it was ruled that there is no bigamy since 1st marriage is void. But because of Art 40 of the Family Code, this ruling has been abrogated. Now, a declaration of absolute nullity of the previous marriage must first be obtained.

H contracted 2nd marriage. When 1st wife died, H contracted 3rd marriage. (Pp v. Aragon 100 P) ANS: 3rd marriage is not bigamous since 2nd marriage is void. (but becau se of Art 40 of the Family Code, H still be prosecuted for bigamy since a judici al declaration for nullity is necessary) H & W are married. H married X in Singapore. H & X returned to the Philippine s and lived as husband and wife. Can H be prosecuted for bigamy? ANS: NO. The crime was committed outside Philippine territory. Hence bigamy i s not committed. This is not one of the exceptions of the principle on territori ality of criminal laws. BUT H can be prosecuted for concubinage since he cohabited with X. If X knew that H is married, X can also be liable for bigamy as an accomplice , not as a principal since X is not married. SC even ruled that if you act as a witness to the second wedding when you have also acted as a witness to the first wedding, you are also liable f One convicted of bigamy may also be prosecuted for concubinage as both are dis tinct offenses. Article 350. Illegal Marriage Elements: (PC med & max; if used force, intimidation or fraud ed) 1. Offender contracted marriage; 2. He knew at the time that a. The requirements of the law were not complied with; or b. The marriage was in disregard of a legal impediment. Article 351. Premature Marriage Persons liable: (AMayor) 1. A widow who is married within 301 days from the date of the death of her husb and, or before having delivered if she is pregnant at the time of his death; 2. A woman who, her marriage having been annulled or dissolved, married before h er delivery or before the expiration of the period of 301 days after the date of the legal separation. If the former husband is impotent, or was shown to be sterile, this provision do es not apply since its only purpose is to prevent doubtful paternity of the chil d thus woman has no criminal intent. Art 352: Performance of Illegal Ceremony Priests or ministers who shall perform or authorize illegal marriages shall be p unished by Marriage Law. TITLE XIII. CRIMES AGAINST HONOR Chapter 1: Libel Article 353. Definition of Libel E Spanish used defamacion thus the better translation is defamation which is broader . Defamation done in writing is called libel but if done orally, it is called sl ander. E Seditious Libel or Inciting to Sedition (Art 142) = one way of committing this is by writing scurrilous libels against the gov t; Not the type of libel referred to here since Seditious libel is a crime against public order penalty is maximiz

Libel A public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstances tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. Elements: 1. There must be an imputation a. of a crime, or b. of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or c. any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance; 2. The imputation must be made publicly; 3. It must be malicious; 4. The imputation must be directed at a natural or juridical person, or one who is dead; 5. The imputation must tend to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of the person defamed. 1st Element: E Imputation of a crime: o I falsely imputed to you the commission of estafa and I testified in a crimina l case against you = not libel but false testimony o I charged you falsely before the Prosecutor s Office by executing an affidavit = not libel but perjury o If I advertised my false imputations, or wrote it in a newspaper = libel (So, it depends on how the offender imputed the crime to the victim) E Imputation of an omission = I tell everybody that you do not pay your debts E Imputation of a status = I publicly announce that X is a bastard, or crazy, or mangkukulam 2nd Element: Publicly = it is communicated to a third person EXAMPLE: A newspaper reported wrote a defamatory article against X but i t was not published. Libel was still committed since other employees of the pape r read it. 3rd Element: Principle of MALICE IN LAW Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious and therefore, the p rosecution is relieved of the burden of proving the element of malice. That is only an extension of the principle that criminal intent is presumed from the commission of a criminal act. 4th Element: E Offended party must be identified E X said that all ADDU teachers are corrupt = not libel since the statement is a sweeping generalization; the whole ADDU faculty cannot file libel charges again st X E 4 of you are brothers and X called you all thieves = X is liable for libel sin ce the victims are now identified o There are as many crimes of libel or slander as there are offended parties. = SO, 4 counts of libel was committed (BUT this is not a settled issue since X can argue that there is only 1 libel since he only made 1 declaration) Note that in libel, the person defamed need not be expressly identified. It i s enough that he could possibly be identified because innuendos may also be a bas is for prosecution for libel. 5th Element:

E o E o

Dishonor is the state of being despised causing low self-esteem. The essence is to be insulted. Praise undeserved is libel in disguise. Example, everywhere I go you announce that I am not a thief.

Self-defense in Libel If X libels me, and I hit him back with another libel, I am not liable for li bel because I acted only in self-defense. However, the law on self-defense in libel requires that the libel I used to h it back must have some relation or connection to your statement. X says that Y is a thief because he is stealing from the company. Y answers t hat the charge is not true and in fact it is X who stole from the company. But if X says that Y is a thief because he is stealing from the company then Y answers that X has gonorrhea, then Y's charge has no relation whatsoever to X' s imputation. So, you cannot apply here the law on self-defense in libel. This ruling is questionable though since you cannot apply Article 11(1) on la w on self-defense because there is not physical aggression. When somebody insult s you, it is only an aggression to your honor.

Article 354. Requirement of Publicity GR: Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown (Malice in La w) EXCEPTION: Privileged Communication 1. Absolute Privileged Communication = legislators cannot be sued for libel for speeches they delivered in Congress (Constitution) 2. Qualified or Partial Privileged Communication a. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of a ny legal, moral or social duty; and (Art 354 par 1) b. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, i. of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not of c onfidential nature, or ii. of any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or iii. of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their func tions. (Art 354 par 2) Private Communication: 1. The communication must be PRIVATE. 2. It must be addressed to the right person. E Legal Duty = Importer wrote the head of Anti-Smuggling Team of Bureau of Custo ms that some of his men were harassing him and extorting money from him (Manuel v. Pano 172 S 225) E Moral Duty: Parishioners wrote a letter to the bishop denouncing their parish priest E Social Duty: The parents denounced to the principal the actuations of a teache r = not libel since the purpose there is to correct or put to a stop to these pr actices Fair and true reports without any comments or remarks: In cases of trial by publicity, if the story is true, made in good faith, and without any comments or remarks -- that is straight reporting -- the reporter s hould not be held liable. Borjal v. CA [G.R. No. 126466. January 14, 1999.] F: Borjal attacked a private individual, Francisco Wenceslao, in his column sayi

ng he is only out to get money. Wenceslao is the executive director of the Natio nal Conference of Land Transportation. So Wenceslao filed a civil case for damag es based on libel against Borjal H: expanded the meaning of privileged communication Borjal is not liable for libel since Art 354 includes fair commentaries. Indisputably, petitioner Borjal's questioned writings are not within the exc eptions of Art. 354 of The Revised Penal Code for, as correctly observed by the appellate court, they are neither private communications nor fair and true repor t without any comments or remarks. However this does not necessarily mean that they are not privileged. To be s ure, the enumeration under Art. 354 is not an exclusive list of qualifiedly priv ileged communications since fair commentaries on matters of public interest are likewise privileged. The rule on privileged communications had its genesis not in the nation's pe nal code but in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of s peech and of the press. 19 As early as 1918, in United States v. Caete, this Cour t ruled that publications which are privileged for reasons of public policy are protected by the constitutional guaranty of freedom of speech. This constitution al right cannot be abolished by the mere failure of the legislature to give it e xpress recognition in the statute punishing libels. Fair commentaries on matters of public interest are privileged and constitut e a valid defense in an action for libel or slander. The doctrine of fair commen t means that while in general every discreditable imputation publicly made is de emed false, because every man is presumed innocent until his guilt is judicially proved, and every false imputation is deemed malicious, nevertheless, when the discreditable imputation is directed against a public person in his public capac ity, it is not necessarily actionable. In order that such discreditable imputati on to a public official may be actionable, it must either be a false allegation of fact or a comment based on a false supposition. If the comment is an expressi on of opinion, based on established facts, then it is immaterial that the opinio n happens to be mistaken, as long as it might reasonably be inferred from the fa cts. Offended party is no with the gov t is of no moment since his job made him a publi c personage Public Figure" is a person who, by his accomplishments, fame, mode of living, or by adopting a profession or calling which gives the public a legitimate inte rest in his doings, his affairs and his character, has become a 'public personag e.' He is, in other words, a celebrity. Obviously, to be included in this catego ry are those who have achieved some degree of reputation by appearing before the public, as in the case of an actor, a professional baseball player, a pugilist, or any other entertainer. The list is, however, broader than this. It includes public officers, famous inventors and explorers, war heroes and even ordinary so ldiers, infant prodigy, and no less a personage than the Great Exalted Ruler of the lodge. It includes, in short, anyone who has arrived at a position where the public attention is focused upon him as a person. But even assuming ex-gratia argumenti that private respondent, despite the p osition he occupied in the FNCLT, would not qualify as a public figure, it does not necessarily follow that he could not validly be the subject of a public comm ent even if he was not a public official or at least a public figure, for he cou ld be, as long as he was involved in a public issue. If a matter is a subject of public or general interest, it cannot suddenly become less so merely because a private individual is involved or because in some sense the individual did not v oluntarily choose to become involved. The public's primary interest is in the ev ent; the public focus is on the conduct of the participant and the content, effe ct and significance of the conduct, not the participant's prior anonymity or not oriety. To be considered malicious, publication must be shown to have been written with

malice or in reckless disregard of what is false or not Malice connotes ill will or spite and speaks not in response to duly but mer ely to injure the reputation of the person defamed, and implies an intention to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm. Malice is bad faith or bad motive. It is t he essence of the crime of libel. Primarily, private respondent failed to substantiate by preponderant evidenc e that petitioner was animated by a desire to inflict unjustifiable harm on his reputation, or that the articles were written and published without good motives or justifiable ends. On the other hand, we find petitioner Borjal to have acted in good faith. Furthermore, to be considered malicious, the libelous statements must be sho wn to have been written or published with the knowledge that they are false or i n reckless disregard of whether they are false or not. 37 "Reckless disregard of what is false or not" means that the defendant entertains serious doubt as to t he truth of the publication, 38 or that he possesses a high degree of awareness of their probable falsity. E If a newspaper reported on a confidential proceeding like administrative proce eding against a judge, the story will not be privileged since it is in violation of the law. You only report on the decision later E In a complaint in civil case or criminal case, the fiscal necessarily imputes to you a crime in a public document = you cannot sue the fiscal since the commun ication is privileged UNLESS the fiscal made statements in the pleadings that ha s nothing to do with the case o The defamatory statement made in the pleading must be related to the cause of action to be privileged E In commenting on the act of a public official, if the statements are limited t o his official acts, then it is privileged. If it is carried on a personal level , then it is not covered. PROBLEM: X, columnist attacked a public officer. X s motivation is to defame the o fficer. ANS: X can still be held liable for libel even if the statements are cov ered by the privilege. The prosecution must now prove malice on the part of X. ( malice in fact) Evidence fact Malice inof actual malice on the part of the accused which should be proven when law the communication is classified as privileged. And because there is no presumpt ion of malice in law, in order to get a conviction, they should prove malice in The factpresumption laid down by law that when you make a defamatory imputation, it is presumed to be malicious and therefore the prosecution is relieved from the b urden of proving malice on your part E Privileged communication is only a defense insofar as erasing the presumption of malice is concerned. But, if the prosecution can prove malice in fact, then y ou can still be held liable despite the fact that the communication is privilege d. Article 355. Libel by Means of Writings or Similar Means A libel may be committed by means of 1. Writing; 2. Printing; 3. Lithography; 4. Engraving; 5. Radio; 6. Photograph; 7. Painting; 8. Theatrical exhibition; 9. Cinematographic exhibition; or (PC min & med)

10. Any similar means. E If a speaker in a rally defames a person or X used a microphone and defamed Y in Rizal Park = not libel since RADIO was not used; this is only slander or oral defamation Article 356. Threatening to Publish and Offer to Prevent Such Publication for a Compensation Acts punished: (AMayor) 1. Threatening another to publish a libel concerning him, or his parents, spouse , child, or other members of his family; 2. Offering to prevent the publication of such libel for compensation or money c onsideration. (Blackmail) Blackmail any unlawful extortion of money by threats of accusation or exposure. It is possible in (1) light threats under Article 283; and (2) threatening to publish, or offering to prevent the publication of, a libel f or compensation, under Article 356. Article 357. Prohibited Publication of Acts Referred to in the Course of Offici al Proceedings: "Gag Law" Elements: (AMayor) 1. Offender is a reporter, editor or manager of a newspaper, daily or magazine; 2. He publishes facts connected with the private life of another; 3. Such facts are offensive to the honor, virtue and reputation of said person. Article 358. Slander Slander is oral defamation. There are tow kinds of oral defamation: (1) Simple slander; and (AMenor) (2) Grave slander, when it is of a serious and insulting nature (AMayor max to P C min) E Slander is serious or slight depending on the situation o Insulting remark made on the heat of anger = slight o Statement made during a political rally = slight o putang ina mo = no longer scandalous; it has become an ordinary expression which is uttered unwittingly without intention to insult (Larrobis v. CA) Article 359. Slander by Deed (refers to performance of an act, not use of words ) Elements 1. Offender performs any act not included in any other crime against honor; 2. Such act is performed in the presence of other person or persons; 3. Such act casts dishonor, discredit or contempt upon the offended party. Two kinds of slander by deed 1. Simple slander by deed; and (AMenor) 2. Grave slander by deed, that is, which is of a serious nature (AMayor max to P C min) E Whether a certain slanderous act constitutes slander by deed of a serious natu re or not, depends on the social standing of the offended party, the circumstanc es under which the act was committed, the occasion, etc. E Offender went on stage and mashed the breasts of a girl who was performing = s

lander by deed since the intention was to insult her, it was not done with lewd design E Slapping somebody in public = slander by deed If the by Deed Slight intention is not SlanderPhysical Injuriesto hurt but to defame or dishonor the victim and it is d Slap somebody one publicly privately (the intention is to hurt) E Touch the private parts of the girl: o Done publicly to dishonor the girl = slander by deed o Did it by force or girl is below 12 = acts of lasciviousness o Did it to vex or annoy the girl = unjust vexation Article 360. Persons Liable Persons Liable: 1. any person who shall publish, exhibit or cause the publication or exhibition of any defamation 2. author or editor of a book or pamphlet 3. editor or business manager of daily newspaper, magazine, or serial publicatio n Jurisdiction: 1. Under Civil Code, civil action for damages based on libel is an independent c ivil action 2. Criminal and civil action can be filed simultaneously or separately but must be filed before the same court (forced consolidation) 3. The court where the criminal or civil action is first filed shall acquire jur isdiction to the exclusion of other courts 4. RTC has jurisdiction (even though the maximum penalty is only 4 years) 5. Venue is either a. on the place where the article was printed or first published; or b. (at the time of the commission of the offense) where any of the offended part ies actually resides BUT if offended party is a public officer, venue is where s uch public officer holds office Principle of Multiple Publication: Suppose an article is published in the PDI against X. And then, the Mindanao D aily Mirror, which is published in Davao City, reprinted the same story. How man y crimes of libel were committed? ANS: There are two crimes of libel. Under the PRINCIPLE OF MULTIPLE PUBLICATIO N, every time the same story is published and re-published, it creates another c rime of libel. Soriano v. IAC (167 S 222) F: Villegas mimeographed a press release in Tacloban against Tantuico, COA chair who holds office in Quezon. Villegas sent a copy to Soriano, editor in chief of the Guardian which is published in Quezon. Tantuico filed libel case against Vi llegas and Soriano before RTC Tacloban. Soriana argues that RTC Tacloban has no jurisdiction since article was published in Quezon. H: There are 2 separate crimes of libel, you cannot join them in the same inform ation: 1. Villegas committed libel when he published the press release in Tacloban, thu s RTC Tacloban has jurisdiction over him 2. Soriano committed another crime of libel when he published the press release in Quezon, thus RTC Tacloban has no jurisdiction over him In the Philippines, we follow the multiple publication rule, holding tha t each and every publication of the same libel constitutes distinct offense. Und er Art 360, every time the same written matter is communicated, such communicati on is considered as a distinct as separate publication of libel.

For purposes of complying with the jurisdictional requirements of Art 36 0, the liability of a Manila or Quezon City editor must be deemed as commencing with the publication of the allegedly libelous article in his newspaper and not by the typing or mimeographing of press release by interested persons in differe nt municipalities or cities, copies of which are sent to a local newspaper or na tional publication. Crimes Which cannot be Prosecuted de Officio 1. acts of lasciviousness 2. adultery 3. concubinage 4. seduction 5. abduction 6. defamation which imputes to the offended party, the commission of any of the above crimes Gonzales v. Arcilla (203 S 609) F: Gonzales was charged with libel when he called Ordoez Mang aagaw ng asawa ng ma y asawa. The prosecutor translated this as adulteress thus Gonzales moved for its dismissal since there was no sworn complaint by Ordoez H: Sworn complaint was not necessary since the statement did not impute adultery . The translation of the Prosecutor was wrong. The statement only imputes that Ordoez entice husband. Article 361. Proof of Truth When proof of truth is admissible 1. When the act or omission imputed constitutes a crime regardless of whether th e offended party is a private individual or a public officer; 2. When the offended party is a government employee, even if the act or omission imputed does not constitute a crime, provided it is related to the discharged o f his official duties E Even if what was imputed is true, the crime of libel is committed unless one a cted with good motives or justifiable end. E Poof of truth of a defamatory imputation is not even admissible in evidence, u nless what was imputed o pertains to an act which constitutes a crime and o when the person to whom the imputation was made is a public officer and the im putation pertains to the performance of official duty. E Other than these, the imputation is not admissible. Requisites of defense in defamation 1. If it appears that the matter charged as libelous is true; 2. It was published with good motives; 3. It was for justifiable ends. Illustrations: X is applying for a job. I know that he has a history of estafa. He defraude d his past employers. So, I communicated to Y, manager, to be very careful of th is guy because he is a swindler. X sues me for libel. ANS: I will not be liable for damage if I proved that it was true and when I did that, I was motivated by good intentions - that I wanted to protect the com pany because the owner is my friend. I called X as lazy and corrupt government official. He sues me for defamatio n. ANS: I am not liable for libel if I can prove that he is lazy and I have goo

d motives. But if X was not a government official, I can still be liable even if I can prove that he was lazy. Article 362. Libelous Remarks E Even if the statements uttered are Privilege Communications under Art 354, one can still be liable for libel if MALICE IN FACT was proved Chapter 2: Incriminatory Machinations Article 363. Incriminating Innocent Persons Elements: (AMayor) 1. Offender performs an act; 2. By such an act, he incriminates or imputes to an innocent person the commissi on of a crime; 3. Such act does not constitute perjury. E only example is planting of evidence E Under RA 9165, if policeman will plant illegal drugs, the penalty is death

Article 364. Intriguing against Honor (gossiping) E This crime is committed by any person who shall make any intrigue which has fo r its principal purpose to blemish the honor or reputation of another person. (A Menor) source slanderof against honor intriguingthe defamatory utterance is unknown and the offender simply repeats or source of the defamatory nature of the utterance is known, and offender makes a passes the same republication thereof, even though he repeats the libelous statement as coming f rom another TITLE XVI. Quasi-Offenses Sole Chapter: Criminal Negligence Article 365. Imprudence and Negligence Quasi-offenses punished 1. Committing through reckless imprudence any act which, had it been intentional , would constitute a grave (AMayor max) or less grave felony (AMayor min to med) or light felony (AMenor max); 2. Committing through simple imprudence or negligence an act which would otherwi se constitute a grave (AMayor med to max) or a less serious felony (AMayor min); 3. Causing damage to the property of another through reckless imprudence or simp le imprudence or negligence; (fine equal to 3 times the value of damage) 4. Causing through simple imprudence or negligence some wrong which, if done mal iciously, would have constituted a light felony. (censure & P200 max fine) S In the imposition of penalties, the courts shall exercise their sound discreti on, without regard to the rules prescribed in Art 64 considering mitigating and aggravating circumstances in the imposition S Failing to lend held is a qualifying circumstance (1 degree higher) Failure Imprudence Deficiency a action or lacklack Simple Imprudence or Negligence of foresight Recklessof ofnormal person toof skill necessary precaution when the matter has perception or adopt the Consists been foreseen Failure to foresee what abut without malice, doing foreseen to do an act from already in voluntarily, normal person could have or failing which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act, taking into consi

deration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical conditio Consists in the lack of precaution persons, in those cases n and other circumstances regardingdisplayed time and place.in which the damage impending to be caused is not immediate nor the danger clearly manifest S No difference in the concept of negligence in civil cases (quasi-delicts) and criminal cases S The difference lies in the cause of action and the degree of proof required o CIVIL: cause of action is for damages and requires preponderance of evidence o CRIMINAL: there is criminal liability and requires proof beyond reasonable dou bt Since the concept is the same, principles that mitigates civil liability under C ivil Law is applicable to Criminal Law: 1. Doctrine of Contributory Negligence - If the plaintiff in a civil action is g uilty of contributory negligence, then this is a ground for mitigating the civil liability of the defendant. 2. Doctrine of Last Clear Chance the contributory negligence of the party injure d will not defeat the action if it be shown that the accused might, by the exerc ise of reasonable care and prudence, have avoided the consequences of the neglig ence of the injured party Is the felony the imprudent act OR the resulting injury? Buan case: the felony is the imprudent act S Art 48 does not apply so I can complex light felony with grave and less grave felonies S There is only one offense the imprudent act, so there will be double jeopardy if I separately charged the slight physical injuries and the homicide Lontok case: the felony is the resulting injury (majority opinion) S Criminal negligence is only a manner of committing the felony (under Article 3 , a felony may result from dolo or culpa) S Art 48 applies so light felonies cannot be complexed with grave or less grave felonies o The resulting offense may be treated as a separate or the light felony may be absorbed by the grave felony S There will be no double jeopardy if I file separate information for the light felony and the grave or less grave felonies NOTE: In imprudence, there is no malice, no intent BUT the law still considers i t a voluntary act because there is freedom of intelligence on his part. ?? ?? ?? ??

1 Criminal Law Review (4) emily zen chua