CRIM+II Transcript Peralta

Codal and Lecture / Justice Peralta

BOOK TWO CRIMES AND PENALTIES Title One C R I M E S A G A I N S T N AT I O N A L SECURITY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS Chapter One C R I M E S A G A I N S T N AT I O N A L SECURITY Section One. — Treason and espionage Art. 114. Treason. — Any person who, owing allegiance to (the United States or) the Government of the Philippine Islands, not being a foreigner, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort within the Philippine Islands or elsewhere, shall be punished by reclusion temporal to death and shall pay a fine not to exceed P20,000 pesos. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses at least to the same overt act or on confession of the accused in open court. Likewise, an alien, residing in the Philippine Islands, who commits acts of treason as defined in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be punished by prision mayor to death and shall pay a fine not to exceed P20,000 pesos. _____________________________________ Giving comfort women is not giving aid or comfort. Giving aid or comfort is something that will promote the cause of the enemy. When you give aid or comfort, you probably give them places to hide or to tell him the location of the Philippine Armed Forces and so on. That is giving aid or comfort those that will promote the cause of the enemy. Now, in the crime of treason, because of the nature of the crime, there is a requirement that in order that one may be convicted, at least two witnesses should testify to the same overt act. But that twowitness rule is applicable only if the crime of treason falls under the second form that is adherence. If you want to prove adherence to the enemy, then there should be two witnesses who should testify on the giving aid or comfort. The twowitness rule does not apply to levying war because levying war, one witness will be sufficient because they are actually joining the enemy. But when you prove adherence to the enemy and, therefore, you Paul IV D

Criminal Law Review | Page 1 want to prove giving aid or comfort, then the twowitness rule will be apply. Treason may also be proved if the offender confesses to court, that is, when he pleads guilty or confesses to the commission of the crime of treason.

__________________________________ Art. 115. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason; Penalty. — The conspiracy or proposal to commit the crime of treason shall be punished respectively, by prision mayor and a fine not exceeding P10,000 pesos, and prision correccional and a fine not exceeding P5,000 pesos. _____________________________________ Proposal and conspiracy to commit the crime of treason. When one proposes, there is already a crime, even if it is not accepted. But when the proposal is accepted, as you learned in Article 8, then it is becomes conspiracy. So, youʼre now liable.

_____________________________________ Art. 116. Misprision of treason. — Every person owing allegiance to (the United States) the Government of the Philippine Islands, without being a foreigner, and having knowledge of any conspiracy against them, conceals or does not disclose and make known the same, as soon as possible to the governor or fiscal of the province, or the mayor or fiscal of the city in which he resides, as the case may be, shall be punished as an accessory to the crime of treason. _____________________________________ Misprision of treason is a very important crime because it is a crime of omission. You do nothing in order to be liable. What is punished is that is the failure to inform the authorities of the existence of a crime of a conspiracy to commit the crime of treason. It is not failure to inform the authorities of an existing commission of treason. What is provided for is the existence of a conspiracy to commit the crime of treason - that is the meaning of misprision. But if there is an ongoing treason, and you do not inform the authorities, you are not liable. You are only liable for a crime of misprision of treason if you fail to inform the Fiscal, the Mayor, and Governor of the existence of a conspiracy to commit the crime of treason.

_____________________________________

A.L.F./N.O.S.


Art. 117. Espionage. — The penalty of prision correccional shall be inflicted upon any person who: 1. Without authority therefor, enters a warship, fort, or naval or military establishment or reservation to obtain any information, plans, photographs, or other data of a confidential nature relative to the defense of the Philippine Archipelago; or 2. Being in possession, by reason of the public office he holds, of the articles, data, or information referred to in the preceding paragraph, discloses their contents to a representative of a foreign nation. The penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed if the offender be a public officer or employee.

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

__________________________________ Section Two. — Provoking war and disloyalty in case of war Art. 118. Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals. — The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee, and that of prision mayor upon any private individual, who, by unlawful or unauthorized acts provokes or gives occasion for a war involving or liable to involve the Philippine Islands or exposes Filipino citizens to reprisals on their persons or property.

Art. 119. Violation of neutrality. — The penalty of prision correccional shall be inflicted upon anyone who, on the occasion of a war in which the Government is not involved, violates any regulation issued by competent authority for the purpose of enforcing neutrality.

Paul IV D

Criminal Law Review | Page 2

Art. 120. Correspondence with hostile country. — Any person who in time of war, shall have correspondence with an enemy country or territory occupied by enemy troops shall be punished: 1. By prision correccional, if the correspondence has been prohibited by the Government; 2. By prision mayor, if such correspondence be carried on in ciphers or conventional signs; and 3. By reclusion temporal, if notice or information be given thereby which might be useful to the enemy. If the offender intended to aid the enemy by giving such notice or information, he shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal to death.

Art. 121. Flight to enemy country. — The penalty of arresto mayor shall be inflicted upon any person who, owing allegiance to the Government, attempts to flee or go to an enemy country when prohibited by competent authority.

Section Three. — Piracy and mutiny on the high seas Art. 122. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas. — The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be inflicted upon any person who, on the high seas, shall attack or seize a vessel or, not being a member of its complement nor a passenger, shall seize the whole or part of the cargo of said vessel, its equipment, or personal belongings of its complement or passengers. The same penalty shall be inflicted in case of mutiny on the high seas.

__________________________________ Piracy is now defined and it now included piracy within Philippine waters and, therefore, is now defined as a person or persons other than the crew members or passengers - other than the crew member or passenger - in the high seas or within Philippine waters by seizing the vessel or part of the vessel. In other words, the piracy now in 122 refers to the high seas and Philippine waters. Originally, it was only piracy in the high seas. Piracy is actually robbery in the high seas. The meaning of piracy in the high seas or Philippine waters is simply a crime of robbery, but the robbery A.L.F./N.O.S.

Codal and Lecture / Justice Peralta is committed inside the vessel. And you commit the crime of robbery by seizing the vessel. But you do not call it robbery in the high seas If the passengers rob a co-passenger that cannot be piracy under 122 because piracy can only be committed by outsiders because the law states ʻpersons other than the crew members or passengers.ʼ So if a vessel, therefore, sailing within Philippine waters and then that vessel now is attacked by outsiders, they get the cargoes and the baggage of the passengers are forcibly taken by those persons, then the crime is piracy in Philippine waters under Article 122 because it is a crime committed by persons other than the crew members or passengers. But if supposing the vessel is sailing within Philippine waters and then one of the passengers poked a gun at a co-passenger or poked a gun at the captain and then seized the vessel and then runs away with the equipment of the vessel and the vessel is running or sailing within Philippine waters, committed by a passenger, that cannot be anymore a crime of piracy under the Revised Penal Code under Article 122, because Article 122 can only be committed by persons other than crew members or passengers. So, because the crime of piracy is committed by a passenger, then the law that is violated is PD 532 because in Presidential Decree 532, the one who can commit a crime of piracy within Philippine waters is any person. It does not provide that it can only be committed by persons other than crew members or passengers. So if it is sailing within Philippine waters, the offender is an outsider, then Article 122. If it is committed by crew member or a passenger sailing in Philippine waters then Presidential Decree 532.

__________________________________ Art. 123. Qualified piracy. — The penalty of reclusion temporal to death shall be imposed upon those who commit any of the crimes referred to in the preceding article, under any of the following circumstances: 1. Whenever they have seized a vessel by boarding or firing upon the same; 2. Whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims without means of saving themselves; or 3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape.

__________________________________ Now, if you look at the last circumstance in Article 123, where on the occasion of piracy, murder, Paul IV D

Criminal Law Review | Page 3 homicide, rape or physical injuries are committed, the crime becomes a qualified piracy. The law recognizes the commission of those crimes on the occasion of piracy. Therefore, it becomes a crime of qualified piracy. There is no such crime as piracy with homicide or piracy with rape. Why is there is no crime of piracy with homicide or piracy with rape? This is because the law itself already designates the crime that is supposed to be the proper designation or denomination of the crime. Ginamit na yung qualified privacy eh. Pag ginamit mo na yung qualified before the crime, then that means that all of those crimes committed on the occasion of piracy are already included in the term ʻqualified piracy.ʼ You do not denominate the crime as qualified privacy with homicide. Redundant yon. Pag sinabi mong qualified piracy, all those crimes recognized by law to be committed on the occasion of piracy are already included in the term ʻqualified piracy.ʼ Now, if 10 died on the occasion of piracy or even 10 are raped on the occasion of piracy, what is the crime committed? It is still qualified piracy regardless of the number of killings. Now, there are number of 15 who are raped, do not change the crime as qualified piracy because that is a special complex crime. Regardless of the number of deaths, regardless of the number of persons injured, regardless of the number of persons raped, they fall under a single indivisible crime of qualified privacy. This is different from a complex crime in Article 48 where you can use the word multiple or double. Like multiple murder, multiple homicide, double homicide, you can use that in Article 48 as a complex crime. But if it is special complex crime, do not use double or multiple because the crimes of rape, homicide or physical injuries are not treated as separate crimes. They are part and parcel of a single indivisible crime of qualified piracy.

__________________________________ Title Two CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE Chapter One ARBITRARY DETENTION OR EXPULSION, VIOLATION OF DWELLING, PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION, AND DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL MEETINGS AND CRIMES A.L.F./N.O.S.


AGAINST RELIGIOUS WORSHIP Section One. — Arbitrary detention and expulsion Art. 124. Arbitrary detention. — Any public officer or employee who, without legal grounds, detains a person, shall suffer; 1. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, if the detention has not exceeded three days; 2. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the detention has continued more than three but not more than fifteen days; 3. The penalty of prision mayor, if the detention has continued for more than fifteen days but not more than six months; and 4. That of reclusion temporal, if the detention shall have exceeded six months. The commission of a crime, or violent insanity or any other ailment requiring the compulsory confinement of the patient in a hospital, shall be considered legal grounds for the detention of any person.

__________________________________ Arbitrary detention is a crime committed by public officers whose main duty is the maintenance of peace and order. Not all public officers can be liable for the crime of arbitrary detention - only those public officers whose main duty is to maintain the peace and order of the community. Who are these peace officers? They are the policemen, NBI agents, and military men. For purposes of arbitrary detention, these are the officers recognized by law as authorized because that is their duty to make arrest. Now, if they are therefore the ones authorized to make arrest because that is their duty, and the arrest is unlawful, meaning there is no valid ground, and the person arrested without a warrant was subsequently detained, then the arresting officer may be liable for the crime of arbitrary detention. Assuming that the arrest is lawful and the arresting officer cannot be liable for arbitrary detention, can he still be liable for violation of a law? Can you still be held liable for a crime if the arrest is lawful? Yes. You can still be liable for violation of Article 125 or Republic Act 7438. RA 7438 - The law that penalizes police officers in failure to inform the person arrested without a warrant, his right to remain silent, his right to an Paul IV D

Criminal Law Review | Page 4 independent and competent counsel preferably of his own choice, and so on. So, once he is arrested, even if the arrest is lawful, then he should inform the accused his rights under Republic Act 7438. He is entitled to an independent and competent counsel. He has the right to remain silent. He has the right to waive the appearance of a counsel, independent and competent counsel in the presence of a counsel. The accused also has the right to communicate with the immediate members of his family or with his lawyer or with his girlfriend or boyfriend. Kung yan ang hiniling eh, puwede. “Sige sir because you have informed me of my rights to communicate with my lawyer, with my relatives, nearest of kin, puwede bang bigyan mo ako ng telepono para kausapin ko ang nanay ko?” However, upon the request of the accused, the policeman does not provide him with any means of communication, the policeman will still be liable for violation of Republic Act 7438. INVITATIONS FOR QUESTIONING - As stated earlier, the other important thing about 7438 is that it applies to invitations for questioning. For example, the policeman did not see the accused commit the crime. But there were reports that he was the one who committed the crime. Thereʼs an investigation report, somebody said that this person committed the crime. However, the police officer has no personal knowledge that the accused committed the crime. So, the police officer will invite the suspect for questioning. “Mr. Patajo, youʼre invited to come to the office.” Then once the accused is in the office, the policeman asks questions about the accusedʼs participation in the crime. “Ikaw, Mr. Patajo, ikaw ang pumatay kay ganito. Ikaw ang nag rape kay ganito, lahat-lahat.” Once theyʼve already asked those questions about the participation of a person and then placed him on arrest at that very moment, Republic Act 7438 becomes applicable. In other words, RA 7438 applies not only to those arrested in the presence of these officers, but also to those invited for questioning concerning the commission of a crime. The moment the policeman asks questions concerning the commission of a crime, the policeman should already inform the suspect of his rights. That is the meaning of 7438.

Art. 125. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities. — The penalties provided in the next preceding article shall be imposed upon the public officer or employee who shall detain any person for some legal ground and shall fail to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within the period of; twelve (12) A.L.F./N.O.S.


hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by light penalties, or their equivalent; eighteen (18) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by correctional penalties, or their equivalent and thirty-six (36) hours, for crimes, or offenses punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or their equivalent. In every case, the person detained shall be informed of the cause of his detention and shall be allowed upon his request, to communicate and confer at any time with his attorney or counsel. _____________________________________ Now, assuming that the policeman is not liable for arbitrary detention and for violation of Republic Act 7438 because the he was able to inform the accused of all his rights and to give them to him, what should the policeman do so that he will not be liable for another crime? The policeman must deliver the person arrested to the judicial authorities within the period provided for by Article 125 as amended by Executive Order 272, the Administrative Code. The meaning of delivery is to transfer jurisdiction. The meaning there is you transfer the jurisdiction of the person arrested to the judicial authorities. That is the meaning. And how do you transfer the jurisdiction of the person arrested to the judicial authorities? You have to file the necessary case within the periods of 36 hours, 18 hours, and 12 hours. If the is arrested without a warrant, then you have to bring the person arrested to the fiscal for inquest. Now, if the inquest fiscal found probable cause to file the information and the information went to court, what will the court do? They will issue a warrant of arrest? They will not anymore. Why should he issue a warrant of arrest, arestado na nga eh. What will the court do? Ano nakalimutan nyo. They will issue a commitment order. May commitment order. A commitment order is one issued by the court ordering a detention officer to undertake the detention of that prisoner. That is the meaning. So, commitment order, you commit the person to be detained to a specific detention cell. If in case the accuse waives the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, then that waiver should be in writing and with the assistance of the counsel. That is the provision under RA 7438. He cannot waive the provisions of 125 by himself. Why? Why should he be assisted by a counsel and the waiver should be in writing? You know the reason? Because even if the person arrested waives the provision of 125, then he is Paul IV D

Criminal Law Review | Page 5 actually telling the personʼs arresting him that he can continue detaining him. In other words, if you waive the provisions of 125, then you can be detained beyond the periods provided for by 125. Itʼs like telling the policeman, “Okay, I am waiving 125, therefore, you can continuously detain me.” Thatʼs the meaning eh, di ba? Why does he have to waive 125? Because he might avail of his right to what? Preliminary investigation. What is the effect of waiving 125? The effect is that you are practically telling the fiscal not to file the information yet because you want to respond to the complaint filed against you. You want to submit countervailing evidence to rebut the evidence presented because you want to prove that there is no probable cause to file the information. If he is a detention prisoner, by reason of his waiver of the provisions of 125, he cannot yet go out of prison. He will have to be detained continuously until the preliminary investigation is terminated.

_____________________________________

Art. 126. Delaying release. — The penalties provided for in Article 124 shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who delays for the period of time specified therein the performance of any judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner or detention prisoner, or unduly delays the service of the notice of such order to said prisoner or the proceedings upon any petition for the liberation of such person.

Art. 127. Expulsion. — The penalty of prision correccional shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who, not being thereunto authorized by law, shall expel any person from the Philippine Islands or shall compel such person to change his residence. _____________________________________

Section Two. — Violation of domicile Art. 128. Violation of domicile. — The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who, not being authorized by judicial order, shall enter any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof, search papers or other effects found therein without the previous consent of such owner, or having surreptitiously entered said dwelling, and being required to leave the premises, shall refuse to do so.

A.L.F./N.O.S.



If the offense be committed in the night-time, or if any papers or effects not constituting evidence of a crime be not returned immediately after the search made by the offender, the penalty shall be prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods. _____________________________________

prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding P1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall procure a search warrant without just cause, or, having legally procured the same, shall exceed his authority or use unnecessary severity in executing the same.

There are those persons recognized by law who may enter the premises of another to seize, arrest somebody, or seize or confiscate things inside their dwellings. There are three ways of committing this crime.

Of course you know when a search warrant is issued. The judge personally conducts the examination of the complainant or his witnesses. The investigation is made by conducting searching questions, di ba yun ang requirement. When somebody or a police officer applies for a search warrant, the basis usually of the issuance of a search warrant would be the depositions or testimony of the complainant or his witnesses. Depositions are sometimes called testimony of the applicants or the witnesses in a search warrant. Because you have to convince the court that there is a probable cause to issue a search a warrant. The probable cause can only be arrived at after a hearing conducted by the judge based on searching questions, ʻno. Kaya ang judge niyan,ʼdi pwedeng magtanong. “O, ikaw ba ito?” “Opo.” Ikaw ba yung applicant?” “Opo.” Di ba ikaw ay 24 years old?“Opo.” “Hindi ban ikaw yung nag testify? “Opo.” “Di ba yung testimony mo positive?” “Opo.” Hindi ganon ang searching question, panay leading eh. Maraming judge ngayon na mga tamad eh. Ginagawa ganon. But actually searching questions, even in your Rule 126, mahirap na trabaho yan, because it is the judge who is only asking the questions, walang adverse counsel lang eh, ikaw lang mismo ang magtatanong eh. What is your name? O ilan taon ka na? Pwede ka lang dito para mag-apply ng search warrant. Bakit ka nagaaply ng search warrant? Drug test ba ito? O shabu? Ano hitsura ng shabu? O asan ang test file? O, i-sketch mo nga? Saan ka nakapwesto? San dito? Yung bahay, anong hitsura ng taong yan, panget ba o guwapo yan? Ganun ang searching questions. You have to establish really that there is a probable cause in the issuance of a search warrant.

Number 1: When, not being authorized by judicial order, you enter a dwelling without the consent of the owner. In other words, when you enter the domicile without the consent of the owner. Number 2: When there is no prohibition to enter, but once inside the domicile, you start searching items inside the house. Number 3: When you enter (surreptitiously) there may be no express prohibition, but once you are inside the owner asked you to leave but you do not leave. Violation of domicile should be read together with Article 280 on trespass to dwelling. You also have to refer to the aggravating circumstance of dwelling that you have learned under your Paragraph 3, last part of Paragraph 3 of Article 14 because when the domicile is only is an aggravating circumstance, then there is no crime of violation of domicile. If another crime is committed, but the entry is only a means of committing the crime, then domicile becomes dwelling as an aggravating circumstance. Anyway, so violation domicile, therefore, is committed by public officers whose main duty is the maintenance of peace and order. If he is not a public official contemplated by Article 128, then the crime will be trespass to dwelling or qualified trespass to dwelling under Article 280 of the Revised Penal Code. So, thatʼs the counterpart provision of the violation of domicile. But there will be some complications later on when we take up robbery with force upon things.

_____________________________________

Art. 129. Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those legally obtained. — In addition to the liability attaching to the offender for the commission of any other offense, the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to Paul IV D

__________________________________

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

Art. 130. Searching domicile without witnesses. — The penalty of arresto mayor A.L.F./N.O.S.


in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee who, in cases where a search is proper, shall search the domicile, papers or other belongings of any person, in the absence of the latter, any member of his family, or in their default, without the presence of two witnesses residing in the same locality. _____________________________________ There is a sequence in the order of those who should witness. Ang una, it should be in the presence of the respondents. In the absence of the respondents, those who maybe living in the house. In the absence of any person living in the house and the absence of the respondent, then that is the time that the search warrant shall be observed or witnessed by two disinterested persons from the community. So, ginalaw ng mga pulis kahit na nadun ang respondent, nandun yun inhabitants of the house. Pinapatabi nila tapos kukuha ng barangay captain, mali yon. The witnesses from outside will only come in with when there are no inhabitants, there are no respondents. Now, if there are no respondents, there are no inhabitants, and there are no witnesses from the community, but the policemen still persist in searching the house without any witnesses, then they will be liable for violation of Article 130.

Section Three. — Prohibition, interruption and dissolution of peaceful meetings Art. 131. Prohibition, interruption and dissolution of peaceful meetings. — The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who, without legal ground, shall prohibit or interrupt the holding of a peaceful meeting, or shall dissolve the same. The same penalty shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee who shall hinder any person from joining any lawful association or from attending any of its meetings. The same penalty shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall prohibit or hinder any person from addressing, either alone or together with others, any petition to the authorities for the correction of abuses or redress of grievances.

__________________________________ Paul IV D

Criminal Law Review | Page 7 Under 131, it covers preventing the holding of a peaceful meeting. This is usually committed by those who are required under the law to issue permits to hold meetings in a public place, so a public officer preventing the holding of a peaceful meeting. Now if the meeting is held in the private property, there is no need to get a permit. But when a meeting is held in a public place, then you have to secure a permit. Now, the mayor or his assistant or the person designated to issue a permit does not like to issue a permit without any justifiable reason, then the public officer maybe liable under 131 for preventing the holding of a peaceful meeting. Now, if a meeting is held already and because there is permit, then the crime can also be committed by public officers who prevent persons from attending a peaceful meeting or who disturb an ongoing peaceful meeting, or he stops an ongoing peaceful meeting. In other words if the permit is for 10 hours, then on the 6th hour dinisperse mo na, liable ka na dyan. Or there is a peaceful meeting already granted then you prevent others from attending the peaceful meeting. That is also punishable under 131. Or you disturb an ongoing, you created noise, and disturbed an ongoing peaceful meeting. Then you are likewise liable under 131. So thatʼs the crime in 131. Preventing the holding of a peaceful meeting, prevent other persons from attending a peaceful meeting, disturb an ongoing peaceful meeting, and disperse the peaceful meeting before the period granted.

Section Four. — Crimes against religious worship Art. 132. Interruption of religious worship. — The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall prevent or disturb the ceremonies or manifestations of any religion. If the crime shall have been committed with violence or threats, the penalty shall be prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.

__________________________________ The problem is that some religious ceremonies are already held outside of places of religious worship. Ang situation ng 132 is that you go to church and then you are a public officer, you disturb ongoing religious ceremony, probably misa, yon 132 ka. You will fall under 132 because you are disturbing a A.L.F./N.O.S.

Codal and Lecture / Justice Peralta religious ceremony in the place of a religious worship. So the question is supposing it is a religious ceremony conducted outside the place of religious worship and, therefore, somebody is disturbed. There is an old case involving the Iglesia ni Cristo. Sabi ng Supreme Court, the law does not apply because religious worship, you know, those will include churches where usually the members of the sect pray. Kasi ang ginawa ng Iglesia ni Cristo, they invited people to attend a meeting, some sort of prayer meeting among the Iglesia ni Cristo. Then a public officer belonging to another religion disturbed the ongoing ceremony. Sabi ng Supreme Court, ano e hindi yan pwede under 132 because it took place outside, but they could be liable for another crime, that would be crime of unjust vexation. If there is violence, then it would be grave coercion. If there is no violence, then than is light coercion. So that decision has not yet been changed. But supposing it is committed by private individuals. There was a time in our place, eh, sa loob ng simbahan, private individual, he shouted, “Sunog! Sunog!” Sinabi niya sa loob ng simbahan. Galit sa pari because he was a die-hard Marcos. At that time, alam mo naman sa Ilocos, Marcos, eh. Galit sa mga pari, mga taga doon. Nagmimisa yung pari. He shouted, “Wag kang maniwala sa pari. Sunog!” Takbuhan yung mga tao. What case are going to file against him? He is not a public officer. Then the law that is violated is 153 under the last sentence of Article 153. In 153, the law provides that if the acts or the offenses are not punishable under 131 or 132, then the law that is violated is Article 153 - Tumults and other disturbance of public orders; Tumultuous disturbance or interruption liable to cause disturbance.

Art. 133. Offending the religious feelings. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon anyone who, in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.

__________________________________ Yung 133, any person yun eh. Any person committing the act offensive to the religious feeling. What is offensive to the religious feeling? When we speak of offensive to the religious feeling, then the Paul IV D

Criminal Law Review | Page 8 act goes to the very belief. It is an act that goes against the very belief or the faith of those belonging to that religion. Like for example, procession. Pag may procession, may nagpatugtog ng malakas na radio habang may procession. Ibang religion nun eh. Sa procession, naistorbo yung mga nasa procession. Is that offensive to the religious beliefs when somebody is disturbing you like when there is a loud voice or sound or the volume of the stereo is very high and, therefore, it is disturbing the procession? No, that is not offensive to the religious feeling. That is only a crime of light coercion or what they call unjust vexation. Yung unjust vexation kasi kung wala kang mahanap sa batas, as long as you are not injured, kasi ang unjust vexation, you are not injured. Lahat ng pangiinis unjust vexation yan. You kiss a girl on the cheek and the girl does not like it, as long as it is not with lewd design, unjust vexation yan, pangiinis. Or you view a lady taking bath inside the tub. Sinisilip mo siya, unjust vexation din yun. Pangiinis yun. But if you kiss a girl with gusto, not only on the cheek, on the lips, that is acts of lasciviousness. That is not anymore unjust vexation. Ang unjust vexation not attended with any lewd design – thatʼs the meaning. Pangiinis lang e.

Title Three CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER Chapter One REBELLION, SEDITION AND DISLOYALTY Art. 134. Rebellion or insurrection; How committed. — The crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed by rising publicly and taking arms against the Government for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said Government or its laws, the territory of the Philippine Islands or any part thereof, of any body of land, naval or other armed forces, depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives. (As amended by R.A. 6968).

Article 134-A. Coup d'etat; How committed. — The crime of coup d'etat is a swift attack accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, directed against duly constituted authorities of the Republic of the Philippines, or any military camp or installation, communications network, A.L.F./N.O.S.


public utilities or other facilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of power, singly or simultaneously carried out anywhere in the Philippines by any person or persons, belonging to the military or police or holding any public office of employment with or without civilian support or participation for the purpose of seizing or diminishing state power. (As amended by R.A. 6968).

__________________________________ It may be committed even if no arms are taken against the Government – it can be committed surreptitiously. Surreptitiously. There is no need of any firearms as long as there is a swift attack Purpose is to curtail the powers of the government So, it is not actually taking over, unlike in the crime of simple rebellion, which may involve the taking over in whole or in part of the government. This one is to diminish the power of the State. But the law enumerates what could be the facilities that should be the subject matter of the swift attack. Military installations, camps, police station, all of these installations including public utilities. What about in the Oakwood? The subject matter is a hotel. The soldiers were inside the hotel. It is not a military instillation. It is not a military facility. It is not a public utility. we have to look at the motive of the soldiers. If it is a political motive, then we could say that it is a coup dʼetat. But the law enumerates the facilities that should be the subject matter of coup dʼetat. So, it is no longer important? Because the subject matter of the coup dʼetat is a hotel? we really have to look at the motive of the soldiers. It is more on the purpose rather the one that is attacked. It cannot be initiated by civilians, but civilians CAN commit it with men in uniform if initiated by those men.

__________________________________ Art. 135. Penalty for rebellion, insurrection or coup d'etat. — Any person who promotes, maintains, or heads rebellion or insurrection shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Any person merely participating or executing the commands of others in a rebellion shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal. Any person who leads or in any manner directs or commands others to undertake a coup d'etat shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Paul IV D


Any person in the government service who participates, or executes directions or commands of others in undertaking a coup d'etat shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period. Any person not in the government service who participates, or in any manner supports, finances, abets or aids in undertaking a coup d'etat shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period. When the rebellion, insurrection, or coup d'etat shall be under the command of unknown leaders, any person who in fact directed the others, spoke for them, signed receipts and other documents issued in their name, as performed similar acts, on behalf or the rebels shall be deemed a leader of such a rebellion, insurrection, or coup d'etat. (As amended by R.A. 6968, approved on October 24, 1990).

__________________________________ Under the old provisions in Article 135, there used to be phrase there, under the old 135, you will find there the penalty of rebellion. Nakalagay ang penalty. The penalty of rebellion in so far as the leaders are concerned, the penalty of prision mayor including commission of serious violence and destruction of property. In other words, if you are a leader and then you commit the crime of rebellion then you commit serious violence or damage to property, whatever violence or damage to property committed, then the penalty is only one. And that is prision mayor under the old law. So, that justifies the ruling that there is no such crime of rebellion complexed with murder because that provision allows the absorption of other crimes committed on the occasion of rebellion. But that phrase is not anymore included there. That has been removed in Article 135 when there was an amendment. So what is the effect of removing that phrase? There may now be a crime of rebellion complexed with murder.

__________________________________ Art. 136. Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d'etat, rebellion or insurrection. — The conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d'etat shall be punished by prision mayor in minimum period and a fine which shall not exceed eight thousand pesos (P8,000.00). The conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection shall be punished respectively, by prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine which shall not exceed five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) and by prision correccional in its medium period A.L.F./N.O.S.


and a fine not exceeding two thousand pesos (P2,000.00). (As amended by R.A. 6968, approved October 24, 1990).

Art. 138. Inciting a rebellion or insurrection. — The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person who, without taking arms or being in open hostility against the Government, shall incite others to the execution of any of the acts specified in article 134 of this Code, by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners or other representations tending to the same end. (Reinstated by E.O. No. 187).

__________________________________ Proposal to commit rebellion v. Inciting to commit rebellion The main difference is that in a proposal to commit rebellion, there is no public meeting and such proposal is done in private as against in inciting to rebellion when the leader is inciting the members who attended the meeting in a public place. In Proposal to Commit Rebellion, no one has actually committed rebellion. In Inciting to Rebellion he is not yet in the act of committing a crime of rebellion in inciting to rebellion. So, in other words, he just merely delivered a speech, for example, inciting the people to commit the crime of rebellion. He is not in the actual commission of the crime of rebellion. Why? The one proposing is not in the actual commission of the crime of rebellion, but he is inciting people to commit the crime of rebellion. Why? Because you will not anymore be liable for inciting to rebellion. You may become a principal to inducement. If there is already an ongoing rebellion and then you incite people to commit the crime of rebellion, you are already a principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion. You may be a principal to inducement because rebellion is a continuing offense. So if you are not in the act of committing a crime of rebellion and then youʼre inciting the people, then that inciting is already part of the commission of the crime of rebellion. Unlike in the crime of proposal, yung proposal, you proposed and then later on you decide. Coup dʼetat Inciting to commit the crime of coup dʼetat, thereʼs no such crime. But proposal to commit the crime of coup dʼetat, meron yan. Proposal and conspiracy to commit the crime of coup dʼetat and simple rebellion, pwede yon, but not the inciting to commit a crime of coup dʼetat. Bakit? Meron bang men in uniform inviting everybody to commit the crime of coup dʼetat? Itʼs impossible. It is always done surreptitiously.

Paul IV D

Criminal Law Review | Page 10 Coup dʼetat v. Rebellion the essence of the crime of coup dʼetat is a swift attack; rebellion is a public uprising and taking up arms. Secondly, sir, the persons who commit the crime of coup dʼetat must be initiated by military men or public officers or persons in authority. Unlike in rebellion where there in no such particular provision in any group of person who can commit a crime of rebellion. Next, sir, is that a rebellion must be committed by a multitude of men, unlike in coup dʼetat where an a single military officer or group of military officers, with or without civilian authority, may commit the crime of coup dʼetat The target in coup dʼetat is against constituted authority or military installations or other facilities. Unlike in rebellion where there is no such condition and the purpose for rebellion is either to (1) deprive or prevent the exercise of the government of any of its powers or prerogatives or take away any territory from the National Government in whole or in part. Unlike in coup dʼetat where the purpose of committing is to diminish or seize a power, such that even if they do not seize power as long as they diminish, thatʼs already crime of coup dʼetat.

__________________________________ Art. 137. Disloyalty of public officers or employees. — The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon public officers or employees who have failed to resist a rebellion by all the means in their power, or shall continue to discharge the duties of their offices under the control of the rebels or shall accept appointment to office under them. (Reinstated by E.O. No. 187).

Art. 139. Sedition; How committed. — The crime of sedition is committed by persons who rise publicly and tumultuously in order to attain by force, intimidation, or by other means outside of legal methods, any of the following objects: 1. To prevent the promulgation or execution of any law or the holding of any popular election; 2. To prevent the National Government, or any provincial or municipal government or any public officer thereof from freely exercising its or his functions, or prevent the execution of any administrative order; 3. To inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of any public officer or employee; 4. To commit, for any political or social end, any act of hate or revenge against private A.L.F./N.O.S.


persons or any social class; and 5. To despoil, for any political or social end, any person, municipality or province, or the National Government (or the Government of the United States), of all its property or any part thereof.

Art. 141. Conspiracy to commit sedition. — Persons conspiring to commit the crime of sedition shall be punished by prision correccional in its medium period and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos. (Reinstated by E.O. No. 187).

Art. 142. Inciting to sedition. — The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, without taking any direct part in the crime of sedition, should incite others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which constitute sedition, by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, cartoons, banners, or other representations tending to the same end, or upon any person or persons who shall utter seditious words or speeches, write, publish, or circulate scurrilous libels against the Government (of the United States or the Government of the Commonwealth) of the Philippines, or any of the duly constituted authorities thereof, or which tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing the functions of his office, or which tend to instigate others to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes, or which suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots, or which lead or tend to stir up the people against the lawful authorities or to disturb the peace of the community, the safety and order of the Government, or who shall knowingly conceal such evil practices. (Reinstated by E.O. No. 187).

__________________________________ Sedition is not only public uprising, itʼs not only commotion, legal yan eh. Every citizen has the right to ventilate his gripe against the government. That is your right. So, if you are not satisfied with the Comelec, it is your right to ventilate your gripe against Comelec because they do not know how to count votes. It is also your right to question the capability or the competence of the members of the Comelec. Right ng citizen yan, eh. Now, if the government office is not performing well, then it is a right to question the way it is being run. Right mo yan eh. But you went over your right. O, yun ang Paul IV D

Criminal Law Review | Page 11 purpose ng sedition. Because there is no taking up of arms against the government. If there is taking up arms against the government, then it is not sedition. Actually, sedition is when you go beyond what is required of you as a citizen to ventilate your grievances against the government. There is no crime of Proposal to Commit Sedition Proposal yun, just the two of us. Iʼm just proposing to you. We will not pay our taxes, lahat lahat. Is there any harm to the government? None. Because that is freedom of speech. You are protected because there is no valid crime against the government. So anything that will be done to propose or to propose rather, itʼs not a crime, because thatʼs part of freedom of speech. That is your right. But supposing the proposal is now accepted. Inaccept mo na ngayon. In the Department of Education, we will create a commotion. We will create trouble was there. We will disturb them. We will create public uprising. We will burn tires and create human barricades and so on. Inciting to Sedition v. Inciting to Rebellion Inciting to sedition is broader than the crime of inciting to rebellion. Oo, broader ang inciting to sedition because inciting to sedition even includes scurrilous libels committed against the government. In inciting to commit the crime of rebellion, what do you do is that you shout to those who are listening, and then you tell them to commit a crime of rebellion by telling them, “we will over throw this government, we will arm ourselves. We will have a public uprising. The government is not good in anything.” Yun ang – you mentioned the elements of the rebellion. But in the crime of inciting to sedition, of course, that is also one way of committing a crime of inciting to sedition. You announce publicly that youʼre inviting everybody to join in a crime of sedition as long as the proponent or the one who is delivering this is not himself involved in the crime of sedition. Thatʼs a clear provision in 142. Okay. But the law says even the scurrilous libel is committed in the crime of sedition. It is not merely telling the people to prevent a holding of a national election or prevent the national government or all or its instrumentalities in their performing their duties by creating public uprising or in a tumultuous way, di ba? Scurrilous Libel parang ano yan, you made falsities in your pronouncements. Masamang gobernador ito, inispend lahat para sa pambabae, mga ganito. Walang ginawa ang gobernador kundi magnakaw, walang mabuting sinabi. All bad things are uttered. A.L.F./N.O.S.

Codal and Lecture / Justice Peralta Yun ang scurrilous libel, Sumosobra ba. But of course, it should be accompanied with seditious words not merely scurrilous libel because it is merely saying that all the government is bad, wala yun. But if you say, “Masama ang gobernador, palitan natin ito, huwag natin pagtrabahuin dito, gago ito,” pero hindi naman totoo, that is inciting to sedition. Inciting to Sedition in relation to Art 153 what is punished in 153, 154, 155 is the public disturbance or public disorder sa 153, which is separate from the crime of inciting to sedition or inciting to rebellion. In inciting to sedition or inciting to rebellion, there is no need of those who are listening to be actually excited because what is punished in inciting to sedition and inciting to rebellion is the act of inciting the listeners to the crime of rebellion or sedition. Dyan sa 153, 154, 155, what is punished is the public disorder. So, if you incite the people to commit the crime of rebellion or sedition, and then the people are actually excited, ngapalakpakan sila, nagsigawan lahat sila, lahat-lahat yan, 153 ang punishable. That is 153 because there is a difference. The other difference is that, the crime of inciting to sedition and inciting to rebellion, the purpose of the speaker is very clear from the very beginning. So, if you go there, you are the audience, you want to listen, and you go there, you know already what to expect from the speaker. Hindi ka naman magaattend dun kung hindi mo alam ang purpose eh, d iba? So, probably everybody is invited in the meeting then we will listen to the speech of Joma Sison or sila Buscayno and the others, you know, those NPA leaders. You expect what speech will delivered, di ba? Pag nagsalita sila, - actually, theyʼre not involved in rebellion, they are not involved in sedition. The moment that they incite people to commit the crime of rebellion or sedition even if the listeners do not create any noise, inciting na yun. Now, in a public outcry under 153, the audience, those who joined, listeners, they do not know. They are going to listen from the speaker probably they will talk about love stories in a movie or bomba stars, so madaming mga lalaki dun eh. Pag-uusapan pala eh, movies and then they deliver the speech, they start the speech with movies and then later on iba na ang sinasabi. Letʼs overthrow of the Government. Letʼs arm ourselves, di ba? And then, the listeners will now say “Sige bomba! Sige tira!” yun ang 153. What is now punishable is, aside form the speech, the commotion because the requirement is tumultuous or public disturbance. Yun ang 153 to differentiate it from inciting to sedition. Paul IV D

Criminal Law Review | Page 12 Ganun ang diperensya nun. But in inciting to sedition and inciting to rebellion, the people are not really excited. What is punished is the act of inciting. The one who is committing the crime is the one who is delivering the speech.

__________________________________ Art. 140. Penalty for sedition. Chapter Two CRIMES AGAINST POPULAR REPRESENTATION Section One. — Crimes against legislative bodies and similar bodies Art. 143. Act tending to prevent the meeting of the Assembly and similar bodies. — The penalty of prision correccional or a fine ranging from 200 to 2,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who, by force or fraud, prevents the meeting of the National Assembly (Congress of the Philippines) or of any of its committees or subcommittees, constitutional commissions or committees or divisions thereof, or of any provincial board or city or municipal council or board. (Reinstated by E.O. No. 187).

Art. 144. Disturbance of proceedings. — The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to 1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who disturbs the meetings of the National Assembly (Congress of the Philippines) or of any of its committees or subcommittees, constitutional commissions or committees or divisions thereof, or of any provincial board or city or municipal council or board, or in the presence of any such bodies should behave in such manner as to interrupt its proceedings or to impair the respect due it. (Reinstated by E.O. No. 187).

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

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

__________________________________ S e c t i o n Tw o . — V i o l a t i o n o f parliamentary immunity Art. 145. Violation of parliamentary immunity. — The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall use force, intimidation, threats, or fraud to prevent any member of the National Assembly (Congress of the Philippines) from attending the meetings of the Assembly (Congress) or of any of its committees or subcommittees, constitutional commissions or committees or divisions thereof, from expressing his opinions or casting his vote; and the penalty of prision correccional shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall, while the Assembly (Congress) is in regular or special session, arrest or search any member thereof, except in case such member has committed a crime punishable under this Code by a penalty higher than prision mayor.

Chapter Three ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES AND ASSOCIATIONS Art. 146. Illegal assemblies. — The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period shall be imposed upon the organizers or leaders of any meeting attended by armed persons for the purpose of committing any of the crimes punishable under this Code, or of any meeting in which the audience is incited to the commission of the crime of treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition or assault upon a person in authority or his agents. Persons merely present at such meeting shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor, unless they are armed, in which case the penalty shall be prision correccional. If any person present at the meeting carries an unlicensed firearm, it shall be presumed that the purpose of said meeting, insofar as he is concerned, is to commit acts punishable under Paul IV D


this Code, and he shall be considered a leader or organizer of the meeting within the purview of the preceding paragraph. As used in this article, the word "meeting" shall be understood to include a gathering or group, whether in a fixed place or moving. (Reinstated by E.O. No. 187). _________________________________________ Dalawang punished dun to make it punishable. One, is the meeting of armed men because if it is a meeting of an unarmed men, walang crime yun, kahit ano pagusapan nati, kahit na i-rape natin lahat ng mga babae sa mundo. Unarmed naman e, walang crime yun. So, what makes it a crime of illegal assembly in 146, dalawang requirements dun. One, a meeting of armed men and number two, for the purpose of committing an act punishable under our laws. Iyon. Iyon ang purpose nun. But if it is a meeting merely of unarmed men and they are trying to commit a crime of conspiracy, to commit a crime of robbery or conspiracy to commit a crime of rape, walang crime yun because they are not armed. But if the purpose is to commit a crime and they are armed then they will be liable. Those who attend the meeting who are not armed will, likewise, be liable, but the penalty will be lesser. Yung armed at saka unarmed liable yun kaya lang yung unarmed mas mababa ang penalty. Illegal Assembly v. Brigandage Now, on that 306 of the Revised Penal Code whether a friend, immediate members of a band armed band. Because band is composed of at least four armed men and the purpose of the meeting is to commit a crime of highway robbery or to extort or demand ransom, ang crime dyan is 306, brigands yan. In other words, if the armed men are attending a meeting for specific purpose or purposes of either robbery, to extort money or ransom, hindi 146 ang punishable dun. What is punishable is Article 306 because it is specified in the purpose of the meeting. But if the meeting, the purpose is not specified, therefore, if it is a meeting of armed men it is specified, but it does not involve highway robbery, ransom or extort money then the crime that is committed is 146. Now, if however, there are only three armed men – three armed men for the purpose of committing the crime of kidnapping for ransom or highway robbery or extort money, then that is also a crime of 146, illegal assembly. Why? That cannot be a crime of brigandage because there must be at least four armed men. The way it was phrased, it was a crime of conspiracy of committing the crimes. Pero ang sabi nila there is no crime because conspiracy to commit the crime of kidnapping for ransom is not a crime. ʻYan ang sagot, eh. But there are specific A.L.F./N.O.S.

Codal and Lecture / Justice Peralta crimes under the law. What is punished is not the conspiracy, but the meeting of armed men for the purpose of committing a violation of the law, di ba? Don sa brigandage naman, committed by a band, therefore, four armed men for the purpose of kidnapping for ransom, to extort money. Hindi yung conspiracy ang punishable dun, because there is also such a crime as conspiracy to commit the crime of highway robbery. What is punishable is the meeting of armed men and for that purpose. _________________________________________

Art. 147. Illegal associations. — The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon the founders, directors, and presidents of associations totally or partially organized for the purpose of committing any of the crimes punishable under this Code or for some purpose contrary to public morals. Mere members of said associations shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor. (Reinstated by E.O. No. 187). _________________________________________ The 147 is legal associations. What is punished is the purpose. You form an association for the purpose of prostitution, naku! Or you form an association for the purpose of child abuse. What is punished there is the purpose. So, only the organizers and those who form an association are liable. Yun ang purpose dun.

_____________________________________

Chapter Four ASSAULT UPON, AND RESISTANCE AND DISOBEDIENCE TO, PERSONS IN AUTHORITY AND THEIR AGENTS Art. 148. Direct assaults. — Any person or persons who, without a public uprising, shall employ force or intimidation for the attainment of any of the purpose enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and sedition, or shall attack, employ force, or seriously intimidate or resist any person in authority or any of his agents, while engaged in the performance of official duties, or on occasion of such performance, shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding P1,000 pesos, when the assault is committed with a weapon or when the offender is a public officer or employee, or when the offender lays hands upon a person in authority. If none of Paul IV D


these circumstances be present, the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding P500 pesos shall be imposed.

__________________________________ There are two ways of committing the crime of direct assault. The first one is when the purpose is political in order to achieve the purposes of rebellion or sedition. The other crime of direct assault is that when a person in authority or any of the persons in authority is assaulted or attacked in the performance of their duties or on the occasion on the performance of their duties, di ba? So, if the purpose is political and, therefore, there is no public uprising, there is no taking up arms against the Government and there is no swift attack, the crime committed is direct assault under the first part of Article 148. And then under the second part of 148, when a person in authority or agents of persons in authority is attacked, then the crime is direct assault - “by reason or on the occasion of the performance of his duty or while in the performance of his duty.” ʻYun ang ano – yun ang direct assault, the second form. Mr. A is a judge. Judge si Mr. A. While he was in the performance of his duty, he was assaulted. Then a private individual – private individual comes to the aid of the judge, so both of them – both of them were assaulted. So Mr. A while a judge, while he is on the performance of his duties, nagbinigay ng order binato. Nung binato yun judge na yon, babatuhin uli, mayrong private individual who prevented the person who was throwing something at the judge. So, nung imbes na binato sa judge, pati ikaw *pak* pinukpok sa ulo. ʻYung private individual who was going to the aid of the person in authority. What crime was being committed or what are the crimes committed. Anong type of crimes committed? If a person in authority is assaulted, a person or an agent of the person in authority is assaulted while on the performance of their duties, the crime is qualified direct assault, qualified direct assault, because theyʼre assaulted while in the performance of their duties. But if they are assaulted by the reason of the performance of duty and then the crime becomes only direct assault. Like what? Or a judge in the market, he is buying food for the family. So, here comes a losing litigant, he saw the judge sabi, “Ay ikaw nagpatalo sa akin ha?” Tapos sinampal nya, sinuntok nya ung judge. Anong crime ʻyun? Is that a direct assault? Yes. Because he is assaulted by reason of his being a judge. He was assaulted by a losing litigant. Then, therefore, he A.L.F./N.O.S.

Codal and Lecture / Justice Peralta assaulted him because he lost a case before the judge. That is still a crime of direct assault because he was hit by reason of the performance of his work as a judge. But the crime there is direct assault. Because he was not assaulted at the time of the performance of the duties of being judge. Now, the difference, however, between direct assault of an agent of a person in authority. The policeman and a judge, pag sinabi mong direct assault sa police, then the attack must be more serious than the attack of a person in authority. Pag ang judge, sinampal mo yan, ginanun mo lang yung judge or kinabig mo lang, eh medyo malakas eh hindi naman nasaktan ng todo. Ano yan, direct assault yan because he is a person in authority.Kapag police ʻyan, it should be more than that. Talagang physical attack ang kailangan sa police because he is an agent of person in authority. Thatʼs why under Article 150 or 151, the crime of disobedience – disobedience or resistance that is a separate crime. Separate from the crime of direct assault committed against agents of person in authority. DEGREE OF RESISTANCE IN RELATION TO DISOBEDIENCE Letʼs say yung police, ano ha? Inisyuhan ka ng warrant of arrest. So, the judge orders a policeman to serve a warrant of arrest. If the person arrested resists – resisted without any physical attack, he resisted. Ayaw ko. Pinu-push mo na ang pulis. Tinutulak nya ang pulis, that cannot become a direct assault. Why? Because the attack is not yet too serious. He, the person being arrested or the person who resisted, will be liable only for simple resistance or disobedience. But if the warrant is served and he did not just push the police, sinuntok nya ang pulis na ʻyun. Pinagsusuntok nya ang pulis, direct assault na ʻyun. Direct assault na ʻyun. But kung ang judge yan sumita sayo, “Hoy! Mali ang ginagawa mo sa husgado.” ʻYun tapos sinampal mo ang judge direct assault agad ʻyun. Qualified direct assault? Why? Because when it comes to a person in authority, the attack need not be serious unlike with a crime committed against a policeman. Of course, natural eh pulis lang yan eh. Ako, justice tayo eh. Lagot ka, di ba? IN RELATION TO TEACHERS The professor was courting a lady student. That lady student was also being courted by another student. So, after classes, si professor was assaulted by that student who was courting also that student. Ano ang crime? May crime dun but it is not direct assault Why? Because even though he is a teacher the purpose of the assault was not due to being a teacher. The assault must have something to do of his being a teacher. Personal Paul IV D

Criminal Law Review | Page 15 ʻyun eh. But supposedly the teacher conducting was classes. The purpose of the assault by the student is that – he is courting the student because that means he is courting that student and that student was also… And then he threw a book that hit the face of the professor, and then beat him. Anong crime ʻyun? Physical injuries? Alam nyo ʻyun, nung tinanong sa bar exams yan, we were divided. Dalawang answers ang prinopose namin. Kasi, if the purpose is personal, then there is no need to apply Article 152 because a teacher in a private institution, nakalagay dun, ʻdi ba? Sabi nila physical injuries. ʻYung isang group naman sabi direct assault. Bakit direct assault? Because you apply the general principle, eh. When the person in authority is being assaulted, dapat regardless of the purpose. So, therefore, by analogy, if a teacher in a private institution is teaching, and he is stoned or assaulted by any of the students, that should be direct assault. Why? Because you do not need anymore to determine what is the purpose, eh. Because under the law, direct assault is committed when the person in authority or agents of person in authority is attacked or assaulted while in the performance of his duties. Hindi sinasabi dun kung by reason of the office o hindi. So, therefore, if the teacher is directly is conducting classes, whatever is the purpose of the one who is attacking him, if he is attacked on the occasion of his performance, that is direct assault. Eh ʻyun ang dapat mag-prepare ng question and answer na direct assault. But thereʼs no – thereʼs no case. So, sabi namin, sige, consider na lang dalawang answer. Kung iyan ang tinuro mo dun sa kabilang school, ʻyun. Sa kanila naman ito tinuturo namin. Dalawa, correct, ʻdi ba? But it should be really direct assault because it was done in the performance of his duties. IN RELATION TO LAWYERS Okay. Now, the other one also is lawyer. ʻYung lawyer mo ayaw mo saktan. The law does not make a distinction as to who is the assaulted lawyer. Itʼs either the opposing party or your own client, basta may reason. Pwede ʻyun. Krinosexamine nila ʻyung witness ng adverse party. Nagalit, nabastos. ʻPag labas sa husgado, sinuntok niya ʻyung lawyer. The one who is committing the crime is the opposite party. Direct assault ʻyun. But supposing it is his own client, masyadong mataas maningil ng kliyente. Sinuntok ng kliyente. Direct assault pa rin because the law does not make a distinction as who should be committing the crime as long as it is by reason of his being a lawyer. COMPLEXING DIRECT ASSAULT Can it be complexed? Can direct assault be complexed with other crimes? Yes, under Article A.L.F./N.O.S.

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

__________________________________ Art. 149. Indirect assaults. — The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding P500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall make use of force or intimidation upon any person coming to the aid of the authorities or their agents on occasion of the commission of any of the crimes defined in the next preceding article.

__________________________________ A is a policeman. He was assaulted, then later on, B, a private individual, came to the aid of Mr. A. Both of them were assaulted. Police ito, policeman. The policeman was directing traffic. The bystander did not like the policeman. A was directing traffic, so he was assaulted. B bystander, came to the aid of this policeman. B was likewise assaulted. Whatʼs the crime committed? Then the crime is indirect assault. So, this one would be Article 149. So, therefore, in 149 the only victim now in 149 is a private individual coming to the aid of agents of person in authority. The private individual coming to the aid of agent of person in Paul IV D

Criminal Law Review | Page 16 authority is a crime of indirect assault. But a private individual who comes to the aid of a person in authority, because he becomes an agent of a person in authority, if he is likewise assaulted, then liable for violation of Article 148.

__________________________________ Art. 150. Disobedience to summons issued by the National Assembly, its committees or subcommittees, by the Constitutional Commissions, its committees, subcommittees or divisions. — The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from two hundred to one thousand pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment shall be imposed upon any person who, having been duly summoned to attend as a witness before the National Assembly, (Congress), its special or standing committees and subcommittees, the Constitutional Commissions and its committees, subcommittees, or divisions, or before any commission or committee chairman or member authorized to summon witnesses, refuses, without legal excuse, to obey such summons, or being present before any such legislative or constitutional body or official, refuses to be sworn or placed under affirmation or to answer any legal inquiry or to produce any books, papers, documents, or records in his possession, when required by them to do so in the exercise of their functions. The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who shall restrain another from attending as a witness, or who shall induce disobedience to a summon or refusal to be sworn by any such body or official.

Art. 151. Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of such person. — The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who not being included in the provisions of the preceding articles shall resist or seriously disobey any person in authority, or the agents of such person, while engaged in the performance of official duties. When the disobedience to an agent of a person in authority is not of a serious nature, the penalty of arresto menor or a fine ranging from 10 to P100 pesos shall be imposed upon the offender.

A.L.F./N.O.S.


Art. 152. Persons in authority and agents of persons in authority; Who shall be deemed as such. — In applying the provisions of the preceding and other articles of this Code, any person directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of some court or governmental corporation, board, or commission, shall be deemed a person in authority. A barrio captain and a barangay chairman shall also be deemed a person in authority. A person who, by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by competent authority, is charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and property, such as a barrio councilman, barrio policeman and barangay leader and any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority, shall be deemed an agent of a person in authority. In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151 of this Code, teachers, professors and persons charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges and universities, and lawyers in the actual performance of their professional duties or on the occasion of such performance, shall be deemed persons in authority. (As amended by PD No. 299, Sept. 19, 1973 and Batas Pambansa Blg. 873, June 12, 1985). _____________________________________ Now, persons in authority, pag sinabi mong vested with jurisdiction, their acts can be implemented or enforced within their area of jurisdiction like mayors. Yung agents of persons in authority, yung mga police, agents, military, military men, and all those that implement or those who execute the orders of persons in authority are agents of persons in authority. But the problem is that a private individual may become an agent of person in authority. A private individual who comes to the aid of the person in authority becomes an agent of a person in authority. So, the private individual who comes to the aid of a person in authority becomes, likewise, an agent of a person in authority. Sinabihan ka nya, bayaran mo ako. Sabi ng cliyente, “Masyado namang mataas attorney. Ito ang kailangan mo.” *Pak*. Sinuntok nya ang abogado, direct assault ʻyun. Because a lawyer, for Paul IV D

Criminal Law Review | Page 17 purposes of his being a lawyer, and the exercise of his being a lawyer is assaulted or attacked, he is likewise a person in authority. So, there are, therefore, several persons in authority: 1) Public officials. 2) Yung mga baranggay chairman included yan by specific provision in 152. 3) Teachers in private institutions and lawyers in so far as if theyʼre assaulted by the reason of their being a lawyer. Persons in authority yun. 4) Then the other group of authorities will be agents of persons in authority divided lang into two groups. ʻYung public officers tasked to maintain peace and order, and the other agents of persons in authority are private individuals who come to the aid of persons in authority.

Chapter Five PUBLIC DISORDERS Art. 153. Tumults and other disturbance o f p u b l i c o r d e r s ; Tu m u l t u o u s disturbance or interruption liable to cause disturbance. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall cause any serious disturbance in a public place, office, or establishment, or shall interrupt or disturb public performances, functions or gatherings, or peaceful meetings, if the act is not included in the provisions of Articles 131 and 132. The penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed upon persons causing any disturbance or interruption of a tumultuous character. The disturbance or interruption shall be deemed to be tumultuous if caused by more than three persons who are armed or provided with means of violence. The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon any person who in any meeting, association, or public place, shall make any outcry tending to incite rebellion or sedition or in such place shall display placards or emblems which provoke a disturbance of the public order. The penalty of arresto menor and a fine not to exceed P200 pesos shall be imposed upon these persons who in violation of the provisions contained in the last clause of Article 85, shall bury with pomp the body of a person who has been legally executed. A.L.F./N.O.S.


__________________________________ Now the others, public outcry in 131, 132. If the acts do not fall under 131 and 132, then the law that is applicable is Article 153. Thatʼs the one. The elements of 153, however, is that there must be tumults. There must be a public disturbance. Refer to discussion under Inciting to Sedition/ Rebellion.


scandal in public places, provided that the circumstances of the case shall not make the provisions of Article 153 applicable.

__________________________________ FIRING OF A GUN RESULTING TO VARIANT CRIMES

When you fire a gun in a public place, then, of course, that will be alarm and scandal in 155 when the purpose of firing of the gun is to cause a public disturbance. But firing a gun may lead to other crimes committed. It will depend on many things.

__________________________________ Art. 154. Unlawful use of means of publication and unlawful utterances. — The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine ranging from P200 to P1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon: 1. Any person who by means of printing, lithography, or any other means of publication shall publish or cause to be published as news any false news which may endanger the public order, or cause damage to the interest or credit of the State; 2. Any person who by the same means, or by words, utterances or speeches shall encourage disobedience to the law or to the constituted authorities or praise, justify, or extol any act punished by law; 3. Any person who shall maliciously publish or cause to be published any official resolution or document without proper authority, or before they have been published officially; or 4. Any person who shall print, publish, or distribute or cause to be printed, published, or distributed books, pamphlets, periodicals, or leaflets which do not bear the real printer's name, or which are classified as anonymous.

Art. 155. Alarms and scandals. — The penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding P200 pesos shall be imposed upon: 1. Any person who within any town or public place, shall discharge any firearm, rocket, firecracker, or other explosives calculated to cause alarm or danger; 2. Any person who shall instigate or take an active part in any charivari or other disorderly meeting offensive to another or prejudicial to public tranquility; 3. Any person who, while wandering about at night or while engaged in any other nocturnal amusements, shall disturb the public peace; or 4. Any person who, while intoxicated or otherwise, shall cause any disturbance or Paul IV D

If the gun is fired in a public place merely to disturb, then that is alarm and scandal. If a gun is fired at somebody else without the intent to kill – so if a gun is fired, directed at somebody else without the intent to kill, then the crime will be a crime against person. Thatʼs a crime of illegal discharge of firearm. But if the gun is fired, aimed at somebody else, with intent to kill, and the victim is not killed, then that will be attempted felony. But if you fire the gun aimed at somebody else with the intent to kill, and he was not killed, and then he spontaneously desisted at that stage, then the crime is grave threat. Supposing I fire my gun without intent to kill, aim at somebody else, with proper bullet, but the bullet did not fire. Whatʼs the crime? I fire my gun with bullet, I aim at somebody else without the intent to kill, but the gun did not fire. Whatʼs the crime? That is a crime of frustrated illegal discharge of firearm. Supposing I fire my gun, not knowing that there is no bullet. So I fire my gun, not knowing that it is not loaded with bullets, aim at somebody else without intent to kill, whatʼs the crime? It did not fire, of course. Di ko alam na walang bullet. I wanted to fire the gun, aim at somebody else, without intent to kill, but the gun did not fire because there is no bullet. Whatʼs the crime? Impossible crime. Because it should have been a crime of illegal discharge of firearm, but because of inherent impossibility, there are no bullets. The crime becomes an impossible crime. RA8294 what is Republic Act 8294? It penalizes for illegal possession of firearm or explosives. Of course, that is a malum prohibitum, but you will have to prove the intent. It is a malum prohibitum and, therefore, the intent as an element of the crime is not the essential element. But what are you going to prove if it is a malum prohibitum? You have to prove animus possidendi, the one I told you last time. A.L.F./N.O.S.

Codal and Lecture / Justice Peralta There must be an animus possidendi or intent to possess which is different from intent as an element of the crime. Illegal Possession There are three ways: 1. When one is caught in the act of possessing a gun without the necessary license. 2. When one is caught in the possession of a gun with proper license, but has already expired, with expired license. Thatʼs also illegal possession of firearms. 3. And then the last one is you may have the license to possess, but if you bring it out without necessary license to carry, that is also an unlicensed firearm. Violations And then the violations in Republic Act 8294 would be: If one is caught in the act of an unlicensed firearm, then he is liable for illegal possession of firearm, unlicensed firearm. So, if you are walking outside of your residence and then you are caught in possession of an unlicensed firearm, then that makes it already a crime of illegal possession of firearms. When an unlicensed firearm is used in the killing, then the crime will be either murder or homicide and then the use of unlicensed firearm will be treated as a special aggravating circumstance. So, there is only one crime of killing. The crime is killing. That means murder, homicide or infanticide and then the use of an unlicensed firearm will be treated as the special aggravating circumstance. And then the third situation is that when an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of the crime other than killing, then you will be liable for the crime to which the unlicensed firearm was used. Isang crime lang. So, if one fires a gun in a public place, and therefore, it disturbs the peace, and it was found out that the gun that was used in firing is an unlicensed firearm, what will be the crime of – how many crimes are committed? So, I used an unlicensed firearm in a public place and I fired the gun. So Iʼm caught in the act of possessing an unlicensed firearm because policemen caught me right after I fired the gun. I am liable for alarm and scandal because I fired the gun in a public place and, therefore, the crime against public order and punishable under 155. What about the gun that was used, which was an unlicensed firearm? What will happen with that gun? You cannot be liable for the separate crime of Paul IV D

Criminal Law Review | Page 19 illegal possession of firearm. Illegal possession of firearm is absorbed with the crime of alarm and scandal because that is what the law provides, that if an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of the crime other than killing, then you will only be liable for the crime to which the unlicensed firearm was used. In relation to rebellion in rebellion, taking up arms is already the element. You mean, coup dʼetat or simple rebellion? No separate crime in an unlicensed firearm. That is included in the element of taking up arms against the government. RA8294 In relation to Special Complex Crimes You are passengers in a passenger bus. All of a sudden, a group of robbers and some of the passengers brought out their knives and guns and then pointed at the victims. Now, one of the passengers brought out his gun and then fought back the robbers who were armed with guns and knives. The passenger died. Now, it was found out that the guns used by them were unlicensed firearms. So, therefore, they committed a crime of robbery with homicide with the use of an unlicensed firearm. So, how will you treat that unlicensed firearm? How will you treat that unlicensed firearm? Now, the unlicensed firearm under Republic Act 8294 will be now absorbed in the crime of robbery with homicide because the crime is robbery. So, the unlicensed firearm will be absorbed in the crime of robbery because they were used in the crime of robbery. APPLICATION OF PEOPLE v. ESCOTE IN RELATION TO RA 8294

But supposing, instead of guns, they use knives in the crime of robbery, and then later on, they used an unlicensed firearm in the killing of the victim. So they brought out their knives. “Bring out your valuables.” So they used knives in the act of committing the crime of robbery, and then one of the passengers brought out a gun, and then one of the robbers, likewise, after they saw the passenger bring out a gun, likewise, brought out a gun and then killed the passenger. It was found out that the gun used in the killing of the passenger is an unlicensed firearm. So how will you now treat the unlicensed firearm? If that is the case, because of the doctrine laid down in Escote, if the unlicensed firearm was not used in the robbery, but was used in the killing, then the crime is robbery with homicide, and you can appreciate the special aggravating of unlicensed firearm in so far as the killing is concerned because that gun was not used in the robbery. A.L.F./N.O.S.



__________________________________ But if the gun – unlicensed firearm was used in the robbery, then the crime is merely robbery with homicide. The unlicensed firearm cannot be treated as a special aggravating circumstance because that is absorbed in the crime of robbery. In fact, merong kaso diyan. Although the facts are different, but by analogy - what happened there is that after robbing the victims in a bus, a gun was found from the possession of the robber, which was never used in the robbery. Pag baba nʼyang ganyan, may nahulog na baril, ʻyung robber. When they picked up the gun, then it was an unlicensed firearm. But the unlicensed firearm was picked up after the robbery has already been consummated. So, anoʼng crime ʻto? Sabi ng Supreme Court, dalawang crimes ʻyan. One is robbery, the other one is illegal possession of firearm because the unlicensed firearm was not used in the commission of the crime of robbery. O, ʻpag ganun, ʻdi ba?

__________________________________ Art. 156. Delivery of prisoners from jails. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person who shall remove from any jail or penal establishment any person confined therein or shall help the escape of such person, by means of violence, intimidation, or bribery. If other means are used, the penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed. If the escape of the prisoner shall take place outside of said establishments by taking the guards by surprise, the same penalties shall be imposed in their minimum period.

Chapter Six EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE Art. 157. Evasion of service of sentence. — The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon any convict who shall evade service of his sentence by escaping during the term of his imprisonment by reason of final judgment. However, if such evasion or escape shall have taken place by means of unlawful entry, by breaking doors, windows, gates, walls, roofs, or floors, or by using picklocks, false keys, deceit, violence or intimidation, or through connivance with other convicts or employees of the penal institution, the penalty shall be prision correccional in its maximum period. Paul IV D

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

Art. 158. Evasion of service of sentence o n t h e o c c a s i o n o f d i s o r d e r, conflagrations, earthquakes, or other calamities. — A convict who shall evade the service of his sentence, by leaving the penal institution where he shall have been confined, on the occasion of disorder resulting from a conflagration, earthquake, explosion, or similar catastrophe, or during a mutiny in which he has not participated, shall suffer an increase of one-fifth of the time still remaining to be served under the original sentence, which in no case shall exceed six months, if he shall fail to give himself up to the authorities within forty-eight hours following the issuance of a proclamation by the Chief Executive announcing the passing away of such calamity. Convicts who, under the circumstances mentioned in the preceding paragraph, shall give themselves up to the authorities within the above mentioned period of 48 hours, shall be entitled to the deduction provided in Article 98.

Art. 159. Other cases of evasion of service of sentence. — The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon the convict who, having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive, shall violate any of the conditions of such pardon. However, if the penalty remitted by the granting of such pardon be higher than six years, the convict shall then suffer the unexpired portion of his original sentence.

__________________________________

A.L.F./N.O.S.

Codal and Lecture / Justice Peralta To the differentiate it from parole. The requirements sa conditional pardon eh a conditional pardon is granted by the Chief Executive wherein the accused and the government will enter into a contract. Unlike in parole, in parole there is also a contract. But a violation of the conditions in parole may not lead to a crime of other forms of evasion of service. Walang crime ng violation of a parole, eh. There’s no crime of violation of parole. Unlike in a conditional pardon, violation of the conditional pardon is about the crime of Article 159. But there are two periods in 159, in defense on the period remitted. So, if the period remitted is more than six years, then the effect of a violation of the conditional pardon is that the accused will have to be arrested and serve the remaining sentence. But if the period remitted is less than six years, then there is a crime of violation of a conditional pardon, the penalty of which is prision correccional.

Chapter Seven COMMISSION OF ANOTHER CRIME D U R I N G S E R V I C E O F P E N A LT Y IMPOSED FOR ANOTHER PREVIOUS OFFENSE Art. 160. Commission of another crime during service of penalty imposed for another offense; Penalty. — Besides the provisions of Rule 5 of Article 62, any person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same, shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony. Any convict of the class referred to in this article, who is not a habitual criminal, shall be pardoned at the age of seventy years if he shall have already served out his original sentence, or when he shall complete it after reaching the said age, unless by reason of his conduct or other circumstances he shall not be worthy of such clemency.

Title Four CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST Chapter One FORGERIES Section One. — Forging the seal of the Government of the Paul IV D


Philippine Islands, the signature or stamp of the Chief Executive. Art. 161. Counterfeiting the great seal of the Government of the Philippine Islands, forging the signature or stamp of the Chief Executive. — The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed upon any person who shall forge the Great Seal of the Government of the Philippine Islands or the signature or stamp of the Chief Executive.

Art. 162. Using forged signature or counterfeit seal or stamp. — The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall knowingly make use of the counterfeit seal or forged signature or stamp mentioned in the preceding article.

Section Two. — Counterfeiting Coins Art. 163. Making and importing and uttering false coins. — Any person who makes, imports, or utters, false coins, in connivance with counterfeiters, or importers, shall suffer: 1. Prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not to exceed P10,000 pesos, if the counterfeited coin be silver coin of the Philippines or coin of the Central Bank of the Philippines of ten centavo denomination or above. 2. Prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine of not to exceed P2,000 pesos, if the counterfeited coins be any of the minor coinage of the Philippines or of the Central Bank of the Philippines below tencentavo denomination. 3. Prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed P1,000 pesos, if the counterfeited coin be currency of a foreign country. (As amended by R.A. No. 4202, approved June 19, 1965).

Art. 164. Mutilation of coins; Importation and utterance of mutilated coins. — The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed P2,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall mutilate coins of the legal currency of the United States or of the Philippine Islands or import or utter mutilated current coins, or in connivance with mutilators or importers. A.L.F./N.O.S.


Art. 165. Selling of false or mutilated coin, without connivance. — The person w h o k n o w i n g l y, a l t h o u g h w i t h o u t t h e connivance mentioned in the preceding articles, shall possess false or mutilated coin with intent to utter the same, or shall actually utter such coin, shall suffer a penalty lower by one degree than that prescribed in said articles.

Section Three. — Forging treasury or bank notes, obligations and securities; importing and uttering false or forged notes, obligations and securities. Art. 166. Forging treasury or bank notes on other documents payable to bearer; importing, and uttering such false or forged notes and documents. — The forging or falsification of treasury or bank notes or certificates or other obligations and securities payable to bearer and the importation and uttering in connivance with forgers or importers of such false or forged obligations or notes, shall be punished as follows: 1. By reclusion temporal in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed P10,000 pesos, if the d o c u m e n t w h i c h h a s b e e n f a l s i fi e d , counterfeited, or altered, is an obligations or security of the United States or of the Philippines Islands. The word "obligation or security of the United States or of the Philippine Islands" shall be held to mean all bonds, certificates of indebtedness, national bank notes, fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized officers of the United States or of the Philippine Islands, and other representatives of value, of whatever denomination, which have been or may be issued under any act of the Congress of the United States or of the Philippine Legislature. 2. By prision mayor in its maximum period and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos, if the falsified or altered document is a circulating note issued by any banking association duly authorized by law to issue the same. 3. By prision mayor in its medium period and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos, if the falsified or counterfeited document was issued by a Paul IV D


foreign government. 4. By prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed P2,000 pesos, when the forged or altered document is a circulating note or bill issued by a foreign bank duly authorized therefor.

Art. 167. Counterfeiting, importing and uttering instruments not payable to bearer. — Any person who shall forge, import or utter, in connivance with the forgers or importers, any instrument payable to order or other document of credit not payable to bearer, shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding P6,000 pesos.

__________________________________ The other one is uttering. In the counterfeit, the one who counterfeits the money is liable. Now, the one who actually uses the money is liable for uttering. So, that’s part of Article 166-167, uttering of false notes. And the one who is caught in the act of possessing false notes is liable for the crime of illegal possession of false note. But in illegal possession of false notes, there must be an element of intent to utter, intent to utter. That means that, if I’m in possession of let’s say, ten fake money and I’m not using it, they are just inside my wallet, I will not be liable for illegal possession because there is no intent to use it. PRESUMPTION OF INTENT TO UTTER Now, in an old case, Bank of Republic of the Philippines Islands, an old case raised in the Supreme Court because the accused was caught in possession of several pieces of false notes. He was convicted, but the Supreme Court made a distinction that mere possession of a false note is not a crime because what is punishable is that there must be intent to utter. Kasi, gaya ko gusto kong merong akong false note, di ko naman ginagamit, remembrance eh. Why should I be liable? So, sabi ng Supreme Court, if one, however, is caught with several bundles, let say, you are not using it, but you were caught in possession of 10 bundles of false notes. Ah, sabi ng Supreme Court, you will now be liable. Why? The possession of so many bundles is an element of intent to use.

__________________________________ Art. 168. Illegal possession and use of false treasury or bank notes and other instruments of credit. — Unless the act be one of those coming under the provisions of any of the preceding articles, any person who shall knowingly use or have in his possession, with intent to use any of the false or falsified instruments referred to in this section, shall A.L.F./N.O.S.


suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed in said articles.

Art. 169. How forgery is committed. — The forgery referred to in this section may be committed by any of the following means: 1. By giving to a treasury or bank note or any instrument, payable to bearer or order mentioned therein, the appearance of a true genuine document. 2. By erasing, substituting, counterfeiting or altering by any means the figures, letters, words or signs contained therein. _____________________________________ pag sinabi na, “You are liable for the crime of forgery,” walang crime na forgery. Forgery is a way of committing a crime of falsification. But forgery is not a crime because forgery is merely the act of imitating the signature or the handwriting, making it appear that it was signed by the person concerned. Yan, yan ang mga forgery. You forge, that’s the meaning, but that’s not a crime. Under 169, it is a manner of committing a crime of falsification.


notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts: 1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric; 2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate; 3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them; 4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts; 5. Altering true dates; 6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning; 7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document when no such original exists, or including in such a copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original; or 8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book. The same penalty shall be imposed upon any ecclesiastical minister who shall commit any of the offenses enumerated in the preceding paragraphs of this article, with respect to any record or document of such character that its falsification may affect the civil status of persons.

_____________________________________

Section Four. — Falsification of legislative, public, commercial, and privatedocuments, and wireless, telegraph, and telephone message.

Art. 170. Falsification of legislative documents. — The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine not exceeding P6,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, without proper authority therefor alters any bill, resolution, or ordinance enacted or approved or pending approval by either House of the Legislature or any provincial board or municipal council.

Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister. — The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or Paul IV D

Art. 172. Falsification by private i n d i v i d u a l a n d u s e o f f a l s i fi e d documents. — The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon: 1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications enumerated in the next preceding article in any public or official document or letter of exchange or any other kind of commercial document; and 2. Any person who, to the damage of a third party, or with the intent to cause such damage, shall in any private document commit any of the acts of falsification enumerated in the next preceding article. Any person who shall knowingly introduce in evidence in any judicial proceeding or to the damage of another or who, with the intent to cause such damage, shall use any of the false documents embraced in the next preceding article, or in any of the foregoing subdivisions A.L.F./N.O.S.


of this article, shall be punished by the penalty next lower in degree.

__________________________________ 171-172 Now, when it comes, however to official public document, commercial document, and private document, the laws that are applicable will be Article 171 and Article 172. But in Article 171, falsification under 171 can only be committed by three specified persons or groups of persons. Public officers taking advantage of their public position. Notary publics. Ecclesiastics. Only those mentioned in 171 can be liable for the crime of falsification. Now, if you go to Article 172, then the crime of falsification can be committed by private individuals, but it makes reference to the falsifications in 171. So, what is the implication of that? The implication of that when it is committed by private individual, then the law that is violated is 172. But the manner of committing the crime of falsification in 172 is likewise the manner of committing the crime of falsification in Article 171. There are four kinds of falsification of documents under 171 and 172 although like official document, be it a public document, be it a private document or be it a commercial document. But the official document and public document are created as one for purposes of falsification. So, when you speak of official document, they’re just the same as (talking) document for purposes of falsification. But, they’re not the same in meaning. The other one is commercial document then the last one is private document. The official documents are those that are issued by the Government as part of the records of the Government or an order to evidence an act of a certain government agency, payment of taxes. You issued a receipt. That is an official document because it records the payment, a governmental function. You apply your marriage license. That is also an official document because it becomes part of the records of the Civil Registrar. Birth certificate, court records, pleadings, complaints, decisions. All of these are public records or official documents because they become part of the official records of the government. Now, official documents may, likewise, include documents prepared by private individuals. These are not – because, generally, the official documents are those that are prepared and issued by a government official. But there may be official documents prepared by private individuals. When those documents become part of the records of the government they become official documents.

Paul IV D

Criminal Law Review | Page 24 Application for a marriage license, the application is filled up by the applicants. Application of a marriage contract, the applications are made by private individuals. But once you have submitted it before the proper agencies they become part of the records of the Civil Registrar and, therefore, official documents. Those who are entering the government service, your application form. They become part of the record of the Civil Service Commission or the COMELEC or what, then they become a part of the records of those government agencies and also become official documents. Now, the other one is public document. A public document usually is not a document which will record a governmental function that this may perform. But rather it is prepared by private individuals. The public document is one involving a deed of conveyance. In other words, when you speak of a deed of conveyance, therefore, that document if consummated will produce rights and obligations of the parties with the participation of a notary public. So, a contract of sale that is a deed of conveyance, you convey something, the other one pays. So, there is an obligation to deliver and there is an obligation to pay. Now, if that contract of sale is acknowledged before a notary public that means that you go to a lawyer and then you swear before the lawyer. Yung acknowledgement, nakabasa na ba kayo nun, before me, a notary public, personal appeared Mr. A herein referred to as the vendor, exhibiting his certificate, issued at blah-blah-blah, and Mr. Vendee blah-blah-blah, herein referred to as the vendee. That the attest that they executed this document with their free will consisting of seven pages with each page signed on the left portion including the last page. Subscribed and sworn to before me. That is the acknowledgment. That’s what you call acknowledgment. So, that is the participation of a notary public. If that document now is the one required by law like the acknowledgement then that document becomes a public document. Then for purposes of falsification, that public document is treated in the same category as official document. Now, if that document, however, is not notarized or is not acknowledge before a notary public and therefore it is a deed of conveyance, but in the absence of a notary public or acknowledgement then that document becomes a private document, okay. And the last one is commercial document. Sabi nila, what is a commercial document? The book of Reyes will say, or even in the book, a commercial document is one that is governed by the Code of Commerce. Meron nang definition, di ba? A commercial document is one that is governed by the Code of Commerce e ang dami covered ng Code of Commerce. Ano ang commercial documents? So, commercial documents are those that are usually substitute for A.L.F./N.O.S.



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

cause injury, he becomes liable for a crime of falsification of public document. Why? Because there is no need to prove that the falsification of an official document was intended to cause injury to another.

Now, commercial document and official or public document have the same element. The only element is there must be an act of falsification. So, the mere act of falsifying that document is a consummated crime of falsification.

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

FALSIFICATION BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS Unlike when it is committed by a private individual under Article 172, when it is a private document and this is covered by Article 172, then the crime is falsification of a private document. And, therefore, has two essential elements: The act of falsifying the document. To cause injury to third persons. Remember that, to cause injury to a third person. What about if a private individual commits a crime of falsification of an official document? Is there also an element of intent to injure? I’ll give you an example. You are an employee of the Civil Registrar. You are the one in charge of the issuance of a marriage license or marriage contracts. You take advantage of your public position. You make it appear that the person who wants to get married is already of age. So, finalsify mo yung edad niya, di ba, in a marriage license. Tama ba? Ano bang age na ngayon para makapagasawa? Eighteen. So, 18. You made it appear that the one of the contracting parties is already 18 when he knows fully well that he is only 17. So, he issued a marriage license, pinafalsify nya, ginawa niyang 18. What about if he is a private individual? He falsified a marriage license, the same official and the same contracting party. He likewise falsified the marriage license. He makes it appear that he is 18, when in fact he is 17 years of age. Question: Are they liable for a crime? If it is committed by public officer taking advantage of his public position, whether that marriage license is used or not because there is an element of intent to Paul IV D

Now, what about the minor boy? He falsified the marriage license. So, if he did not use the license that he falsified, can he be liable for a crime of falsification of public document or official document? Is it the crime of the individual? No, because there is no harm done to anybody because he did not use the marriage license. If a private individual falsifies a public document, there is still a need to prove damage? No, it’s not prove damage. It’s the intent to cause damage. Intent. If a document is falsified by private individual and he does not use it, there is no intent of to cause damage. For example, the receipt, the receipt that you gave to me, if you pay taxes in the government. So, the receipt is legally is an official document. I falsified it, but I kept it. No harm

Why? Because, in a crime of falsification of a public document, there is only one element of falsification. Whereas in the crime of estafa, there are two essential elements which are deceit and damage. Whereas in the crime of private document, there are two essential elements, one is the act of falsifying the document and the other one, the intent to cause damage. So therefore, in the crime of estafa in falsification of private document, they have common elements of damage. So, therefore, if there are two common elements of damage, then they cannot be complex. Kasi in private document may damage and falsification. Estafa, damage and falsification. So, there is no crime of estafa through falsification of private documents. It’s either estafa or falsification of private documents. ART 171 NOTES So, when a document is already consummated, you are not supposed to make any erasures. So this usual interpellations without the knowledge of the other party, ‘di ba? Let’s say contract of sale. ‘Di ka na pwede magpalit dyan eh because consummated na. But you can still change without being liable for a crime of falsification. You can still change when the act of changing or A.L.F./N.O.S.

Codal and Lecture / Justice Peralta interpolating or erasing will not change the meaning of the document or will not affect the integrity of the document. Like, for example, nagkamali ka ng spelling sa pangalan, walang comma, walang semi-colon, mali English, pinalitan mo, eh wala ka na dun. Walang crime, although, the documents are already – the parties have already signed. Then, di pwede yung sana ma – you interpolated something when that was found out when suppose that word was not there when the document was signed. There is no crime of falsification because it is not intended to alter the meaning of this document. Or when you alter the document but the one that is altered is not material to the contract. Walang falsification dun Making untruthful statement in the narration of facts. The first thing that you have to remember is that, there must be a duty to disclose the truth. If there is no duty to disclose the truth, then there is no crime of falsification. In other words, if in a questionnaire, hindi ba? Let’s say, you are applying for a job. You go over there, and then meet the other qualifications, and then you are asked. Are you a college graduate? Therefore, it is your duty to disclose the truth. You know that is crucial in your application for a job in the government. Or have you ever been convicted of a crime? Then you have a duty to disclose the truth, morality or this is also recorded in your application for a job abroad. TEST TO DETERMINE WHETHER INTERCALATION WILL AFFECT DOCUMENT INTEGRITY When it is completely change the meaning of the document. For example, contract of sale in the amount 100,000 pesos, you changed to 50,000 pesos. Eh di nag-iba na yung meaning ng document. It is a contract of sale of 100,000 pesos naging 50,000 pesos na. Yun ang ibig kong sabihin. So walang problema, 171-172.

Art. 173. Falsification of wireless, cable, telegraph and telephone messages, and use of said falsified messages. — The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon officer or employee of the Government or of any private corporation or concern engaged in the service of sending or receiving wireless, cable or telephone message who utters a fictitious wireless, telegraph or telephone message of any system or falsifies the same. Any person who shall use such falsified dispatch to the prejudice of a third party or with the intent of cause such prejudice, shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree.

Paul IV D


Section Five. — Falsification of medical certificates, certificates of merit or services and the like. Art. 174. False medical certificates, false certificates of merits or service, etc. — The penalties of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed P1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon: 1. Any physician or surgeon who, in connection, with the practice of his profession, shall issue a false certificate; and 2. Any public officer who shall issue a false certificate of merit of service, good conduct or similar circumstances. The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon any private person who shall falsify a certificate falling within the classes mentioned in the two preceding subdivisions.

__________________________________ The falsification done, that it may happen in two ways. The doctor makes it appear that you were sick when, in fact, you were not sick. That is covered by 174. Or the other one is that, a person presented a medical certificate which is falsified. The one who will be liable is the person who filed something with a falsified document. Like for example in this hospital, di ba they keep records? They keep records of all patients, eh. Now, if the doctor now comes out with the medical certificate contrary to the records in the hospital, liable yan ng falsification because he is the one issuing. So it may happen that the doctor is the one who uses a falsified document, then he’ll be liable. Or it may happen that the person claimed that he is sick and then presents a certified medical certificate when in fact there is none, siya din ang liable. What if it was a private individual who falsified the medical certificate? He will be liable because that is covered by 174. That’s why there are two things that can happen there. That’s why it’s not covered in Article 171 and 172 because a medical certificate cannot be treated as a private document or commercial document.

__________________________________ Art. 175. Using false certificates. — The penalty of arresto menor shall be imposed upon any one who shall knowingly use any of the false certificates mentioned in the next preceding article. A.L.F./N.O.S.


Section Six. — Manufacturing, importing and possession of instruments or implements intended for the commission of falsification. Art. 176. Manufacturing and possession of instruments or implements for falsification. — The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine not to exceed P10,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall make or introduce into the Philippine Islands any stamps, dies, marks, or other instruments or implements intended to be used in the commission of the offenses of counterfeiting or falsification mentioned in the preceding sections of this Chapter. Any person who, with the intention of using them, shall have in his possession any of the instruments or implements mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that provided therein.

Chapter Two OTHER FALSIFICATIONS Section One. — Usurpation of authority, rank, title, and improper use of names, uniforms and insignia. Art. 177. Usurpation of authority or official functions. — Any person who shall knowingly and falsely represent himself to be an officer, agent or representative of any department or agency of the Philippine Government or of any foreign government, or who, under pretense of official position, shall perform any act pertaining to any person in authority or public officer of the Philippine Government or any foreign government, or any agency thereof, without being lawfully entitled to do so, shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.

__________________________________ That usurpation can be committed by a person that is a private individual.

Paul IV D


Art. 178. Using fictitious name and concealing true name. — The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not to exceed 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall publicly use a fictitious name for the purpose of concealing a crime, evading the execution of a judgment or causing damage. Any person who conceals his true name and other personal circumstances shall be punished by arresto menor or a fine not to exceed 200 pesos.

__________________________________ What makes it a crime under 178 is that the use of an alias is either for the purpose or purposes of any of those mentioned by the law, to abate judgment, to cause an act over the public interest and to cause damage to other party, conceal the commission of the crime to abate judgment or to cause damage. If you use an alias for the purposes of any of the purposes mentioned in 178, then youʼll be liable to a violation of 178 by mere, but merely using an alias is not a crime. It is not a crime, noh.

__________________________________ Art. 179. Illegal use of uniforms or insignia. — The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall publicly and improperly make use of insignia, uniforms or dress pertaining to an office not held by such person or to a class of persons of which he is not a member.

Section Two. — False testimony Art. 180. False testimony against a defendant. — Any person who shall give false testimony against the defendant in any criminal case shall suffer: 1. The penalty of reclusion temporal, if the defendant in said case shall have been sentenced to death; 2. The penalty of prision mayor, if the defendant shall have been sentenced to reclusion temporal or reclusion perpetua; 3. The penalty of prision correccional, if the defendant shall have been sentenced to any other afflictive penalty; and 4. The penalty of arresto mayor, if the defendant shall have been sentenced to a correctional penalty or a fine, or shall have been acquitted.

A.L.F./N.O.S.


In cases provided in subdivisions 3 and 4 of this article the offender shall further suffer a fine not to exceed 1,000 pesos.

Art. 181. False testimony favorable to the defendants. — Any person who shall give false testimony in favor of the defendant in a criminal case, shall suffer the penalties of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period a fine not to exceed 1,000 pesos, if the prosecution is for a felony punishable by an afflictive penalty, and the penalty of arresto mayor in any other case.

Art. 182. False testimony in civil cases. — Any person found guilty of false testimony in a civil case shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed 6,000 pesos, if the amount in controversy shall exceed 5,000 pesos, and the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed 1,000 pesos, if the amount in controversy shall not exceed said amount or cannot be estimated.

__________________________________ It must be through a judicial body. Why? Because if the statement is made before a judicial body like, for example, the courts. Before testifying, you raise your right hand. You tell the truth and nothing but the truth. The you start giving false statements, malicious. Sabi mo, hindi. Ito, siya ang pumatay. Kasama ko yan. Andun kami sa America. Andun kami sa New York, yun pala sa New York, Cubao lang. He is now telling a lie and that is false testimony because it is really false. Anong crime yun? Is that perjury? No, that is not perjury. The crime will either be those punished under 180, 181, and 182. If the statement is made before – the false testimony is made before the court, then the crime will either be false testimony in a civil case, false testimony favoring the defendant or false testimony in a criminal case favoring the accused. SUBORNATION OF PERJURY Subornation of perjury is a principal in the crime of perjury. I ask you to execute a perjured statement. The one who executed the perjured statement is liable for the crime of perjury. The one who induced somebody to commit the crime of perjury is liable for the crime of subornation of perjury. In other words, subornation of perjury is equivalent to a principal by inducement in a crime of perjury.

__________________________________

Paul IV D


Art. 183. False testimony in other cases and perjury in solemn affirmation. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person, who knowingly makes untruthful statements and not being included in the provisions of the next preceding articles, shall testify under oath, or make an affidavit, upon any material matter before a competent person authorized to administer an oath in cases in which the law so requires. Any person who, in case of a solemn affirmation made in lieu of an oath, shall commit any of the falsehoods mentioned in this and the three preceding articles of this section, shall suffer the respective penalties provided therein.

__________________________________

Now, if you want to secure a license. Let’s say you apply for a driver’s license. Then the driver’s license, you are issued. And you were caught, and then your license was confiscated because you incurred some violations. What you do is that you can no longer secure a new driver’s license because confiscated na eh. You are already prohibited to drive within a certain period of time because of too many violations. What you did was to execute an affidavit of loss to go around the law. State I…blah blah blah. I was driving in the vehicle, somebody picked my wallet included in that wallet is a license and, therefore, I can no longer locate it and I am executing this statement in order to secure another license. Then at the end of that statement, you will find there the jurat. Alam ninyo yung jurat di ba? To differentiate it from acknowledgement. Ano yung jurat? A mere statement that that statement is under oath. Subscribed and sworn to before me this blank day of September date and so and so name of the notary public. That’s the meaning of jurat. Now, if those statements are false and then malicious. These are statements – because it is not only the false statement that is punishable under perjury. It must be attended with malice. In other words, fraudulent. Mere false statement, just to be giving a false statement is not a crime of perjury. In other words, when you speak of malice, yan ang unang element dyan. It must be a statement of fact, done with malice, and number two, substantial for material to the document. For example, let’s say yung affidavit of loss na yan. Perjury yan. Why do they have to execute a statement of fact, affidavit of loss, to secure another license when in fact you can no longer secure a new one because confiscated na yung license mo. Yung ang A.L.F./N.O.S.

Codal and Lecture / Justice Peralta malicious. There is a motive on the part of the affiant to execute a perjured statement. But if the one that is perjured is not essential to the document like for example affidavit of loss, and then you stated there I, Mr. blah blah blah single when you are already married, walang perjury yun because it is not substantial or essential to the document because what is essential in the document is the statement of loss. Walang silbi yun kung ganun ang sinabi mo, binata ka dun. That is not perjury because it will no affect, in any way, the document. Yung ang sinasabi kong immaterial. The most important thing is that it must be done with malice. Now, the other kind of perjury is you do not execute a written statement, but you are required to testify. Then before you testify, you are asked to raise your right hand. You will tell the truth, nothing but the truth. Yes, I do. The you answer the question and then you now give perjured statement. Yun ang other form of perjury. But the oral testimony in the crime of perjury must be done before a quasijudicial body.

__________________________________ Art. 184. Offering false testimony in evidence. — Any person who shall knowingly offer in evidence a false witness or testimony in any judicial or official proceeding, shall be punished as guilty of false testimony and shall suffer the respective penalties provided in this section.

Chapter Three FRAUDS Section One. — Machinations, monopolies and combinations Art. 185. Machinations in public auctions. — Any person who shall solicit any gift or promise as a consideration for refraining from taking part in any public auction, and any person who shall attempt to cause bidders to stay away from an auction by threats, gifts, promises, or any other artifice, with intent to cause the reduction of the price of the thing auctioned, shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine ranging from 10 to 50 per centum of the value of the thing auctioned.

Paul IV D


Title Five CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Part 1 Article 190 Possession, preparation and use of prohibited drugs and maintenance of opium dens Letʼs now go to 190 which has been amended by the Dangerous Drugs Law. Okay. Now, the present dangerous Drugs Law is Republic Act 9165, noh, of the year 2002. Itʼs the law that took effect in July 4, 2002. That is RA 9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Law of 2002. Now before that law, the law was then Republic Act 6425, noh. It used to be Republic Act 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Law of 1972. Now, before we go to the salient features of 9165, we will first know what were those that were provided under Republic Act 6425 so that we will understand the amendments in 9165, okay? RA 6425 DANGEROUS DRUGS LAW Now, the Dangerous Drugs Law is by its very nature a malum prohibitum. It is a malum prohibitum because mere violation of the law makes the offender criminally liable. Therefore, if it is a malum prohibitum, then you do not apply the provisions of the Revised Penal Code as a rule, noh? As a rule, you cannot appreciate the mitigating circumstances or those circumstances that may be available in crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code. However, under the old law of Republic Act 6425, that is the old one, not the present law, so that you will know the changes. Under the old law, Republic Act 6425, the penalties then at that time were based on the quantity of the prohibited or regulated drugs and punished with penalties under the Revised Penal Code. In other words, you have there a special law where the law provides for penalties that are found in the Revised Penal Code. So, that was the reason why the Supreme Court came out with a doctrine laid down in People versus Martin Simon, that if the special law adopts the nomenclature of penalties under the Revised Penal Code, then the provisions of the Revised Penal Code are applied as a general rule. So that under the old law, if one pleads guilty under the old law, or one proves mitigating circumstances under the old law, then those mitigating circumstances are appreciated because the penalties then are penalties under the Revised Penal Code. Okay.

A.L.F./N.O.S.

Codal and Lecture / Justice Peralta RA9165 Dangerous Drugs Law of 2002 Republic Act 9165 under Section 98 specifically provides that the Revised Penal Code is not applicable to this law. So, there is a clear declaration in this law that the Revised Penal Code is not applicable to this law. Except that if the offender is a minor, however, minority pala hindi exempted, if the offender is a minor, then the penalty imposed by law is the penalty of life imprisonment to death, then the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. So, that is found in Section 98, ano ha. There is expressed prohibition of the application of the Revised Penal Code to this law that makes the Dangerous Drugs Law. But if the offender is a minor, however, if the offender is a minor and the offense committed by the minor is a penalty of life imprisonment to death, then the penalty to be imposed shall be the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. IN RELATION to RA 9344 Okay, how do we explain that? Now, under your Republic Act 9344, noh, which is the Juvenile Delinquent Welfare Law of 2006. The law says that there is only one minor that can now be liable, and the minor that can be liable is if the age of the minor is between 15 and 18, hindi ba? Between 15 and 18 acting with discernment. So, that is the only minor that can now be liable after that law. But if that minor is liable because he acted with discernment, then in Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, he will be entitled to a privileged mitigating circumstance of minority. So, it will then illustrate - you pay particular attention to the example that I will be giving. So, if the – letʼs take the case of shabu. Under Section 11, if one is found in possession of shabu where the quantity is more than 50 grams, letʼs say 50 grams of shabu, shabu yan, ha and then here comes a minor, 17-year-old boy, caught in act of possessing, possessing ha, 51 grams of shabu and therefore violation of Section 11. The penalty of which is more than 50 grams of shabu is life imprisonment to death or the penalty is life imprisonment to death, is it not? Under Section 11, okay? Now, the question that will be asked is what is the effect of a minor committing an offense under Section 11 where the penalty of life imprisonment to death is imposable? Now, if you look at this, never mind Section 98 – never mind Section 98 in the meantime. If the penalty of the offense is life imprisonment to death, even if you want to appreciate a privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, there is nowhere between lower to life imprisonment to death. Because as I told you in Article 61 before, only the penalties in the Revised Penal Code can be graduated. Do you follow? Even if you want to appreciate the privileged mitigating circumstance, you cannot lower it by one Paul IV D

Criminal Law Review | Page 30 degree because there is no one degree lower to life imprisonment to death. Do you follow? Now, what does Section 98 provide? Section 98 provides that if a minor commits an offense where the penalty is life imprisonment to death, then the penalty to be imposed should be the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. Di ba? Nakalagay sa Section 98? If the penalty of the offense committed by the minor is life imprisonment to death, then the penalty to be imposed shall be reclusion perpetua to death. So what happens, therefore, in this particular case is that the penalty of life imprisonment to death, a penalty under special law is converted into a penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, a penalty under the Revised Penal Code, di ba? Is this the penalty under the Revised Penal Code? There is no such thing as life imprisonment. But is this a penalty under the Revised Penal Code? Reclusion perpetua to death? Yes. Therefore, the penalty is converted to a penalty under the Revised Penal Code. Now, you now apply the doctrine laid down in People versus Martin Simon. What does the doctrine say? That if the offense is now punishable, the nomenclature of penalty under the Revised Penal Code, then the provisions of the Revised Penal Code shall apply as a general rule. So what will they do now with this? Because the penalty now is reclusion perpetua to death. If you now appreciate a privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, is there one degree lower to reclusion perpetua to death? Yes. One degree lower is reclusion temporal. That is the only instance where the Revised Penal Code is applicable, it is a special law. That is the implication of Section 98. Okay. Now, if you go further, if you remember your computation of penalties in your Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code, if the penalty now is babae, what will you do? Divide. You divide into three, di ba? So, you divide into three. You have minimum, medium, and maximum. No mitigating, no more mitigating, no more aggravating? Whatʼs the penalty? Medium. Your authority is Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code. Where will you get your minimum penalties under the Indeterminate Sentence Law? The Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum penalties shall be taken in any of the penalty next lower or in between. Babae o lalaki? Babae. A.L.F./N.O.S.

Codal and Lecture / Justice Peralta And then you divide into three. So, you have your minimum, medium, and maximum. So, your minimum penalty will come from there. Your maximum penalty will come from here. Is it not? Okay. So, I convicted the accused minor, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and appreciating a privileged mitigating circumstance, I imposed a penalty of six years and one day to 15 years as the maximum. Six years and one day of the minimum to 15 years as the maximum. Do you follow? Then the counsel of the accused says, assuming that there is no suspension, just to explain. Do you now apply his full probation? Will you approve a probation here? Yes. The maximum penalty is six years, eh. The minimum penalty that I imposed is six years and one day, eh. The minimum penalty that I imposed is six years and one day, eh. Under the Probation Law, you can only apply for probation where the penalty does not exceed six years. But the penalty that I imposed is six years and one day to 15 years. Can he apply for probation? Yes, under Section 70. As long as heʼs a first time minor offender, ha. Section 70, as long as he is a first time minor offender. Now, but, be careful, as I said. I used an example of ILLEGAL POSSESSION because there may be penalties of life imprisonment to death, but does not fall under the Section 11 like Section 5, that is drug pushing, drug trafficking, ano, ha? Because under Section 24, if you look at your Section 24, there is a prohibition on probation. Ang nakalagay sa Section 24, NO PROBATION FOR DRUG TRAFFICKERS AND DRUG PUSHERS. So, that is the prohibition on probation. No probation for drug traffickers or drug pushers. Now, if my example here is that he was caught in the act of selling, Section 70 is not applicable to him. Do you follow? If my example is, letʼs say, drug trafficker, heʼs a drug trafficker, heʼs a drug pusher, seller, and so on, you will still apply this computation because he is entitled to a privileged mitigating circumstance, but he cannot apply for probation. Because under Section 24, probation is prohibited for drug traffickers or drug pushers. Thatʼs why I used illegal possession. Do you follow? If I used drug trafficking, you follow still this computation. But he is not entitled to probation because under Section 24, probation is prohibited to drug traffickers or drug pushers. So, that is the only instance where the Revised Penal Code will apply as a general rule, because Section 19. Paul IV D

Criminal Law Review | Page 31 Yes? If I read it correctly, RA 934 provides that… 9344 yun. Regarding on what time the offender may be, a minor offender may be entitled to probation after all the… If he fails. If he fails in the intervention program. Thatʼs it. Yeah, thatʼs why I said forget about 9344 in the meantime, just to explain Section 19 and Section 17, but Iʼm assuming that you assumed that he will apply for probation only if he failed in the intervention program because he is entitled. We will come into that under Section 66. I will correlate this with Section 66 later on. And then, also with Section 38 and Section 42 of 9344, noh? The explanation, so that it will no be complicated. My explanation on Section 98 is only in so far as the application of the Revised Penal Code and the application of probation law in the meantime. Medyo malalim yung tanong, eh. Sobrang complex yun, eh. Okay. So, letʼs go back. REMOVAL OF DRUG CLASSIFICATIONS; NOW JUST DANGEROUS DRUGS Now, under the old law, there were two kinds of drugs under the old law. You have prohibited drugs and regulated drugs so that decisions of the Supreme Court tell us that if you are in possession - letʼs say you have two hands, of course. Your right hand is holding marijuana and then your left hand is holding the shabu, caught at the same time, noh. So you where holding marijuana, then probably youʼre smoking the marijuana, at the same time youʼre sniffing the shabu. Pwede yan eh! Kung gusto mo magpakamatay. So, you are, under the old law, youʼre violating two offenses because under the old law, prohibited and regulated drugs were treated separately. So, under the old law if you are caught in the act of possessing marijuana, you were then punished under Section 8. Then if you are in possession of shabu, which is a regulated drug, then you will be punished under Section 16. They were treated separately. But, now, there is no more distinction between regulated or/and prohibited drugs. They now fall under one category, which is now dangerous drugs. So, whether it is a marijuana, opium, or Indian hemp, or shabu, that will be treated only as one offense because they now fall under one category, dangerous drugs. TRAFFICKING AND POSSESSION Now, the other the thing is that under the old law, when you are caught in the act of selling, noh? Letʼs say you were caught in the act of selling A.L.F./N.O.S.

Codal and Lecture / Justice Peralta shabu, and then later on after you were arrested, you were arrested by the policeman, and then you get one stick of marijuana from his pocket, then you will be liable for two offenses under the old law. The one is selling or drug pushing under the old law in Section 15, and then the marijuana taken from your possession, because that is a prohibited drug, Section 8, illegal possession. What happens now under the present law? Now, if this is under the present law, then you will have to make a qualification. 1. If what was found from the possession of the pusher after he was arrested for selling is part of the sale; then he will only be liable for one offense. 2. But, if the pot was found from his pocket after he was caught selling the dangerous drugs, then he will be liable for two offenses because that is not part of the sale. Letʼs say what was found from his pocket is part of the sale, one offense; if what is found from his pocket is not part of the sale, then two offenses. One for selling under Section 5 of 9165; the one that is found from his pocket is violation of Section 11 under 9165 as illegal possession. PRECURSOR OR ESSENTIAL CHEMICALS Those precursors or essential chemicals are those that are used for the production of bi-products. Parang raw material yan, hindi production. So, if you produce shabu, the ingredients of the shabu will be called precursor or essential chemicals. The shabu now will become the finished product that is a dangerous drug. Now, why do I tell you this? Because under the old law, we do not find any precursor. Now, what they did now here under Republic Act 9165 thatʼs why if you read Section 4 or even Section 5, or even Section 11, letʼs go to Section 4 as an example, or Section 5 na lang as an example, and then Section 11 as an example. You read the specific violation of the law. Thatʼs in Section 5, that is the importation of dangerous drugs regardless of the quantity; the penalty is life imprisonment to death. SECTION 5; FINANCIER PROTECTOR CODDLER DELIVERY TRANSPORT CARRYING AWAY SALE When you read trafficking under Section 5 for example, the law does not only penalize the act of trafficking, but it penalizes also the financiers, the protectors, or the coddlers, and the settles of precursor or essential chemicals. Thatʼs what Iʼm saying. You did not find that in the old law. Ang ginawa nila nagyon, lahat ng mag-participate sa selling, o lahat ng mag-participate sa importation, lahat mag-participate sa illegal Paul IV D

Criminal Law Review | Page 32 possession. Nakalagay na lahat don. Okay, Iʼll give you an example of a protector or coddler so that you understand what Iʼm talking about. Here comes a den. A den. When you operate a vice den, that means operating a drug den, where people will go there and then sniff shabu or marijuana. Parang prostitution den, but this one is a drug den. Parang sari-sari store for drugs. I think you read this in the papers, in Pasig, di ba? That is a clear example of a drug den. The penalty of operating a drug den, for those who are operating a drug den is the penalty of life imprisonment to death. Those who visit the den or visitors are likewise liable for violating the law as visitors of the vice den. The two is likewise are liable being employees of a vice den. The policemen or the public officials who protect or coddle the operators of a vice den are likewise liable as protector or coddlers. Thatʼs what I mean by protectors or coddlers. Where they will be - of course, the penalty is lower than the penalty of operators because operators of a vice den, the penalty is life imprisonment to death, eh. Coddlers can be penalized with the penalty of 12 years and one day to 20 years. Ha? ʻYon. This is a – Iʼll give you another example. So that you may think that this is a crime of direct bribery that we will study later on. Okay. Supposing the drug pusher is arrested, di ba? Letʼs say one kilo of shabu. The policemen did not anymore file the case against him because the agreement is that they will divide the one kilo of shabu. Sabi nun, okay. Hindi ka na kakasuhan. You get the half kilo of shabu, and then half of that will be mine, sabi ng pulis. So that gagamitin niya ring pang negosiyo ung kalahati, hindi ba? Of course, the one – the pusher is liable for drug pushing because he was caught in the act of selling. But, what about the liability of the policeman? He cannot be liable for bribery because he did not receive money in exchange for not prosecuting him or not for arresting him. He is liable as a protector or a coddler. That is the meaning of a protector or coddler. But, the fiscal does not prosecute him, then the crime that is committed as qualified bribery under Article 211 of the same which we will study later on. Iʼm just only talking about who is the protector or the coddler, ha? IN RELATION TO ART 8 RPC; PROPOSAL AND CONSPIRACY TO SELL Now, the other thing that youʼll have to remember is that in your study of your Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code, itʼs Article 8, di ba? Proposal and conspiracy to commit a crime is not a crime, di ba? Now, this special law recognizes attempt and A.L.F./N.O.S.

Codal and Lecture / Justice Peralta conspiracy, although this is a malum prohibitum under Section 26. Attempt and conspiracy. Okay, what is the implication of attempt and conspiracy? BUY BUST Now, the situation is like this. Probably, I referred to entrapment or buy-bust operations, di ba? You know what is entrapment or buy-bust operation. So, here comes a group of policemen receiving an information that Mr. A is a drug pusher. What the policemen will do is that they will form a buy-bust team to entrap the seller. So, they will pick one from them as a pusher-buyer. They will give him the money to buy, di ba? But usually, policemen, when they present a case on drug pushing, in most cases, they will make it appear that the money could no longer be found, because once the money is submitted to the courts, they believe that the money could no longer be returned to them because thatʼs the part of the evidence. So, they will concoct a story that the money was not recovered. But, you know, in under Section 5 of Republic Act 9165, if you read Section 5 of 9165, what is punished there is not only sale, but delivery, transport, carrying away, and sale. I. Therefore, the doctrine is that the buy-bust money is not essential in proving violation of drug trafficking or drug pushing under Section 5. Because what is covered by Section 5 is not only sale, but also includes delivery or transport, okay. Di ba? Thatʼs why the Supreme Court is very clear on this matter. Even if the buy bust is money is not presented before the court, you could still be convicted of violation of Section 5 because the money is not indispensable. Okay. II. The other doctrine is that when you can not prove sale in some instances when you can not prove sale, then the offender will now be liable for violation of Section 11 under illegal possession. Because illegal possession is necessarily included in sale. Do you follow? SECTION 11; ILLEGAL POSSESSION Illegal possession is necessarily included in sale. So, if he can not prove the elements of delivery, transport or sale, then the other doctrine is that the person can still be liable for illegal possession because illegal possession is necessarily included in the sale, transport or delivery. So, what can the policeman do? Therefore, they will come up with a story that the money was lost in the process or they will come up with a story like this. So, before the seller could give the shabu to the buyer, and before the buyer could give the money to the seller, the seller sensed that the buyer is a policeman and ran away. Then they Paul IV D

Criminal Law Review | Page 33 caught up with him, they were able to take hold of the shabu in his possession, but in the commotion, the money could no longer be found. Thatʼs what they do. If you try to analyze the facts, there is no exchange although what they have filed is drug pushing because that is they want to prove in their entrapment. So, if there is no transfer of the thing, subject matter of the sale, as in ordinary sale and then the consideration likewise is not transferred to the seller, then you can not convict him for selling, transporting or delivering because there was no actual delivery. So, in that particular instance, the offense that is committed is illegal possession because the shabu was taken from the possession of the offender, that is Section 11. But, yun ang problema don. But if in the facts of the case, it will show that there is intent to sell, intent to deliver, or intent to transport, then the offense will no longer be illegal possession under Section 11, it will now be Section 26. Okay. SECTION 26; INTENT TO SELL Example. So you try to add something to the facts, so itʼs still - for example, noh. There was already delivery, hindi ba? There is already delivery, but before it could be held by the policemen, he ran away. In other words, as long as there is an intent to sell, transport, or deliver, noh, kasi yung example ko kanina walang pang dini-deliver, hindi pa nilalabas yung kuwarta, hindi pa nilalabas yung shabu, so there is he now and senses that he is a policeman, then he ran away, but he was caught by the policemen and then found from his possession is the shabu. But if the facts will now show that he is already - Letʼs say now the policeman is giving the money, di ba? And then the seller now is giving the shabu, then all of a sudden he ran away, although the money was not yet taken by the seller and the shabu was not yet given to the buyer. But from those facts, there is already intent to sell, hindi ba? Nagbabayad na eh, dini-deliver na, eh, so meron nang intent to sell or delivery or transport, then the law that is violated is Section 26 under Republic Act 9165 which provides that attempt and conspiracy is punishable with the same penalty as if the act is consummated. Nakalagay sa Section 26, you read Section 26. Therefore, there is no difference as so far as the penalty is concerned if the act is consummated selling, or transporting, or delivering because under Section 5, if it is a consummated drug pushing, then the penalty is life imprisonment to death. Now, under Section 26, attempt and conspiracy, marami yan, ha, but you know, I am just giving you one example. Sell, transport, deliver, maintenance of a den, manufacture, importation, maintenance of a den, the penalty is the same as if the offense in A.L.F./N.O.S.

Codal and Lecture / Justice Peralta consummated. The penalty is still life imprisonment to death. But that Section 26 will only be applicable if, as I said, you have already proved an intent to sell, intent to deliver or transport. The other one, as Iʼve told you last time, noh, when it comes to violation of 9165 which is very different from illegal possession of firearms, the corpus delicti in violation of 9165 must be proved with certainty. Must be proved with certainty. That is why you have to prove the chain of custody of this shabu taken from the possession of the accused, and that shabu taken from the possession of the accused must be presented before the court. Unlike in illegal possession of firearm, di mo kinakailangan i-presenta sa husgado yan, eh. Facts or circumstances and evidence will show that the gun was unlicensed, even if it was not presented before the court, pwede kang ma-convict sa illegal possession of firearm, but not in illegal possession of shabu or dangerous drugs, that must be presented before the court because that is part of the corpus delicti. CHAIN OF CUSTODY Now, usually offenses are committed outside of police precincts, di ba? In places outside of police precincts, siyempre. If there is one violating dangerous drugs inside the police precinct, itʼs the policeman. Siya ang nag-shashabu, di ba? So, what they usually do is that, so that we can establish the chain of custody, the usual problems there would be: If you are arrested somewhere in Rockwell, noh, then the policeman who arrested that person in Rockwell must now make his markings on the one that is taken from the possession. Kasi ang ginagawa ng pulis, huli mo ʻdon sa Rockwell, they will not make any marking, they will go to the police precinct and then turn over to the investigator. Now, if that was not marked and then the investigator will be the one to mark that specimen, that is not the corpus delicti. Doubtful. They say that the chain of custody should be established with certainty that that shabu was the one that was taken from the procession of the offender. So, if the shabu was taken in Rockwell that has to already be established, that itʼs the same one. So, what they do is that they should now mark the exhibit, mark the specimen, and then bring that to the investigator, that again will be marked, and then that specimen will be brought to the chemist, that again will have to be determined that that was the one that was the subject matter of the examination and then later on, when it is brought to the court, that is the same evidence that was taken from the possession of the accused. If there is a hiatus on the chain of custody, the accused will be acquitted because the corpus delicti must be established with Paul IV D

Criminal Law Review | Page 34 certainty. ʻPag merong doubt sa chain of custody, you can put up doubt that that is not the same shabu that was taken from the possession of the offender, the accused will be acquitted. Ganon ka istrikto ang dangerous drugs in establishing the corpus delicti in violation of the dangerous drugs. SECTION 4 IMPORTATION BY DIPLOMATS Okay. Now, letʼs go to the other areas. Siguro, weʼll jump to – anyway, in Section 4, the offense there violated is importation. So you know what is importation, if it is committed by a diplomatic member of the diplomatic board, taking advantage of his privileges, then the maximum penalty of death shall be imposed and those who are punished likewise are the financiers or coddlers. Then you go to Section 5, thatʼs where we have taken up pushing or drug trafficking, sale, or delivery of which will include also precursors and then likewise penalizes the financiers and the protectors and the coddlers. Okay. Now, in the meantime will go to Section 15 in relation to Section 12 and Section 11. Now the other Section, Section 6 maintenance of a den, manufacture, manufacture of drugs, maintenance of a den, visitors of a den, employees of a den. Self-explanatory yan, walang masyadong problema. Whoʼs the maintenor of a den? Eh di yung nagma-maintain ng drug den. Who are visitors? Then those who go to a den. Visitors. Who are the employees? The employees. Anu pang ieexplain natin dyan? Kung sino yung empleyado, eh di yung mga empleyado roon. Then manufacturer? The one who manufacture drugs, thatʼs also punishable by life imprisonment po yan, eh. SECTION 15; SECTION 11; SECTION 12 Now, you go to Section 15 so that you can follow me. Under Section 15, one is liable for illegal use, that is illegal use, ha? What is use? Gumagamit. Illegal use of dangerous drugs for the first time is punishable by six months rehabilitation. So, one who is caught in the act of using dangerous drugs after a confirmatory test, nakalagay ʻdon, after a confirmatory test is punishable by six months rehabilitation. If you are found for the second time with the penalty, there will now be a penalty of imprisonment. I think itʼs 12 years and one week to 20 years, okay. SEC 15; ILLEGAL USE; PARAPHERNALIA So, the situation therefore is like this. If you are caught using or youʼre smoking marijuana or you are sniffing shabu, shabu na lang. How do you commit the crime of, how to you commit or how do you use shabu? Siyempre, you have a tooter, may tooter yan, eh. May tooter, may aluminum foil, may burner at saka may lighter. So what they do is that they will get a… A.L.F./N.O.S.

Codal and Lecture / Justice Peralta [laughter] …walang nasabi, biglang explain, noh? Addict yata si sir, eh. [laughter] So, just to illustrate it ba. They will get take aluminum foil and then there is a burner and then there is a tooter. And then they will light the burner and then smoke will be emitting on top of the aluminum foil. Then you will place the tooter, and then you start sniffing it. Finally. [laughter] Kayo lang ang nakakaalam nyan. Then probably after 30 minutes you will already be through, then you we will say, “heaven.” “Heaven.” CAPTURE Now, if the policeman caught me in the act of sniffing shabu, I am not yet liable, I am not liable because the law says after a confirmatory test, nakalagay don, after a confirmatory test. You know what is a confirmatory test? CONFIRMATORY TEST Confirmatory test is the second test. There is an initial test and that initial test must be confirmed, that is the meaning of a confirmatory test. So, if you are caught therefore, then the policemen will probably request you to urinate ha. If that is positive, then that first findings will be confirmed by another test, that is the meaning of a confirmatory test. You can not be liable even the policeman saw you because the law requires after a confirmatory test. I do not know why we included that phrase, confirmatory test. Now, and then you look at the last part of Section 15. Nakalagay don, if however the person caught in the act of using shabu, a quantity, a quantity of dangerous drugs is found from his possession, then he will be liable for violation of Section 11. Then that is illegal possession. So, the example – you can go further with the example. So, I am now caught in the act of using. Apart from any place where I have control, noh, even one gram or one gram of shabu was found in my possession under my control, nandun sa table lang, then the use will now be absorbed by Section 11. So, you will now be liable for violation of Section 11 because the quantity will now justify the offense to this violation of Section 11 and therefore, you are no longer liable for use. Because you know, what they say is that the Dangerous Drugs Law of 2002 is more favorable to the user. User is not Paul IV D

Criminal Law Review | Page 35 considered as a criminal. He is rather a victim of the drug in the case. Thatʼs why to prevent policemen from taking advantage of those who are caught, they have to be subjected to a confirmatory test because if they are found positive under a confirmatory test, there is no penalty of imprisonment. They will only go on rehabilitation and after rehabilitation, they will already be released. Yon ang purpose nyan. The problem, however is complicated by Section 12. Kasi nakalagay sa Section 12, illegal possession of drug paraphernalia is punishable by six months and one day to four years, di ba? Tama ba? Six months and one day to four years. You compare the penalty under Section 15 for the first offense, the first offense is only six months rehabilitation, eh. But ang drug paraphernalia is punished by six months and one day to four years imprisonment. Then if you look at the second sentence of Section 12, illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, nakalagay dun, ha, is a prima facie evidence of use under Section 15. Section 12 is a prima facie evidence of violation of Section 15, but you can not use shabu without drug paraphernalia, eh. Kinakain ba yung shabu? Mahal yan ʻpag kinain mo yan, ubos ang kwarta mo, eh. Baka pati Rockwell ibebenta mo nyan. Mahal yan, eh. So, you did you get my example? I was caught in the act of using but Iʼm also using drug paraphernalia because I can not use shabu without any drug paraphernalia. So what will be the situation? You can not be liable for violation of Section 12, illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, but instead you will be violating Section 15 because illegal possession of drug paraphernalia is a prima facie evidence of use. So the use now will absorb the drug paraphernalia because you can not really use shabu without drug paraphernalia, that is the meaning. But if you are not using any shabu but merely got caught in possession of drug paraphernalia, then you are liable under Section 12. Kaya mas maganda pa kung gamitin mo na lang. [laughter] Section 11 absorbs use. Use absorbs illegal use by illegal possession of drug paraphernalia. But if in the problem is that a quantity likewise is found from your possession, then the quantity will absorb everything. You will only be liable for violation of Section 11. Letʼs say gumamit ako, di ba? Gumamit ako, so Iʼm violating use at the same time, Iʼm violating illegal possession of drug paraphernalia. Now, if Iʼm only using it then the illegal possession of drug paraphernalia will now be absorbed in the use because you can not commit a crime of using without drug paraphernalia. But, however, if I am caught now, they found two grams of shabu in the A.L.F./N.O.S.

Codal and Lecture / Justice Peralta table, then that two grams of shabu will now absorb the use. Then you will now be liable for violation of Section 11, illegal possession. So the illegal possession will absorb everything, ha, but thatʼs why if you are caught in the act of possessing drug paraphernalia, the penalty is six months and one day to four years, eh. Gamitin mo na lang. Six months in rehabilitation pa. If the one caught in the act of using refuses to undergo confirmatory test, plantingan ka ng pulis. Plantingan ka ng pulis nyan. Kasi, “Hoy, ayaw mo ng confirmatory – a, ayaw mo, ha.” O sige, plantingan ka ng one gram. Patay ka, mas mahaba ang sentence nun. Kaya nga useless ung Section 11, eh. In fact, thatʼs what they are doing. Because itʼs very hard to subject a person arrested in the act of using and then subjecting to a confirmatory test. Ma-trabaho sa pulis yan, eh. Huhulihin mo, dadalhin ka sa Camp Crame or sa chemist, eh. It will take time. Siya pa magbayad ng pamasahe at lahat pa. So what do you think if they will not charge you with illegal use? What will they charge you? Possession na lang. Walang gastos. Eh, nagbibihis pa lang si pulis sa umaga eh, nag-iisip na kung saan kakain, eh. Kung saan magmemeryenda, ʻsan iinom ng beer sa gabi, eh. Tapos, confirmatory test pa? Maniwala ka diyan. Is it possible that an offender will be liable in Section 12 but then he also failed the confirmatory test? Now, problem there is that under Section 12, what the law still provides is that that is a prima facie evidence of use, ano ha? But when youʼre already in possession of drug paraphernalia, you will always be become liable for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia. Probably, what the accused will do is to put up in defense that he intended to use it so that he can be absorbed in illegal use. But if the policeman caught you in the act of possessing drug paraphernalia, it is already a violation in itself under Section 12. Ang sinasabi lang diyan prima facie evidence because he might have used drugs when he was caught in the act of possessing. Kaya parang itʼs a warning to the policeman that if he is using it, do not charge him with illegal possession. So, ang nangyayari dyan, if you are the accused, I mean the lawyer, probably I can put up a defense that he was using them so that I can get the six months rehabilitation. Kaya sinabi ʻdon prima facie evidence. If youʼre the accusedʼs lawyer, then you can not put up a defense except that you are caught in the act, eh. Pano mo idedepensa yon? Mamimili ka lang ng pulis na ia-assign mo dyan, eh. So the only defense that you can put up is that he was using it so that he can escape with the penalty of six months rehabilitation. Yan. Thatʼs true. Kasi loko ang mga pulis, eh. Loko, eh. Paul IV D

Criminal Law Review | Page 36 Ang problema kasi under the law, even under the old law, pinaghiwalay-hiwalay nila ang provisions na yon, eh. Yung illegal possession under Section 11 also includes illegal use under Section 15 under the old law, eh. Pinaghiwalay nila kasi, eh, thinking it will help the users but rather it is helping the policeman increase their income. Bakit? Eh, kung user lang yan, eh, eh, hindi ka magbigay. Ah, wala. They will convert it into illegal possession nyan. You go around the court rules sa Metro Manila. Conduct ka ng survey kung sino ang nag-charge ng illegal use. Baka sa 100, iisa lang. Sa 100 cases of drugs, iisa lang ang na-charge ng illegal use. Dagdag sa trabaho yan eh, pulis pa? In the information charges possession but is actually a violation of another provision, is the accused entitled to an acquittal? No. No, it is not. As long as the allegations in the information will include possession, wala. It will not violate any - it does not violate the right of the accused in the rules in criminal procedure. di ba? You can be convicted of a crime not necessarily charged with the provision as long as it is necessarily included in the crime charged. Di ba, gaya ng murder. Like this one also, if you are charged with illegal sale. Under Section 5, you can still be convicted of illegal possession because possession is necessarily included in the sale. You can not sell without possessing it. Ganon din ang principle. So it will depend on whether or not that is a crime necessarily included in the crime charged in the information. SECTION 29 - PLANTING IN RELATION TO RPC 363 Planting of evidence. Planting of evidence is punishable by penalty of death. But if you plant any other evidence in the crime, in any other crime, then the law that is violated is Article 363 of the Revised Penal Code. Incriminatory machination, ha? Itʼs not malicious persecution. Yung malicious prosecution is you - it might lead to a crime of perjury, eh. Malicious prosecution. ʻPag malicious prosecution, itʼs usually a damage suit. Now, if however, what we did is that we planted an evidence, like a firearm, so that he can be charged with illegal possession of firearm, that can not be perjury because there is no false statement, then that will now become a crime of incriminatory machination under Article 363. Now, if the charge, however, is violation of Republic Act 9165, I planted a shabu in order that he can be liable, then the offense that is punishable is violation of Section 29, planting of evidence where the penalty is death. Penalty yan, penalty of death for planting of A.L.F./N.O.S.

Codal and Lecture / Justice Peralta evidence. Do you follow? What about malicious prosecution? Ano yung malicious prosecution? For purposes of recovery of damages lang yan. SECTION 33 - WITNESSES IN RELATION TO SECTION 26 - CONSPIRACY This has to be connected with Section 26. Now, 26 and 33 can be correlated with one another. Why did Congress come up with these two provisions? Itʼs like this. When you say malum prohibitum, the principle is that you can only be liable when you are caught in the act of violating it, hindi ba? Mere violation of the law makes the offender criminally liable. Therefore, you can not make the source of the drugs liable because the drug pushers or the drug lord is sleeping in his house. So, if I am the seller, so the drug lord says, okay. “The shabu came from the drug lord living in a high rise condominium.” Then he has the sellers. Yung mga bidder man nya. And then here comes now a small time seller. But those drugs come from the drug lord. Now, if that seller now is caught in the act of selling, then who will be liable? The seller. The one who is caught – the one who is caught selling because that is the essence of malum prohibitum, ha. The one who is committing the act is the one liable under the principle of malum prohibitum. So, the brainers of the law adopted the characteristics of mala in se into the law, thatʼs why you have conspiracy. Attempt and conspiracy and thatʼs why you have Section 33. That if you are charged with offenses where the penalties are light offense, Section 7 illegal prescription, illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, illegal use; then that victim may be utilized as a witness by the government in order to charge the sources of these drugs or those who are in the business of importing under Section 4, in the business of trafficking under Section 5, in the business of manufacturing, in the business of maintaining a den, in the business of cultivating. All of those can now be liable by utilizing the person arrested as long as the person arrested is not charged with a higher offense, specified sa Section 33, eh. Yung mga light offense lang yan. Illegal prescription, illegal use, ʻyung paraphernalia, di ba, or visitors of a den or employees of a den. So, they can be now utilized as witnesses against those, even even, nakalagay sa Section 33. Even if you do not comply with the requirements of the discharge of an accused under your rules of criminal procedure. You file a case against all the accused, then if the evidence of the prosecution, not actually weak, but the evidence of the prosecution needs one of the accused to be discharged, then you file a motion to discharge with the same criminal proceedings, and then you convince the court that all the essential Paul IV D

Criminal Law Review | Page 37 elements of a discharge of accused are present, he does not appear to be the most guilty, that the evidence can be corroborated by other pieces of evidence, he should have not been charged as convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, di ba? Then you have to prove. Okay. Under Section 33, you do not need that. Even before the filing of the case, you can already use the person arrested as a witness to determine who are the sources, who are those i n v o l v e d i n d r u g t r a f fi c k i n g , i n d r u g manufacturing, in drug transporting, or even in importing. Do you follow? You correlate that with Section 26. Anong sinasabi sa Section 26? Conspiracy. A conspiracy allowed in malum prohibitum. Why? They followed this from the Narcotics Law of United States of America eh, di ba? Okay. Another example, so I was caught in the act of selling to him, di ba? Now, how will you hold the source of the drugs who is found in China? If Iʼm involved in the act of selling, di ba? Because I am the one violating the law. Under the principle of conspiracy. If you can prove that the drugs came from that man from China or any place in the world, he can be indicted under the principle of conspiracy. But of course, the other question will be how can you establish conspiracy? Thatʼs another thing. But what Iʼm saying is that you can now charge the sources of the drugs under the principle of conspiracy. ʻYun ang purpose na inilagay ʻyung Section 26 at saka Section 33, to hold the sources of trafficking of drugs likewise liable either under Section 33 or under Section 26. Kaya magandang provision yan, but ngayon wala pa, eh. Paano yung territorial provision? Well, the problem there is whether or not the law can be applied here. The crime is committed here, eh. But, whether or not you can bring it here in the Philippines, thatʼs another thing. If the delivery was made in China? Ah, hindi puwede dito ʻyon. Delivery made in China? But if the middle man is here based on report, that the… He can be indicted here under the principle of conspiracy because the crime was committed here. That is the effect of Section 33 and Section 26. Thatʼs a good law, but I have yet to hear others charged with this kind of conspiracy or under A.L.F./N.O.S.

Codal and Lecture / Justice Peralta Section - wala pa, wala pa akong naririnig. Itʼs a good law, but very hard. Itʼs very hard to prove conspiracy. Alam naman ninyo ʻyan eh. You prove conspiracy as if there is the crime, so therefore, prove conspiracy with proof beyond reasonable doubt, hind ba? Yes? Sir, I was going to ask about proving the conspiracy part, sir, because di ba, malum prohibitum, mahirap. We have to prove conspiracy. But probably the provisions there are deterrent, hindi ba? Deterrent parati. So - anyway. But letʼs go further. Sir, it says here that anyone who voluntarily submits to rehabilitation then shall be exempted from prosecution and punishment. Sir, makikipag-areglo ka na lang ba sa kanila? Thatʼs a good question, because they might raise that as an issue in Section 33, eh. You might be violating the right of the accused. The one who is arrested, like for example of illegal use, then you compel him now to testify against him, he not assisted by counsel. That can be used as a - ano eh…that may be used to deflect the purpose of Section 33. So, my only concern is that, that is a rule, whether or not it can be admissible, thatʼs another thing. Itʼs up to you. But, as long as the law says that, it will make you explain. Magiging problema talaga ʻyan. Because once you get the statement of a person arrested, then you will apply now the rules, the rules of criminal procedure or cal in the Constitution now, that might become an extrajudicial confession, eh. Considered ʻyan admitting eh. Thatʼs another thing.

Criminal Law Review | Page 38 of the statement as violation of extrajudicial confession or they may invoke self incrimination. Maraming objections diyan eh, but what I am always saying is that this is better than ordinary crimes. Because if you want to discharge an accused in a crime committed as a whole crime, then you have to follow the requirements under the rules. Ganyan din ang mga - kaya nga ang nilagay sa Section 33, you will not anymore go to this process of an accused being discharged during the trial because the process is harder. Kasi ang process sa rule ng criminal procedure, you present the witnesses, he will submit an affidavit, then after submitting the affidavit, youʼll present him as a witness, he will be subjected to a cross examination. If the court is not convinced, denied yung discharge. If the court is convinced, then discharge him. But, under this 33, even before you go to trial, puwede nang i-exclude that person who gave that statement in order for the arrest of the source of the drugs under Section 33. Nakalagay diyan, hindi ba? So, there is no need of filing a motion to discharge. In the first place, he is not being charged as a drug pusher or trafficker. Ganun ʻyon. Thatʼs why the law says, not withstanding the provisions of the rules of criminal procedure on discharge of the accused, the person arrested for violation, ʻyan, of Section 7 yata or Section 11, probably Section 12 or 15 and so on. Illegal prescription of drugs or authorized robber, he can be used as a state witness. ʻYan ang implication ng Section 33. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, Part 2

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

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

Kaya, probably they only place that as a deterrence, but actually if you get the statement of a person arrested, they might question the legality

But under Section 21 of the Dangerous Drugs Law, the law allows the destruction of the evidence even before trial. Of course, the process is very long

Paul IV D

A.L.F./N.O.S.

Codal and Lecture / Justice Peralta under Section 21. process dyan, eh. process.

Masyadong mahaba yung But you can simplify the

1. The first process is that when dangerous drugs, or equipment, or precursors, or chemicals are seized or confiscated, then they shall remain in the place where they seized or confiscated. What the policemen will do is to conduct an inventory and then brought forth to cuff them. They cannot move, di ba? Let's say, there is a search warrant. So this house is now searched. There are chemicals, or dangerous drugs, or equipment in the production of drugs, then those shall not be touched by the arresting policemen or certain policemen. What they will do is that they will photograph and then they will inventory. 2. Right after the inventory and the photograph, 3. then the evidence will be transferred to the chemist, ano? 4. The chemist now will now determine if those confiscated are found to be positive to the test of dangerous drugs. So then, all of these will be subjected to a test. 5. And then she will prepare the report under oath. The purpose of the report is to determine really if theyʼre positive to the test for dangerous drugs. Now, if the result is positive then the chemist now will and the policemen will now file the case before the inquest fiscal. 6. They will now bring the case to inquest fiscal. Do you know who the inquest fiscal? We studied that under Article 125. The inquest fiscal is to determine if there is a probable cause upon the information if a person is arrested without a warrant. In other words, if there is a warrant of arrest, then that case will be brought to the fiscal to determine if there is a probable cause of finding information without a need of a preliminary investigation. So, the case will go to the fiscal and then the fiscal is required to find information if there is a probable cause within 24 hours from receipt of the complaint. If it is the subject matter of inquest for within 48 hours, if it passed through the regular preliminary investigation under Section 19 of 9165, noh. 7. If your information now is received by the court, what will the judge do? The judge within 72 hours from receipt of the information will conduct an ocular inspection in the place where the items are located. 8. And then within 24 hours from the ocular inspection will cause the destruction of the evidence. If the presence of the accused, his counsel, the fiscal, the media, the PDEA, concerned citizens, dami eh, and then what will happen is that, it's like a court proceeding. The process of destruction is recorded by the court. 9. So letʼs say this is one ton, di ba? What they will do is that, they will just get a representative Paul IV D

Criminal Law Review | Page 39 sample. The representative sample, if this is one ton, so probably a representative sample of 500 grams will do. So, kukuha ng 500 grams and then later on, the 500 grams will be one that will be marked and that will now be the one that will be used in the presentation of the evidence of the prosecution. So you get a representative sample that is recorded by the court, that is marked during the burning and then all those that are no longer needed will now be destroyed. So what will happen is that during the trial, only those representative samples that were taken during the burning, will be the one that will be presented to the court to defend to establish the purpose direct time. Thatʼs what happens in Section 21. Thatʼs why the law, as I said, this is the only crime that the law allows destruction of the evidence even before arraignment. Kasi within 72 hours in 24 hours from the ocular inspection, the evidence must be destroyed. That is a new provision. SECTION 27 These officers or those who are in-charged in the keeping of evidence, must keep the evidence, actually you know. They are not supposed to use it for themselves or steal. That will become a crime under Section 27 because that will be equivalent to pilferage. They must account for the drugs in their possession when required. If they cannot account, then thatʼs also a violation of Section 27. It is either pilferage or misappropriation of the drugs confiscated. So, what happened to that problem two years ago is that sabi nila qualified bribery. The problem was the Chinese arrived on the airport. I told you with five kilos wrapped in five different packages. So, there were five kilos wrapped in five different packages. He was arrested by the customs with the aviation police in NAIA, and then, 'yun pala, the policemen arrested the Chinese and a negotiation. So, what they did was the arresting officers cut three kilos of the heroin and then the Chinese cut the two kilos of heroin, and then he was allowed to leave. In other words he was never arrested. Question, what are the crimes committed? Nandun lahat ng facts eh. What are the crimes committed? Of course, the Chinese is liable for drug trafficking or importation under Section 4. But there are also offenses committed by the police officers, eh. So, sabi nila, that is direct bribery or qualified bribery under article 411-A. If an apprehending officer fails to prosecute or apprehend the person where the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death or life imprisonment, the crime is qualified bribery, because they failed to perform required by law. And the penalty of the offense committed by the A.L.F./N.O.S.

Codal and Lecture / Justice Peralta Chinese is a penalty of life imprisonment to death, then they are liable to the crime of qualified bribery, and therefore 411. But that's not the crime. That is not qualified bribery because there was no – what was taken, what was given rather, to the policemen in order not to perform required by law is not money in exchanged. It is the very evidence, if we define, the three kilos of heroin which should have been taken by them, kept by them and then surrendered to the authorities later on, if required. But what did they do? They did not charge the person arrested. Happy sila. Kinuha ng pulis yung tatlo. Yung dalawa ibinigay dun sa arrested. So, hindi pwedeng bribery 'yun because the three kilos were already part of the evidence, eh. So, anong crime 'to per Section 27? Because they were supposed to keep the evidence in order that when they are required to account for them, they have to account for them. And that is an evidence in dangerous drugs. So, the violation is Section 27 not bribery. The offense committed would be – thatʼs what I was telling you. They are also liable for the crime of what, Protectors and coddlers of a drug trafficker under Section 4 or an importer. So, there were three crimes. One for Section 4 for the Chinese, two offenses for the police officers Section 27, and then the other one is protector of coddlers. That's the meaning of Section 27, ha? Okay. SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE Look at your Section 66, that if the offender is a minor, first time minor offender, hindi ba, and at the time of the commission of the crime, between the ages of 15 and 18 acting with discernment, as long as at the time of trial, he is still or at the time the judgment should have been promulgated, he is still 18 years of age, then he is entitled to suspension of sentence, di ba? So, the requirement is that, he should be less than 18 at the time of the commission of the offense and less than 18 at the time the judgment should have been promulgated. Dalawa lang ang requirement nun di ba? So, dapat 18 pa rin siya. But under Section 38 of your 9344, that's why there is conflict between the two, eh. Under Section 38 of Republic Act of 9344, a suspension of sentence of minor offender, the law says that, if the offender is less than 18 at the time of the commission of the crime, even if he is already more than 18 at the time judgment should have been promulgated, he can still apply for suspension of sentence. So, may conflict yung dalawa. Yung una eh yung sa 9344, kahit more than 18 pwede pa rin. In other words, you were arrested, 17 years old. Then you go to trial. At the time that the judgment is about to be promulgated, you already reached the age of 20. Paul IV D

Criminal Law Review | Page 40 Pwede ka ng magsuspension of sentence under 9344 because the law does not require that you are still less than 18 at the time the judgment should have been promulgated. But under Section 66 of 9165, at the time the judgment should have been promulgated, you are still less than 18. So the problem is what law are you going to apply? Is it 9344 or Section 66 of Republic 9165? If the offense is violation of 9165 because that is a special law, then Section 66 will apply. That will govern. Suspension of sentence of minor offender for drug cases the law that is applicable is Section 66, 9165. Not the general provision in the Republic Act 9344. SECTION 91 AND 92 - BUNGLING; DELAY And then you have also offenses like delay of bungling under Section 91 and 92. We have there offenses involving bungling or committed by those who prosecute or those who apprehend. Bungling. Ano yung bungling or delay? Bungling. The policeman testifies in favor of the accused, or the fiscal probes a case not for the conviction of the accused but for his acquittal, or the witnesses testify for the acquittal of the accused, they are liable of bungling. The penalty is a little bit ano harsh. 12 years and 1 week to 20 yearʼs 'yan. Then policemen or witnesses who refuse to testify are likewise liable for delay for failure to testify. That is also a crime. Kaya pag nasubpoenahan ka ng pulis either ng husgado, yun pulis ayaw magtestify filan mo ng criminal case. He will be liable under this provision, sa 91 'yan 92. CULTIVATION; MANUFACTURING Then you go back to the other offenses for crimes, ano. Meron din yung crime na cultivation. 'Yung mga nagtatanim ng marijuana, cultivation 'yan. Meron din yung manufacture. Those who manufacture dangerous drugs. Matindi ang penalty n'yan, life imprisonment to death. Pag nagtanim ka ng marijuana sa loob na lang ng bahay. Bakit sa loob ng bahay? You can put up a defense, eh. Medicinal, eh. Sabi nila, gamot daw sa tiyan. Although sa Ilocos maraming nagtatanim sa loob ng bahay nyan. Oo. Ginagamit ng ano eh. They boil the leaves and then they drink. Sabi nila gamot daw. I donʼt know. Di ko pa nasubukan. But thatʼs what they do. But cultivation that means plantation is punishable by life imprisonment to death. SECTION 25; QUALIFYING AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE When one commits a crime and he is found positive to the test of dangerous drugs, then it is a qualifying aggravating. Nakalagay sa Section 25. We debated kasi pag sinabi mong qualified aggravating, then it may change the nature of the A.L.F./N.O.S.

Codal and Lecture / Justice Peralta crime. Gaya ng homicide. Commit a crime of homicide without any qualifying aggravating then it becomes a crime of homicide. But when you commit a crime of killing attended by qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery, then the crime becomes a crime of murder. So, the treachery is a qualified aggravating. Now, if you apply that principle. Similar to Section 25 because Section 25 says that if one is found positive to the test of dangerous drugs, then that is a qualifying aggravating circumstance. Then if you kill somebody else, no qualifying aggravating. But you were found positive to the test of dangerous drugs, then the crime becomes a crime of murder. Ganun tatanggap ng qualifying aggravating. I think that is not the intention of the lawmaker. Robbery. You put her a gun then give me your money or else I will kill you. Then you give you the money. Then you were arrested. Then when you were arrested you were subjected to a test for the presence of dangerous drugs. Positive. So, what will happen now? If that is a qualified aggravating circumstance, being positive to the test of dangerous drugs, then the crime becomes qualified robbery. Wala namang crime na qualified robbery. So, that is only special aggravating or yung qualified theft na ninakawan ka ng katulong mo. She has free access to your personal belongings. You come to class. When you go home, pagdating dun sa bahay, mister Puno would like to take a bath. His boy already ran away with his brief. If that boy is found positive to the test of dangerous drugs and you consider his being positive to the test of dangerous drugs as a qualified aggravating, then you will have a crime of qualified qualified theft. Sabi ko hindi qualified yan, special aggravating. That should be special aggravating. It was not intended to change the nature of the crime. With being positive to the test of dangerous drugs is not intended to change the nature of the crime because even there is actually, to impose the maximum penalty of the crime committed. SECTION 36 - MANDATORY DRUG TESTING Then the other thing is that yung sa Section 36, mandatory drug testing. There is a pending case in the Supreme Court until now. The case was filed as early as 2002 right then after the law begin effective. Questioning the mandatory provisions of Article under Section 36 on mandatory drug testing. The law says that if you are securing a license for your gun then you have to undergo mandatory drug testing. On your section, a license for the purpose of driverʼs license, then you have to have a mandatory Paul IV D

Criminal Law Review | Page 41 drug testing. Then, if you belong to the tertiary or secondary school, then you have to undergo mandatory drug testing. Then, when you enter the Civil Service, now there is from the government, mandatory drug testing. When you enter a private employment, then that is also mandatory drug testing, or you run for a public office, then you have to undergo mandatory drug testing. The worst is given. The worst is – when one is charged to the crime or an offense with the fiscalʼs office, ha, nakalagay doon sa Section 36, when one is charge with the crime before the fiscalʼs office and the penalty of the crime charged against the respondent is a penalty of more than 6 years, mandatory drug testing. Letʼs say finile mo si Mr. Sosa ng estafa sa fiscalʼs office. Ang penalty ay 6 years and 1 day to 12 years. prison mayor. He will have to undergo mandatory drug testing under Section 36. Kaya nga sabi nila foul ang Section 36. It is - you are presumed innocent, di ba? After the worker – what is the use if they had to undergo drug testing? Gina-judge ka lang kung may loko is to bring it up. Kailangan kahit anong pasok basta more than 6 years. Let's say physical injuries lang ang dapat na file sa iyo. What will the complainant do? He will fight against a frustrated homicide because if it frustrated homicide, the penalty is 6 years and 1 day to 12 years, mag-mamandatory drug testing ka, iistorbohin ka niyan. But yun ang nakalagay sa Section 36 eh. Also in tertiary and secondary schools. Whatʼs the reason why this young people, young children will undergo a mandatory drug testing, di ba? Sabi ni Mayor Duterte e, why should one running for a republic office undergo a mandatory drug testing if the constitution already provides for the qualifications, hindi ba? That is another qualification. So, the problem with this law of dome effect, a petition was filed with the Supreme Court questioning because of this current Section 36. Wala pang resulta, matagal na. For those in the military or armed forces of the Philippine, they are unquestionable. So, there's now pending mandatory drug testing. But then, the other thing that we have to remember is when you are charged with illegal possession, di ba? Illegal possession sa Section 11. The penalty on Section 11 is dependent on the quantity, regardless of the purity. That is the only offense where the penalty is dependent on the quantity. SECTION 13/14 - POSSESSION OF ILLEGAL DRUGS AND OR PARAPHERNALIA IN SOCIAL GATHERING IN RELATION TO SECTION 11 /12 ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DRUGS AND OR PARAPHERNALIA A.L.F./N.O.S.

Codal and Lecture / Justice Peralta Now, you look at your Section 13. I think it is in Section 13. The law says that when one is caught in the act of possessing dangerous drugs in the company of two or more persons or in a social gathering, then the penalties had been imposed is maximum period. Therefore, Section 13 is aggravating circumstance of Section 11. Section 13 is an aggravating circumstance of Section 11. And then, thatʼs why –supposing two or more persons are caught in the act of using. So, there are 3 persons caught in the act of using dangerous drug. Kung tatlo kayo, what is the effect of 3 persons at the same time using dangerous drugs? What is the effect? Sabi nila, aggravating pa yun eh. Hindi aggravating yun. The aggravating circumstance in Section 13 is only in so far as illegal possession. Illegal possession yan, not an aggravating in illegal use. There is no aggravating in illegal use. Kaya sabi nila, Section 13 daw is pot session. Ang Section 13, hindi pot session yan. Section 13 is an aggravating circumstance in illegal possession under Section 11. Section 14, likewise, is an aggravating circumstance when illegal possession of drug paraphernalia is in the comfort of 2 or more persons or in a social gathering, then the penalty shall be imposed. It is maximum period. In other words, the aggravating circumstances in 13 and 14 do not refer to illegal use. There is no such thing as aggravating circumstance in illegal use under Section 15. So, 13 and 14 actually are not offenses, but aggravating circumstances in violation of Section 11 and Section 12 respectively. So, what for? Wala na. Of course, I told you last time, yung number 1 element of illegal possession is or even the violation of dangerous drugs law is the presentation of the drugs during the trial, hindi ba? Letʼs say, if you want to prove we're drug pushing under Section 5. Question: How many witnesses are you supposed to present? Di ba drug pushing, sale? Sale, di ba, sale? How many witnesses are supposed to present? Should be 2, okay? Sabi ng Supreme Court, 1 is sufficient witness as long as the witness has personal knowledge and therefore can testify on the Section 11 of the offense. The other thing is that, as I told you last time and I will say it again, when you say dangerous drugs, and therefore shall be presented and identified and offered as evidence in the trial, there must be yet to prove the chain of custody from the time he is arrested from the offender up to this time he is transmitted to the investigator, until the evidence is Paul IV D

Criminal Law Review | Page 42 submitted to the chemist for examination, until the evidence is preserved for purposes of trial. And then, you have also to prove the chain of custody from the time it is brought to the court and then one during the trial. If there is any hiatus on the chain of custody, the accused will be acquitted. Sabi ng Supreme Court e yung police eh, nakasuhan niya sana kay Mr. Sosa. Ang ginawa ng pulis, hindi naman niya minarkahan yung evidence or the arresting officer did was to bring Mr. Sosa to the police and then it was already police station that the evidence was not but even the arresting officer, not by the arresting officer, but the policeman who was not even the arresting policeman, but the policeman who was asked to investigate the case. Sabi ng Supreme Court, the policemen have vindicated the case. He is not the one who arrested the person. That may not be the evidence confiscated from the accused or in a case also why they decided to the Supreme Court with the arrest warrant. The place – therefore they brought the person arrested to the police station. That was only the time that they frisked the accused, then when they frisked, they found dangerous drugs. Sabi ng Supreme Court, damputin yan. Bat hindi mo frinisked dun sa pagkahuli dun sa lugar? Bakit doon lang sa police station? Donʼt expect 'tong Supreme Court sa purpose the ringside. The accused established the evidence of confiscated from the accused. There is a doubt there. Okay. VOLUNTARY / COMPULSORY SUBMISSION No more. If it is offenses under of the same code, you're being positive to the dangerous drugs. He will be liable for violation of Section 13. The justification of Section 25 is a crime or offense punishable under the law. Kasi sa Section 55, yung voluntary submission is procedural, hindi lalabas sa bar yan e, yung compulsory submission and then voluntary submission. Supposing you are asked, what is voluntary submission and what is compulsory submission? Letʼs say, youʼre an addict, di ba? You are not arrested in the act of using. But they believe that you are really a drug dependent. What will you do? You go to the court and then file a petition for voluntary submission. The purpose there is that before the order, that you will be rehabilitated. Thatʼs the meaning of voluntary submission. If you now rehabilitated, you are not liable for any crime because youʼve volunteered to the court that you are a drug dependent. Thatʼs the meaning. But in the crime of compulsory submission, ayaw mong magamot, then somebody, probably your father, your mother, or any agency for that matter, who will file a petition. That is what they call compulsory submission. He is not the person who goes to the court and then asks for an order that he may be rehabilitated, but another person, the third person shall be compelled, and the court will order his A.L.F./N.O.S.

Codal and Lecture / Justice Peralta arrested and then brought to a rehabilitation center. Thatʼs the meaning, ano? But in both cases, if you succeeded in your rehabilitation program, you will no longer be liable for illegal use. Kasi nag-submit ka voluntarily e. That is the meaning of voluntary submission or compulsory submission. I think we have passed everything that we are supposed to pass. Yung ngayon, the decisions not in Supreme Court, have you heard about PDEA? Kasi under the law, there would be agency, the dangerous drugs law of the PDEA (Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency). PDEA (Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency). Now, under the law, the arrest or violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law, the lead agency is PDEA, that's the law. So, supposing a policeman does not belong to the PDEA makes his own arrest without involving the PDEA of such arrest. So they use that, they capitalized on those situation for the acquittal of the used drug as a drug for the acquittal. Kasi nakalagay dun sa law, the lead agency and so far as the dangerous drugs disposal is PDEA. And under the law, before policeman, not members of the PDEA, who make arrest, they should first coordinate with the PDEA. So, letʼs say, they operate here in Rockwell, ordinary policemen, before they come here and operate, the members to coordinate with the PDEA. Boss, meron kaming i-operate dito sa Rockwell. Mga addicts. That's the procedure. Not in Rockwell Avenue ha? So, what they do is that, sometimes they do not anymore inform the PDEA. They do not coordinate. They go down into the place and then make arrest. The accused lawyers will raise that issue. That they cannot be convicted of violation of 9165 because they failed to inform the PDEA. That will not cause the acquittal of the accused. That is only procedural in character. What is only required by the law is that the PDEA shall be the lead agency. But the law does not say that, eh kung ganun ang mangyayar pati ako. Di ba meron tayong citizen's arrest? At kung meron akong marijuana dun, eh wala namang PDEA, hindi ko na arestuhin yan? Minsan, mga abogado rin mga loko e. Nung manalo yung mga inaresto, sabi ng Supreme Court nagalit pa eh. That will prevent others from conducting arrest. Even if somebody is smoking marijuana in your presence, you can no longer arrest him. If you call action PDEA, e yung PDEA nag-iinuman daw.


Title Six CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS Chapter One GAMBLING AND BETTING Art. 195. What acts are punishable in gambling. — (a) The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding two hundred pesos, and, in case of recidivism, the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from two hundred or six thousand pesos, shall be imposed upon: 1. Any person other than those referred to in subsections (b) and (c) who, in any manner shall directly, or indirectly take part in any game of monte, jueteng or any other form of lottery, policy, banking, or percentage game, dog races, or any other game of scheme the result of which depends wholly or chiefly upon chance or hazard; or wherein wagers consisting of money, articles of value or representative of value are made; or in the exploitation or use of any other mechanical invention or contrivance to determine by chance the loser or winner of money or any object or representative of value. 2. Any person who shall knowingly permit any form of gambling referred to in the preceding subdivision to be carried on in any unhabited or uninhabited place of any building, vessel or other means of transportation owned or controlled by him. If the place where gambling is carried on has the reputation of a gambling place or that prohibited gambling is frequently carried on therein, the culprit shall be punished by the penalty provided for in this article in its maximum period. (b) The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum degree shall be imposed upon the maintainer, conductor, or banker in a game of jueteng or any similar game. (c) The penalty of prision correccional in its medium degree shall be imposed upon any person who shall, knowingly and without lawful purpose, have in his possession and lottery list, paper or other matter containing letters, figures, signs or symbols which pertain to or are in any manner used in the game of jueteng or any similar game which has taken place or about to take place.

Paul IV D

A.L.F./N.O.S.


Art. 196. Importation, sale and possession of lottery tickets or advertisements. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from 200 to 2,000 pesos, or both, in the discretion of the court, shall be imposed upon any person who shall import into the Philippine Islands from any foreign place or port any lottery ticket or advertisement or, in connivance with the importer, shall sell or distribute the same. Any person who shall knowingly and with intent to use them, have in his possession lottery tickets or advertisements, or shall sell or distribute the same without connivance with the importer of the same, shall be punished by arresto menor, or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or both, in the discretion of the court. The possession of any lottery ticket or advertisement shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to sell, distribute or use the same in the Philippine Islands.

Art. 197. Betting in sports contests. — The penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who shall bet money or any object or article of value or representative of value upon the result of any boxing or other sports contests.

Art. 198. Illegal betting on horse race. — The penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who except during the period allowed by law, shall be on horse races. The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from 200 to 2,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who, under the same circumstances, shall maintain or employ a totalizer or other device or scheme for betting on horse races or realizing any profit therefrom. For the purposes of this article, any race held in the same day at the same place shall be held punishable as a separate offense, and if the same be committed by any partnership, corporation or association, the president and the directors or managers thereof shall be deemed to be principals in the offense if they have consented to or knowingly tolerated its commission.

Paul IV D


Art. 199. Illegal cockfighting. — The penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or both, in the discretion of the court, shall be imposed upon: 1. Any person who directly or indirectly participates in cockfights, by betting money or other valuable things, or who organizes cockfights at which bets are made, on a day other than those permitted by law. 2. Any person who directly or indirectly participates in cockfights, at a place other than a licensed cockpit.

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

__________________________________ Chapter Two OFFENSES AGAINST DECENCY AND GOOD CUSTOMS Art. 200. Grave scandal. — The penalties of arresto mayor and public censure shall be imposed upon any person who shall offend against decency or good customs by any highly scandalous conduct not expressly falling within any other article of this Code.

Art. 201. Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions and indecent shows. — The penalty of prision mayor or a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve thousand pesos, or both such imprisonment and fine, shall be imposed upon: (1) Those who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines openly contrary to public morals;

A.L.F./N.O.S.


(1) (a) the authors of obscene literature, published with their knowledge in any form; the editors publishing such literature; and the owners/operators of the establishment selling the same; (b) Those who, in theaters, fairs, cinematographs or any other place, exhibit, indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts or shows, whether live or in film, which are prescribed by virtue hereof, shall include those which (1) glorify criminals or condone crimes; (2) serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence, lust or pornography; (3) offend any race or religion; (4) tend to abet traffic in and use of prohibited drugs; and (5) are contrary to law, public order, morals, and good customs, established policies, lawful orders, decrees and edicts; (2) Those who shall sell, give away or exhibit films, prints, engravings, sculpture or literature which are offensive to morals. (As amended by PD Nos. 960 and 969).

__________________________________ Yung obscenity, pornography, obscenity and so on, then that would be different. Wala masyado yan sa Book 1 obscenity, pornography. But obscenity is not only limited to what you see from human beings, but it may also include yung mga ano obscene materials or yung mga istorya. Ano ba yan? Xerex ba yan? Yung mga sa Tiktik. Tiktik, Sagad, ano ba yun? Yung mga Sagad, ano ba yun? All of these, included sa obscenity yan. So, it’s not only in television, cinematography or human beings that we see, they include ‘yan, stories, komik,s lahat yan. So, yun lang yan.

__________________________________ Art. 202. Vagrants and prostitutes; penalty. — The following are vagrants: 1. Any person having no apparent means of subsistence, who has the physical ability to work and who neglects to apply himself or herself to some lawful calling; 2. Any person found loitering about public or semipublic buildings or places or trampling or wandering about the country or the streets without visible means of support; 3. Any idle or dissolute person who ledges in houses of ill fame; ruffians or pimps and those who habitually associate with prostitutes; 4. Any person who, not being included in the provisions of other articles of this Code, shall be found loitering in any inhabited or uninhabited place Paul IV D

Criminal Law Review | Page 45 belonging to another without any lawful or justifiable purpose; 5. Prostitutes. For the purposes of this article, women who, for money or profit, habitually indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be prostitutes. Any person found guilty of any of the offenses covered by this articles shall be punished by arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, and in case of recidivism, by arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from 200 to 2,000 pesos, or both, in the discretion of the court.

__________________________________ A prostitute is very hard to prove because they have to prove regularity or habituality. There must be an element of habituality or regularity. Eh, sino magtetestigo? In other words, how can you prove a crime of being a prostitute when there are no witnesses? Sino mag-te-testify? The only one who can testify is the customer. Kasi, who will prove habituality or regularity? Customer lang eh. Most of the customers are married. Di nahuli sila ng misis. Kasi nga customer, binata, naku hopeless naman yang binatang yan. Hopeless! Kukuha ba ng prostitute eh binata siya? Mag-asawa na lang. Sino ang gumagamit diyan?

__________________________________ Title Seven CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS Chapter One PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS Art. 203. Who are public officers. — For the purpose of applying the provisions of this and the preceding titles of this book, any person who, by direct provision of the law, popular election or appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the performance of public functions in the Government of the Philippine Islands, of shall perform in said Government or in any of its branches public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank or class, shall be deemed to be a public officer.

__________________________________ In other words, the crime punishable found under this chapter are those crimes where being a public officer is inherent in the crime. So that if you go A.L.F./N.O.S.

Codal and Lecture / Justice Peralta back to Paragraph 1 of Article 14, the law says that taking advantage of public position is an aggravating circumstance, hindi ba? So, if you commit a crime defined from Article 244 then 245, that taking advantage of public position as an aggravating circumstance in Paragraph 1 of Article 14 is not applicable to any of the crimes because you cannot take advantage of your public position when that is the very element of the crime. Do you follow? Article 203, therefore, is who are public officers - all who work with the government, whether a consultancy, seasonal, project, regular, regardless of the position as long as they work for the government, you are a public officer. Janitor, regular, temporary, official, member of the board, all the receiving their pay from the gvernment, regardless of the manner of wages that you receive whether allowance or what, you are a public officer under Article 203.

__________________________________


__________________________________ KNOWINGLY Knowingly is fraudulently. You wrongfully applied the law in order to accommodate one, and then in order to cause injustice to the other party. But, the problem, however, is how will you prove knowingly? Knowingly can only be proven. If it is a state of mind, like in other crimes, you can merely prove that the state of mind through acts performed by the offender, di ba? Knowingly rendering, how do you prove that it is knowingly? You cannot read my mind if I render an unjust judgment. Knowingly rendering an unjust judgment. How will you prove that? Then probably through the acts of the judge. He might be whether be given money, but you cannot prove. If I then promise a benefit or you might have the son or child receive something from a willing party. Yun ang – that’s the way to prove knowingly. But that is very hard to prove, as I said, also in interlocutory order.

__________________________________

Chapter Two MALFEASANCE AND MISFEASANCE IN OFFICE Section One. — Dereliction of duty Art. 204. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment. — Any judge who shall knowingly

Art. 207. Malicious delay in the administration of justice. — The penalty

render an unjust judgment in any case submitted to him for decision, shall be punished by prision mayor and perpetual absolute disqualification.

of prision correccional in its minimum period and suspension shall be imposed upon any public officer, or officer of the law, who, in dereliction of the duties of his office, shall maliciously refrain from instituting prosecution for the punishment of violators of the law, or shall tolerate the commission of offenses.

Art. 205. Judgment rendered through negligence. — Any judge who, by reason of inexcusable negligence or ignorance shall render a manifestly unjust judgment in any case submitted to him for decision shall be punished by arresto mayor and temporary special disqualification.

Art. 206. Unjust interlocutory order. — Any judge who shall knowingly render an unjust interlocutory order or decree shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period and suspension; but if he shall have acted by reason of inexcusable negligence or ignorance and the interlocutory order or decree be manifestly unjust, the penalty shall be suspension.

Paul IV D

of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any judge guilty of malicious delay in the administration of justice.

Art. 208. Prosecution of offenses; negligence and tolerance. — The penalty

Art. 209. Betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor. — Revelation of secrets. — In addition to the proper administrative action, the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period, or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any attorney-at-law or solicitor ( procurador judicial) who, by any malicious breach of professional duty or of inexcusable negligence or ignorance, shall prejudice his client, or reveal any of the secrets of the latter learned by him in his professional capacity. The same penalty shall be imposed upon an attorney-at-law or solicitor (procurador judicial) who, having undertaken the defense of a client or having received confidential information from said client in a case, shall undertake the defense of the A.L.F./N.O.S.


opposing party in the same case, without the consent of his first client.

__________________________________ If you are a government lawyer, you’re not supposed to divulge whatever information you gathered by reason of your decision. You are not supposed to give it even if you go out from the government service. You are not supposed to do that. So that’s a breach of trust of lawyers, betrayal of trust to be exact.

__________________________________ Section Two. — Bribery Art. 210. Direct bribery. — Any public officer who shall agree to perform an act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of this official duties, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present received by such officer, personally or through the mediation of another, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods and a fine [of not less than the value of the gift and] not less than three times the value of the gift in addition to the penalty corresponding to the crime agreed upon, if the same shall have been committed. If the gift was accepted by the officer in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime, and the officer executed said act, he shall suffer the same penalty provided in the preceding paragraph; and if said act shall not have been accomplished, the officer shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional, in its medium period and a fine of not less than twice the value of such gift. If the object for which the gift was received or promised was to make the public officer refrain from doing something which it was his official duty to do, he shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine [of not less than the value of the gift and] not less than three times the value of such gift. In addition to the penalties provided in the preceding paragraphs, the culprit shall suffer the penalty of special temporary disqualification. The provisions contained in the preceding paragraphs shall be made applicable to assessors, arbitrators, appraisal and claim commissioners, experts or any other persons performing public duties. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 872, June 10, 1985). Paul IV D


Art. 211. Indirect bribery. — The penalties of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, and public censure shall be imposed upon any public officer who shall accept gifts offered to him by reason of his office. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 872, June 10, 1985).

__________________________________ SPECIAL LAWS ON ANTI GRAFT 5 KINDS OF BRIBERY 1. 210 There are 3 ways of committing a crime of direct bribery: FIRST FORM The public officer receives money for consideration in order to perform an act that is punishable under our Code, under our law. So, a policeman is given money in order to kill, then the giver as long as or provided a law, then the public officer is liable for bribery under the first form. Yung usual na tinatanong sa bribery would be those that fall under the second and the third forms. If a policeman arrests somebody else, what should the policeman do as a policeman? He should arrest and then file the case, di ba? So, the duty of the policeman is to arrest and then file, apprehend, and then file the case later on. So, the private complainant in the crime of robbery told to the policeman, “Sir, file mo naman yung kaso para makulong.” Then the policeman said, “Ay, hindi. Yun ang kailangan ko ng pang-meryenda eh. Pag kinakailangan ko ng pambili ng iuwi ko para sa pamilya ko eh.” “O, sir meron dyan.” Eh di, the private complainant now gives money, then after giving money, then policeman files the case. That’s the first form. SECOND FORM The law says that when a public officer receives money or valuable or in exchange for money in order to perform an act required by law, yun ang double compensation. Received money in order to perform and act required by law. The policeman received money from the private complainant in order that he will perform the act required of him that is to file the case, di ba? Yun ang tinatawag na double compensation. May sweldo ka na sa gobyerno, kaya lang hindi ka gagalaw kung hindi ka bibigyan. THIRD FORM And the third one is receive money in order not to perform an act required by law. So, the example would be - received money in order to perform an act required by law. The third form is you receive money in order not A.L.F./N.O.S.

Codal and Lecture / Justice Peralta to perform an act required by law. So, I arrested you. Tapos sabi mo sa pulis, “Sir, wag mo na akong tutuluyan?” “ O bakit?” “Bigyan kita ng P20,000.” “O sige, bigyan mo ko ng P20,000.” I accepted it. So, I will be liable under the third form that is received money in order not to perform. What is it that he did not perform? Not to file the case. 2. 211-A But that should be differentiated with Article 211A, the crime of qualified bribery. Because under 211-A, when the public officer refuses to apprehend or prosecute the person arrested for the commission of the crime where the penalty of the crime committed by that person is the penalty of life imprisonment, reclusion perpetua or death, then the penalty either reclusion perpetua to death. But, if demand is in the demand came from the public officer then the maximum penalty of death is one being imposed. Where lies the difference? The difference would be: I caught him in the act of committing a crime of robbery. He gave me money in order not to perform an act required by law. Therefore, I do not file a case against him. Another person, I arrested him for violation of Dangerous Drugs Law, selling 1 gram of shabu. The penalty is life imprisonment to death under Section 5. He gave me then P20,000 in order that I will not file the case against him for violation of Section 5. So, where lies the difference? In so far as the robbery is concerned, I am liable for a crime of direct bribery, but in so far the sale of drugs is concerned, I am liable for the crime of qualified bribery under 211-A. Where’s the difference? Because of the penalty of the offenses or the crime committed by two persons. The crime of robbery is not punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. But the crime committed in the same is punishable by life imprisonment to death. So if I fail perform an act required by law where the penalty, we include the penalty of reclusion perpetua and also death or even life imprisonment, then I am liable for the crime of qualified bribery. It will depend on the penalty of the person arrested. 3. 211 So, in other words the receipt of the money is not intended for the purpose of committing a crime, for the purpose of the nonperformance or for the purpose of performance, then the law that is violated is Article 211, the law on indirect bribery. So, what is indirect bribery? Receipt of something of value or money by reason of the position, by reason of the position. But that law actually is intended to prevent or you are building a goodwill to the public officer eh. Wala kang kinakailangan ngayon, but in the future, meron ka’ng Paul IV D

Criminal Law Review | Page 48 kinakailangan. So, ano nga, pumapapel ka. You are then building up, nag bi-build ka ng friendship with the public official. Binibigyan mo ng kwarta, and so and so on. Then later on, kinakailangan mo siya. That is indirect bribery because there is no other purpose except that you are being gifted by reason of your public position. 4. Paragraph B of Section 3 of Republic Act 3019 under Paragraph B of Section 3 of Republic Act 3019, if a public officer directly or indirectly receives money for any consideration and for the award of a contract or a transaction, then the law that is violated in Section 3 Paragraph B. When a public officer indirectly or directly receives money in consideration of the award or a contract, or transaction, wherein that public officer has the right to intervene, then the crime is Paragraph B of Section 3 3019. The only difference between Article 210 and Section 3-B is that, in Paragraph B it is specified that the receipt of money is for the purpose of awarding a contract or a transaction, likewise with Paragraph C of Section 3. 5. Paragraph C of Section 3 of Republic Act 3019, otherwise known as The Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Okay. The law says in Paragraph C of Section 3, the receipt of money indirectly or directly for the purpose of awarding or extending a license or a permit. So, therefore, if the public officer receives money in order to perform an act required by law which is the awarding of a contract or a transaction, then the law that is violated is Paragraph B of Section 3. ROBBERY IN RELATION TO BRIBERY Kung ang robber, let’s say, if you are merely accosted by a peace officer and, therefore, you are not actually committing a crime, di ba? Tapos sasabihin ng peace officer, “Hoy, bigyan mo ako ng kwarta kung hinde pa file-an ka ng robbery.” But the person did not commit any crime. “O, bigyan mo na ako ng kwarta, kung hinde pa file-an kita ng kaso.” Let’s say on dangerous drugs. Then the poor boy says, “Oh, I’m afraid. I’m studying law eh, and that’s not bailable. Can I give you money?” “Sige, bibigyan mo ako ng kwarta, kung hinde, pafile-an kita.” Then the poor boy gives the money because he is (suffering) that in case of robbery will be filed against him or a crime or a charge will be filed against him. Anong crime yon? Hindi bribery yun. That cannot be bribery. That will become a crime of robbery. That is intimidation. I will file a case against you when actually you did not… If you did not commit any crime, and then it is only his version that he will file a case against you if you do not give the money, that is a crime of robbery. The false charge

A.L.F./N.O.S.

Codal and Lecture / Justice Peralta will fall under the element of intimidation. That is one way of intimidating. OTHER VIOLATIONS IN RA 3019 Republic Act 3019 Section 3 Paragraph A Now, let’s go to Paragraph A. Paragraph A is sometimes a crime of influence peddling. When a public officer directly or indirectly induces a public officer to commit an act in violation of regulations and the officer so persuaded or induced. Now, there are two persons here who maybe liable - the one who is inducing and the one who is actually induced. Now, if a public officer induces directly or indirectly a public officer, even if the public officer is not induced, the inducer is already liable. Now, if the person is actually induced, then both of them will be liable. So, mere inducement, the mere act, directly or indirectly of inducing a public officer to violate a regulation is already penalized. If the public officer so induced and is actually induced, then both of them will be criminally liable. Republic Act 3019 Section 3 Paragraph B Then Paragraph B, as I've said, is a sort of bribery if the purpose is to award a contract or a transaction. Republic Act 3019 Section 3 Paragraph C Paragraph C, likewise, is a – yung sa ZTE, maraming liable diyan 'no under Paragraph A. There are public officers inducing somebody to violate a rule. They will fall under Paragraph A of Section 3. If the officer is actually induced, then both of them are actually liable. Republic Act 3019 Section 3 Paragraph D Paragraph D prohibits the agreement of the immediate member of the family wherein an institution or any persons where that person or institution has a pending case before, pending application or an act to be done by the public officer or within one year after that public officer has acted on that favor or what. There was one case where it never reached – there was a labor arbiter in Cebu where they decided a case in favor of a bank – the Metrobank. Because a case between Metrobank and the labor union. The bank won in the case before him and then later on, his son applied with Metrobank. The son was overqualified. He was even overqualified. He was employed by the bank within the one year prohibition under Paragraph D. Then what happen is that the labor union discovered that the son of the labor arbiter was employed in the bank. So, a case was filed against labor arbiter within the one year period. The case did not progress because before the accused could be arraigned, he was charged before us. Before it could be arraigned, the accused died. That is the best defense eh. Buti na lang indefensible di ba? The only defense under Paragraph D is that he is not your son eh. The only defense under Paragraph D is that the employee is Paul IV D

Criminal Law Review | Page 49 not your son even if he is – even if he is very much qualified. That's not a defense eh. The only defense that he is not your son and that the one year period has already expired. He was employed beyond the one year period. But you cannot (apply) those defenses kung patay ka na. You will be liable. Republic Act 3019 Section 3 Paragraph E By causing undue injury to a private person or to a person or to the government or giving unwarranted benefit to any person through evident bad faith, gross inexcusable negligence or manifest partiality. So, there are two things that may happen under Section 3-E: One is the causing of undue injury. The other one is giving unwarranted benefit. These are two different things. When you cause injury to the government or to any person, then that injury can be quantified in terms of damages. When you are asking for damages, then those damages must be quantified. In other words, in can be ascertained. But when you talk of manifest partiality or unwarranted benefit, then probably you cannot quantify the amount, but somebody benefited from your act. Therefore, if you prove undue injury or you file the case of undue injury, then that undue injury should be quantified. It should be in the form of damages which can be ascertained. But in unwarranted benefit, the one who is benefited is a private individual, (all concerned). But if it is undue injury, then it's an undue injury caused to a person or to the government. So, but the problem, however is that when we cause undue injury or you give unwarranted benefit, it is through evident bad faith, gross inexcusable negligence or manifest partiality. In the purchase of overpriced walis ting-ting. So, therefore, the difference now between the actual value and the purchase price of the walis tingting will now be the undue injury caused to the government. Instead of filing a case of, let's say, bribery or indirect bribery or any bribery for that matter because the giver will not come out in the open because he benefited. Then usually you file a case of undue injury caused to the government by reason of the overprice, yun. In the case of ghost transactions. The other one is that, there maybe transactions were the government official did not benefit from it. So, like for example, ghost payments, ghost employees, ghost deliveries. When you prove ghost deliveries and ghost employees, they’re very easy to prove because you just determine if there are disbursements, but there were actually no projects and there were actually no employees. But you cannot prove that the public officer made money of those ghost projects or ghost employees. What are you going to file? Then you file Paragraph

A.L.F./N.O.S.

Codal and Lecture / Justice Peralta 3-E or Section 3-E because you caused undue injury to the government. That's another example. In the case of injury to private individuals. The other example is causing injury to a private individual, undue injury to the private individual. What you find here is that, let's say, you are an employee of the government, but already retired. You are entitled to your retirement pay. But the mayor does not want to give the retirement pay although you’re already entitled to it on the ground that you are a political opponent. Then, they will again file Section 3-E because they causing injuryundue injury - to a private individual. Yun ang mga example ng undue injury. In the case of unwarranted benefits. An example of unwanted benefit would be yung mga bidders. You are not the lowest bidder, but the contract is awarded to you. So, there is no injury to the government that you can prove, but you gave unwarranted benefit, I mean, therefore, he is entitled to the bidding. So, because you cannot quantify the amount that was – you cannot quantify the amount, ano. The – and that you are not causing injury to that bidder, but you awarded the contract wherein he is not qualified, then you are giving unwarranted benefit. That's the meaning of unwarranted benefit? It is actually getting benefits where the private party is not entitled to it. PEOPLE v. GO “he was acquitted because the act of entering into a contract grossly disadvantageous to the government can only be committed by a public officer.” ARIAS DOCTRINE The approving officer does not need to go over again. He is not required to go over again the documents and then determine for himself if the documents are in order. The public officer, the approving officer will go over the signatures of those who participated in the preparation, the review, and so on. And he has no reason to doubt the accuracy of the work of his subordinates because if he again will go over the documents and for himself to determine the truthfulness of the documents or the completeness of all the documents, then the Supreme Court said what will happen with the government functionaries. The government may not anymore move because he again required the approving officer to do things that have been done by the subordinates. So, he can be (exuberated) under that doctrine. REQUIREMENT : But that doctrine will only apply if that public officer, the approving officer’s duty, his duty is to sign several documents, because if he only signs one document during that time he cannot invoke the Arias Doctrine. Republic Act 3019 Section 3 Paragraph H

Paul IV D

Criminal Law Review | Page 50 There are several transactions prohibited by law for you to be engaged into, but most of those transactions apply to local government officials. Yung ano – bawal yon eh, yung, let say a mayor who engages in cockpit, yung operation of a cockpit that prohibited under Local Government Code. Yung ang sinabing prohibited transactions. So, if there is a law prohibiting a public official to engage in this prohibited transaction, then he will be liable under this provision. Republic Act 3019 Section 3 Paragraph G Then the one that is also very important, the latest decision of the Supreme Court, is entering a contract grossly disadvantageous to the government. That is a case that might have precipitated the news report that a lady justice was receiving money from ano – yun. That is one of the cases because of that decision, because of that gross inexcusable - the entering into a contract that is grossly disadvantageous to the government. Republic Act 3019 Section 13 Suspension pendente lite and loss of benefits. So, there are two requirements: The information is already valid. You are charged with those that I mentioned in 3019 or those crimes punishable under the Revised Penal Code from Article 203 to 245 or any act of fraud that maybe committed against the government. Now, no ifs or buts, that's what they say. No ifs or buts. In other words, you cannot argue that the evidence of guilt against you is weak. Wala kang magawa. When the information is valid, you cannot do anything except to serve your suspension pendente lite. VALID INFORMATION - When the accused is already arraigned, then that means that the information is already valid because you can no longer cure a defect the information once the arraignment is concluded. You can only raise the issues of prescription, double jeopardy, di ba, after arraignment. SUSPENSION IN RELATION TO ADMIN LAW Now, what is good about the suspension pendente lite unlike in preventive suspension? Probably yung administrative law you have studied this, di ba? If you are elected official for example, during your term from 2004 to 2007, then you are now charged administratively, di ba? And then you are preventively suspended. You can only be preventively suspended during your term of office from 2004 to 2007 of the acts committed while you were an incumbent public official. So, that if you are now re-elected after 2007, you cannot now be preventively suspended for an act, administrative act, that you committed during your previous terms. 'Yung ang preventive suspension. Hindi na pwede because the re-election by a people is the best evidence that the best judge of your administrative acts, eh. Your acts although not criminal, ano ha? A.L.F./N.O.S.

Codal and Lecture / Justice Peralta So, therefore, you can no longer be preventively suspended. IN RELATION TO RE-ELECTION - But in suspension pendente lite, so let's say you are an incumbent governor from 2004 to 2007. You were charged criminally for an act committed during that term. N o w, y o u a r e c h a r g e w i t h t h e Sandiganbayan, in the meantime, you are now a congressman. After 2007 you committed an act in 2005, you are charged in 2007, but at the time that you were charged, you are already a congressman. Can you be suspended pendente lite for an act committed when you were governor, when in fact you are already a congressman? Yes. Unlike in preventive suspension, administrative,yes, you can still be suspended if it is a suspension pendente lite wherever you are as long you as you remain a public official. Republic Act 3019 Section 11 Prescription of offenses (4 year prescription) Now, the other thing that you should know about Republic Act 3019, I think we have discussed already, yung prescriptions of crimes under 3019, ano? Because 3019 is special law, therefore, the prescriptive period of the crime prescriptive period or offenses under special law is governed not by the Revised Penal Code, but Republic Act 3326 the Law on Prescription. I think I told you already about the case of Romualdez versus Marcelo. Remember this case of Romualdez versus Marcelo. That we do not apply the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on the second part of second sentence of Article 91, that when the offender is outside of the Philippine Archipelago, then the prescriptive period will be suspended. The crimes punishable under special law, that Article 91 is not applicable. Okay. So, you know already the doctrine. The doctrine there is that we cannot apply the Revised Penal Code as a supplementary law or suppletory law to Republic Act 3326 which is a law on prescription because the applicability of the Revised Penal Code or the supplementary or suppletory character of the Revised Penal Code is only applicable to special penal laws, laws that define crimes with corresponding penalties. Republic Act 3326 is not a penal law. It’s a law on prescription. Therefore, the Revised Penal Code can not be applied suppletorily or supplementarily. Republic Act 6713 Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards For Public Officials And Employees Nepotism is punished under 6713. Sometimes I call this law of 6713 as the law of on impropriety. Impropriety, you do not divest, you double compensation, moonlighting. The other one is you fail – it is actually a repetition in 3019 because in 3019, you are required to respond. You have to respond with inquiries from the citizens. If you do not respond within reasonable time, then that's punishable under Republic Act 3019. What are the Paul IV D

Criminal Law Review | Page 51 acts punishable under RA 3019? If there is an inquiry made, that inquiries should be answered within reasonable time. Under Republic Act 6713, that is reiterated under 6713. But 6713, it sets a period in which to respond to an inquiry. Dun sa 3019, wala. Reasonable time lang. In 6713, there is a specific period. I think it's 15 days. Magrespond lang within 15 days from receipt of the inquiry. Then the other act that is punished is moonlighting, failure to act on time of the inquiries, and then failure to file SALN, sworn assets, liabilities, and net worth. It is required in our laws of the government service to file every year sworn asset, liabilities, and net worth. There may be two violations under this omission on SALN. And sometimes they call it SALN sworn asset, liabilities and net worth. 1. Nonfiling. 2. The other one is nondisclosure. Nonfiling, if they do not file, then you are liable under 6713. If you file, but you did not disclose your assets, then you'll also be liable for nondisclosure of assets. Kaya lang dyan that is why we acquitted Erap for perjury because if you do not disclose with your SALN, which is under oath, then they charge you with perjury under Article 183. So aside from being charged with violation of 6713 for nondisclosure, then you are, likewise, charged with perjury under Article 183 because there is a malicious, I mean, there is a false narration of facts required to be disclosed under 6713 made under oath.

__________________________________ Art. 212. Corruption of public officials. — The same penalties imposed upon the o f fi c e r c o r r u p t e d , e x c e p t t h o s e o f disqualification and suspension, shall be imposed upon any person who shall have made the offers or promises or given the gifts or presents as described in the preceding articles. _____________________________________ The giver will be liable under 212 for the crime of corruption of a public official. The private offended party is not liable for the crime of bribery because only public officers are liable for the crime of bribery. Therefore, the giver is liable for the crime of corruption of the public official under Article 212. But supposing a justice of the Court of Appeals does not want to receive the bribed money. In other words, there is a refusal. He wants to give money to the justice for an application of a TRO, but the Justice says, “What do you think of me? I’m honest.” And, therefore, the justice did not accept. He did not accept the money. What is the crime A.L.F./N.O.S.

Codal and Lecture / Justice Peralta committed? Is there a crime? Walang crime yung public officer. He should be rewarded for refusing to accept bribed money. So, what is the crime committed of the giver? That will now become a crime of attempted corruption of a public official. If the money is not accepted, the giver has the right to uphold the crime of attempted corruption of a public official. The public officer who does not receive the money will be rewarded, if there is a reward.

_____________________________________

Chapter Three FRAUDS AND ILLEGAL EXACTIONS AND TRANSACTIONS Art. 213. Frauds against the public treasury and similar offenses. — The penalty of prision correccional in its medium period to prision mayor in its minimum period, or a fine ranging from 200 to 10,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any public officer who: 1. In his official capacity, in dealing with any person with regard to furnishing supplies, the making of contracts, or the adjustment or settlement of accounts relating to public property or funds, shall enter into an agreement with any interested party or speculator or make use of any other scheme, to defraud the Government; 2. Being entrusted with the collection of taxes, licenses, fees and other imposts, shall be guilty or any of the following acts or omissions: (a) Demanding, directly, or indirectly, the payment of sums different from or larger than those authorized by law. (b) Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided by law, for any sum of money collected by him officially. (c) Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by way of payment or otherwise things or objects of a nature different from that provided by law. When the culprit is an officer or employee of the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Bureau of Customs, the provisions of the Administrative Code shall be applied.

__________________________________ PAR 1.; SPECULATORS Now 213, we now go back to 213. Parehong sa 213, there are actually two offenses that may be committed under it. Iyong paragraph 1, bihira lang nacoconvict yan, eh. 'Yung speculators, 'yung illegal escapes committed by a public officers, ano? Paul IV D

Criminal Law Review | Page 52 Between the contract or transaction may be broad ‘yan eh. But if you look at the title of 213, it is actually false committed that is falsification is. Sa paraghraph 1, ano yon? 'Yung mga speculators yan o 'yung mga ano – mga ‘yun logos or in charge of supplies. Ang gagawin nya, i-overprice, yan paragraph 1, 213. Kung hindi naman, hindi nya muna bibilhin yun ngayon. Di pa mababa yon, ano ha? "Pare huwag muna natin bibilhin ito, ibenta mo na lang pag tumaas ang presyo." Iyan 213 ‘yan, paragraph 1. That is brought against public hearing or yung speculators, let say, properties of the government, di ba? Bebenta nya. Bago ibenta, bibilhin nya muna ‘yung katabi ng government property. Bibilhin nya lahat ‘yun. Magspeculate sya, then sells the government property. If the property of the government is sold, tumaas na presyo. Aba iyon pala, sa kanyang katabi. That is also punishable under paragraph 1 of Article 213. PAR 2.; ILLEGAL EXACTION There are three ways of committing the crime of illegal exaction. Ano ‘yun? 1. You demand payment higher than what is required to be paid. Hindi direct bribery ‘yan. That is not direct bribery because in direct bribery, may exchange, eh. Ito – “Sir, magkano babayaran ko?” P20,000. Yun pala P18,000 lang babayaran. So, he's demanding more than what is required of the tax payer who pay. ‘Yun illegal exaction. 2. refusal to issue a receipt 3. you require somebody to pay other than money. Let say, 100,000 ang babayaran. Hindi, huwag mo na kong bayaran ng 100,000. Ibayad mo na lang ‘yung Mercedes Benz mo. Wala ng gulong. You demand payment other than money.

Art. 214. Other frauds. — In addition to the penalties prescribed in the provisions of Chapter Six, Title Ten, Book Two, of this Code, the penalty of temporary special disqualification in its maximum period to perpetual special disqualification shall be imposed upon any public officer who, taking advantage of his official position, shall commit any of the frauds or deceits enumerated in said provisions.

Art. 215. Prohibited transactions. — The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any appointive public officer who, during his incumbency, shall directly or indirectly become interested in any transaction of exchange or speculation within the territory subject to his jurisdiction.

A.L.F./N.O.S.


Art. 216. Possession of prohibited interest by a public officer. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period, or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon a public officer who directly or indirectly, shall become interested in any contract or business in which it is his official duty to intervene. This provisions is applicable to experts, arbitrators and private accountants who, in like manner, shall take part in any contract or transaction connected with the estate or property in appraisal, distribution or adjudication of which they shall have acted, and to the guardians and executors with respect to the property belonging to their wards or estate.

Chapter Four MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY Art. 217. Malversation of public funds or property; Presumption of malversation. — Any public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall appropriate the same or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent, through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any other person to take such public funds, or property, wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property, shall suffer: 1. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the amount involved in the misappropriation or malversation does not exceed two hundred pesos. 2. The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount involved is more than two hundred pesos but does not exceed six thousand pesos. 3. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period, if the amount involved is more than six thousand pesos but is less than twelve thousand pesos. 4. The penalty of reclusion temporal, in its medium and maximum periods, if the amount involved is more than twelve thousand pesos but is less than twenty-two thousand pesos. If the amount exceeds the Paul IV D


latter, the penalty shall be reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua. In all cases, persons guilty of malversation shall also suffer the penalty of perpetual special disqualification and a fine equal to the amount of the funds malversed or equal to the total value of the property embezzled. The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal use. (As amended by RA 1060).

__________________________________ Crimes Committed by Public Officers: Part 1 MANNER OF COMMITTING MALVERSATION There are actually three ways of committing a crime of malversation. 1. to misappropriate or convert to a personal use. 2. Or you allow a third person to commit the crime of malversation either by abandonment 3. and number three is through the negligence. Tatlo eh. So example. I am a treasurer. I receive money as payment. From the first day, so that money now is entrusted to me. And therefore, that money is under my custody. If I spent that money collected then I am liable under the first one. That is the meaning of malversation, when you misappropriate or you convert the same for your personal benefit. The other one is abandonment or negligence. You do not misappropriate for your own benefit. We do not convert the same to your own benefit, but you allow a third person to commit a crime or to misappropriate and not commit a crime. You allow a third person to misappropriate or you convert the money entrusted to you. So, the best example, in the one of the cases as with the bar exam two years ago. Yung government official is assigned a government vehicle. So, therefore, that government maker is entrusted to that government official and, therefore, he is an accountable officer in so far as the car is concerned. Ginawa niya, he left the key inside the car one night. Umuwi na yung driver. Then later on, the driver when to the garage, and then at 3 o’ clock or 4 o’ clock in the morning, he got the car because the government official left the key inside the ignition key. Tinangay. Yun ang crime of malversation through abandonment or negligence. That’s the meaning.

A.L.F./N.O.S.

Codal and Lecture / Justice Peralta INCURRING LIABILITY But if you are charged with malversation under 217, let say, you are charged with misappropriating or converting to a personal benefit, and then what was proven in the trial is not you allowed the third person to commit a crime of malversation either through abandonment or negligence, pwede kang maconvict. Di ba tatlo ang manners of committing a crime of 217? The misappropriate or you convert to your personal benefit. Allowing a third person to commit a crime of malversation through abandonment or through negligence. Tatlo ‘yan eh, di ba? Okay. ACCOUNTABLE OFFICERS Now, who is the accountable officer under 217? Yung accountable officer is tasked by law to take custody or the property or funds of the government in trust, in the meantime, and then to return or to remit to the proper authorities the funds or property if required or demanded by the government agency concerned. That’s the meaning. So, the janitor, therefore, is not an accountable officer because he is not entrusted with money or property, and has a duty to remit or to return the fund or property required by the government agency. So, that’s the meaning of an accountable officer. PRESUMPTION OF MALVERSATION So, how will you prove then that a public officer misappropriates or converts it to his personal benefit, the funds entrusted by the government to that accountable officer? The law said that if the government wants all the accounting of the funds entrusted to him by the government, and there is a shortage in the funds which he can’t explain, then the presumption arises that he misappropriated or converted the money for his personal benefits. So, in the other words, the burden of proof now that the accountable officer did not misappropriate the money is on the part of the accountable officer. So, what will you do is now explain, that’s the meaning. The only way to rebut that presumption is that to explain why there are shortages. If there is no valid explanation as to the shortages, in other words, there is no justifiable reason why there were shortages, then that accountable officer will be liable for a crime of malversation. JUSTIFICATION OF SHORTAGE For example, nagka-ano, nag karoon ng calamity walang ilaw, bumili ng baterya, in the meantime, ayun. That will be a valid defense because that is an emergency spending or probably walang walang pambili ng pagkain ng mga empleyado nasa remote area sila. They are in a place where there are no food or what – they have to buy. Ayun pwede yon no ha? Ba’t hindi ka mag explain because not all explanations can be justified. In one of the cases, I think, it is Quimzon versus Sandiganbayan. One of the cases in rebutting that presumption is the giving of vale or advance salary. So, sabi ng treasurer, “O, kulang ng twenty thousand dito?” “Eh sir, pinabale ko eh.” “O,bakit Paul IV D

Criminal Law Review | Page 54 mo pinabale?” “Kasi para walang pampasweldo.” Is that a valid excuse? Is that a valid act on the part of the treasurer to rebut the presumption, presumption that he converted or misappropriated the same? In one case the Supreme Court said that is not a valid excuse. Otherwise, if you allow that as a valid excuse, then nobody will be liable for a crime of malversation. He would just say, “binale” eh di tapos na. Gagawa ka lang ng resibo eh, bale ng bale. Ang sabi ng Supreme Court, if is not a practice of that government agency in giving “vales” or advance salaries, if it is not a practice in the office of giving “vales” or advance salaries, then you can be still liable for a crime of malversation. But if that has been a practice even before he became an accountable officer, and that is already being practice in the office, that may be a valid excuse. And, therefore, sufficient to rebut that presumption of misappropriation or conversion, okay. So, ayan ang malversation under Article 217. RA 7080 - PLUNDER LAW Now, the amassing of wealth or the accumulation of wealth in the amount of at least fifty million pesos should be done through a series of acts or a combination of overt acts arising from any of the crimes provided for in the Republic Act 7080, six predicate crimes. You know the six predicate crimes that include bribery, or receipt of any pecuniary benefit by reason in part of the position. So, one of the predicate prime is bribery. Ano yung predicate crime na bribery? Receipt of any amount or pecuniary benefit by reason of position. So, we have 210, direct bribery. Then we have 211, indirect bribery, then 211-A, qualified bribery. Then we have the special – the two special kinds of bribery under Republic Act 3019. Those are Paragraph B and C of Section 3 of Republic Act 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. So, those are limited to the first predicate crime. The second predicate crime is the crime of malversation, which means that you misappropriated or you converted your personal benefit, the funds or property entrusted to you by the government where you are an accountable official or raid to be tantamount to a raid in the public treasury. That is also a part of malversation, pinaganda lang yung raid. Then the other predicate crime yung 3, 4, 5, receipt of shares of stocks or future employment. Yung shares of the stock, you know, it does not say if you are benefiting from the shares of stock. Nakalagay don, receipt of shares of stock or future employment. Walang sinasabi, making money from the shares of the stock. Unlike yung bribery talagang you make money out of it, eh. Yung malversation also, you make money out of it. But yung shares of the stock, receipt lang, eh. Okay.

A.L.F./N.O.S.

Codal and Lecture / Justice Peralta Then the other one is fraudulent or illegal sale of assets of the National Government. What I mean is that you declared that the property of the government is now for sale to the private sector. Then by selling to the private sector, you made money out of it. That is illegal or fraudulent sale. Yan di ko masabing binenta, ganun yun di ba? Government properties, there is no proof. Maraming allegations dun, maraming kumita, diba? The other one is formation of monopolies among relatives, friends or associations of the public officials. Of course you know what is monopoly. You control a certain industry. You make money of it, formed by your business associates, friends, partners or even relatives. Catch-all provision yung Paragraph 6. Receipt of pecuniary benefit detrimental to the interest of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines. Hindi binanggit kung ano yan, anong crime yan. Basta sinabi nya receipt of pecuniary benefit by reason of public position detrimental to the interest of the Republic of the Philippines and the Filipino people. Yun ang tinatawag nilang catchall provision. Okay. PLUNDER; ILL GOTTEN WEALTH So, if you amass, therefore, an amount of more than 50 million pesos. So Mr. General, they conducted an investigation and was found to have an ill-gotten wealth of more than a hundred million pesos. You know how to discover ill-gotten wealth? What is ill-gotten wealth actually? When the wealth is grossly more than – out of proportion rather of your legitimate income, any amounts beyond your legitimate income will question for ill-gotten wealth. There is a presumption of ill-gotten wealth under the law of Republic Act 3019, The Anti-Graft and Corruption Practices Acts. So any amount that’s out of proportion for your legitimate income is called ill-gotten wealth. If the ill-gotten wealth of the public official is more than 50 million pesos, is that government official liable now for the crime of plunder? No, he is not liable for a crime of plunder. The amount that you discovered should have come from a combination of overt acts or series of combination of overt acts from any of those crimes mentioned by law. So, the amount of 50 million pesos, more than 50 million pesos should have come from the series of acts from any of those predicate crimes mentioned by law should have come from bribery, malversation, shares of stock, illegal sale, receipt of pecuniary benefits or even creation of monopoly among friends or his associates. Sir, in the case of Chairman Abalos, do you mean there is pecuniary benefit… You have to prove that he has more than 50 million pesos. Paul IV D

Criminal Law Review | Page 55 But he might be… No. You can prove that. If his ill-gotten wealth is more than 50 million pesos and then the amounts were derived from the series of acts coming from any of those predicate crimes, he may be liable. But, you know, there is an issue there kasi eh. He knows that kasi a amassing of (unintelligible) series of acts or combination of overt acts, the series of acts or combination of overt acts. The problem there is that will you be liable – a public official will be liable if there is an accumulation of more than 50 million pesos for a series of acts, but the amount was derived from a single transaction? So, one was awarded a contract, he gave the amount of 100 million pesos in order that contract will be awarded. That is a crime of bribery, hindi ba? Question: Is he now liable for a crime of plunder because the act does not involve a series of acts? Kasi nakalagay sa ill-gotten wealth, if the ill-gotten is the amassing or accumulating of at least 50 million pesos, di ba, through series or combination of overt acts, therefore it involved several acts, and then through these acts, there’s an accumulation of more than 50 million pesos. Yun ang ano…that’s the problem. So, something like that. Supposing you are with the Central Bank and then you brought gold bullion, the amount – the value of which is 100 million. You are the person in custody. So, you are the accountable officer of Central Bank. In your custody is the gold. At one instance, you brought out several gold bars worth 100 million pesos. S E R I E S O F A C T S ; P E R A LTA O P I N I O N INCLUDES SINGLE ACTS AMOUNTING TO 50M Question: Are you liable for a crime of plunder because there is only one act producing probably more than the amount of 50 million pesos? Sabi nila hindi ako covered, eh. Ang sabi ko – you know the law – why the law said a series of acts? Because it was intended really to accumulate that amount through the years because if you indicate in the law what act - there is a bribery or malversation of 50 million pesos only in one act. And what will the banking officer do? Hindi tatanggap ng 50 million, hatihatiin niya. So, ang purpose na inilagay sa series of acts, so that it will cover the accumulation of amounts that might take place in two or three years. Then kung ilagay yung single amount yan, hahatiin niya. That’s why they said series of acts. So, he did not anticipate that by saying series of act that might not include a single act. Ang sabi ko, that includes single acts. Kasi meron na dyan, dun sa BP 22 by analogy. So, they acquitted the accused on the ground that he cannot be convicted because the law does not provide that if the reason of the owner is account A.L.F./N.O.S.

Codal and Lecture / Justice Peralta closed, you are liable for violation of BP 22. Ang nakalagay lang dun, eh, drawn against insufficiency of fund. Pagdating sa Supreme pinagalitan yung judge, eh. Anong sabi, ikaw naman judge ika, yung drawn against insufficiency of fund may account na yan, di ba, kaya lang kulang ang pondo. Ito account closed na nga wala nang account, hindi pa covered, that’s even worse. Pinagalitan, so covered na nga yung account closed. When do you know apply that question? If series of acts are covered, hindi ba, that involved reasoning. The act is only a single act. You have accumulated more than 50 million through the years, eh, covered ka. That was only one act of amounting to more than 50 million pesos is not covered, with more reason that should be covered, hindi ba? Okay. PLUNDER CONSPIRACY IN RELATION TO ROBBERY; The giver is not liable for a crime of corruption of a public official. He becomes a conspirator in a crime of plunder. Therefore, if in the crime of robbery, the giver was practically forced to give his money, can you charge now the giver as liable for the crime of plunder when the money is not willingly given? Kaya hindi pwedeng robbery, eh. Because the giver must also may be liable as part of the series of acts. Eh, kung pinilit mo yung robber. Pwede bang will you file it? Will you file a case against him or plunder? The money was not willingly given. Yun, maraming questions ka doon kung ang iba'y nagsasabi, covered daw eh. We don’t know if it is covered. Bawal yan under the six predicate crime. Or even if you read the catch-all provision, receipt, eh, of pecuniary benefit, eh. You receive, in a crime of robbery, you do not receive eh. You unlawfully take, eh. Yun ang diperensya ng bribery at saka robbery. Yung bribery, mutual. Yung robbery, you unlawfully take because it is against the consent. PLUNDER CONSPIRACY IN RELATION TO GIVERS; LIABILITY Supposing five persons or three persons gave 20 million each, di ba? You gave me 20 million, 20 million, 20 million. In so far as I’m concerned as the public officer, I am now liable for a crime of plunder because the amount already reached more than 50 million. But about the givers? He only gave 20 million, eh. 20 million, 20 million. Will they now be liable for a crime of plunder? Of course, they will be liable for the crime of plunder as long as they come from the same predicate crime. What does that mean? Yun ang kaso ni – that‘s was the raised in the case of Senator Estrada, Jinggoy, eh. Kasi siya, in the information he was charged with the crime of plunder, but in the evidence he did not contribute. But there is no showing that he got more than 50 million pesos as far as the conspiracy. Two million lang sa kanya, eh. So, kinuwestyon na nya ngayon yung provision. How could I be liable for a crime of plunder when it is submitted that the extent of my participation is only up to 2 million. Anong sabi ng Supreme Court, liable ka because that is part of the Paul IV D

Criminal Law Review | Page 56 series of acts. If all the amounts came from a single predicate crime of bribery, let’s say 20 million, 20 million, 20 million. Lahat kayo liable kayo ng plunder because those are parts of the series of act and they come from the same predicate crime. But if for example, the 40 million came from the two, but the 50 million did not come from – they are probably shares of stock. Shares of stock worth 20 million was given to me. It is not bribery, but I receive shares of stock worth 20 million. Question: Will I be liable for a crime of plunder? Of course, because there is an accumulation of more than 50 million. Eh, pano yung kwan yung tatlo, they cannot be liable for a crime of plunder? Why? Because one of the amount of 20 million did not come from the same predicate crime. The amount should come from the same predicate crime, so to speak. Hindi pwede yung iba – let’s say kung 10 million lang yung participation, yung isa, different predicate crime pagkatapos ipapataw mo doon sa iba yung wala 50 million, he will be treated separately from the others because they do not come from the same predicate crime. RA 1379; PRESUMPTION ESTABLISHED If you may approve, the acts that lead to the accumulation of an ill-gotten wealth more than P50 million, the remedy of the State is not to file a crime of plunder. The remedy of the State is to file a forfeiture of assets under Republic Act 1379 which is civil in character. That’s what they did with President Marcos and family. It was very easy to recover any ill-gotten wealth from the Marcoses because under Republic Act 1379, the law of forfeiture, when they have established that there is an ill-gotten wealth, the burden of proof shall be part of the defendants, to prove that it is not illgotten. May presumption of ill-gotten, eh under RA 1379. A MOU N TS PLU N D ER ED N EED N OT B E LOCATED TO SUSTAIN PLUNDER CONVICTION But you can prove the accumulation because whatever amounts deposited in the bank in the fund, ‘yun ang ill-gotten wealth. You do not need to prove that the amount is still there. What all you need to prove, there were amounts deposited. The amounts accumulated are more than 50 million and then the same were withdrawn by the same person. That’s sufficient ill-gotten wealth. Because if you prove that in the requirements that amount is still there, walang mako-convict.

__________________________________ Art. 218. Failure of accountable officer to render accounts. — Any public officer, whether in the service or separated therefrom by resignation or any other cause, who is required by law or regulation to render account to the Insular Auditor, or to a provincial auditor A.L.F./N.O.S.


and who fails to do so for a period of two months after such accounts should be rendered, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum period, or by a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both.

Art. 219. Failure of a responsible public officer to render accounts before leaving the country. — Any public officer who unlawfully leaves or attempts to leave the Philippine Islands without securing a certificate from the Insular Auditor showing that his accounts have been finally settled, shall be punished by arresto mayor, or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos or both.

Art. 220. Illegal use of public funds or property. — Any public officer who shall apply any public fund or property under his administration to any public use other than for which such fund or property were appropriated by law or ordinance shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from one-half to the total of the sum misapplied, if by reason of such misapplication, any damages or embarrassment shall have resulted to the public service. In either case, the offender shall also suffer the penalty of temporary special disqualification. If no damage or embarrassment to the public service has resulted, the penalty shall be a fine from 5 to 50 per cent of the sum misapplied.

__________________________________ Crimes Committed by Public Officers: Part 2 TECHNICAL MALVERSATION When you talk of illegal use of public funds or the crime of technical malversation, the government does not lose money. It does not lost any property or money involved. What happens is that there is a diversion of the funds of the government for a purpose other than to which it was intended by law or by ordinance. It was very important. It is the illegal use of the public funds, therefore funds used for a purpose different from what it is intended by an ordinance or by law. So, you use now the money for salaries of employees for a purpose different from what it was intended. The General Appropriations Act allotted P10 million or P20 million for salaries. Therefore, that amount should only be utilized for salaries. If that amount allotted by law is used to buy, for you to be used for other purposes others than what was intended, that is a crime of technical malversation. Paul IV D

Criminal Law Review | Page 57 But it should be provided for by law of ordinance. M A LV E R S AT I O N A N D T E C H N I C A L MALVERSATION ARE TWO DISTINCT CRIMES Now, one of the cases, the accused was charged with malversation under Article 217, 'no? He was charged with misappropriating or converting to his personal benefit funds belonging to the government. But during the trial, it was found out that is was not actually Article 217. It was actually a crime of technical malversation that he committed. Question: Can he be convicted for technical malversation? Or supposing, he was charged with technical malversation but during the trial it was actually misappropriation, or conversion to his personal benefit, and therefore malversation under 217, misaversion. Can he be convicted of technical malversation if what is charged in the formation is malversation under 217? So, people said no. These are two different crimes. They are not the same. As I said, usually, the crime of illegal use of public funds, walang nawawala sa gobyerno. Misuse lang ‘yan, misuse. Walang nawawala. As a rule, ha. May nawawala because a general rule. Walang nawawala as a rule. They are may be instances where crime of technical malversation can only be committed. ‘Yung kotse ng baranggay official for my use, di ba? So, I have a vehicle for my use. So, the purpose why a vehicle in the budget is purchased is for the use of a government official. If that car is used by other persons, your family, they are members of your family for personal use, liable ba ‘yan ng illegal use of public funds. That is technical malversation. Kaya ako di ako nagpaplaka ng pula. Di ba ung pula government car? Iyong plaka ko dalawa eh. Pwedeng may pula pwedeng itim. Pag pumunta sa palengke, itim. Technical malversation ‘yan. When you used the property of the government for a purpose other than it was intended, that is technical malversation under Article 220. Hindi malversation ‘yan sa Article 217.

__________________________________ Art. 221. Failure to make delivery of public funds or property. — Any public officer under obligation to make payment from Government funds in his possession, who shall fail to make such payment, shall be punished by arresto mayor and a fine from 5 to 25 per cent of the sum which he failed to pay. This provision shall apply to any public officer who, being ordered by competent authority to deliver any property in his custody or under his administration, shall refuse to make such delivery.

A.L.F./N.O.S.


The fine shall be graduated in such case by the value of the thing, provided that it shall not less than 50 pesos.

Art. 222. Officers included in the preceding provisions. — The provisions of this chapter shall apply to private individuals who in any capacity whatever, have charge of any insular, provincial or municipal funds, revenues, or property and to any administrator or depository of funds or property attached, seized or deposited by public authority, even if such property belongs to a private individual.

Chapter Five INFIDELITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS Section One. — Infidelity in the custody of prisoners Art. 223. Conniving with or consenting to evasion. — Any public officer who shall consent to the escape of a prisoner in his custody or charge, shall be punished: 1. By prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and temporary special disqualification in its maximum period to perpetual special disqualification, if the fugitive shall have been sentenced by final judgment to any penalty. 2. By prision correccional in its minimum period and temporary special disqualification, in case the fugitive shall not have been finally convicted but only held as a detention prisoner for any crime or violation of law or municipal ordinance.

Art. 224. Evasion through negligence. — If the evasion of the prisoner shall have taken place through the negligence of the officer charged with the conveyance or custody of the escaping prisoner, said officer shall suffer the penalties of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period and temporary special disqualification.

Art. 225. Escape of prisoner under the custody of a person not a public officer. — Any private person to whom the conveyance or custody or a prisoner or person under arrest shall have been confided, who shall commit any of the offenses mentioned in the two preceding articles, shall suffer the Paul IV D


penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed for the public officer.

Section Two. — Infidelity in the custody of document Art. 226. Removal, concealment or destruction of documents. — Any public officer who shall remove, destroy or conceal documents or papers officially entrusted to him, shall suffer: 1. The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos, whenever serious damage shall have been caused thereby to a third party or to the public interest. 2. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium period and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos, whenever the damage to a third party or to the public interest shall not have been serious. In either case, the additional penalty of temporary special disqualification in its maximum period to perpetual disqualification shall be imposed.

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

__________________________________ Art. 227. Officer breaking seal. — Any public officer charged with the custody of papers or property sealed by proper authority, who shall break the seals or permit them to be A.L.F./N.O.S.


broken, shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, temporary special disqualification and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos.

Art. 228. Opening of closed documents. — Any public officer not included in the provisions of the next preceding article who, without proper authority, shall open or shall permit to be opened any closed papers, documents or objects entrusted to his custody, shall suffer the penalties or arresto mayor, temporary special disqualification and a fine of not exceeding 2,000 pesos.

Section Three. — Revelation of secrets Art. 229. Revelation of secrets by an officer. — Any public officer who shall reveal any secret known to him by reason of his official capacity, or shall wrongfully deliver papers or copies of papers of which he may have charge and which should not be published, shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, perpetual special disqualification and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos if the revelation of such secrets or the delivery of such papers shall have caused serious damage to the public interest; otherwise, the penalties of prision correccional in its minimum period, temporary special disqualification and a fine not exceeding 50 pesos shall be imposed.

Art. 230. Public officer revealing secrets of private individual. — Any public officer to whom the secrets of any private individual shall become known by reason of his office who shall reveal such secrets, shall suffer the penalties of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.

Chapter Six OTHER OFFENSES OR IRREGULARITIES BY PUBLIC OFFICERS Art. 231. Open disobedience. — Any judicial or executive officer who shall openly refuse to execute the judgment, decision or order of any superior authority made within the scope of the jurisdiction of the latter and issued with all the legal formalities, shall suffer Paul IV D


the penalties of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period, temporary special disqualification in its maximum period and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.

Art. 232. Disobedience to order of superior officers, when said order was suspended by inferior officer. — Any public officer who, having for any reason suspended the execution of the orders of his superiors, shall disobey such superiors after the latter have disapproved the suspension, shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and perpetual special disqualification.

Art. 233. Refusal of assistance. — The penalties of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period, perpetual special disqualification and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos, shall be imposed upon a public officer who, upon demand from competent authority, shall fail to lend his cooperation towards the administration of justice or other public service, if such failure shall result in serious damage to the public interest, or to a third party; otherwise, arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed.

Art. 234. Refusal to discharge elective office. — The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who, having been elected by popular election to a public office, shall refuse without legal motive to be sworn in or to discharge the duties of said office.

Art. 235. Maltreatment of prisoners. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period, in addition to his liability for the physical injuries or damage caused, shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall overdo himself in the correction or handling of a prisoner or detention prisoner under his charge, by the imposition of punishment not authorized by the regulations, or by inflicting such punishment in a cruel and humiliating manner. If the purpose of the maltreatment is to extort a confession, or to obtain some information from A.L.F./N.O.S.


the prisoner, the offender shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum period, temporary special disqualification and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos, in addition to his liability for the physical injuries or damage caused.

__________________________________ Maltreatment of prisoners is committed by public officer or entrusted in dragging the prisoners and the prisoner is maltreated under their custody. Pinagbubugbog mo ‘yung kwan. Kawawa naman. Nakakulong na nga, binubugbog mo pa. Maltreatment ‘yan.

__________________________________ Section Two. — Anticipation, prolongation and abandonment of the duties and powers of public office. Art. 236. Anticipation of duties of a public office. — Any person who shall assume the performance of the duties and powers of any public officer or employment without first being sworn in or having given the bond required by law, shall be suspended from such office or employment until he shall have complied with the respective formalities and shall be fined from 200 to 500 pesos.


correccional in its minimum and medium periods, and by arresto mayor if the purpose of such abandonment is to evade the duty of preventing, prosecuting or punishing any other crime.

Section Three. — Usurpation of powers and unlawful appointments Art. 239. Usurpation of legislative powers. — The penalties of prision correccional in its minimum period, temporary special disqualification and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos, shall be imposed upon any public officer who shall encroach upon the powers of the legislative branch of the Government, either by making general rules or regulations beyond the scope of his authority, or by attempting to repeal a law or suspending the execution thereof.

Art. 240. Usurpation of executive functions. — Any judge who shall assume any power pertaining to the executive authorities, or shall obstruct the latter in the lawful exercise of their powers, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period.

Art. 241. Usurpation of judicial functions. — The penalty of arresto mayor in Art. 237. Prolonging performance of duties and powers. — Any public officer shall continue to exercise the duties and p o w e r s o f h i s o f fi c e , e m p l o y m e n t o r commission, beyond the period provided by law, regulation or special provisions applicable to the case, shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its minimum period, special temporary disqualification in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos.

Art. 238. Abandonment of office or position. — Any public officer who, before the acceptance of his resignation, shall abandon his office to the detriment of the public service shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor. If such office shall have been abandoned in order to evade the discharge of the duties of preventing, prosecuting or punishing any of the crime falling within Title One, and Chapter One of Title Three of Book Two of this Code, the offender shall be punished by prision Paul IV D

its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period and shall be imposed upon any officer of the executive branch of the Government who shall assume judicial powers or shall obstruct the execution of any order or decision rendered by any judge within its jurisdiction.

Art. 242. Disobeying request for disqualification. — Any public officer who, before the question of jurisdiction is decided, shall continue any proceeding after having been lawfully required to refrain from so doing, shall be punished by arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos.

Art. 243. Orders or requests by executive officers to any judicial authority. — Any executive officer who shall address any order or suggestion to any judicial authority with respect to any case or business coming within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of justice shall suffer the penalty of A.L.F./N.O.S.


arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos.

Art. 244. Unlawful appointments. — Any public officer who shall knowingly nominate or appoint to any public office any person lacking the legal qualifications therefor, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.

Section Four. — Abuses against chastity Art. 245. Abuses against chastity; Penalties. — The penalties of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and temporary special disqualification shall be imposed: 1. Upon any public officer who shall solicit or make immoral or indecent advances to a woman interested in matters pending before such officer for decision, or with respect to which he is required to submit a report to or consult with a superior officer; 2. Any warden or other public officer directly charged with the care and custody of prisoners or persons under arrest who shall solicit or make immoral or indecent advances to a woman under his custody. If the person solicited be the wife, daughter, sister of relative within the same degree by affinity of any person in the custody of such warden or officer, the penalties shall be prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and temporary special disqualification. _____________________________________ Yung mga guards, warden. Bago papasukin ‘yung asawa ng preso, pindot-pindot muna from the guard. Request for a sexual favor in order that the request of the lady visitor will be accommodated in exchange. ‘Yun, abuse of chastity ‘yan for those public officials who request for sexual favor in exchange of a transaction. Let’s say, ‘yung mga detained women. Nagbebenta ng mga dugo sa mga ospital. Meron din lokong doctor. Op! Lagot ka, iha. Bibili ako ng gamot. Pindot-pindot muna. Ayan. That is the meaning of 245 abuse of chastity. What makes it a crime of abuse of chastity is that the victim has a transaction in the public officer and in exchange of that favor, magkakaroon siya ng sexual favor in exchange to it. That is not a crime involving chastity. That’s abuse of chastity committed only by those persons mentioned by the law.

Paul IV D


Title Eight CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS Chapter One DESTRUCTION OF LIFE Section One. — Parricide, murder, homicide Art. 246. Parricide. — Any person who shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse, shall be guilty of parricide and shall be punished by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.

Art. 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. — Any legally married person who having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro. If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other kind, he shall be exempt from punishment. These rules shall be applicable to parents with respect to their daughters under eighteen years of age, and their seducer, while the daughters are living with their parents. Any person who shall promote or facilitate the prostitution of his wife or daughter, or shall otherwise have consented to the infidelity of the other spouse shall not be entitled to the benefits of this article.

_________________________________ Immediately thereafter - does not mean right after, determine if he was still in control of himself. There is no crime in this article. Destierro here is not a penalty. It is for the purpose for protecting the would be offender. Civil indemnity would be improper. Remember: While in destierro under 247, caught using DRUGS NO ISLAW, 6 months rehabilitation for first time offender, penalty is less than 1 year.

A.L.F./N.O.S.

Codal and Lecture / Justice Peralta DAUGHTER AND SEDUCER That means the daughter and her seducer so, in other words, the father kills the daughter. Thatʼs what the law says. This law applies also to the daughter and her seducer. So, what does that mean? It means, therefore, that there is a crime of qualified seduction or simple seduction being committed. Then you have to refer yourselves to 337 and 338 of the Revised Penal Code to understand that. Under Article 337, the law provides that when a girl between the ages of 12 and 18 consents to carnal knowledge or even sexual intercourse through abuse of confidence, or committed by domestic servant, a teacher, or those of religious calling, then the crime becomes a qualified seduction, as long as the woman is of good reputation. The other one is Article 338, the crime of simple seduction. When the girl between the ages of 12 and 18, virgin, consents to carnal knowledge through deceit, then that becomes a crime of simple seduction. If the daughter now is being seduced, and there is an ongoing sexual intercourse between the daughter and the offender, in a qualified seduction or in a simple seduction, and then the father kills the man or even the daughter, 247 applies as an absolutory cause. That is the application. Kaya lang unfair don sa daughter. But the law says, in so far as the daughter and the seducer, hindi sinabi na seducer lang ang pinatay.

_____________________________________

Art. 248. Murder. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity. 2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise. 3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin. 4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of Paul IV D


an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity. 5. With evident premeditation. 6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.

__________________________________ Bar exam: guard fired gun to scare, bullet bounced back caused injuries... now it may lead to three crimes murder homicide reckless imprudence resulting to homicide When the killing is attended by any of the qualifying aggravating circumstances, then it becomes a crime of murder. However, if there is no intent to kill from the very beginning, no intent to kill from the very beginning even if the killing is attended by a qualifying aggravating circumstance, that cannot become a crime of murder. That becomes a crime of homicide. As we have studied in Paragraph 1 of Article 4 when you perform a lawful act, and then different from what you have intended to commit, then that is unintentional crime. I mean, you were performing an unlawful act, although different from what you have intended to commit, then that becomes a crime of homicide, ʻdi ba? He dies. Although different from what he intended to commit. But if you are performing a lawful act, in the performance of such lawful act you caused the death of somebody else, that cannot be homicide. That cannot be murder. It becomes a crime of reckless imprudence resulting to homicide. Intent to Kill 1. Manner of killing 2. utterances prior and at the occasion of 3. weapon used (although a handkerchief may also be used in a lethal manner)

__________________________________ Art. 249. Homicide. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal.

A.L.F./N.O.S.



Art. 250. Penalty for frustrated parricide, murder or homicide

Section Two. — Infanticide and abortion Art. 255. Infanticide. __________________________________

Art. 251. Death caused in a tumultuous affray. Art. 252. Physical injuries inflicted in a tumultuous affray.

_______________________________ Remember, there are just two kinds of tumultuous affrays, one where death results, and one where serious physical injuries results. there is no such thing as attempted or frustrated death during tumultuous affray. There is no such thing. The crime becomes physical injuries during tumultuous affray if the victim does not die. There is no attempted or frustrated. It is only infanticide, parricide, murder, and homicide where you have attempted or frustrated. There is no such thing as attempted or frustrated death. If the victim does not die, then it is physical injuries. REMEMBER: The essence of this crime is the inability to identify, so the moment you can identify who dealt those blows, then they should be charged under the proper crime.

_____________________________________

Art. 253. Giving assistance to suicide. __________________________________ Difference only in penalty if the one assisting pretty much did the killing of the poor bastard.

__________________________________ Art. 254. Discharge of firearms. — Any person who shall shoot at another with any firearm shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, unless the facts of the case are such that the act can be held to constitute frustrated or attempted parricide, murder, homicide or any other crime for which a higher penalty is prescribed by any of the articles of this Code. _____________________________________ Frustrated illegal discharge loaded aimed but did not fire, and if there was no bullet and accused did not know, impossible crime. _____________________________________

Killing a child under 72 hours old. Difference in penalty if the mother or her parents did the killing to conceal dishonor.

__________________________________ Art. 256. Intentional abortion. — Any person who shall intentionally cause an abortion shall suffer: 1. The penalty of reclusion temporal, if he shall use any violence upon the person of the pregnant woman. 2. The penalty of prision mayor if, without using violence, he shall act without the consent of the woman. 3. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the woman shall have consented.

Art. 257. Unintentional abortion. — The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium period shall be imposed upon any person who shall cause an abortion by violence, but unintentionally.

__________________________________ Intentional and Unintentional purpose is to kill fetus but both woman and child die - if purpose was not kill the fetus, but then dies, unintentional abortion - if no intent to kill woman only fetus, homicide with intentional abortion - if to kill woman with treachery but not to kill the fetus, murder with unintentional abortion - theoretical instance : two intentions, one to kill woman, and other child, this may result to two crimes.

__________________________________ Art. 258. Abortion practiced by the woman herself of by her parents. _____________________________________ This article is self-explanatory. The woman may commit this or her parents. Lower penalty provided for if the purpose is to conceal dishonor.

__________________________________

Paul IV D

A.L.F./N.O.S.


Art. 259. Abortion practiced by a physician or midwife and dispensing of abortives. __________________________________ Midwife or Physician cause or assist in an abortion. Physician is also liable for dispensing without proper prescription abortives.

__________________________________ Section Three. — Duel Art. 260. Responsibility of participants in a duel. Art. 261. Challenging to a duel. — (A)ny person who shall challenge another, or incite another to give or accept a challenge to a duel, or shall scoff at or decry another publicly for having refused to accept a challenge to fight a duel. Chapter Two PHYSICAL INJURIES Art. 262. Mutilation. __________________________________ What about serious intentional mutilation or intentional mutilation. What are these crimes? Now, serious intentional mutilation, it will depend on what is mutilated. If what is mutilated is a reproductive organ, then that is serious intentional mutilation. Any other part of the body mutilated other than the reproductive organ is what we called intentional mutilation. It becomes serious when it is reproductive organ. It is intentional mutilation when it is not a reproductive organ. But mutilation may also be a serious physical injuries. If you cut off one finger, that is also serious physical injuries. You cut one finger that can be also intentional mutilations. How do you differentiate the two? If the intention is only to injure, then 263. But if the intention is to mutilate, then that is intentional mutilation. Akin ʻyung kamay mo tapos pinalo mo ng martilyo, intentional mutilation ʻyun. But in the process of a quarrel, nag away kayo, and then one of the fingers was cut off because of the quarrel, then that is serious physical injuries.

__________________________________ Art. 263. Serious physical injuries. — Any person who shall wound, beat, or assault another, shall be guilty of the crime of serious physical injuries and shall suffer: Paul IV D


1. insane, imbecile, impotent, or blind; 2. lost the use of speech or the power to hear or to smell, or shall have lost an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm, or a leg or shall have lost the use of any such member, or shall have become incapacitated for the work in which he was therefor habitually engaged; 3. the person injured shall have become deformed, or shall have lost any other part of his body, or shall have lost the use thereof, or shall have been ill or incapacitated for the performance of the work in which he as habitually engaged for a period of more than (90) ninety days; 4. illness or incapacity for labor of the injured person for more than (30) thirty days. If the offense shall have been committed against any of the persons enumerated in Article 246, or with attendance of any of the circumstances mentioned in Article 248, the case covered by subdivision number 1 of this Article shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods; the case covered by subdivision number 2 by prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period; the case covered by subdivision number 3 by prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods; and the case covered by subdivision number 4 by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.

The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not be applicable to a parent who shall inflict physical injuries upon his child by excessive chastisement.

Art. 264. Administering injurious substances or beverages. — The penalties established by the next preceding article shall be applicable in the respective case to any person who, without intent to kill, shall inflict upon another any serious, physical injury, by knowingly administering to him any injurious substance or beverages or by taking advantage of his weakness of mind or credulity.

Art. 265. Less serious physical injuries. — Any person who shall inflict upon another physical injuries not described in the preceding articles, but which shall incapacitate the A.L.F./N.O.S.


offended party for labor for (10) ten days or more, or shall require medical assistance for the same period, shall be guilty of less serious physical injuries and shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor. Whenever less serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted with the manifest intent to kill or offend the injured person, or under circumstances adding ignominy to the offense in addition to the penalty of arresto mayor, a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed. Any less serious physical injuries inflicted upon the offender's parents, ascendants, guardians, curators, teachers, or persons of rank, or persons in authority, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, provided that, in the case of persons in authority, the deed does not constitute the crime of assault upon such person. _____________________________________ Check that it does not amount to Direct Assault.

__________________________________ Art. 266. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment. — The crime of slight physical injuries shall be punished: 1. By arresto menor when the offender has inflicted physical injuries which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor from one to nine days, or shall require medical attendance during the same period. 2. By arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 20 pesos and censure when the offender has caused physical injuries which do not prevent the offended party from engaging in his habitual work nor require medical assistance. 3. By arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding 50 pesos when the offender shall ill-treat another by deed without causing any injury.

Art 266-A. Rape: When and How Committed. - Rape is Committed1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: a) Through force, threat, or intimidation; Paul IV D


b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present; 2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into other person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.

Art. 266-B. Penalties. - Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death. The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances: 1) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. 2) When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities or any law enforcement of penal institution. 3) When the rape is committed in full view of the spouse, parent, any of the children or other relatives within the third civil degree of consanguinity. A.L.F./N.O.S.


4) When the victim is a religious engaged in legitimate religious vocation or calling and is personally known to be such by the offender before or at the time of the commission of the crime. (5) When the victim is a child below seven (7) years old. (6) When the offender knows that he is afflicted with Human Immune-Deficiency Virus (HIV)/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or any other sexually transmissible disease and the virus or disease is transmitted to the victim. (7) 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. (8) When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim suffered permanent physical mutilation or disability. (9) When the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime. (10) When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime. Rape under paragraph 2 of the next preceding article shall be punished by prision mayor.


Art. 266-C. Effect of Pardon - The subsequent valid marriage between the offender and the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty imposed. In case it is the legal husband who is the offender, the subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty. Provided, That the crime shall be extinguish or the penalty shall not be abated if the marriage is void ab initio. Art. 266-D. Presumptions. - Any physical overt act manifesting resistance against the act of rape in any degree from the offended party, or where the offended party is so situated as to render her/him incapable of giving valid consent, may be accepted as evidence in the prosecution of the acts punished under Article 266-A

__________________________________

Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be prision mayor to reclusion temporal.

ATTEMPTED RAPE; MEANING Then thatʼs attempted rape. Sometimes some say, intent to lie down with the woman or in sometimes they call it - intent to penetrate. Because lying down is ano eh broad yun, eh. Pinahiga mo yun eh, thatʼs lying down. But there is no intent to penetrate, eh. So, if there is intent to penetrate, but the problem is how do you know if there is intent to penetrate? How will you know? It still depends on the facts. Supposing the man insisted on inserting his private organ, but he was prevented by the girl, so that he could not insert his private organ. Then that is sure intent to penetrate. But there was no penetration slightest because the woman forced the man, di ba? Ganun yun, eh. May intent to penetrate but because there is no slight penetration, that will become a crime of attempted rape.

When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be reclusion temporal.

FORCE; REQUIRED enough for her not to be able to prevent the intent to penetrate.

When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua.

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

When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, homicide is committed, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua.

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

Reclusion temporal shall also be imposed if the rape is committed by any of the ten aggravating/qualifying circumstances mentioned in this article. Paul IV D

P: There was an old case, I think 10 years ago, when the woman was already sleeping but she did not resist. If she is sleeping and then you go on top of the woman and then she wakes up - of course she will wake up. Then, she did not persist, ayun A.L.F./N.O.S.

Codal and Lecture / Justice Peralta baka walang rape yun because she did not resist, eh. When a woman is sleeping and then you go on top of her she will be awaken. But if she does not resist at that time, walang rape iyon. That is not unconscious. What is unconscious is that, she only discovers that somebody inserted his private organ after sheʼs awakened. Yun ang unconscious or deprived of reason. What about sleeping? There was an old case, where the accused was convicted because what happened there was she was sleeping. Then when she was sleeping, somebody went on top of her. Naramdaman niya eh. But before that she thought that it was her husband. Hindi nagrereklamo. Sabi niya ah, husband ko ʻto. Okay lang. Ang problema after he inserted his private organ, I do not know kung bakit ano- ah, “Hindi ito ang asawa ko! Hindi ito ang asawa ko!” Hindi sinabi sa case kung bakit, eh. Naramdaman niya, hindi pala yun ang asawa niya. Baka maliit e, o iba yung korte. That is still a crime of rape. She did not resist him because she thought then that he was her husband. Yun, sinabi ng Supreme Court, rape yan. Then there was another case in Palawan. Actress yun ng British, eh. Kasama yung boyfriend then they have been drinking, nag inuman sila dun. Then the woman was a littler tipsy, probably tipsy, nakatulog. Because this case came later than the first one, so the boy yung ano dun, yung parang bellboy doon sa hotel. Yun pala ang ano, he went on top of the British stage actress and then he charged the boy with rape and he was convicted in the lower court. But in the Supreme Court the boy was acquitted because she was not totally asleep. She was conscious. It does not fall under otherwise conscious kasi she testified on cross examination that she could feel what was being done to her. So, if she felt thereʼs something but she did not resist. She only resisted after eh. And then the other problem is she fails to file the case, belatedly. Hindi niya agad fi-nile yung kaso, eh. So, ang suspetsa ko dun, the boyfriend later discovered that she went to bed with another man, and the boyfriend discovered, fi-nilan niya ng rape, iyon ang suspetsa ko. So, that boy was acquitted in follow up. Swerte. Nakalibre! FRAUDULENT MACHINATION The example that they gave you in congress is that, letʼs say even a customer. Youʼre a prostitute, you have a customer and then you agreed that you will pay the prostitute, letʼs say in the amount of 5,000 pesos. Then after that she agreed to have a sexual intercourse because you will have to pay her 5,000 pesos. Now, after the sexual intercourse, the boy said, “No, I will not pay you, pulis ako eh. Libre ang pulis, eh.” According to Congress, rape yun. Thatʼs the meaning of rape. Thatʼs rape because she should not have agreed to sexual intercourse if not Paul IV D

Criminal Law Review | Page 67 – that is now fraudulent machination. Fraud, eh. Di ba ang estafa can be committed also through fraud? Likened to estafa yun eh. Or you have a prostitute the asking price is 5,000 pesos. Then sabi niya, “Hoy, tama na sayo isang libo eh. Hindi ka naman pala magaling. So, 1,000 lang.” Thatʼs a crime of rape. That is fraudulent machination. Wala pang nagaganyan eh. Meron na ba? Wala. The prostitute will charge the customer? If she does that, she will lose all her customers. She will not do that. They included that, but that was not there before the amendment, but they included that. Okay. So, more than 12, you have to prove without the consent? RAPE OF VICTIM OF AGES BETWEEN 12 AND 18 IN RELATION TO QUALIFIED SEDUCTION Between the ages 12 and 18, ha, as long as it does not fall under qualified or simple seduction. So, between 12 and 18 you always prove that is done through any of those mentioned in Paragraph A, B, and C. In all cases. There is one exception. When the rape is commitment by the father over the daughter or stepfather or stepdaughter even if the daughter consented to a carnal knowledge as long as the daughter is between the ages of 12 and 18 that can still be a crime of rape because according to the Supreme Court, the moral ascendancy exercised by the father by reason of parental authority substitutes for the required force of intimidation in a crime of rape. Kasi daw pag more than 12 daw less than 18, pag sinabi daw ng tatay walang magawa yung anak because of the ascendancy. But if the daughter is already more than 18, consented to a sexual intercourse requested by the father, the father can no longer be liable of a crime of rape. Why? Because there is no parental authority to speak of. But the father cannot escape liability, he will still be liable. He can still be liable for a crime of qualified seduction under the second paragraph of Article 337. Walang lusot ang tatay, eh. Palagi yun. Kung more than 12, less than 18, nag consent yung anak, rape yan. Kung more than 18, nag consent yung anak, hindi rape yan, but the father may be liable for qualified seduction under the second paragraph of Article 337. Nakalagay dun sa second paragraph ng 337; even if the daughter is more than 18 and is not of good reputation, consents to a sexual intercourse of the father, the crime is qualified seduction MISSIONARY RAPE AND DOG-STYLE RAPE; SUCCESSIVE STYLES, ONE CRIME EACH Missionary rape is when the woman and the man face each other. So, frontal ang rape. Dog style is dog style, patalikod. Now, the difference between the two is that, when it is a missionary rape, it is a simple rape. Dog style rape is, likewise, a simple rape but aggravated by ignominy. Aggravated by ignominy. That means under Paragraph 17 of A.L.F./N.O.S.

Codal and Lecture / Justice Peralta Article 14. It is still a simple rape but there is now an aggravating circumstance of ignominy or moral suffering under Paragraph 17 of Article 14. Not treachery. Hindi rin mistake of the blow. SUCCESSIVE PENETRATION Yeah, three crimes ʻyan. Rape is consummated the moment that there is a slightest penetration. So, if you committed a crime of rape frontal and then afterwards dog style, thatʼs another form of rape. S: Sir, go back to missionary rape. P: You go back to? S: Missionary rape. P: Eh, ʻdi pangatlo na ʻyun. S: Then go back to frontal, four times? P: Yes. DOCTRINE : PEOPLE v. ORILLA Bawat hugot mo at saksak isang crime of rape yun. People vs. Joseph Orilla where the Supreme Court said that in that case the man ejaculated twice. So, ilan crimes of rape? He ejaculated twice, ano. Sabi ng Supreme isa lang crime of rape. Because according to the Supreme Court consummated crime of rape is determined by how many times the private organ touched the opening. So, in other words, you – there is one consummated crime of rape, ha. Inalis mo. Tapos regardless of the interval of time, ibinalik mo. Pangalawang rape ʻyun. Bawaʼt hugot, isang rape yun. That is the implication. It is determined by the number of times the private organ penetrates the private organ of the female. RAPE IN RELATION TO ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS Ngayon, if your interpretation is that it is done merely to satisfy oneʼs lust through lewd design, acts of lasciviousness ʻyun, hindi ba? So, how will you distinguish now if thatʼs acts of lasciviousness or lewd design? Then, it will depend on the intention of the offender because more than lewd design is attempted rape, kasi. So, if your problem is that walang erection, incapable of erection, ah, mahirap i-prove ʻyun, eh. You're incapable of erection, siya lang nagsasabi nun. Then, that will be acts of lasciviousness if thereʼs no intent to penetrate, hindi ba? What I am saying is that, if there is no intent to penetrate, eh bakit nandun kung may absence of erection? Bakit nandun sa ibabaw yung lalaki? Conducting surveillance? Hindi ba? That will be a matter of defense. Sa tingin ko that will still be attempted rape if you can prove that there is an intent to penetrate.

Paul IV D

Criminal Law Review | Page 68 SEXUAL ASSAULT AS A CRIME OF RAPE 266-B Par 2. it can be committed against any person that means that the victim maybe a boy, maybe a girl. The offender may also be a boy, may also be a girl. OFFENDER The offender is the one employing force, not necessarily the one who inserted his penis. FINGER AS AN INSTRUMENT Can you not insert an instrument or object into the private organ of the male? But the law says any person, eh, or instrument or object on the anal orifice of any person. ʻYun ang any person. Even if he is undergoing treatment for hemorrhoids? Minsan itong batas kasi ano eh, because the law says instrument or object, eh. Thatʼs why the question in one of the cases that was brought to the Supreme Court, I think thatʼs in 2003, whether or not that instrument or object includes a finger – includes a finger because the law says instrument or object. The law does not say instrument or object or any part of the body except private organ. Nakalagay dun instrument or object, eh. So, any instrument or object is something that is not part of the body, kasi instrument or object, eh. So, a man now, if a man touches the private organ of a male, a male person touches the private organ of male person against his consent, is that covered by sexual assault as a form of rape? Yes. The Supreme Court already interpreted that instrument or object includes fingers or any part of the body other than the private organ of the male. If it is the private organ of the male, then it becomes a crime of rape. If any part of the body, the tongue, the fingers, that is sexual assault as a form of rape. Kaya ʻyung genitalia na sinasabi mo. That also applies to male person. Oh, letʼs say a male person forces another male. Okay. You undress and then touch his private organ. Ginanun niya. Thatʼs covered by sexual assault as form of rape. Okay. So, thatʼs not anymore acts of lasciviousness. Thatʼs already been settled, ano ha. But if you touch the private organ of the female, then afterwards in one occasion you went up and then touch the breast of the woman. ʻYun, dalawang crimes ʻyun. The touching of the private organ of the female is a sexual assault as a form of rape and the touching of the breast or you fondle the breast. Thatʼs a crime of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336.

INSERTION v. MERE TOUCH Sir, is slightest penetration rule apply also to the what sexual assault as a form of rape? No, there is none, there must be insertion. Consummated parati yun. A.L.F./N.O.S.



SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES IN RAPE If the victim died in the crime of rape, special complex crime of RAPE WITH HOMICIDE.

sexual intercourse requested by the stepfather. So, he will find now that is a crime of rape that his statutory rape because the woman, the girl is less than 12 even if she consents, that is always rape.

If the rape is attempted and the victim dies, it becomes the special complex crime of ATTEMPTED RAPE WITH HOMICIDE.

But, the law says in 9262, that if the victim is the child of a common law wife and there's a sexual violence, the law that is applicable is Republic Act 9262. But, there is no penalty for sexual violence in 9262. So what rule is violated? The laws violated would be Republic Act 9262 in relation to the law and rape in the Revised Penal Code. Do not answer it immediately as Revised Penal Code because the relationship of the offender and the offended party is covered 9262. So, violation of Republic Act 9262, otherwise known as the Law on the Violence Against Women and Children in relation to statutory rape under the Revised Penal Code.

If the victim raped did not die from the injuries, the crime is QUALIFIED RAPE. All the injuries now will become elements of violence as a crime of rape. If a vibrator was inserted in the victim, and died as a result therefrom, then he becomes liable for the special complex crime of SEXUAL ASSAULT AS A FORM OF RAPE WITH HOMICIDE. QUALIFIED RAPE So what is then qualified rape? If the rape is attended by any of the 10 circumstances in the law on rape RA 7610 (Anti-Child Abuse Law) and RA 9262 (Anti-VAWC Law) in Relation to Article 266-A. Republic Act No. 7610 Section 5 Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse This says that the law applicable is the law on rape in the revised penal code. If the victim is more than 12 and less than 18, then the law that is applicable is RA 7610. Republic Act 9262 Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act - there is a relationship between the offender and the mother of the victim or the offender has a relationship with the victim. 9262 covers four kinds of violence: 1) Physical violence. 2) Sexual violence. 3) Psychological violence. 4) Economic violence. 9262 WHEN APPLICABLE When the act is committed against a wife, former wife or has a common child. Naanakan niya, common child or has had dating relationships or has had sexual relationships, and their children. That means that committed against women; those I mentioned wife, former wife, has a common child, has had dating relationships or has had sexual relationships, and their children. Therefore, these are the victims. STEP FATHERS The offender is the stepfather of an 11-year-old girl. So, a man is living with a woman who has a child of their own, and they had sexual relationship. They are living together as husband and wife. But the stepfather of the child later can be – and then 11year-old girl surrendered herself, consented to a Paul IV D

√ Now, if however, there is no relationship between the offenders. So, a man was walking and then he saw a little girl, 11 years old, not related, comes up to the girl, then gives her candy. Then after giving candy, the girl consented to a sexual intercourse or carnal knowledge. What is the crime committed? Then the offender will now be liable under the Revised Penal Code because that is statutory rape and there is no relationship covered by 9262, in so far as the offended and the offender are concerned. √ Okay. Now, if the victim is more than 12 and less than 18, so a man raped a girl between the ages of 12 and 18. What is the law violated? Definitely the Republic Act 7610 as provided for in Paragraph 2 of Section 5 in relation to the law on rape in the Revised Penal Code. √ But if there is a relationship between the offender and the offended parties covered by 9262, then the law that is violated is Republic Act 9262 in relation to the law on rape in the Revised Penal Code. MINOR VICTIMS So, let's go to Section 5. Now, Section 5, as I've said, covers victims of child abuses less than 18 years of age or those more than 18 years of age who cannot properly manage themselves. That means those are suffering from mental disorder, covered yun by child abuse because they think like a child. Hindi lang less than 18 yon and also those who cannot properly manage themselves because of mental deficiency. Okay. So, a girl was sold by her mother. A girl was sold by her mother. Probably, the girl was 11 years of age to a foreigner who likes to have young children. The girl was, likewise, raped. The 11-yearold girl was, likewise, rapes. And then because he's a foreigner, you went to the highest court in Pasig. What is the highest court in Pasig? Victoria Court. That is the highest court. And with the consent of the owner of the motel, allowed the foreigner and the girl to rent a room where he could use the girl for sexual abuse. But the girl consented, she was A.L.F./N.O.S.

Codal and Lecture / Justice Peralta raped. The mother, likewise, was raped. Ganon ang nangyari kay Inday eh. Mamaya sabihin ko sa'yo. So what happened? So, consented? What is the crime or what are the crimes? Are there crimes committed? There are three crimes committed there because she is less than 18 years of age. In fact, she is 11 years of age. The mother will be liable under Section 5 Paragraph A as a procurer. That’s the meaning, pimp, under Section 5 Paragraph A. The foreigner will be liable to the crime of rape. Why crime of rape? Because the girl is less than 12 years old, that is always rape under the Revised Penal Code. Now, the administrator of the motel who knew of what the man did to the girl because he allowed them to go inside the room will be liable for violation of Section 5 Paragraph C. The owner, the administrator, of the place where the act is committed is likewise liable under Paragraph C. Now, if however the girl is more than 12, but less than 18, what's the crime committed? There could be no rape. Why no rape? Because the woman consented, more than 12 na eh, less than 18, di ba? But still the foreigner or the mother would still be liable under Paragraph A, still a procurer. And then the man could still be liable under Section 5 under the second part for the crime of child abuse. That’s the meaning of child abuse or sexual exploitation. And then the place where it took place is still liable under Paragraph C of Section 5. Walang lusot diyan eh. But, supposedly, if the victim is more than 18, allowed herself to be used, it doesn't anymore fall under Republic Act 7610 because she is already of age. She is not considered as a child for purposes of Republic Act 7610. So, the bar exams last year or 2 years ago, the examiner combined the provisions of Section 5 and the law of rape. Maganda yung tanong eh. Ang ginawa niya, the mother allowed her daughter to be used by a foreigner, and the foreigner instead of having sexual intercourse with the girl, he inserted a vibrator in the private organ and she dies, di ba? She dies inside a motel where the administrator or the manager allowed the foreigner to engage in that lascivious act inside the motel. STATUTORY SEXUAL ASSUAULT Ang tinanong ngayon anong crimes committed. Anong crimes? Yung mother is still liable as a pimp, procurer. What about the foreigner in so far as the girl is concerned? He is liable for the crime of assault – sexual assault with homicide. Ano yan, sexual assault because if the sexual assault there is also what they call statutory sexual assault. Di ba kung rape, statutory rape. But if you do not insert your private organ, but instead the Paul IV D

Criminal Law Review | Page 70 instrument or object, it becomes sexual assault. Therefore, you do not also prove consent. So, if she died, if the girl consent, immaterial. Consent is immaterial if the victim is less than 12. If she dies, if the girl consented to the insertion of a vibrator and she is less than 12, then the crime is sexual assault with homicide under the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act 8353. And, then, the man who the (manager) of motel will still be liable under Paragraph C pf Section 5. Do you follow? Yon ganon. Maraming sumagot homicide daw eh, because there was no intent to kill. Hindi kako sexual assault yan with homicide because she is less than 11. So, everybody agreed that that should be the answer. So, that was the answer in the bar exams. Eh buti nalang ganon lang ang tanong he. Mahirap kase pag pinag – they ask you a question, and then probably the answers could be found in two or three special laws. Yun ang mahirap. Like in the next topic, of course, you know already what is battered woman syndrome, di ba? Under 9262, we took that up when we took up Paragraph 1 of Article 11, the defense of battered woman syndrome, okay.

Title Nine CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY Chapter One CRIMES AGAINST LIBERTY Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. — Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death: 1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than five days. 2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority. 3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill him shall have been made. 4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, female or a public officer. The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person, even if none of the A.L.F./N.O.S.


circumstances above-mentioned were present in the commission of the offense. _____________________________________ 267 in relation to grave coercion 286

Criminal Law Review | Page 71 Grave coercion taken against will but no lockup (In the words of justice, namimilit) KIDNAPPING OR FORCIBLE ABDUCTION

Now, when you speak of 267, the intention of the offender is to deprive the liberty. 'Pag 267, deprivation of liberty. Para mas madali ninyo maintindihan. 'Pag 286 sa grave coercion causing somebody to do something against his will ang grave coercion 286. You force somebody with the use of violence or intimidation against his will whether it is punishable by law or not.

If person abducted is woman, this is either kidnapping or forcible abduction. The only difference is the purpose. if to commit only lascivious acts, then forcible abduction.

267 in relation to 342 FORCIBLE ABDUCTION Then we go to 342, to forcible abduction, it may only be committed against a woman. The purpose there is to commit lewd design. In other words, you force a woman to go with you in order to commit lascivious acts, lewd design, ano? Excluding rape. Only lewd design. Lewd design does not include rape.

If the victim is a minor, check if the one detaining is under the obligation to return the child, for if he is, then he becomes chargeable under Art 270 and not under Art 267.

kidnapping and serious illegal detention lockup - restraint. When your freedom or your liberty or your freedoms have already been completely restrained. Meron ng lock up yon. Like what? You are tied with your hands or your feet. Tinali ka sa punongkahoy, tinali ka doon, nilagyan ka ng blindfold. Nilagyan ka sa bunganga mo ng handkerchief so that you cannot talk and, therefore, you cannot see, you cannot talk, you cannot move. Yun ang lock up. If there is already lock up, then from that moment, your liberty is already restrained. Kidnapping yan. So when the perpetrator is caught but before ʻlockupʼ, he is only liable for grave coercion. (peralta: no attempted kidnapping) A child was taken against her will. She was being brought inside the car. But before the child could be brought to the car, the person was arrested. That cannot be kidnapping because at the time that he was arrested, the child was not yet lock up because there was no yet complete loss of freedom, wala pa. Pwede pa siyang sumigaw. Pwede pa siyang tumakbo. In other words wala pang loss of freedom at that time. But that will not be a crime of kidnapping, that cannot be a crime of kidnapping, but there should be a crime, 'di ba? Ano ang crime doon? Then that is grave coercion under 286 because somebody is forced to do something against his will. And what is the force? He is taken against his will, but there’s no lock up, then it becomes grave coercion. New doctrine: 2006 - even if no demand for ransom, but there is an intent to demand for ransom, the crime is kidnapping for ransom.

Paul IV D

Basta minor/babae and the purpose to deprive liberty, it is either kidnapping or serious illegal detention

SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME OF KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION WITH HOMICIDE Let's go to some problem areas in 267. Although the problem was already in the bar exams two years ago in the case of People versus Larrañaga, et al, ano ha. Kaya lang dun sa question na 'yon meron kaunting diperensya. But anyway, it was already decided by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court just recognized that when the victim in kidnapping is killed or a crime of homicide is committed or murder is committed or rape then it is now a special complex crime. It is now special complex crime, not a complex crime under Article 48. So, you denominate the crime as kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide, tapos sinabi nila puwede pang murder or rape as special complex crime. Okay. Kidnapping of minors in relation to special laws. RA 7610 sec 7 trafficking of children, sale/barter of a child (mere act of selling/bartering is punishable). The child is not taken against his will. The child is just sold/bartered. This is not kidnapping. RA 9208 sec 4 that a person is sold/bartered (a purpose is required: FOR SEXUAL EXPLOITATION, DEBT BONDAGE, PROSTITUTION...) SEC 7 ACTS PUNSIHED Recruitment, employment abroad, sale, barter, employment abroad, adoption, marriages for purposes of going abroad, and then you have also employment abroad, or also getting arranging travels abroad for the purpose…may purpose dun, Now, if you now go to the enumerations from A to H, ano ha, except the Paragraph G, 'yang purpose ng trafficking enumerated by law is either for prostitution, sexual exploitation, involuntary A.L.F./N.O.S.

Codal and Lecture / Justice Peralta servitude, debt bondage, then on the last Paragraph, Paragraph H, for the purpose of armed activities, mercenaries, except in Paragraph G. par (g) when child is abducted against his will/ violence - why not kidnapping? because of purpose which is FOR SELLING ORGANS. GUIDE Oo, pag deprivation of liberty, sigurado ka 267. Ngunit kung walang lock up, grave coercion. Ngunit kung child trafficking, then Section 7 Republic Act 7610. For purposes of exploitation or any of the purpose or any of the purposes mentioned by Section 4 Republic Act 9208. But, there is also a crime of kidnapping of a minor under 270. Kaya kung kidnapping ng minor yan, dapat and complete answer is if the answer falls under 267, they can denominate the crime as kidnapping and serious illegal detention if the victim is a minor.


Section Two. — Kidnapping of minors Art. 270. Kidnapping and failure to return a minor. — The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who, being entrusted with the custody of a minor person, shall deliberately fail to restore the latter to his parents or guardians.

Art. 271. Inducing a minor to abandon his home. — (A)nyone who shall induce a minor to abandon the home of his parent or guardians or the persons entrusted with his custody. _____________________________________ The father or the mother of the child may also be liable for this crime.

_____________________________________

__________________________________

Art. 268. Slight illegal detention. — The

Art. 272. Slavery. — The penalty of prision

penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed upon any private individual who shall commit the crimes described in the next preceding article without the attendance of any of circumstances enumerated therein.

mayor and a fine of not exceeding 10,000 pesos shall be imposed upon anyone who shall purchase, sell, kidnap or detain a human being for the purpose of enslaving him.

The same penalty shall be incurred by anyone who shall furnish the place for the perpetration of the crime.

If the crime be committed for the purpose of assigning the offended party to some immoral traffic, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period.

If the offender shall voluntarily release the person so kidnapped or detained within three days from the commencement of the detention, without having attained the purpose intended, and before the institution of criminal proceedings against him, the penalty shall be prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding seven hundred pesos.

Art. 273. Exploitation of child labor. —

Art. 269. Unlawful arrest. — The penalty

Art. 274. Services rendered under compulsion in payment of debt.

of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, in any case other than those authorized by law, or without reasonable ground therefor, shall arrest or detain another for the purpose of delivering him to the proper authorities.

Paul IV D

The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon anyone who, under the pretext of reimbursing himself of a debt incurred by an ascendant, guardian or person entrusted with the custody of a minor, shall, against the latter's will, retain him in his service.

A.L.F./N.O.S.


Chapter Two CRIMES AGAINST SECURITY Section One. — Abandonment of helpless persons and exploitation of minors. Art. 275. Abandonment of person in danger and abandonment of one's own victim. — The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon: 1. Any one who shall fail to render assistance to any person whom he shall find in an uninhabited place wounded or in danger of dying, when he can render such assistance without detriment to himself, unless such omission shall constitute a more serious offense. 2. Anyone who shall fail to help or render assistance to another whom he has accidentally wounded or injured. 3. Anyone who, having found an abandoned child under seven years of age, shall fail to deliver said child to the authorities or to his family, or shall fail to take him to a safe place.

__________________________________ If you cause injury to another through reckless imprudence, then you abandon, it is a crime. so you end up liable for two crimes. this only applies to reckless imprudence, and does not apply to intentional felonies. Bar Question: Abandonment of a person on the verge of death. - luneta park at 12mn - qualify if inhabited/uninhabited. Now, what is an uninhabited place? When there are no people at any given time. If it so happens that there are no people at that time, that does not make the place uninhabited. Let's say, in the evening at 12 o'clock, there are no persons around the area. There are many houses. Is that uninhabited? That is not uninhabited. That is inhabited. So, there is no crime. 275 is not applicable.

__________________________________


Art. 276. Abandoning a minor. __________________________________ Abandoning of a child under 7 of which one has custody of. Higher penalty if the child dies or his life is put in danger. _____________________________________

Art. 277. Abandonment of minor by person entrusted with his custody; indifference of parents. — The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon anyone who, having charge of the rearing or education of a minor, shall deliver said minor to a public institution or other persons, without the consent of the one who entrusted such child to his care or in the absence of the latter, without the consent of the proper authorities. The same penalty shall be imposed upon the parents who shall neglect their children by not giving them the education which their station in life require and financial conditions permit.

__________________________________ One in charge of rearing or education of a minor delivers to a public institution or other persons without the consent of the one who entrusted the child to his care or the consent of proper authorities. Parents who neglect their children (by not giving them the education which their financial conditions permit) are also liable under this article.

_____________________________________

Art. 278. Exploitation of minors. — The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon: 1. Any person who shall cause any boy or girl under sixteen years of age to perform any dangerous feat of balancing, physical strength, or contortion. 2. Any person who, being an acrobat, gymnast, rope-walker, diver, wildanimal tamer or circus manager or engaged in a similar calling, shall employ in exhibitions of these kinds children under sixteen years of age who are not his children or descendants. 3. Any person engaged in any of the callings enumerated in the next paragraph preceding who shall employ any descendant of his under

Paul IV D

A.L.F./N.O.S.


twelve years of age in such dangerous exhibitions. 4. Any ascendant, guardian, teacher or person entrusted in any capacity with the care of a child under sixteen years of age, who shall deliver such child gratuitously to any person following any of the callings enumerated in paragraph 2 hereof, or to any habitual vagrant or beggar. If the delivery shall have been made in consideration of any price, compensation, or promise, the penalty shall in every case be imposed in its maximum period. In either case, the guardian or curator convicted shall also be removed from office as guardian or curator; and in the case of the parents of the child, they may be deprived, temporarily or perpetually, in the discretion of the court, of their parental authority. 5. Any person who shall induce any child under sixteen years of age to abandon the home of its ascendants, guardians, curators, or teachers to follow any person engaged in any of the callings mentioned in paragraph 2 hereof, or to accompany any habitual vagrant or beggar.

__________________________________ 278, I believe, has already been amended by Republic Act 7610 – exploitation of minors. It may fall under child abuse. 'Yung act is punishable. Why? Because the minor children is less than 16 years of age or below, or sometimes 12 years of age or below, they are required to perform dangerous tricks. 'Yung kumakain ng apoy, espada, circus. That's true. That's 278. 'Yung dangerous falling, 'yung acrobats, 'yung kumakain ng apoy, o kumakain ng espada, yung mga acrobats, circus. Those are punished under Article 278. But if the acts fall under child abuse, then the law that is applicable is Republic Act 7610.

__________________________________ Art. 279. Additional penalties for other offenses.


Section Two. — Trespass to dwelling Art. 280. Qualified trespass to dwelling. __________________________________ Trespass to dwelling : Any private person who shall enter the dwelling of another against the latter's will. Qualified Trespass to dwelling : If committed with violence or intimidation, a higher penalty shall be imposed. EXCEPTIONS 1. Any person who shall enter another's dwelling for the purpose of preventing some serious harm to himself, the occupants of the dwelling or a third person, 2. any person who shall enter a dwelling for the purpose of rendering some service to humanity or justice, 3. Anyone who shall enter cafes, taverns, inn and other public houses, while the same are open. Art 128 Violation of Domicile - only public officers But supposing you enter and then later on you caused injury to the owner of the house. What's the crime committed? The entry is not accompanied by violence. But if the entry is accompanied by violence, there is no problem. But if the entry is not accompanied by violence and then after the entry, violence is committed, what's the crime committed? Will it be trespass to dwelling and another crime? Or qualified trespass to dwelling? Now, the violence required of qualified trespass to dwelling should not be so serious. It is merely violence in order to cause entry. Now, if you enter the dwelling without any violence, but right after the entry the owner of the house says, "Why did you enter?" and then you box the owner of the house. In other words, if the violence is still in connection with the entry, then it's still qualified trespass to dwelling. Pag pasok niya, "O, ba't ka pumasok?" Sinuntok mo. In other words, if the violence has something to do with the entry, even if the violence took place after the entry, the crime is still qualified trespass to dwelling. But if the violence has nothing more to do with the entry, then dwelling now becomes aggravating circumstance if there is another crime committed.

The violence required in qualified trespassing need not be serious, but only enough to enter. If the violence had nothing to do with the entry, then it is not qualified trespass. dwelling may Paul IV D

A.L.F./N.O.S.


then now become an aggravating circumstance

__________________________________ Art. 281. Other forms of trespass. _____________________________________ Trespassing into a 1. closed premises 2. fenced estate of another while UNINHABITED, if the prohibition to ENTER be not manifest and there has been no consent form owner or caretaker.

Simply stated But if you just merely enter an enclosed estate period, the crime is Article 281. If you enter and then build a house, claim that that is your property, then the crime is 312 under crimes against property.

__________________________________ Section Three. — Threats and coercion Art. 282. Grave threats. — Any person who shall threaten another with the infliction upon the person, honor or property of the latter or of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime, shall suffer: 1. The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the crime be threatened to commit, if the offender shall have made the threat demanding money or imposing any other condition, even though not unlawful, and said offender shall have attained his purpose. If the offender shall not have attained his purpose, the penalty lower by two degrees shall be imposed. If the threat be made in writing or through a middleman, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period. 2. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos, if the threat shall not have been made subject to a condition.

__________________________________

Paul IV D

Criminal Law Review | Page 75 Peralta: Grave Threat - bodily harm/property/person/honor What is punished is the threat employed. papatayin kita is grave threat. but if you say i will kiss you? That may fall under Art 285. Supposing i tell you to give me your money tomorrow or else i will kill you! there is a threat of bodily harm, killing is a crime, there is a future condition. no need to fulfill the condition. Grave Threat. Supposing i say give me money now or iʼll kill you! Difference : there is no more condition. the threat is immediate. this is a crime of robbery. the threat employed is an element of robbery, with violence/ intimidation. So tomorrow, let's say, the time now comes for the fulfillment of the condition. Nagkita kami. Wala akong kuwarta. "Give me your money." Wala akong kuwarta. Kahit ano, gagawin ko. So, if he does not give me the money, you are liable for a crime of grave threat because the threat was employed the day before. So, let's say, "Give me money tomorrow or else I will kill you." Is it not that the day before there is already a grave threat? So that if it is tomorrow now, whether they have money or not, there is already a consummated crime of grave threat. There is no need for you to fulfill that condition because the law says even fulfilled or not. Now, if the money is there, you give the money, that is still grave threat. That is not a crime of robbery because the giving of the money is not immediate. So, "Give me your money or else I will kill you," and then you give now the money. What is the crime? Is that grave threat? No, that will now be a crime of robbery because the threat that you employed now is the element of robbery with violence or intimidation. So, now it becomes a crime of robbery.

__________________________________ Art. 283. Light threats. — Any threat to commit a wrong not constituting a crime, made in the manner expressed in subdivision 1 of the next preceding article, shall be punished by arresto mayor. _____________________________________ Now, if the threat, however, does not constitute a crime, then it may be Article 283. There is a demand for money, that is the meaning of light threat, or even 285 under Paragraph (c), any form of threat. A.L.F./N.O.S.


Peralta: Writer in publication. give me money or else ill expose your wrong doings as a public official? or else i will publish your criminal acts? the threats do not constitute a crime. this is a crime of light threats under 283 although in art 356, this may be punished as a crime of blackmail. 283 - element is a future condition. but letʼs say there was no demand for money? then crime would be par c of 285. it is not subject to a condition.

_____________________________________

Art. 284. Bond for good behavior. — In all cases falling within the two next preceding articles, the person making the threats may also be required to give bail not to molest the person threatened, or if he shall fail to give such bail, he shall be sentenced to destierro.

Art. 285. Other light threats. — The penalty of arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos shall be imposed upon: 1. Any person who, without being included in the provisions of the next preceding article, shall threaten another with a weapon or draw such weapon in a quarrel, unless it be in lawful self-defense. 2. Any person who, in the heat of anger, shall orally threaten another with some harm not constituting a crime, and who by subsequent acts show that he did not persist in the idea involved in his threat, provided that the circumstances of the offense shall not bring it within the provisions of Article 282 of this Code. 3. Any person who shall orally threaten to do another any harm not constituting a felony.

Art. 286. Grave coercions. — The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, without authority of law, shall, by means of violence, prevent another from doing something not prohibited by law, or compel him to do something against his will, whether it be right or wrong.


If the coercion be committed for the purpose of compelling another to perform any religious act or to prevent him from so doing, the penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed. _____________________________________ So, let's go to grave coercion. Medyo mabigat ang grave coercion. Bakit mabigat? Sometimes, grave coercion is actually taking the law into your own hands when there is a legal remedy. 'Yan ang unang isipin niyo sa grave coercion. One of the forms of grave coercion is taking the law into your own hands when there is a proper remedy. Example, somebody is renting your apartment and he does not want to pay. What is your remedy? Apartment dweller. Youʼre the owner of the apartment. He is not paying. What are you supposed to do? 'Di ba File a complaint for unlawful detainer? That's your remedy. But supposing, in order to require him to pay or in order that he can get out from the premises, you cut off the water line, you cut off the electricity. That's a crime of grave coercion. That is taking to your own hands when there is a proper remedy. Or somebody is indebted to you, then you force him or you force her to pay. That is, likewise, grave coercion. The other form of grave coercion is you force somebody to do something against his will. In order words, like a woman, the woman does not like you. You forced her to go with you. That's grave coercion. There is violence, which is different from grave threat. In grave threat, what is punished is the threat. When you threaten somebody else, then it becomes grave threat or light threat. When it is grave coercion, the threat may be the element of the coercion. So, if I threaten you and the purpose is to force you to do something against his will, then it becomes grave coercion because the threat is now utilized. It is now the element of the grave coercion.

_____________________________________

Art. 287. Light coercions. — Any person who, by means of violence, shall seize anything belonging to his debtor for the purpose of applying the same to the payment of the debt, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period and a fine equivalent to the value of the thing, but in no case less than 75 pesos. Any other coercions or unjust vexations shall be punished by arresto menor or a fine ranging from 5 pesos to 200 pesos, or both.

__________________________________ Paul IV D

A.L.F./N.O.S.

Codal and Lecture / Justice Peralta Unjust vexation as a form of light coercion causing annoyance or vexing the senses of the offended party short of injury. merely pangiinis. peeping tom. kissing a woman without lewd design. basta wag lang may injury. In slander by deed, punished in Art 359(?) slapping somebody in the face in the presence of other persons, but if no one saw the slapping, it is not slander by deed because you cannot besmirch his reputation. If the person is injured, even if for a short time, it may become a crime of ill treatment, but if no injury and no one saw the act, then unjust vexation. But supposing a woman is being followed persistently, what is the crime committed? there is now a crime of STALKING. under VAWC. In Art 132 offensive to religious feeling... same as unjust vexation but only peculiar to religious feelings

__________________________________ Art. 288. Other similar coercions; (Compulsory purchase of merchandise and payment of wages by means of tokens.) — The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from 200 to 500 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person, agent or officer, of any association or corporation who shall force or compel, directly or indirectly, or shall knowingly permit any laborer or employee employed by him or by such firm or corporation to be forced or compelled, to purchase merchandise or commodities of any kind. The same penalties shall be imposed upon any person who shall pay the wages due a laborer or employee employed by him, by means of tokens or objects other than the legal tender currency of the laborer or employee.

Art. 289. Formation, maintenance and prohibition of combination of capital or labor through violence or threats. — The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 300 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, for the purpose of organizing, maintaining or preventing coalitions or capital or labor, strike of laborers or lock-out of employees, shall employ violence or threats in such a degree as to compel or force the laborers or employers in the free and legal Paul IV D


exercise of their industry or work, if the act shall not constitute a more serious offense in accordance with the provisions of this Code.

Chapter Three DISCOVERY AND REVELATION OF SECRETS Art. 290. Discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence. _____________________________________ Private person who seizes correspondence of another. Higher penalty if he REVEALS such secrets. Not applicable to 1. parents, 2. guardians, or persons entrusted with the custody of minors with respect to the papers or letters of the children or minors placed under their care or study, nor to 3. spouses with respect to the papers or letters of either of them.

_____________________________________

Art. 291. Revealing secrets with abuse of office. — The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any manager, employee, or servant who, in such capacity, shall learn the secrets of his principal or master and shall reveal such secrets. (Learn AND reveal)

Art. 292. Revelation of industrial secrets. — The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon the person in charge, employee or workman of any manufacturing or industrial establishment who, to the prejudice of the owner thereof, shall reveal the secrets of the industry of the latter.

Title Ten CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY Chapter One ROBBERY IN GENERAL Art. 293. Who are guilty of robbery. — Any person who, with intent to gain, shall take any personal property belonging to another, by means of violence or intimidation of any A.L.F./N.O.S.


person, or using force upon anything shall be guilty of robbery.

__________________________________ Manner of asportation if attended by violence or force upon things robbery under 293, if not attended, simple theft If along the hiway - the crime maybe PD 532 hiway robbery, if not maybe simply robbery under 293.

__________________________________ Section One. — Robbery with violence or intimidation of persons. Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons; Penalties. — 1. on occasion of the robbery the crime of homicide shall have been committed. 2. when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation, or if by reason or on occasion of such robbery, any of the physical injuries penalized in subdivision 1 of Article 263 (insane, imbecile, impotent, or blind) shall have been inflicted; Higher penalty if rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon 3. The penalty of reclusion temporal, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, any of the physical injuries penalized in subdivision 2 (loss of speech, hearing, smelling, an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm, or a leg or shall have lost the use of any such member, or shall have become incapacitated for the work in which he was therefor habitually engaged) of the article mentioned in the next preceding paragraph, shall have been inflicted. 4. If the violence or intimidation employed in the commission of the robbery shall have been carried to a degree clearly unnecessary for the commission of the crime, or when in the course of its execution, the offender shall have inflicted upon any person not responsible for its commission any of the physical injuries covered by sub-divisions 3 and 4 (deformity, loss of any other part of his body, or loss of the use thereof, or shall have been ill or incapacitated for the performance of the work in which he as habitually engaged for a period of more than (90) ninety days; illness or incapacity for labor of the injured person for more than (30) thirty days.) of said Article 263. Paul IV D


5. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period in other cases. (As amended by R. A. 18). _____________________________________ 1. Homicide rape mutilation arson on the occasion of robbery, should include by reason thereof. So even if killing takes place after, as long as it was by reason of the robbery then robbery with homicide. This also includes killing through culpa or reckless imprudence. If killing happened before the taking, the intention was to kill. Two crimes: Murder and Theft. Regardless of number of rape/killings, it does not result to different crimes or serve to aggravate. Special Complex. if several people were killed and some were hurt, those who hurt fall under the designation of Robbery with Homicide. If the victim does not die, then Robbery with Serious physical injuries, but if slight then it is covered by 294 par 5, simple robbery. If someone was killed and raped on account of the robbery, then robbery with homicide and rape. Now, the other thing here is that - of course, I told you last time I think in Article 48 that if two or more persons died on the occasion of robbery, then you denominate the crime as robbery with homicide. There is no such thing as robbery with multiple homicide or double homicide. The excess killings will be included under the generic term "homicide." So, regardless of persons who died, we denominate the crime as robbery with homicide because that is a special complex crime. So, you do not anymore create the additional homicides as analogous to aggravating circumstances of cruelty. Wala na yan. The old doctrine has been overtaken by the doctrines later on in People vs. Rutan and People vs. Regala. Now, if on the occasion of robbery, some died, some were killed, some survived, therefore, physical injuries, whatʼs the crime committed? Merely robbery with homicide. Those who survived or those who suffered serious physical injuries are included likewise in the generic term "homicide." Walang crime na robbery with homicide and physical injuries, no crime. Injuries there are included in the generic term "homicide." Now, if the victim does not die on the occasion of robbery, what is the crime committed? No A.L.F./N.O.S.

Codal and Lecture / Justice Peralta crime of robbery with attempted or frustrated homicide. No crime of attempted or frustrated murder. If the victim does not die, then denominate the crime as robbery with serious physical injuries if the injuries are serious. But if the injuries are only less serious, or slight physical injuries, then denominate the crime as simple robbery. Walang robbery with slight physical injuries. Walang robbery with less serious physical injuries. Less or slight physical injuries are covered by Paragraph 5 of Article 294. That is simple robbery. Okay, then intentional mutilation, of course you know what is intentional mutilation. If on the occasion of robbery, he is intentionally mutilated or arson, so only one crime. So, robbery with homicide, if all of these crimes take place on the occasion of robbery, that is only one crime, a single indivisible crime. 2. robbery with serious physical injuries - where the victim ends up blind/imbecile

_____________________________________

Art. 295. Robbery with physical injuries, committed in an uninhabited place and by a band, or with the use of firearm on a street, road or alley. — If the offenses mentioned in Art 294 (3)(4)(5) shall have been committed 1. in an uninhabited place or 2. by a band, or 3. by attacking a moving train, street car, motor vehicle or airship, or 4. by entering the passenger's compartments in a train or, 5. in any manner, taking the passengers thereof by surprise in the respective conveyances, or on a street, road, highway, or alley, and the intimidation is made with the use of a firearm, the offender shall be punished by the maximum period of the proper penalties. In the same cases, the penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed upon the leader of the band.

Art. 296. Definition of a band and penalty incurred by the members thereof. — When more than three armed malefactors take part in the commission of a robbery, it shall be deemed to have been Paul IV D


committed by a band. When any of the arms used in the commission of the offense be an unlicensed firearm, the penalty to be imposed upon all the malefactors shall be the maximum of the corresponding penalty provided by law, without prejudice of the criminal liability for illegal possession of such unlicensed firearms. Any member of a band who is present at the commission of a robbery by the band, shall be punished as principal of any of the assaults committed by the band, unless it be shown that he attempted to prevent the same. _____________________________________ ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE What do you mean by robbery with violence? So, there are two kinds of robbery. One is robbery with violence. The other one is robbery with force upon things. When the robbery is directed against a person, you want to deprive the possession or the property of another person, and then you use violence, that is robbery. That is the meaning of robbery with violence. "Give me your money or else I will kill you!" That is robbery with violence. ROBBERY WITH FORCE UPON THINGS But when the subject matter of the asportation pertains to inhabited or uninhabited houses, therefore, you enter the house and then rob the house. Then, the crime is robbery with force upon things. Art 295-296 Four armed men seriously injured somebody on account of robbery: 294(1)(2) BAND is considered as an ordinary aggravating, ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE/ ATTENDED BY SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES aggravated by a BAND 294(3)(4)(5) other forms of physical injuries, if committed by a band, ROBBERY WITH/IN BAND EXPLANATION if the robbery with serious physical injuries falls under paragraphs 3, 4 or 5 of 294 then the crime is robbery in band. The band there is used in the denomination of the crime because it is committed by a band. Robbery in band. Now, if however, the robbery with serious physical injuries falls under paragraph 2 of 294, he became blind and became insane, became imbecile, ano ha, committed by four armed men, then denominate the crime as robbery with serious physical injuries. The band is

A.L.F./N.O.S.

Codal and Lecture / Justice Peralta merely an aggravating circumstance. That is the interpretation. Kung ang robbery mo eh 3, 4, 5, committed by a band, they you denominate the crime as robbery in band. But if your robbery falls under paragraph 1 and 2 of Article 294, then denominate the crime as robbery with serious physical injuries aggravated by a band. Not robbery in band. Itʼs not covered by 295 and 296

_____________________________________

Art. 297. Attempted and frustrated robbery committed under certain circumstances. — When by reason or on occasion of an attempted or frustrated robbery a homicide is committed, the person guilty of such offenses shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua, unless the homicide committed shall deserve a higher penalty under the provisions of this Code.

__________________________________ If victim dies, robbery not consummated, this is Attempted/frustrated robbery with homicide. General rule is that there is no treachery in crimes against property. BUT in people v. ESCOTE if the victim was killed treacherously, ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE, but because killing was aggravated by treachery, then you consider it as an aggravating circumstance. CRUELTY can also be appreciated if it attended the homicide on account of robbery.

_____________________________________

Art. 298. Execution or delivery of deeds by means of violence or intimidation. Section Two. — Robbery by the use of force upon things Art. 299. Robbery in an inhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to worship. — Any armed person who shall commit robbery in an inhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to religious worship, shall be punished by reclusion temporal, if the value of the property taken shall exceed 250 pesos, and if: (a) The malefactors shall enter the house or building in which the robbery was committed, by any of the following means: 1. Through a opening not intended for entrance or egress. Paul IV D


2. By breaking any wall, roof, or floor or breaking any door or window. 3. By using false keys, picklocks or similar tools. 4. By using any fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public authority. Or if — (b) The robbery be committed under any of the following circumstances: 1. By the breaking of doors, wardrobes, chests, or any other kind of locked or sealed furniture or receptacle; 2. By taking such furniture or objects to be broken or forced open outside the place of the robbery. When the offenders do not carry arms, and the value of the property taken exceeds 250 pesos, the penalty next lower in degree shall be imposed. The same rule shall be applied when the offenders are armed, but the value of the property taken does not exceed 250 pesos. When said offenders do not carry arms and the value of the property taken does not exceed 250 pesos, they shall suffer the penalty prescribed in the two next preceding paragraphs, in its minimum period. If the robbery be committed in one of the dependencies of an inhabited house, public building, or building dedicated to religious worship, the penalties next lower in degree than those prescribed in this article shall be imposed.

__________________________________ 1) The first one – madali lang naman intindihin yan. Bakit kamo? Eh kasi when we speak of force upon things, then the subject matter is a house, or public or a private building. But it becomes a robbery with force upon things because there is an unlawful entry. Unlawful entry. In other words, you enter the premises. So, in other words, when you enter the premises, as long as there is an unlawful entry regardless of the manner of the unlawful taking, that is always robbery. Example: There are how many ways – I think there are… a) When you enter by breaking a wall, or a roof, or a window. You enter. Kumuha ka ng nasa mesa. A.L.F./N.O.S.

Codal and Lecture / Justice Peralta Let say, you broke open the window, even if the valuable was on the top of the table, robbery 'yan because what makes it a crime of robbery with force upon things is the unlawful entry. 'Yun ang first mode of committing a crime. So, you broke open a window kahit na hindi ka – ano ang kukunin mo dun, robbery with force upon things yan because what makes it a robbery with force upon things under the first group or manners of committing the crime is the entry. The entry is unlawful. b) Or you enter a window there is no force, but you are entering an opening which is not intended for entry or exit. Because if you enter an opening not intended for entry or exit, that is unlawful entry. 'Yung window – para saan ba ang window? Di ba para sa hangin. Hindi naman daanan ng tao 'yan eh. So, kung hindi daanan ng tao 'yan, tapos pumasok ka. Kinuha mo yung nakalagay sa table yung kwarta, robbery pa rin 'yun because the entry is unlawful. c) Or by using any fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public authority. Kumatok ka sabi, "Hoy, pulis ako." Naniwala. Pinapasok mo, unlawful entry 'yun. Regardless of the taking that takes place the manner of taking the place like inside the house that is robbery with force upon things. 'Yun ang the manner of committing the crime. d) And the other is the use of a picklock, false key. Nabuksan mo then you enter. You take something inside the house even you did not break open anything that is also robbery with force upon things. 2) Now the second mode – there is an entry. So, what the law provides in 299 is the entry now is lawful. It does not fall under unlawful entry. And what is it? You enter an opening intended for entry or exit. Nakabukas 'yung pintuan. Di ba pasukan ng tao 'yan? Pumasok ka sa loob ng pintuan. Therefore, there is no unlawful entry because it is an opening intended for entry or exit. Somebody did not prohibit you from entering. Nakapasok ka eh. Nakabukas eh. Now, the valuable at the top of the table, you took that valuable on the top of the table. Is that robbery with force upon things? That cannot be robbery with force upon things. Why? Because the entry is lawful. There is no unlawful entry. There is no breaking. But it will still become robbery with force upon things if after entering when the entry is not unlawful you break open the receptacle, or cabinets, so the watch is inside the cabinet. Pumasok ka. Binasag mo 'yung cabinet, kinuha mo 'yung valuables that is still robbery with force upon things even if the entry is not unlawful. Or pamasok ka, the entry is not unlawful and then you brought Paul IV D

Criminal Law Review | Page 81 out the cabinet. Nilabas mo sa labas ng bahay. Pag labas mo sa labas ng bahay break open mo 'yung cabinet. It is still robbery with force upon things.

Art. 300. Robbery under Art 299 in an uninhabited place and by a band, penalty MAX Art. 301. What is an inhabited house, public building or building dedicated to religious worship and their dependencies. — Inhabited house means any shelter, ship or vessel constituting the dwelling of one or more persons, even though the inhabitants thereof shall temporarily be absent therefrom when the robbery is committed. All interior courts, corrals, waterhouses, granaries, barns, coach-houses, stables or other departments or inclosed places contiguous to the building or edifice, having an interior entrance connected therewith, and which form part of the whole, shall be deemed dependencies of an inhabited house, public building or building dedicated to religious worship. Orchards and other lands used for cultivation or production are not included in the terms of the next preceding paragraph, even if closed, contiguous to the building and having direct connection therewith. The term "public building" includes every building owned by the Government or belonging to a private person not included used or rented by the Government, although temporarily unoccupied by the same.

Art. 302. Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a private building. — Any robbery committed in an uninhabited place or in a building other than those mentioned in the first paragraph of Article 299, if the value of the property taken exceeds 250 pesos, shall be punished by prision correccional if any of the following circumstances is present: 1. If the entrance has been effected through any opening not intended for entrance or egress. 2. If any wall, roof, flour or outside door or window has been broken. A.L.F./N.O.S.



3. If the entrance has been effected through the use of false keys, picklocks or other similar tools. 4. If any dorm, wardrobe, chest or by sealed or closed furniture or receptacle has been broken. 5. If any closed or sealed receptacle, as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, has been removed even if the same to broken open elsewhere.

valuables were taken from inside the car. The entry was done through the breaking of a door or a window, the crime cannot be robbery even if there is force. Why? Because the car is not an uninhabited or inhabited place, that's what I mean. So, only the uninhabited or inhabited places may be the subject matter of robbery with force upon things.

When the value of the property takes does not exceed 250 pesos, the penalty next lower in degree shall be imposed.

__________________________________

In the cases specified in Articles 294, 295, 297, 299, 300, and 302 of this Code, when the property taken is mail matter or large cattle, the offender shall suffer the penalties next higher in degree than those provided in said articles.

without lawful cause have in his possession picklocks or similar tools especially adopted to the commission of the crime of robbery, shall be punished by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period. The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who shall make such tools. This includes locksmiths.

__________________________________ Pag kotse, pumasok ka sa loob ng kotse walang roberry 'yan, theft lang' yan. Pumasok ka sa inhabited or uninhabited even if you used force, there is no robbery. Robbery with force upon things only applies to inhabited or uninhabited places, public or private buildings. Ngunit kung squatters area, robbery pa rin 'yun because the law does not say, "The house will be big or small," basta sinabi natin, inhabited or uninhabited."

__________________________________ Art. 303. Robbery of cereals, fruits, or firewood in an inhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to worship or an uninhabited place or private building, penalty next lower in degree. __________________________________ Robbery with force upon things When the subject matter of the asportation pertains to inhabited or uninhabited houses, therefore, you enter the house and then rob the house. Then, the crime is robbery with force upon things. But the subject matter of robbery with force upon things, dalawa lang: 1) Inhabited, which is Article 299. 2) The other one is uninhabited, which is Article 302. Example,kotse mo, nandyan sa parking. Somebody broke the window in order to enter the car and then Paul IV D

Art 302 : same as Art 299; although, you cannot use simulating of public authority kasi wala ngang tao.

Art. 304. Possession of picklocks or similar tools. — Any person who shall

Art. 305. False keys. — The term "false keys" shall be deemed to include: 1. The tools mentioned in the next preceding articles. 2. Genuine keys stolen from the owner. 3. Any keys other than those intended by the owner for use in the lock forcibly opened by the offender.

Chapter Two BRIGANDAGE Art. 306. Who are brigands; Penalty. — When 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, they shall be deemed highway robbers or brigands. If any of the arms carried by any of said persons be an unlicensed firearms, it shall be presumed that said persons are highway robbers or brigands, and in case of convictions the penalty shall be imposed in the maximum period.

A.L.F./N.O.S.



_____________________________________

_____________________________________

Where there are only three armed men for the purpose of those in 306, then does not fall under 306. They will be liable for illegal assembly. armed men for the purpose of committing a violation of a penal law.

Chapter Three THEFT Art. 308. Who are liable for theft. — Theft

The mere formation of at least four armed men for the purpose of extorting ransom or for the purpose of committing highway robbery, then that becomes a consummated crime. If, however, the four armed men actually committed highway robbery, then they will now be liable for a crime of highway robbery, no longer liable under Article 306. What is punished in 306 is that before the highway robbery, there are four armed men formed for the purpose of committing any of those crimes mentioned in Article 306. That is already a consummated crime under Article 306. if asportation by a band is committed in the highway, is that highway robbery? is may be under PD 532. In the case of people v. puno et al, SC made a distinction in PD 532 and ART 306 HIGHWAY ROBBERY Three essential requirements 1. the asportation should take place in the highway 2. the victim is not a predetermined victim 3. should not be an isolated one. it should happen indiscriminately. kidnapping - purpose is to deprive liberty highway robbery If only one robbery, then simple robbery only. Supposing it happens in a bus with 10 passengers. everyone is robbed. Is that hiway robbery or simple robbery? conflicting jurisprudence. More accepted view, one crime of robbery under the principle of continuado delicto.

_____________________________________

Art. 307. Aiding and abetting a band of brigands. — _____________________________________ 1. Any person knowingly and in any manner aiding, abetting or protecting a band of brigands or acquiring 2. or receiving the property taken by such brigands It shall be presumed that the person performing any of the acts provided in this article has performed them knowingly, unless the contrary is proven. Paul IV D

is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latter's consent. Theft is likewise committed by: 1. Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to deliver the same to the local authorities or to its owner; 2. Any person who, after having maliciously damaged the property of another, shall remove or make use of the fruits or object of the damage caused by him; and 3. Any person who shall enter an inclosed estate or a field where trespass is forbidden or which belongs to another and without the consent of its owner, shall hunt or fish upon the same or shall gather cereals, or other forest or farm products.

Art. 309. Penalties. — Any person guilty of theft shall be punished by: 1. The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the thing stolen is more than 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, but if the value of the thing stolen exceeds the latter amount the penalty shall be the maximum period of the one prescribed in this paragraph, and one year for each additional ten thousand pesos, but the total of the penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be. 2. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the value of the thing stolen is more than 6,000 pesos but does not exceed 12,000 pesos. 3. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the property stolen is more than 200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos. 4. Arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period, if A.L.F./N.O.S.


the value of the property stolen is over 50 pesos but does not exceed 200 pesos. 5. Arresto mayor to its full extent, if such value is over 5 pesos but does not exceed 50 pesos. 6. Arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if such value does not exceed 5 pesos. 7. Arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, if the theft is committed under the circumstances enumerated in paragraph 3 of the next preceding article and the value of the thing stolen does not exceed 5 pesos. If such value exceeds said amount, the provision of any of the five preceding subdivisions shall be made applicable. 8. Arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding 50 pesos, when the value of the thing stolen is not over 5 pesos, and the offender shall have acted under the impulse of hunger, poverty, or the difficulty of earning a livelihood for the support of himself or his family.

__________________________________ there is no more frustrated theft. entering an enclosed estate, other forms of trespass. entering an enclosed estate, you use violence, then you claim, usurpation. entering an enclosed estate then you start harvesting farm products/fish (as long as it doesnʼt fall under Art 310.) INCREMENTAL PENALTY So, if you are asked “What is an incremental penalty?” in your bar exams, then they are referring to a penalty of estafa and the penalty of theft. Because the penalty sometimes will depend on the value of the thing stolen in theft and the damage caused in the crime of estafa.

__________________________________ Art. 310. Qualified theft. — The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees than those respectively specified in the next preceding article, if committed by a 1. domestic servant, or 2. with grave abuse of confidence, or 3. if the property stolen is motor vehicle, 4. mail matter or 5. large cattle or 6. consists of coconuts taken from the premises of the plantation or 7. fish taken from a fishpond or fishery, or Paul IV D


8. if property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic erruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance. (As amended by R.A. 120 and B.P. Blg. 71. May 1, 1980). _____________________________________ Grave abuse of confidence refers to other people and not to the domestic servant. What if helper has access to cabinets, And then when you came home, she is no longer there and, therefore, ran away your personal belongings, yun ang qualified theft. Because you allowed her to have access to your personal belongings. But that is not grave abuse of confidence. It is merely abuse of confidence. So, therefore, if it is a domestic servant, there must be some sort of abuse of confidence. Not just because she is a domestic servant qualified theft na yan. Hindi. what if teller receives deposits from a depositr, at the end of day she did not turn over. she is liable for Qualified theft. Now, the other thing is that when the subject matter of the theft is mail matters, then that's qualified theft. Nagnakaw ka ng sulat, that's qualified theft. Or if the subject, when it is cattle, it is no longer a qualified theft. What is the crime committed? Cattle rustling under PD 533, but under cattle rustling, it is not merely the unlawful taking of a member of the bovine family. It also includes butchering of a member of the bovine family without the consent of the owner. So, PD 533 does not only cover unlawful taking. It also covers killing of a member of the bovine family without the consent of the owner. Baka akala niyo yung PD 533 nagnakaw lang eh. Pag kinatay mo yung baka walang alam yung mayari eh, yan. So, you have to get the consent before you slaughter a carabao or a cow. Okay. what if subject of asportation is a motorvehicle? is it carnapping Carnapping 1. taking is attended with violence threat or intimidation 2. in any other unlawful means. (lack of consent on the part of the owner) but supposing you went to have the car repaired, and the you will redeem your car after one month. you go back, the owner ran away with your vehicle. it cannot be carnapping because taking was not unlawful at the very beginning. could that be estafa? when you speak of estafa, there must be physical possession and juridical possession, while in theft, only physical possession. when do you say thereʼs juridical possession. TEST: can he put up a

A.L.F./N.O.S.

Codal and Lecture / Justice Peralta defense of ownership or lawful possessor? That is the meaning of juridical possession. people v. santos : the SC said that was Qualified Theft. The owner cannot claim the driver who steals the car, there is no juridical possession. driver cannot put up defense of lawful possessor.. so no estafa. the taking of the vehicle must be unlawful from the beginning. so in car repair : QUALIFIED THEFT OF A MOTORVEHICLE. in the occasion of carnapping and a person is killed, it becomes a special complex crime. the crime should be denominated as qualified carnapping. people v. mejia. carnapping in its aggravated form. RA 6539. But if it is qualified theft, law does not recognize the killing, then you complex the crime under Art 48. Supposing in a carnapping three died, regardless o the death, then it is just qualified carnapping, because it is a special complex crime. S: Sir, what if a motor vehicle was taken. The taking was lawful from the beginning and so it is a crime of qualified theft. But then someone was killed later on. What is the crime? P: That's a good question. Kasi yan when it is a qualified theft of a motor vehicle under Article 310 and then supposing on the occasion – so the driver ran away the vehicle. If two days or three days after, policemen ran after him, and then as a result, there was a fire fight, one of the policemen was killed. So, on the occasion of qualified theft, a policeman was killed. So, how will you denominate the crime? Now, you could denominate the crime as qualified theft? Okay, so that's a good question. Kasi if it is carnapping - if on the occasion of carnapping, somebody is killed then it becomes special complex crime because under 6539, it recognizes the killing as a crime that really committed on the occasion of carnapping. But if it is a qualified theft, the law does not recognize a crime of killing on the occasion of qualified theft eh. So, if therefore, somebody dies on the occasion of the qualified theft, then you can still complex the crime as qualified theft with murder or qualified theft with homicide, but no longer under the principle of a special complex crime. It will be under the principle of Article 48 as a complex crime Ang maganda roon kung tatlo ang namatay. Suppossing in a carnapping, three died. How will you denominate the crime? Regardless of the death because that is a special complex crime, you always denominate the crime as qualified carnapping whether it is done with treachery or not, it is qualified carnapping because that is a special Paul IV D

Criminal Law Review | Page 85 complex crime. But if it is a qualified theft, if the crime committed is murder, of course, you can qualify the crime as qualified theft with murder because that is a complex crime under Article 48. That's a good question.

Art. 311. Theft of the property of the National Library and National Museum. — If the property stolen be any property of the National Library or the National Museum, the penalty shall be arresto mayor or a fine ranging from 200 to 500 pesos, or both, unless a higher penalty should be provided under other provisions of this Code, in which case, the offender shall be punished by such higher penalty.

Chapter Four USURPATION Art. 312. Occupation of real property or usurpation of real rights in property. — Any person who, by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, shall take possession of any real property or shall usurp any real rights in property belonging to another, in addition to the penalty incurred for the acts of violence executed by him, shall be punished by a fine from 50 to 100 per centum of the gain which he shall have obtained, but not less than 75 pesos. If the value of the gain cannot be ascertained, a fine of from 200 to 500 pesos shall be imposed.

__________________________________ there is intent to gain. It is actually a crime of landgrabbing. two-tiered penalty rule. two penalties may be imposed. the payment of the fine here is fixed. the penalty of imprisonment is dependent on the extent of violence used. so if violence is grave threat, then penalty of grave threat + fine.

__________________________________ Art. 313. Altering boundaries or landmarks. — Any person who shall alter the boundary marks or monuments of towns, provinces, or estates, or any other marks intended to designate the boundaries of the same, shall be punished by arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 100 pesos, or both.

A.L.F./N.O.S.


Chapter Five CULPABLE INSOLVENCY Art. 314. Fraudulent insolvency. — _____________________________________ Any person who shall abscond with his property to the prejudice of his creditors Making it it appear that you are insolvent to escape.

__________________________________ Chapter Six SWINDLING AND OTHER DECEITS Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). — Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned herein below shall be punished by: 1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed under the provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be. 2nd. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount of the fraud is over 6,000 pesos but does not exceed 12,000 pesos; 3rd. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period if such amount is over 200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos; and 4th. By arresto mayor in its maximum period, if such amount does not exceed 200 pesos, provided that in the four cases mentioned, the fraud be committed by any of the following means:

Paul IV D


1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely: (a) By altering the substance, quantity, or quality or anything of value which the offender shall deliver by virtue of an obligation to do so, even though such obligation be based on an immoral or illegal consideration. (b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods, or any other personal property received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same, even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having received such money, goods, or other property. (c) By taking undue advantage of the signature of the offended party in blank, and by writing any document above such signature in blank, to the prejudice of the offended party or of any third person. 2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud: (a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits. (b) By altering the quality, fineness or weight of anything pertaining to his art or business. (c) By 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. In this case, the offender shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty. (d) By post-dating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check. The failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the amount necessary to cover his check within three (3) days from receipt of notice from the bank and/or the payee or holder that said check has been dishonored for lack of A.L.F./N.O.S.


insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act. (e) By obtaining any food, refreshment or accommodation at a hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house, lodging house, or apartment house and the like without paying therefor, with intent to defraud the proprietor or manager thereof, or by obtaining credit at hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house, lodging house, or apartment house by the use of any false pretense, or by abandoning or surreptitiously removing any part of his baggage from a hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house, lodging house or apartment house after obtaining credit, food, refreshment or accommodation therein without paying for his food, refreshment or accommodation. 3. Through any of the following fraudulent means: (a) By inducing another, by means of deceit, to sign any document. (b) By resorting to some fraudulent practice to insure success in a gambling game. (c) By removing, concealing or destroying, in whole or in part, any court record, office files, document or any other papers. _____________________________________ DIFFERENCE OF ESTAFA AND THEFT Taking is always without consent of the owner, but in estafa, the owner actually gives the property so there is no unlawful taking. the offender receives the property. Bank teller who receives deposits. that is qualified theft not estafa. The teller receives but does not turn over. it is qualified theft.Meron bang juridical possession? Meron bang unlawful taking? it is qualified theft because when the teller receives the money, it becomes the money of the bank, but the teller does not declare, she ends up unlawfully taking the money of the bank. The bank did not give the money to the teller. Now it would be different if you are an employee/ salesman, your work is to sell the product of your employer. youʼre a softdrinks sales man, in the morning you bring out the products with the obligation to remit the proceeds and to receive the commission and return the unsold products and if you run away with the money. estafa. there is a Paul IV D

Criminal Law Review | Page 87 legal duty to deliver. Is there a juridical tie? yes, he is entitled to commission. That will be his defense, he is entitled to the money. Novation of contracts. The agreement of the parties is abandoned, and a new contract is entered into. so the question is, what is the effect of novation? does it extinguish criminal penalty for estafa? Novation is not a ground for extinction of criminal penalty. EXCEPTION, the only estafa that can be extinguished is only in Par 1. not par 2 or 3. because the enumerations there a and b can be novated, because it is a borderline of a civil contract. ex. you enter into sale, commission basis. money was not remitted. nahuli in misappropriation? Then you asked “puwede ba yung reremit hulugan na lang?” and there is an agreement. There is no more estafa. the first contract is novated. Estafa 1. Abuse of confidence and unfaithfulness NOT deceit - you repose confidence to another and it is abused a. it is a borderline between a civil and criminal obligation. Altering substance quality even if consideration is illegal i. contract of sale - civil character. if the agreement is to deliver of 100 bags of rice and quality is specified. What if is delivered is NFA rice. The alteration of the quality makes it ESTAFA. It is the unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence. ii. If quantity is altered, that still makes it a crime of estafa iii. illegal consideration of gambling iv. selling of shabu. b. Par 1 (c) signature. 2. Misrepresentation, false pretense IS deceit PRIOR OR SIMULTANEOUS WITH COMMISSION OF THE FRAUD There is panloloko from the very beginning. The crime of estafa is that the private offended party could not have parted if you did not employ misrepresentation or false pretenses. a. Job recruiter. by pretending to have influence - panloloko. i can bring you to iraq for employment, but you have to pay certain fees. Only to find out he is not an authorized recruiter? he makes it appear that he has authority to bring workers. Prior simultaneous - and that the reaon why she had parted was because of the

A.L.F./N.O.S.



representation that she could be brought abroad. b. Art or Business - ito gold ring ito because i was the one who made it, sweet talking, nabola, and the ring turns out na hindi gold. if it is your own art, then 315(2). the reason why i bought that was because of your misrepresentation. c. D - postdating of check - zosa owns a jewelry store. i want to buy a ring for my wife. yes sir, ito 100k. ok i can pay but i did not bring my cash. i paid in check. issuance of the check was simultaneous with the parting of the goods. 3. compare with 290(a) a. destruction of court records ESTAFA, all the rest infidelity in the custody of public officers. b. eating evidence to win, destruction of evidence cannot complex estafa through falsification of private document

3. The owner of any personal property who shall wrongfully take it from its lawful possessor, to the prejudice of the latter or any third person. 4. Any person who, to the prejudice of another, shall execute any fictitious contract. 5. Any person who shall accept any compensation given him under the belief that it was in payment of services rendered or labor performed by him, when in fact he did not actually perform such services or labor. 6. Any person who, while being a surety in a bond given in a criminal or civil action, without express authority from the court or before the cancellation of his bond or before being relieved from the obligation contracted by him, shall sell, mortgage, or, in any other manner, encumber the real property or properties with which he guaranteed the fulfillment of such obligation.

it is either estafa or falsification of private document. same elements.

Art. 317. Swindling a minor. — Any

CREDIT CARDS hindi puwedeng commercial document ang credit card because there is a special law about it. We agreed that that-hindi pa nga estafa ang sagot naming dun. We agreed that the crime is unauthorized use of access device, not even estafa. It is only one crime of unauthorized use of access device. You know what's the penalty? Mataas ang penalty of access device, higher pa ng theft, unauthorized use of, ano? Access device, higher than theft because theft is determined–the penalty of theft is determined by the value of the thing stolen. Sir, unauthorized use din ba yung duplicated credit card? That's also under the special law. That's a crime if that will be illegal use or illegal manufacture or illegal production of access devices.

__________________________________ Art. 316. Other forms of swindling. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium period and a fine of not less than the value of the damage caused and not more than three times such value, shall be imposed upon: 1. Any person who, pretending to be owner of any real property, shall convey, sell, encumber or mortgage the same. 2. Any person, who, knowing that real property is encumbered, shall dispose of the same, although such encumbrance be not recorded. Paul IV D

person who taking advantage of the inexperience or emotions or feelings of a minor, to his detriment, shall induce him to assume any obligation or to give any release or execute a transfer of any property right in consideration of some loan of money, credit or other personal property, whether the loan clearly appears in the document or is shown in any other form, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor and a fine of a sum ranging from 10 to 50 per cent of the value of the obligation contracted by the minor.

Art. 318. Other deceits. — The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine of not less than the amount of the damage caused and not more than twice such amount shall be imposed upon any person who shall defraud or damage another by any other deceit not mentioned in the preceding articles of this chapter. Any person who, for profit or gain, shall interpret dreams, make forecasts, tell fortunes, or take advantage of the credulity of the public in any other similar manner, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos.

A.L.F./N.O.S.


Chapter Seven CHATTEL MORTGAGE Art. 319. Removal, sale or pledge of mortgaged property. — The penalty or arresto mayor or a fine amounting to twice the value of the property shall be imposed upon: 1. Any person who shall knowingly remove 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 time of the execution of the mortgage, without the written consent of the mortgagee, or his executors, administrators or assigns. 2. Any mortgagor who shall sell or pledge personal property already pledged, or any part thereof, under 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 hereof in the office of the Register of Deeds of the province where such property is located.

Chapter Eight ARSON AND OTHER CRIMES INVOLVING DESTRUCTIONS Art. 320. Destructive arson. — The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who shall burn:

• 1. Any arsenal, shipyard, storehouse or military powder or fireworks factory, ordinance, storehouse, archives or general museum of the Government. 2. Any passenger train or motor vehicle in motion or vessel out of port. 3. In an inhabited place, any storehouse or factory of inflammable or explosive materials. Art. 321. Other forms of arson. — When the arson consists in the burning of other property and under the circumstances given hereunder, the offender shall be punishable:

• 1. By reclusion temporal or reclusion perpetua: Paul IV D


•

◦ (a) if the offender shall set fire to any building, farmhouse, warehouse, hut, shelter, or vessel in port, knowing it to be occupied at the time by one or more persons; (b) If the building burned is a public building and value of the damage caused exceeds 6,000 pesos; (c) If the building burned is a public building and the purpose is to destroy evidence kept therein to be used in instituting prosecution for the punishment of violators of the law, irrespective of the amount of the damage;chan robles virtual law library (d) If the building burned is a public building and the purpose is to destroy evidence kept therein to be used in legislative, judicial or administrative proceedings, irrespective of the amount of the damage; Provided, however, That if the evidence destroyed is to be used against the defendant for the prosecution of any crime punishable under existing laws, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua; (e) If the arson shall have been committed with the intention of collecting under an insurance policy against loss or damage by fire.

• 2. By reclusion temporal:

•

◦ (a) If an inhabited house or any other building in which people are accustomed to meet is set on fire, and the culprit did not know that such house or building was occupied at the time, or if he shall set fire to a moving freight train or motor vehicle, and the value of the damage caused exceeds 6,000 pesos; (b) If the value of the damage caused in paragraph (b) of the preceding subdivision does not exceed 6,000 pesos; (c) If a farm, sugar mill, cane mill, mill central, bamboo groves or any similar plantation is set on fire and the damage caused exceeds 6,000 pesos; and (d) If grain fields, pasture lands, or forests, or plantings are set on fire, and the damage caused exceeds 6,000 pesos.

• 3. By prision mayor:

• A.L.F./N.O.S.


◦ (a) If the value of the damage caused in the case mentioned in paragraphs (a), (c), and (d) in the next preceding subdivision does not exceed 6,000 pesos; (b) If a building not used as a dwelling or place of assembly, located in a populated place, is set on fire, and the damage caused exceeds 6,000 pesos;

• 4. By prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period:

•

◦ (a) If a building used as dwelling located in an uninhabited place is set on fire and the damage caused exceeds 1,000 pesos; (b) If the value or the damage caused in the case mentioned in paragraphs (c) and (d) of subdivision 2 of this article does not exceed 200 pesos.

• 5. By prision correccional in its medium period to prision mayor in its minimum period, when the damage caused is over 200 pesos but does not exceed 1,000 pesos, and the property referred to in paragraph (a) of the preceding subdivision is set on fire; but when the value of such property does not exceed 200 pesos, the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed in this subdivision shall be imposed. 6. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the damage caused in the case mentioned in paragraph (b) of subdivision 3 of this article does not exceed 6,000 pesos but is over 200 pesos. 7. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the damage caused in the case mentioned paragraph (b) subdivision 3 of this article does not exceed 200 pesos. 8. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine ranging from fifty to one hundred per centum if the damage caused shall be imposed, when the property burned consists of grain fields, pasture lands, forests, or plantations when the value of such property does not exceed 200 pesos. (As amended by R.A. 5467, approved May 12, 1969). Paul IV D


Art. 322. Cases of arson not included in the preceding articles. — Cases of arson not included in the next preceding articles shall be punished:

• 1. By arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods, when the damage caused does not exceed 50 pesos; 2. By arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, when the damage caused is over 50 pesos but does not exceed 200 pesos; 3. By prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the damage caused is over 200 pesos but does not exceed 1,000 pesos; and 4. By prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if it is over 1,000 pesos. Art. 323. Arson of property of small value. — The arson of any uninhabited hut, storehouse, barn, shed, or any other property the value of which does not exceed 25 pesos, committed at a time or under circumstances which clearly exclude all danger of the fire spreading, shall not be punished by the penalties respectively prescribed in this chapter, but in accordance with the damage caused and under the provisions of the following chapter. Art. 324. Crimes involving destruction. — Any person who shall cause destruction by means of explosion, discharge of electric current, inundation, sinking or stranding of a vessel, intentional damaging of the engine of said vessel, taking up the rails from a railway track, maliciously changing railway signals for the safety of moving trains, destroying telegraph wires and telegraph posts, or those of any other system, and, in general, by using any other agency or means of destruction as effective as those above enumerated, shall be punished by reclusion temporal if the commission has endangered the safety of any person, otherwise, the penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed. Art. 325. Burning one's own property as means to commit arson. — Any person guilty of arson or causing great destruction A.L.F./N.O.S.


of the property belonging to another shall suffer the penalties prescribed in this chapter, even though he shall have set fire to or destroyed his own property for the purposes of committing the crime. Art. 326. Setting fire to property exclusively owned by the offender. — If the property burned shall be the exclusive property of the offender, he shall be punished by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, if the arson shall have been committed for the purpose of defrauding or causing damage to another, or prejudice shall actually have been caused, or if the thing burned shall have been a building in an inhabited place. Art. 326-A. In cases where death resulted as a consequence of arson. — If death resulted as a consequence of arson committed on any of the properties and under any of the circumstances mentioned in the preceding articles, the court shall impose the death penalty. Art. 326-B. Prima facie evidence of arson. — Any of the following circumstances shall constitute prima facie evidence of arson:

• 1. If after the fire, are found materials or substances soaked in gasoline, kerosene, petroleum, or other inflammables, or any mechanical, electrical chemical or traces or any of the foregoing. 2. That substantial amount of inflammable substance or materials were stored within the building not necessary in the course of the defendant's business; and 3. That the fire started simultaneously in more than one part of the building or locale under circumstances that cannot normally be due to accidental or unintentional causes: Provided, however, That at least one of the following is present in any of the three above-mentioned circumstances:

◦ (a) That the total insurance carried on the building and/or goods is more than 80 per cent of the value of such building and/or goods at the time of the fire; (b) That the defendant after the fire has presented a fraudulent claim for loss.

Paul IV D


The penalty of prision correccional shall be imposed on one who plants the articles above-mentioned, in order to secure a conviction, or as a means of extortion or coercion. (As amended by R.A. 5467, approved May 12, 1969). Chapter Nine MALICIOUS MISCHIEF Art. 327. Who are liable for malicious mischief. — Any person who shall deliberately cause the property of another any damage not falling within the terms of the next preceding chapter shall be guilty of malicious mischief. Art. 328. Special cases of malicious mischief. — Any person who shall cause damage to obstruct the performance of public functions, or using any poisonous or corrosive substance; or spreading any infection or contagion among cattle; or who cause damage to the property of the National Museum or National Library, or to any archive or registry, waterworks, road, promenade, or any other thing used in common by the public, shall be punished:

• 1. By prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the damage caused exceeds 1,000 pesos; 2. By arresto mayor, if such value does not exceed the abovementioned amount but it is over 200 pesos; and 3. By arresto menor, in such value does not exceed 200 pesos. Art. 329. Other mischiefs. — The mischiefs not included in the next preceding article shall be punished:

• 1. By arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods, if the value of the damage caused exceeds 1,000 pesos; 2. By arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if such value is over 200 pesos but does not exceed 1,000 pesos; and 3. By arresto menor or fine of not less than the value of the damage caused and not more than 200 pesos, if the amount involved does not exceed 200 pesos or cannot be estimated. A.L.F./N.O.S.


Art. 330. Damage and obstruction to means of communication. — The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon any person who shall damage any railway, telegraph or telephone lines. If the damage shall result in any derailment of cars, collision or other accident, the penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed, without prejudice to the criminal liability of the offender for the other consequences of his criminal act. For the purpose of the provisions of the article, the electric wires, traction cables, signal system and other things pertaining to railways, shall be deemed to constitute an integral part of a railway system. Art. 331. Destroying or damaging statues, public monuments or paintings. — Any person who shall destroy or damage statues or any other useful or ornamental public monument shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period. Any person who shall destroy or damage any useful or ornamental painting of a public nature shall suffer the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court. Chapter Ten EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY IN CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY Art. 332. Persons exempt from criminal liability. — No criminal, but only civil liability, shall result from the commission of the crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by the following persons:

• 1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line. 2. The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the deceased spouse before the same shall have passed into the possession of another; and 3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together. Paul IV D


The exemption established by this article shall not be applicable to strangers participating in the commission of the crime. Title Eleven CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY Chapter One ADULTERY AND CONCUBINAGE Art. 333. Who are guilty of adultery. — Adultery is committed by any married woman who shall have sexual intercourse with a man not her husband and by the man who has carnal knowledge of her knowing her to be married, even if the marriage be subsequently declared void. Adultery shall be punished by prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods. If the person guilty of adultery committed this offense while being abandoned without justification by the offended spouse, the penalty next lower in degree than that provided in the next preceding paragraph shall be imposed. Art. 334. Concubinage. — Any husband who shall keep a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, or shall have sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife, or shall cohabit with her in any other place, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods. The concubine shall suffer the penalty of destierro. Chapter Two RAPE AND ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS Art. 335. When and how rape is committed. — REPEALED Art. 336. Acts of lasciviousness. — Any person who shall commit any act of lasciviousness upon other persons of either sex, under any of the circumstances mentioned in the preceding article, shall be

A.L.F./N.O.S.


punished by prision correccional.

Chapter Three SEDUCTION, CORRUPTION OF MINORS AND WHITE SLAVE TRADE Art. 337. Qualified seduction. — The seduction of a virgin over twelve years and under eighteen years of age, committed by any person in public authority, priest, homeservant, domestic, guardian, teacher, or any person who, in any capacity, shall be entrusted with the education or custody of the woman seduced, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods. The penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed upon any person who shall seduce his sister or descendant, whether or not she be a virgin or over eighteen years of age. Under the provisions of this Chapter, seduction is committed when the offender has carnal knowledge of any of the persons and under the circumstances described herein.

__________________________________ Art. 338. Simple seduction. — The seduction of a woman who is single or a widow of good reputation, over twelve but under eighteen years of age, committed by means of deceit, shall be punished by arresto mayor.

Art. 339. Acts of lasciviousness with the consent of the offended party. — The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed to punish any other acts of lasciviousness committed by the same persons and the same circumstances as those provided in Articles 337 and 338. Art. 340. Corruption of minors. — Any person who shall promote or facilitate the prostitution or corruption of persons underage to satisfy the lust of another, shall be punished by prision mayor, and if the culprit is a pubic officer or employee, including those in government-owned or controlled corporations, he shall also suffer the penalty of temporary absolute disqualification. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 92). Art. 341. White slave trade. — The penalty of prision mayor in its medium and maximum period shall be imposed upon any person who, in any manner, or under any Paul IV D


pretext, shall engage in the business or shall profit by prostitution or shall enlist the services of any other for the purpose of prostitution (As amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 186.)

Chapter Four ABDUCTION Art. 342. Forcible abduction. — The abduction of any woman against her will and with lewd designs shall be punished by reclusion temporal. The same penalty shall be imposed in every case, if the female abducted be under twelve years of age. Art. 343. Consented abduction. — The abduction of a virgin over twelve years and under eighteen years of age, carried out with her consent and with lewd designs, shall be punished by the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods. Chapter Five PROVISIONS RELATIVE TO THE PRECEDING CHAPTERS OF TITLE ELEVEN Art. 344. Prosecution of the crimes of adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, rape and acts of lasciviousness. — The crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse. The offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution without including both the guilty parties, if they are both alive, nor, in any case, if he shall have consented or pardoned the offenders. The offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness, shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her parents, grandparents, or guardian, nor, in any case, if the offender has been expressly pardoned by the above named persons, as the case may be. In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape, the marriage of the offender with the offended party shall A.L.F./N.O.S.


extinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty already imposed upon him. The provisions of this paragraph shall also be applicable to the co-principals, accomplices and accessories after the fact of the above-mentioned crimes. Art. 345. Civil liability of persons guilty of crimes against chastity. — Person guilty of rape, seduction or abduction, shall also be sentenced:

• 1. To indemnify the offended woman. 2. To acknowledge the offspring, unless the law should prevent him from so doing. 3. In every case to support the offspring. The adulterer and the concubine in the case provided for in Articles 333 and 334 may also be sentenced, in the same proceeding or in a separate civil proceeding, to indemnify for damages caused to the offended spouse. Art. 346. Liability of ascendants, guardians, teachers, or other persons entrusted with the custody of the offended party. — The ascendants, guardians, curators, teachers and any person who, by abuse of authority or confidential relationships, shall cooperate as accomplices in the perpetration of the crimes embraced in chapters, second, third and fourth, of this title, shall be punished as principals.chan robles virtual law library Teachers or other persons in any other capacity entrusted with the education and guidance of youth, shall also suffer the penalty of temporary special disqualification in its maximum period to perpetual special disqualification. Any person falling within the terms of this article, and any other person guilty of corruption of minors for the benefit of another, shall be punished by special disqualification from filling the office of guardian. Title Twelve CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVIL STATUS OF PERSONS Paul IV D


Chapter one SIMULATION OF BIRTHS AND USURPATION OF CIVIL STATUS Art. 347. Simulation of births, substitution of one child for another and concealment or abandonment of a legitimate child. — The simulation of births and the substitution of one child for another shall be punished by prision mayor and a fine of not exceeding 1,000 pesos. The same penalties shall be imposed upon any person who shall conceal or abandon any legitimate child with intent to cause such child to lose its civil status. Any physician or surgeon or public officer who, in violation of the duties of his profession or office, shall cooperate in the execution of any of the crimes mentioned in the two next preceding paragraphs, shall suffer the penalties therein prescribed and also the penalty of temporary special disqualification. Art. 348. Usurpation of civil status. — The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall usurp the civil status of another, should he do so for the purpose of defrauding the offended part or his heirs; otherwise, the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed. Chapter Two ILLEGAL MARRIAGES Art. 349. Bigamy. — The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall contract a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings. Art. 350. Marriage contracted against provisions of laws. — The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon any person who, without being included in the provisions of the next proceeding article, shall have not been complied with

A.L.F./N.O.S.


or that the marriage is in disregard of a legal impediment. If either of the contracting parties shall obtain the consent of the other by means of violence, intimidation or fraud, he shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty provided in the next preceding paragraph. Art. 351. Premature marriages. — Any widow who shall marry within three hundred and one day from the date of the death of her husband, or before having delivered if she shall have been pregnant at the time of his death, shall be punished by arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos. The same penalties shall be imposed upon any woman whose marriage shall have been annulled or dissolved, if she shall marry before her delivery or before the expiration of the period of three hundred and one day after the legal separation. Art. 352. Performance of illegal marriage ceremony. — Priests or ministers of any religious denomination or sect, or civil authorities who shall perform or authorize any illegal marriage ceremony shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the Marriage Law. Title Thirteen CRIMES AGAINST HONOR Chapter One LIBEL Section One. — Definitions, forms, and punishment of this crime. Art. 353. Definition of libel. — A libel is public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. Art. 354. Requirement for publicity. — Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no Paul IV D


good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown, except in the following cases:

• 1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty; and 2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions. Art. 355. Libel means by writings or similar means. — A libel committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to the civil action which may be brought by the offended party. Art. 356. Threatening to publish and offer to present such publication for a compensation. — The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to 2,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who threatens another to publish a libel concerning him or the parents, spouse, child, or other members of the family of the latter or upon anyone who shall offer to prevent the publication of such libel for a compensation or money consideration. Art. 357. Prohibited publication of acts referred to in the course of official proceedings. — The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine of from 20 to 2,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any reporter, editor or manager or a newspaper, daily or magazine, who shall publish facts connected with the private life of another and offensive to the honor, virtue and reputation of said person, even though said publication be made in connection with or under the pretext that it is necessary in the narration of any judicial

A.L.F./N.O.S.


or administrative proceedings wherein such facts have been mentioned. Art. 358. Slander. — Oral defamation shall be punished by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period if it is of a serious and insulting nature; otherwise the penalty shall be arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos. Art. 359. Slander by deed. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall perform any act not included and punished in this title, which shall cast dishonor, discredit or contempt upon another person. If said act is not of a serious nature, the penalty shall be arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos. Section Two. — General provisions Art. 360. Persons responsible. — Any person who shall publish, exhibit, or cause the publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing or by similar means, shall be responsible for the same. The author or editor of a book or pamphlet, or the editor or business manager of a daily newspaper, magazine or serial publication, shall be responsible for the defamations contained therein to the same extent as if he were the author thereof. The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written defamations as provided for in this chapter, shall be filed simultaneously or separately with the court of first instance of the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published or where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense: Provided, however, That where one of the offended parties is a public officer whose office is in the City of Manila at the time of the commission of the offense, the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila, or of the city or province where the libelous article is printed and first published, and in case Paul IV D


such public officer does not hold office in the City of Manila, the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where he held office at the time of the commission of the offense or where the libelous article is printed and first published and in case one of the offended parties is a private individual, the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where he actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense or where the libelous matter is printed and first published: Provided, further, That the civil action shall be filed in the same court where the criminal action is filed and vice versa: Provided, furthermore, That the court where the criminal action or civil action for damages is first filed, shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts: And, provided, finally, That this amendment shall not apply to cases of written defamations, the civil and/or criminal actions which have been filed in court at the time of the effectivity of this law. Preliminary investigation of criminal action for written defamations as provided for in the chapter shall be conducted by the provincial or city fiscal of the province or city, or by the municipal court of the city or capital of the province where such action may be instituted in accordance with the provisions of this article. No criminal action for defamation which consists in the imputation of a crime which cannot be prosecuted de oficio shall be brought except at the instance of and upon complaint expressly filed by the offended party. (As amended by R.A. 1289, approved June 15, 1955, R.A. 4363, approved June 19, 1965). Art. 361. Proof of the truth. — In every criminal prosecution for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the court and if it appears that the matter charged as libelous is true, and, moreover, that it was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the defendants shall be acquitted. A.L.F./N.O.S.


Proof of the truth of an imputation of an act or omission not constituting a crime shall not be admitted, unless the imputation shall have been made against Government employees with respect to facts related to the discharge of their official duties. In such cases if the defendant proves the truth of the imputation made by him, he shall be acquitted. Art. 362. Libelous remarks. — Libelous remarks or comments connected with the matter privileged under the provisions of Article 354, if made with malice, shall not exempt the author thereof nor the editor or managing editor of a newspaper from criminal liability. Chapter Two INCRIMINATORY MACHINATIONS Art. 363. Incriminating innocent person. — Any person who, by any act not constituting perjury, shall directly incriminate or impute to an innocent person the commission of a crime, shall be punished by arresto menor. Art. 364. Intriguing against honor. — The penalty of arresto menor or fine not exceeding 200 pesos shall be imposed for any intrigue which has for its principal purpose to blemish the honor or reputation of a person. Title Fourteen QUASI-OFFENSES Sole Chapter CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE Art. 365. Imprudence and negligence. — Any person who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it been intentional, would constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its medium period; if it would have constituted a less grave felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods shall be imposed; if it Paul IV D


would have constituted a light felony, the penalty of arresto menor in its maximum period shall be imposed. Any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall commit an act which would otherwise constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods; if it would have constituted a less serious felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed. When the execution of the act covered by this article shall have only resulted in damage to the property of another, the offender shall be punished by a fine ranging from an amount equal to the value of said damages to three times such value, but which shall in no case be less than twenty-five pesos. A fine not exceeding two hundred pesos and censure shall be imposed upon any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall cause some wrong which, if done maliciously, would have constituted a light felony. In the imposition of these penalties, the court shall exercise their sound discretion, without regard to the rules prescribed in Article sixty-four. The provisions contained in this article shall not be applicable:

• 1. When the penalty provided for the offense is equal to or lower than those provided in the first two paragraphs of this article, in which case the court shall impose the penalty next lower in degree than that which should be imposed in the period which they may deem proper to apply. 2. When, by imprudence or negligence and with violation of the Automobile Law, to death of a person shall be caused, in which case the defendant shall be punished by prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods. Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but without malice, doing or falling to do an act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing of failing to perform such act, taking into consideration his employment or A.L.F./N.O.S.



occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and other circumstances regarding persons, time and place. Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution displayed in those cases in which the damage impending to be caused is not immediate nor the danger clearly manifest. The penalty next higher in degree to those provided for in this article shall be imposed upon the offender who fails to lend on the spot to the injured parties such help as may be in this hand to give. (As amended by R.A. 1790, approved June 21, 1957).

Paul IV D

A.L.F./N.O.S.

CRIM+II Transcript Peralta

Recommend Documents