CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY/SECURITY

KIDNAPPING & SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION (Art. 267) I. Offender: Private individual. II. Acts: Detains/ Kidnaps another/deprives him of his liberty - lasted more than 3 days (Sec. 8-RA 7659) - simulate public authority - Ser. PI inflicted/ threats to kill - Person detained is a female (Pp.vs. Leganes66 SCRA 210), pub. autho. (Pp. vs. Mundo-114 SCRA 719), minor (exc. parents) Death if the purpose : -extort ransom -victim is killed/raped/tortured/dehuma nized (Ransom detained to pay hospital bills-Pp. vs. Akiranl966) Confinement need not be permanent as long as it is present (no lock-up) Transitory crime Parulan vs. Ruedas Pp. vs. Ruben Ablaza- Oct. 31, l969. SLIGHT ILLEGAL DETENTION (Art 268) Offender- Priv. Indiv. II. Acts; detains/kidnap s/deprive of liberty - w/o condition III. Pen.- RT Same pen. for person who furnish the place for the perpetration of the crime. Mitigated if released w/n 3 days before inst. of complaint and without him attaining his purpose. I. UNLAWFUL ARREST (Art. 269) I. II. Offender- Priv. Indiv/Pub. Officer. Act: arrest/detain without legal ground with the purpose of delivering him to the proper authorities. KIDNAPPING AND FAILURE TO RETURN A MINOR (Art. 270) I. Offender: Person entrusted with the custody of minor II. Acts: fail delib. to return the minor to his parents/ Guardians (minor 21 yrs. old ) Delib. Failure - Pp. vs. Ty l0/l996(premeditated , obstinate, maliciously done).

Further discussion re: Kidnapping & Serious Illegal Detention: For kidnapping to exist, there must be indubitable proof that the actual intent was to deprive the victim of her liberty and not when such restraint of freedom was merely an incident in the commission of another crime (P. vs. Puno Feb. l993). If the purpose is to kill crime is Murder- kidnapping was only incidental Pp.vs. Marajas April l993 the fact alone that ransom of money was demanded would not per se qualify it as Kidnapping & Ser. Illeg. Detention, unless the victim is actually restrained or deprived of his liberty for some appreciable period of time or such restraint was the basic intent of the accused. Pp. vs. Sinoc July l997 84 SCAD plan was not to kidnap & deprive Viacrucis of his liberty but to steal his Pajero, which resulted to his killing- Robbery with Homicide not Kidnapping. Ransom- money, price, consideration paid or demanded for redemption of a captured person/payment for his release; payment for hospital bills; payment for rent; payment for debt; payment for the release of one in captivity. Poked a gun and asked money Robbery Distinction bt. Kidnapping and Abduction in the latter, there is lewd designs. Parents cannot be held liable for violation of Art. 267- under RA 7659 There is an Attempted Stage in Kidnapping & Ser. Illeg. Detention Pp. vs. dela Cruz85 SCAD Accused held the victims hand and refused to let go, seen by their neighbor stopped the act.

Pp.vs. Bernal June l997 83 SCAD & Pp. vs. Larranaga disappearance of the victim in kidnapping does not negate criminal liability, otherwise, it would just be expedient for then to hide the body of the victim. Article 271. Inducing A Minor to Abandon His Home : 1) Offender : Any person 2) Act: Induce a minor to abandon home of his parents or guardian or person entrusted with his custody; 3) Pen PC & a Fine not exceeding P700.00 If the offenders in the two preceding articles are the parents (F or M of the minor) Pen - AMayor or a Fine not exceeding P300.00. ( Note the error: two preceding articles Articles 269 and 270 totally unrelated (Article 269 Unlawful Arrest). Article 272 Slavery: 1) Offender Any person 2) Act: purchase, sell-kidnap or detain a human being for the purpose or enslaving him; 3) Pen PM - & a Fine not exceeding P10,000.00 Purpose to assign the offended party to immoral traffic pen. max. Article 273 Exploitation of Child Labor reimbursing debt incurred of asc., guardian, person entrusted with custody retain him in his service against his will. Article 274: Services rendered under compulsion in payment of debt _ 1) Offender -any person 2) Act: require or enforce the payment of a debt

compel the debtor to work for him against his will as a household servant or farm laborer. Arts. 275. 276 & 277 (covered under PD 603, as amended)

Art. 280 Trespass to Dwelling 1) Offender priv. person 2) Act: entered into the dwelling of another, against the will of the owner; 3)Pen- AMayor & Fine not exceeding P1,000

Qualified Trespass to Dwelling 1) Offender priv. person 2) Act: entered into the dwelling of another Entry by means of violence or intimidation (anterior or coetaneous with the entry- not after) 3) Pen- PC- med max. & a Fine not exceeding P1,000 Violence (Calon) can be committed not only against person but also on things adopted by the SC in the case of Pp. vs. Tayag- 59 Phil 606 loosening the bars of the door by a bolo or screw driver. US vs. Lindio l0 Phil l92cutting a ribbon w/ which a door latch is fastened.

Art. 281 -Trespass to Property 1) Offender- priv. person 2) Act: entered a closed premises, fenced estate, uninhabited ; Manifest prohibition (no trespassing)

Against the will expressly or impliedly Dwelling place that a person inhabits, includes dependencies w/c have interior communication with the house (ex. Hotel rm, lodging house , boarding house) Entry to the house is with

another purpose, but is not yet CA Pp vs. Coronel GR No. known or committed T to D- if 5322- violence applies only to the other crime is already persons. committed T to D-becomes agg. circ. Pp. vs. Lamahang not Attempted Rob. but Att. Trespass To Dwelling. Fraudulent entrance prohibition entry made at nighttime & not at the entrance. If the offender enters with consent, asked to leave, he refused not T to D. (US vs. Dionisio -)

Trespass can be committed by owner (if the dwelling is leased ) Proprietary rights is not what is being protected, but the privacy of ones dwelling ( Pp. vs. Almeda 75 Phil 476)

Distinction bt. Viol. of Domicile and Trespass to Dwelling:

Viol. Of Domicile

Trespass to Dwelling priv. person against the will ) ) absent )

1) Offender pub. official 2) Purpose: a) entrance against the will, without judl . order b) search w/o consent c) refuse to leave when asked to do so after having surreptitiously entered Exceptions:

1) entrance is to prevent serious harm to himself, occupants of the dwelling, or a third person; 2) rendering service to humanity or justice; & 3) enter cafes, taverns, inns and other public houses , while the same are open.

Article 282 Grave Threats 1)Offender: Any person 2) Act: Threaten another upon his person, honor or property, infliction of a wrong amounting to a crime-

Article 283- Light Threats Threats not constituting a crimePen AMayor (same conditions as in no. 1

Article 285 Other Light Threats 1) Threaten another w/ a weapon/ draw such weapon in a quarrel (unless it be in lawful self-defense);

penalty is one degree lower to the crime committed if: there is demand for money; - imposing any other condition not unlawful attained his purpose; - not attained his purpose (2 degree lower); - if made in writing or through a middle man (pen. Max)ex. Skulls - without condition AMayor THREAT is a declaration of an intention or determination to injure another by the commission upon his person, property or honor or that of his family of some wrong w/c may or may not amount to a crime. Ex. 1) I will kill you. 2) Give me money or I will burn your house. 3) Give me money or I will kill your wife. 4) Give me money or I will cause the publication of your pictures having sex with me.

Ex. Blackmail I will report you to the BIR if you will not give me money. I will file a disbarment case, if you will not give me money.

2) orally threaten another w/ some harm, w/c constitutes a crime & uttered in the heat of anger (error not constituting a crime) 3) orally threaten another of any harm not constituting a felony. Pen. A Menor or a Fine not exceeding P200

Distinction between the 3 kinds of Threats: 1) Grave & Light Threats the wrong threatened amounts to a crime w/c may or may not be accompanied by any condition (C +/- C). In Light Threats, the wrong threatened does not amount to a crime but is always accompanied with a condition ( NC + C). 2) Between Light Threats & Other Light Threats- In Light Threats, the threat does not amount to a crime and there is a demand for conditions,(NC + C) ; in Other Light Threats, the wrong does not amount to a crime & there is no demand for money or other conditions (NC + NC). Berg vs. National City Bank of New York -102 Phil. 309, 316threats to file criminal charges is not improper. This is w/n the realm of the law as a means to enforce collection.

Article 288- Other sim. Coercions- Compulsory purchase of merchandise and payment of wages by means of tokens Art. 289 Formation, maintenance and prohibition of combination of capital or labor through violence or threats. Art. 290 Discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence Art. 291- Revealing secrets with abuse of office. Art. 292- Revelation of Industrial secrets.

Light Threats under par. 3 Of Art. 283 in that while both refer to a harm not constituting a felony, the threats embraced in Art. 283 are made in the manner described in par. 1 of Art. 282 regarding Grave Threats; whereas in Art. 285, par. 3, the means is merely oral. Article 286- Grave Coercion 1) Offender any person 2) Act: without authority of law, by means of violence, prevent another from doing something not prohibited by law; - compel him to do something against his will, whether it be right or wrong. Pen Arresto Mayor & a Fine not exceeding P500 If the coercion is committed for the purpose of compelling another to perform any religious act or to prevent him from so doing- pen. next higher in degree. Kinds of Coercion: 1) Preventive the offender uses

violence to prevent the victim from doing what he wants to do; & 2) Compulsive the offender uses violence to compel the offended party to do what he does not want to do. The essence of coercion is an attack on individual liberty.The purpose of the law is to enforce the law. Ex. Acts of 2 policemen in dragging complainant and forcing her to leave the premises of which she was in possession-Grave Coercion (Pp. vs. Caisip, et alNov. 18, l970). In said case, the complainant was also compelled to stop weeding the land. Violence must be immediate, actual or imminent (ex. Threatening attitude by a person who is armed. Person maltreated to obtain a confession is not a prisoner Grave Coercion (if prisoner Maltreatment of Prisoner). Ejecting forcibly a person from his occupation of a house, even if the offender is the owner (Pp. vs.

Article 287- Light Coercion 1) Offender any person 2) Act: By means of violence, shall seize anything belonging to his debtor for the purpose of applying the same to the payment of debt 3) Pen- Arresto Mayor in its min. per. & a Fine equivalent to the value of the thing, but in no case less than 75 pesos. Other coercion Unjust vexation( Arresto Menor or a Fine ranging from 5 to 200 pesos, or both.

Nebreja- 76 Phil. 119). CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY Article 293: Robbery Elements: 1) Personal property belonging to another: - personal property - need not be the owner (possessor) - illicit articles included (US vs. Sani Lim); - naming of the offended party is not essential (exc. in Rob.w/ Hom.) 2) Intent to gain (animo lucrandi)- intent to obtain from the appropriation of the thing some utility, advantage or benefit; - taking under the claim of ownership- negates intent of gain (Manluco cs. ) - exist prior, simultaneous or co- etaneously; 3) Unlawful taking (asportation)

Approp. a thing belonging to another and placing it under ones control or possession (permanent); if not permanent- taking a gun to threaten another, Grave Threats. 4) Violence against or intimidation Upon person/force upon things.

Article 294- Robbery w/violence or intimidation upon person (RA 7659): 1) RP-D- accompanied w/ Hom. Rape, Intl. Mutilation or Arson (Special complex crime not ordinary complex crime (Art. 48) Hom. can be before, during or after by reason or on occasion of the robbery; both be consummated (Pp. vs. CamatApril l994). Irrespective of the no. of death (Pp. vs. Dulatre-248 SCRA & Pp. vs. Visas- 232 SCRA). Person killed can be victim, bystander or robbers themselves (Pp. vs. Calixtro -123 SCRA 369) If the purpose is to kill, rob was after- thought two crimes;

If the robbery is accompanied by a no. of killings, will the other homicides be considered aggravating circs? No- Pp. vs. Regala settled this issue. The court ruled that no law provides that the addl. rapes or homicides should be considered as aggravating circs. The enumeration of aggrav. circs. under Art. 14 is exclusive unlike in Art. 13, where there are analogous circs. (Pp. vs. Gano 144 SCAD).

Distinction bt. Art. 48 (Complex crime) and special complex crime: 1) Art. 48 one crime is a means of committing another or where a single act results to 2 or more offenses; SCC not necessary means to

commit another; 2) Art. 48 pen- which crime carries a higher penalty & apply it in the max. SCC there is a fixed penalty. Robbery w/ Arson inflicted violence upon the victim and then the premises are burned.

Rape special complex crimeboth consummated (Pp.vs. Sandig) Rape can be before, during and after (enough- accompanied the rob) (Possession of the things taken presumption that he is the taker) 2) RT med to RP Art. 263- par. 1- insane, imbecile, impotent or blind; 3) RT Art. 263-par. 2 loss of vital parts; 4) PM max to RT Art. 263-pars. 3&4 5) PC max to PM medinflicting of violence/ intim. (creating fear in the mind of the victim. Pars. 1 & 2 H, R, IM, SPI by reason of; Pars. 3 & 4 during (absence of by reason of) Special complex crimes: 1) Rob. w/ Hom. 2) Rob. w/ Rape 3) Rob w/ Int. Mutilation

4) Rob. w/ Arson 5) Rob w/ Phys. Inju. 6) Rob. w/ unnec. viol. (except par. 5 (simple robbery) not complex. This order should be observed if the victim of robbery is killed and raped (Rob w/ Hom rape is agg.- no Rob. w/ Hom and Rape). Pp.vs. Salazar Rob w/ Hom By reason of or on the occasion of the robbery, a person is killedAug. l999- 85 SCAD. Hom- is used in the generic sense (include even if the victim was killed with the presence of circs. that would make it murder)- Pp. vs. Esperraguerra-248 SCRA (Include- Parricide & Infanticide). In this case, the main purpose is robbery, hence it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, otherwise, if a person is killed and the rob. was not proven, crime would only be Hom. or murder (Pp. vs. Evardo Dec. l992) Robbery with Hom. is a crime against property & not against person, as Homicide is merely

incidental to the Robbery. Pp. vs. Lago June, 2001 l49 SCAD- All those who took part in the Robbery will also be held liable in the special complex crime of Rob w/ Hom. even if they did not take part in the killing, unless, it can be shown that they endeavored to prevent the homicide. Value of the stolen item is not material in the criminal case, but only in the civil aspect (Pp. vs. Martinez June, l997- 83 SCAD)

ii) Article 299 - Robbery W/ Force Upon Things Robbery in an inhabited house, public building or edifice devoted to religious worship (Art. 301-inhabited house means shelter, ship, vessel constituting the dwelling of one or more persons, even tho the inhabitants thereof are temporarily absent & dependencies of inhabited house (garage must have connections w/ the house). All interior courts, corrals, warehouse, granaries, barns, coach-houses, stables or other depts., or inclosed places contiguous to the building or edifice, having an interior entrance connected therewith and w/c form part of the whole). Public building bldg. owned by the govt.

Orchards used for cultivation of production even if with connections not included Pen. If armed & value exceeds P250.00 RT If armed - amt. does not exceed P250.00 PM If not armed amt. exceeds P250.00 PM If not armed amt does not exc. P250.00Two degrees lower min. period A) 1) Enter: 1) through an opening not intended for entrance (window) 2) Breaking any wall, roof, floor/ breaking any door(outside door), window Prying or sliding door move it Not rob. (Pp. vs. Flores & Pp. vs Fernandez) 3) Use of picklocks, false keys or similar tools. (mode of entering the house (not opening a trunk Macamay case). 4) Using fictitious names or pretending to exercise public authority. Basis entering. The whole body must be inside. (if not only Theft). Entering denotes that the entire body must have gone inside. Offenders used constructive force. If he enters through the window no need of breaking it (constructive force). If in the process of breaking the door only the lock is destroyed still robbery bec. the door would be useless without it.

As to simulation of authority must be done before entry, as this should be a mode of entry, otherwise it would only be Theft. B) Breaking doors, wardrobes, chests, or any kind of locked or sealed/closed furniture, receptacle (entrance was w/o force). This refers to doors of portable receptacle or drawer). Entry was w/o constructive force, while inside he extract personal property, actual force is required. There must be actual breaking of doors, walls, etc. If picklock is used, only Theft. C) Taking such furniture or objects away to be broken or forced open outside the place of rob (items must be taken outside of the house to be broken outside) If the rob. is committed in any of the dependencies of the inhabited house, public bldg., or bldg. dedicated to religious worship, pen- is next lower in degree than imposed in the preceding pars. If the offender is a family member who broke a receptacle inside to take the property of his housemate, the crime is Robbery w/ Force Upon Things, not Qualified Theft because what qualifies the taking is the force upon things. Robbery is committed not only by outsiders but also by household members. When the taker is a domestic servant, the crime is Qualified Theft

under Art. 310, unless the taking is characterized w/ violence. If both are present Rob. w/ violence and Rob. w/ Force- which will prevail? U.S. vs. Baluyot Rob. w/ violence bec. life is more impt. than property. Napolis vs. CA Complex crime (Art. 48) Distinction between Robbery w/ violence & Robbery w/ Force: Robbery w/ violence taking is complete when the offender has already the possession of the thing even if he has no opportunity to dispose it; Robbery w/ force consummated only if the thing is already brought outside the bldg. Article 295. Robbery with Physical Injuries, committed in an uninhabited place & by a band, or w/ the use of FA, on a street, road or alley if the offenses mentioned in subdivs. 3, 4 & 5 of the next preceding article shall have been committed in an uninhabited place or by a band or by attacking a moving train, street car, motor vehicle or airship, or by entering the passengers compartments in a train or, 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 max. per. of the proper penalties. (Higher pen. for the leader of the band).

Art. 296 -Def. of a band- more than three armed persons ( Am. by RA 8294) All will be liable unless one made an attempt to prevent it. Art. 297 Att. or Frust. Rob. w/ Hom. RT in its max. per. to RP, unless the Hom. carries a higher pen. (Spec. complex crime) Art. 298 Exec. of deeds by means of violence or intimAny person, who with intent to defraud another by means of viol. or intim. shall compel him to sign, execute or deliver any public instrument or document, - liable for Robbery Art. 300- Rob. in an uninhabited place & by a band Max. per. of the penalty provided. Art. 302- Robbery in an uninhabited place or private bldg-value exc. 250.00 p- PC in its med per. & max. -value does not exc. 250 pen. Next lower 1) . If entrance has been effected through and opening not intended for entrance or egress. 2) If any wall, roof, floor, or outside door or window has been broken. 3) If the entrance has been effected through the use of false keys, picklocks or sim. tools. 4) If any door, wardrobe, chest, or any sealed or closed furniture or receptacle has been broken. 5) If any closed or sealed receptacle has been removed, even if the same be broken

open elsewhere. mail matters or large cattles - - pen. next higher.

Art. 303- Rob cereals, fruits or firewood in uninhabited place pen. next lower in degree. Art. 304- Possession of picklocks or sim. tools Any person who shall without lawful cause have in his poss. picklocks or sim. tools, specially adopted to the commission of the crime of robbery pen. AMayor in its max per. to PC in its min. per. - same pen. for the maker. - Locksmith PC in its med to max per. Art. 305- False keys: 1) Tools mentioned in the next preceding par. 2) Genuine keys stolen from the owner 3) Keys other than those intended by the owner for use in the lock forcibly opened by the offender. Poss. of picklocks Art. 304- crime by itself When used in rob- absorbed Art. 304- does not include stolen keys Difference bt. Robbery & Grave Threats: 1) R- intimidation is actual & immediate T- intimidation is conditional & future 2) R- intimidation is personal T- through intermediary

3) R- personal property T- honor, person or property 4) R- damage is imminent T- is not. Similarities : 1) Intimidation upon person 2) Purpose to obtain money Distinguish it from Coercion In coercion no intent to gain Art. 310- Qualified Theft: 1) Domestic servant- the offended parties could be: master, guest, third person; - include room boys - if stranger conspires Simple Theft 2) Abuse of confidence- determined from the trust entrusted by the offended party to the offender; or by the nature of the work of the offender, w/c involves trust and confidence; arises from the relationship. -rel. of theft & confidence that the offender is an employee or laborer of the offended party does not suffice to create the relation of confidence and intimacy required by law to designate the crime as qualified theft. Free access to the place where the taking was committed or to the article stolen is essential. Cariaga vs. CA June 2001 l49 SCAD- a truck driver who steals the load of his driven truck belonging to his employe- Qualified Theft ; the

Art. 308- Theft: 1) Prop. belonging to another: Corporeal / incorp. (capable of appropr.) Illumination gas Theft of electricity ( AntiElectricity Pilferage Act RA 7832) 2) Intent to gain pleasure is included 3) Unlawful taking material occupation of the item Adiao case belt- consummated Pp. vs. Espiritu frustrated (guns) 4) Absence of viol. or intim. 5) Without consent. Included: 1) Finder of a lost prop. fail to deliver to the proper authority; 2) Mal. damaged another persons prop. and remove & make use of its fruits; 3)Enter an enclosed estate where trespass is

forbidden and hunt or fish or gather fruits, cereals or other forest or farm products.

Art. 309 Penalties: Depends on the amount: 1) PM min to med per.- amt. exceeds P12,000 not exceeding P22,000 + 1 yr. for each P10,000 not to exceed 20 yrs. 2) PC-med to max per. amt. exceeds P6,000 Distinguish from Estafa (Article 315) : but does not exceed P12,000; - Theft only material possession is transferred; 3) PC- min to med per. amt. exc. P200 but - Estafa material and juridical possession are does transferred; not exceed P6,000 - Civil case material, juridical & ownership are 4) AMa-med per. to PC in its min per- - value is transferred . over P50 but does not exc. P200; 3) Nature of the items stolen: 5) AMa- full extent- over P5 - not exc. P50 a. motor vehicle (RA 6539 Anti-Carnapping 6) AMa in its min & Med per- value does not Law) exc. P5 b. mail matters 7) AMe or a fine not exc. P200 under circs c. large cattle ( (PD 533) Enumerated in par. 3 (next prec. Art.) value d. coconuts taken from the premises of the - does plantation (protect the development of Not exc. P5 exceeds- any of the above the coconut industry as one of the sources provs of national economy; 8)AMe min per. or a fine not exceeding P50 - unlike rice and sugar cane where the range of vision is unobstructed, coconut value does not exc. P5 acted under an grooves cannot be efficiently watched impulse of bec. of the nature of the growth of the hunger, poverty or difficulty of earning a coconut trees; it will become the favorite livelihood for himself and his family resort of thieves ( Isnain case). e. fish taken from the fishpond or fishery (PD

use of the truck is a generic aggravating circumstance; - Security guards stole from the bonded warehouse they are guarding ( Pp. vs. Reganit); - Sales clerk with authority to enter and remove stocks (Pp.vs Ocampo).

Material possession physical possession refers only to the right to hold or possess; juridical possession is the possession in which the law is protected even against the owner. Juridical possession is the legal right to use the thing.

704 dynamite fishing). If still in the pond when taken even if inside the premises. 4) Timbers smuggled from an illegal cutting of logs in public forests and forest reserves PD 705. Whether or not the lumber comes from a legal source is immaterial because E.O. 277 considers the mere possession of timber or other forest products w/o the proper legal docs. As malum prohibitum ( Pp. vs. Que- 77 SCAD). 5)Prop.- taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoons, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance ( as amended by RA 120) Inspite of the Anti-Carnapping Law and the AntiCattle Rustling Law, there is still Qualified Theft of vehicle or large cattles if they are received not taken, and what is received by the offender is only the material possession. Penalty- two degrees higher than Simple Theft. Circumstances that qualify Theft: 1) Those personal to the offender; 2) Those that refer to the object taken; 3) Circumstances during the taking.

Article 306- Who are brigands-when more than three armed persons form a band of robbers for the purpose of committing robbery in the highway, or kidnapping persons for the purpose of extortion or to obtain ransom, or for any other purpose to be attained by mean of force & violence. Pen- PM in is med. per. to RT in its min. per.

If any of them carry an unlicensed FA presumed robbers or brigands pen. max per. Act is committed by mere conspiracy to commit the act of brigandage. If the robbers in band commit robbery Art. 295 If the robbers kidnapped people Art. 267 Those responsible shall be prosecuted under the said law and penalized accordingly. Purpose our laws on robberies & theft are not enough, thus this provision, whose main objective is to prevent the formation of such bands. (Dacusin case). To sustain a conviction under this article, it must appear that the parties charged with the offense formed a band of robbers for the purpose of stealing properties, by means of force or violence and went out upon the highway armed with deadly weapons for this purpose ( Usis case )

Art. 307 Aiding & abetting a band of brigands any person who will knowingly and in any manner aiding, abetting, or protecting a band of brigands or giving them information of the movement of the police or other peace officers of the Govt. or the forces of the US when the latter is aiding the Phil Govt. or acquiring or receiving the property taken by such brigands . Pen PC in its med per. to PM in its min. per.

Distinguish from PD 532: Article 306- 1) Mere formation of band is punishable; Art. 532: Prohibited act must be committed. 2)Art. 306- There must be 4 armed persons or more; Art. 532- Even one malefactor suffices 3) Art. 306- there is a preconceived; Art. 532- no preconceived victim 4) Art. 306- those who profit from the loot liable under 307( aiding & abetting a band of brigands or as principal offenders for fencing) Art. 532- Those who abet brigandage are accomplices (Sec. 4, PD 532) Art. 311- Theft of the property of the National Library & National Museum Pen. AMa or a Fine ranging from 200 to 500, unless a higher pen. be imposed. Artcle 315- Estafa Any person who shall defraud another by the following means: 1) With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence : Elements : Abuse of confidence & Damage. Actual or real damage not necessary - Disturbance of property rights as long as capable of pecuniary estimation; Reason the penalty in Estafa depends on the amount.

U.S. vs. Goyonechea- 9 Phil. 117- even if the chattel constituting the object of the deception was recovered, there is still damage. Pp. vs. Santiago 54 Phil. 814- if a check payable to cash which was delivered to the accused of his false pretense that he was an agent of a company, as part of payment of the filter which was to be delivered, was not encashed, damage is still present, because the offended party could not dispose of the amount for which it was made out. Lu Huyco vs. CA- August 26, l985- where the petitioners with a special power of attorney, among others, to deposit and withdraw funds in the name of the company but deposited certain sums of money paid by the customers of the company not in the companys bank but in his own bank, is liable of Estafa. Pp. vs. Galsim-L-14577-Feb. 29, l960- if the mortgage executed by the accused to secure a loan as first encumbrance could not be registered since the property was already mortgaged, altho the period of the mortgage had not yet expired, there is damage, which consists in the failure to register the security. Pp. vs. Cura, et al 55 O.G. 9242- where the accused

obtained a loan under a falsified deed of mortgage, but the loan was paid during the stipulated period, there was no damage as there was no disturbance of property rights, but he was held liable for Falsification of Public Document. Pp. vs. Jumauan- L- 28060, Feb. 27, l970- accused as as agent retained the sum of P55.00 from his last collections, since the accuseds commission is in the larger amount of P65.00, due and payable to him for previous collections, had not been paid to him, estafa is not committed because what he retained to him was even less than what was actually due to him from the complainant, who could not claim any damage or prejudice. Abuse of confidence imprudence, covetousness & disloyalty, employed in the taking advantage of the opportunity. Abuse of confidence takes the place of deceit. U.S. vs. Lim- 36 Phil. 382- as long as there is a relation of trust and confidence between the complainant and the accused and even tho such relationship has been induced by the accused through false representations and pretenses and which is continued by active deceit w/o truthfully disclosing the facts to the complainant, the estafa is committed by abuse of confidence although, deceit co-existed

in its commission. a) by altering the substance, quantity, or quality of 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 illegal consideration; The offender in this situation does not receive but delivers a thing under an onerous obligation which is not in accordance with the substance, quality or quantity agreed upon. If the consideration is gratuitous, then there can be no defraudation. ex.- oblig. was to deliver 20,000 bales of hemp, but what was delivered was only 16,000 bales (Mendezona cs); - oblig. was to deliver 20 kilos of shabu, but was delivered was only 10 kilos; - accused by false representations sold to the offended party 1,000 tins of opium but only 16 tins contained opium as the others were filled with sands & molasses ( Pp. vs. Manansala 58 Phil. 796). While it is true that in Civil Law no action can be be filed on an immoral or illegal contract, it is also true that in the realm of the Penal Code, whenever

there are present the essential elements constituting the crime of swindling, namely, fraud or abuse of confidence and damage capable of pecuniary estimation, the party responsible for such fraud or damage cannot escape criminal responsibility even though the offended party consented to the participation in the illegal or immoral transaction (Pp. vs. Romero 35 O.G. 695). 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 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- consignment - conversion unauthorized assumption & exercise of ownership. - misappropriation using the property, money or goods for his own personal benefits. The essence of Estafa through misappropriation is the appropriation or conversion of money or property received to the prejudice of the owner. The words convert & misappropriated connote An act of using or disposing of anothers property

as if it were ones own or devoting it to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon. -accused received jewelries to be sold on commission but failed to return them or their value Estafa. Pp. vs. Reyes- June 30, l971- The lessee who dismantles a house on the leased premises without the knowledge and consent of the lessor or owner thereof, sells the materials and pockets the proceeds thereof, is liable of Estafa. If the accused has the choice or option of returning or of retaining the item, the necessary inference is that he has no duty to return. This was not, therefore, received in trust or on commission or for administration. Sison case accused received a radio on trial for a certain period of time under the condition that he can return it or pay its price on installment, the acc. having chosen to retain the radio, but failed to pay it not estafa, this automatically became a sale. When the relation is purely that of a debtor and creditor not Estafa. Even if the property misappropriated was received by the offender, the misappropriation will constitute Theft and not Estafa where the custody of the property

by the accused was only precarious and for temporary purpose, or for a short period and was merely the effect of such relationship as master and servant, employer and employee or master and domestic involving personal property, the juridical or constructive possession remaining in the owner until the conversion ( Pp. vs. Nicolas July 8, l961). If the immediate return of what has been delivered is not expected the misappropriation is Estafa (U.S. vs. Pascual 10 Phil. 324). 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. Elements: 1) signature of the offended party in blank; 2) delivered to the accused 3) accused wrote above the signature in blank to the prejudice of the offended party. contributed to the commission of the crime shows lesser perversity. 2) By means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud: Elements : Deceit & damage.

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. Purpose- is to defraud, bec. if the purpose is to conceal a crime or evade judgment (Article 178). Cs. of Mr. Duabin falsely representing as a lawyer. Pp. vs. Scott 62 Phil. 533- acc. Pretending to be a magician w/ power to discover hidden treasure. Cornejo vs. Sandiganbayan -152 SCRA 559 Where the acc., a City Public Works Supervisor, by means of deceit falsely rep. himself as duly authorized by reason of his office to inspect privately owned bldg. and by such representation was able to inveigle the offended party to have the floor area if her house & store measured and to have a plan drawn by the acc. for a fee less than that supposedly charged for said services guilty of Estafa Art. 315, par. 4, sub-par. 2 (a) in rel. to Art. 214 of the RPC. b) By altering the quality, fineness or weight of anything pertaining to his art or business. - committed usually by jewelers and silversmiths. - This prov. is limited only to those cases where the alteration of the quality, fineness or weight is made

in a thing received for the purpose of repairing or performing a particular kind of labor thereon. c) By pretending to have bribed any government employee, w/o prejudice to the action for calumny w/c the offended party may deem proper to bring against the offender; Pen. apply in the max. A person who asked a sum of money allegedly for the purpose of bribing a govt. employee for the benefit of the offended party but who thereafter converted the money to his own, commits Estafa under this par. And for the calumny, either libel or slander. d) By postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offended party had no funds in the bank, or his funds deposited 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 payee or holder that said check has been dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act. Elements: 1) a check is drawn or postdated in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check was issued ; 2) there are no sufficient funds to cover the check; and 3) the payee sustains damage (Castro vs.

Mendoza- Sept. l993 44 SCAD) Evidently, the law penalizes the issuance of a check only if it were itself the immediate consideration for the reciprocal receipt of benefits. The check must be issued concurrently with, and in exchange for, a material gain to make it punishable under this article. In Estafa: 1) The check would give rise to it only if it were issued concurrently and reciprocally in payment of the exchange consideration. BP 22 1) Even tho the check was i issued in payment of pre-existing obligation liability is incurred; 2) Damage or deceit is immaterial to criminal liability; 2) Damage to the offended party and deceit of offender are essential elements; 3) Crime against property; 4)Not only the drawer but even the indorsee may incur liability if he was aware at the time of the indorsement of the insufficiency of funds; 5)Drawer is given only 3 days 3) Crime against public interest since the act is penalized bec. of the disastrous effect to the stability of the banking system & prejudice to the economy to the country; 4) Only the drawer is liable & if the drawer was a juridical entity, the officer thereof who signed after notice of dishonor

to make good the cash value to avoid liability 5) Drawer is given 5 days from notice of dishonor to make good 6) Malum in se the cash value thereof 7)Prescriptive per(Art. 92) to avoid criminal liability; depends on the penalty 6) Malum Prohibitum 8)If issued at one time- only one count7) Prescriptive period 4 years under the principle of one criminal (from the time of dishonor); ipulse. 8) One check one count Both Estafa & BP 22 are transitory crimes. ( Pp. vs. Yabut 76 SCRA offender can be prosecuted in any jurisdiction where the offense was in part committed).

check issued in payment of pre-existing obligationnot Estafa. - check issued in payment of a promissory notenot Estafa Pp. vs. Canlas. -Check issued as a guarantee not Estafa Pp. vs. Suarez. Batas Pambansa Blg. 22: An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing and Issuance of a Check Without Sufficient Funds of Credit and for Other Purposes Sec. 1 Any person who makes or draws and issues any check to apply on account or value, knowing at the time of issue that he does not have suffi-

cient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for payment of such check in full upon its presentment, which check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment, shall be punished by imprisonment term of not less than thirty days but not more than one (1) year or by a fine not less than but not more than double the amount of the check which fine shall not exceed P200,000 pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court. Elements of BP 22: 1) Making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply to account or for value; 2) Knowledge of the maker, drawer or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and 3) Subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds, or credit, or dishonor of the check for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment. Penalty for bouncing check Estafa (as am. by PD

818): 1) Over P12,000 but does not exceed P22,000 - RT; w/ additional 1 yr. per P10,000 but not to exceed thirty years; accessory penalty shall not exceed RP; 2) Over P6,000 but does not exceed P12,000PM- max per.; 3) Over P200 but does not exceed P6,000- PM- med per. 4) Amt. does not exceed P200 PM min. Knowledge in the 2nd element involves knowledge on the part of the issuer at the time of the checks issuance that he did not have enough funds or credit in the bank for payment thereof upon its presentment. BP 22 creates a presumption juris tantum that the 2nd element prima facie exists when the 1st and 3rd elements of the offense are present; this is however, rebuttable, if there is evidence to the contrary. The prosecution is still duty bound to prove every element of the offense charged, and not merely rely on a rebuttable presumption (Sycip, Jr. vs. CA March 2000- l23 SCAD). Basis of the presumption bec. this element involves a state of mind, which is difficult to establish. This presumption is also lost, once the drawer received from the bank notice of the unfunded check within five days from issuance (King vs. Pp. Dec. l999 ll6 SCAD). Post-dated check that on the date indicated on its face, the check would be properly funded, not that the check should be deemed as issued only then.

Gravamen of the offense of BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or one that is disdishonored upon its presentment. This is pernicious & inimical to public welfare. Unlike in Estafa, under BP 22, one need not prove that the check was issued in payment of an obligation, or that there was damage. The damage done is to the banking system ( Rosa Lim vs. Pp. Sept. 2000). BP 22 & Estafa are two different crimes treated separately (Uy. vs. CA- 85 SCAD). Can be charged for both, not double jeopardy. BP 22 is a transitory offense validly tried in any Jurisdiction where the offense was in part committed. But knowledge and issuance are considered as one. Included in BP 22 are: 1) Memorandum checks partake the nature of a promissory note. 2) Guarantee payment or collateral check check was issued as a guarantee. Article 316: Other forms of swindling : Pen Ama min & med per. & a fine of not less than the value of the damage caused & not more than 3x such value. 1) Any person who, pretending to be the owner of any real property, shall convey, sell, encumber, or mortgage the same; 2) Any person who, knowing that real prop. Is encumbered, shall dispose of the same, altho such encumbrance be not recorded;

3) The owner of any personal prop. who shall wrongfully take it from its legal 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 service 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 prop/s w/ w/c he guaranteed the fulfillment of such obligation. Mere selling w/o disclosing the encumbrance would not bring Estafa bec. there is no law prohibiting the sale of encumbered prop. What brings about criminal liability is the deceit in selling the prop. And there is no deceit if the seller did not make any warranty in the deed that the property is free from encumbrance. The deed must have a statement of warranty w/c is false to commit the offense. In par. 3- the owner of the personal prop. who shall wrongfully take it from the lawful possessor to the prejudice of the latter or any third person shall be guilty

of this prov. Article 317 - Swindling a minor Article 318 Other Deceits Article 319 Removal, sale or pledge of mortgage prop. Article 320 (amended under PD 1613) Article 327. Malicious Mischief is committed by any person who shall deliberately cause to the prop. of another any damage not falling within the terms of the next prec. chapter. ( Any person who deliberately causes damage to the prop. of another by any act not constituting arson of crimes of destruction, due to hate, revenge or mere pleasure of destroying) Elements: 1) Offender caused damage to the prop. of another; 2) Such damage was caused deliberately, i.e. maliciously; 3) Damage caused does not fall within the provs. penalizing Arson and crimes involving destruction. ( The act of damaging anothers prop. is committed merely for the sake of damaging it - Pp. vs. Bautista). Pen: 1) AMa in its med & max per. value exceeds P1,000; 2) AMa in its min & med per- value is over P200 but does not exceed P1,000; 3) AMe or fine not less than the value of the damage caused & not more than P200 if the amount involved does not exc. P200 or cannot be estimated. Article 328: Special cases of MM: 1) shall cause damage to obstruct the performance

of public functions; 2) using poisonous or corrosive substance; 3) spreading any infection or contagion among cattle; 4) who causes damage to the prop. of the Natl. Museum of Natl.Library, or archive, Registry, waterworks, road, promenade, or any other thing used in common by the public. Pen: 1) PC- in its med & max per value exceeds P1,000 2) AMa- value is over P200 but does not eceed P1,000; 3) AMe value does not exceed P200 -If the intent is to irritate a person not MM but Unjust Vexation; MM is against property, while Unjust Vexation is against feelings or emotions. MM- w/o intent to gain; Theft requires intent to gain. Article 330: - Damage & obstruction to means of communication Article 331: - Destroying or damaging statues, public monuments, or paintings. Article 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 by the ffg.

persons: 1) spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line; 2) widowed spouse w/ respect to the prop. w/c 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. Spouses include common law relationships; Ascendants & descendants include stepparents & stepchildren Brothers or sisters, brothers-in-law or sisters-in-lawliving together( if living within the same compound, not covered, bec. they are living separately) CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY

Article 333: Adultery 1) Offenders - married woman - man knowing the woman to be married (m/s) 2) Act: Sexual intercourse (voluntary) - single sexual contact consummates the crime ( one sexual contact one count) diff. from the action of continuous act- one criminal intent under one criminal impulse(plurality of actions)

- not in Adultery every act perpetrates the crime. - even if the marriage is subsequently annulled 3) Penalty PC in its med. to max period. -Rationale penalizing violation of marriage vows, not introduction of offspring ( even a married woman who can no longer conceive liable). - Attempted Adultery varied opinions - still naked attempted stage Spanish Supreme Court - no Frustrated Adultery- nature of the crime - cannot include other persons no accomplices Mitigating circumstances 1) wife is abandoned pen. I degree lower 2) Art. 62 RPC: -Moral attributes counted only for the offender - concurrence of both accused is necessary - Adultery is a crime of result one carnal knowledge is one count joint physical act acquittal of one does not necessarily lead to the acquittal of the other: exception w- insane m- insane Death of one will not extinguish the crime Left the country Art. 89 RPC Extinguish criminal liability Absolute Pardon

a) Pardon by the Pres. b) Pardon by the Offended party. Pardon by the offended party ( Art. 23 RPC): - given before the institution of the complaint signed by the complainant himself(not information) not after. Established by circumstantial & corroborative evidence- lead to no other conclusion. Proof of actual sexual intercourse is not necessary Incapacity of the offended spouse parents, grandparents, guardian or the State. ( Pp. vs. Ilarde ) Doctrine of Pari Delicto Guinucud case complaining husband entered into an agreement w/ his wife that each of them were to live separately and could marry other persons. Then he filed the complaint only about a year after discovering his wifes infidelity. considered as consented to & acquiesced in, the adulterous relations existing between the accused- not under the doctrine of Pari Delicto. Arroyo, Jr. vs. CA Nov. l991 No agreement bt. The parties to cohabit and marry w/ another person offended spouse immed. filed the complaint upon knowing of the adulterous act of the other spouse. Concept of Pari Delicto is not found in the RPC, but only in the Civil Code under Art 1411, referring to contracts with illegal consideration. Distinction between pardon & consent: Art. 344 RPC is the law on the prosecution of the crimes of Adultery and Concubinage. Adultery cannot be

prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended party. The offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution w/o including both parties, if they are both alive, nor in any case, if he shall have consented or pardoned the offenders. While there is a conceptualized difference between consent and pardon in the sense that consent is given prior to the adulterous act, while pardon is given after both, however must be given prior to the filing of the criminal complaint. Article 334: Concubinage : 1) Offender: Husband Woman, knowing the man to be married 2) Acts: a) keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling b) having sexual intercourse in scandalous circumstance; -include- living in a place, showing as if h & w, going out without caution on criticism and offending to conscience. (includes the circ.- reprehensible word or deed that offends public conscience, redounds to the detriment of the feelings of honest citizen & gave occasion to the neighbors moral damage or ruins Pp. vs. Ceniza) - employment of spies not scandalous Cs. of

Campus Rueda. c.) Cohabit with her in any other place: -cohabit is construed- to dwell or live together as H & W altho not legally married ; to live in the same house; live in the same bed & board. Proof of actual sexual intercourse is not necessary. Penalty - Prision correccional min-med husband Destierro- woman Married man liable for concubinage & adultery if he is married and he is having an affair with a married woman not double jeopardy- different offended party. Article 336: Acts of Lasciviousness: 1) Offender : any person 2) Victim : any person of either sex 3) Acts: 1) use force or intimidation 2) offended party is deprived of reason (hypnotic spell) 3) Under 12 years old 4) Lewdness/lustful- w/o consent or encouragement Under this article acts of lasciviousness committed against a male or female & under the circumstances of rape i.e. w/o consent- rape. In Article 339 acts of lasciviousness are committed under the circumstances of Seduction and the victim is female. Under 12 years old- Child Abuse Law (RA 7610) Pen. is one degree higher.

Article 337:QUALIFIED SEDUCTION - Article 338: SIMPLE SEDUCTION

1) Carnal knowledge - 1) Carnal knowledge 2) Victim: - 2) Victim: a) virgin over 12 but under 18 a) woman-single or widow (virginity not in the physical b) good reputation sense refers to a woman of c) over 12 but under 18 good reputation or chaste cha( widow- under l8- not under racter) presumed if unmarried. the Family Code now-) 3) Offenders: - man - 3) Offenders- any person a) person in public autho. 4) Committed by means of b) priest deceit c) house servant serving w/ ex. Deceit offer of payments marriage; use of d) domestic living in the same promises or perroof (guest) suasion (ex. Telling e) guardian the woman that she f) teacher ( need not be of the same is the best & beautiful school ) & giving her attention g) person entrusted with the education for several months; & custody of the woman seduced giving flowers; per(deceit is not necessary- even if sexual suading the woman intercourse is voluntary) that she will not be - penalized here is abuse of confidencesorry to have sexual implies fraud intercourse w/ him; Elements: telling her that his 1) offended party is a virgin marriage is void) 2) over 12 but under 18 - if the woman consented 3) sexual intercourse also bec. of lust - no 4) abuse of authority, confidence seduction. or relationship.

4) Penalty: PC in its min to med per. ( higher penalty if a brother seduced his sister or descendant whether she be a virgin or over 18) Article 342:Forcible Abduction 1) Victim: woman (w, m or s)

4) Penalty- Arresto Mayor

2) Kidnapped/taken away 3) Against her will 4) W/ unchaste designs, i.e. intent of lying w/ the woman 5) Penalty RT (At the beginning w/ deceit but later w/ violence/intimidation) - bec. of age, sex susceptible Sexual intercourse is not an of cajolery & deceit element of abduction Lewd- obscene,lustful, indecent, - time no matter how short lascivious, lecherous. it is. It signifies the form of morality w/c has relations to moral - Gravamen of the crimeimpurity (Pp. vs. Grefiel-m Nov. is the alarm & disturbance l992). to the parents & family of Kidnap- to deprive liberty- kidnapping the victim & infringement Kidnap w/ lewd designs- Forcible of their rights. Abduction Kidnap to force her to marry him Grave Coercion Abduct a person to rape her Forcible Abduction

- Article 343:Consented Abduction 1) Victim-woman-over 12 under 18 2) W/ consent 3) W/ lewd designs 4) Pen-PC-min to med per. Rationale disgrace to the W family & alarm caused due to her disappearance

w/ Rape Pp. vs. Burgos l950 CA sev. people abducted the victim and raped several times Multiple FA w/ Rape Pp.vs. Jose, et al Supreme Court Complex crime of Forcible Abduction w/ Rape & 3 counts of Rape ( At the time the other rapes were committed the crime of Forcible Abduction was already consummated) - This is now the ruling as adopted in the case of Pp. vs. Bohos- June 25, l980 . - Pp. vs. Magat FA w/ Rape W- l5 years of age, taken against her will - guy arranged a marriage (fake) and deceived the woman into having sexual contact with him purpose was not to deprive her of liberty but to have sexual contact. - Pp. vs. Espiritu Accused forcibly took away the victim for the purpose of raping her, lewd and unchaste designs existed FA w/ Rape. - If there is separation in fact the taking of the wife by the H. against her will Grave Coercion. Kidnapping & Serious Illegal Detention w/ Rape - not a complex crime. When the taking of the woman amounts to kidnapping and thereafter raped, the rape is a qualifying circumstance. The crime of Forcible Abduction is absorbed in the crime of rape if the main objective of the offender is to rape the victim. Pp. vs. Shariff Ali El Akhtar June l999- l07 SCAD the offender held the victim by the arm, pushed her inside a waiting tricycle, and brought her to his house, where she was padlocked in a room to prevent her from escaping; the subsequent rapes committed on the victim who was released only on the tenth day of her abduction were ruled to constitute only as many counts of rape. Can there be Consented Abduction with Simple Seduction? If the original intent was to induce the woman to sexual intercourse, the crime is Simple Seduction only. There must be a considerable time interval between the consented abduction and simple seduction,otherwise, the crime is only Simple

Seduction. If the original purpose is to take the woman with lewd designs, and the lewd designs led to sexual intercourse, the crime is only Simple Seduction, the taking is absorbed in Simple Seduction. But if after a considerable length of time after the Consented Abduction had been consummated and thereafter sexual intercourse was had with the woman, the crime of Consented Abduction with Simple Seduction may be committed. Gravamen of the offense of Consented Abduction is the alarm and disturbance to the parents and the family of the victim and infringement of their rights; in Seduction, the gravamen is the wrong done to the victim. RAPE (REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8353) AN ACT EXPANDING THE DEFINITION OF THE CRIME OF RAPE RECLASSIFYING THE SAME AS A CRIME AGAINST PERSONS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ACT NO. 3815, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Sec. 1. Short title The Anti-Rape Law of l997. Article 266-A as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 (The Anti-Rape Law of l997). Sec. 2. Rape as a Crime Against Persons The crime of Rape shall hereafter be classified as a Crime Against Persons under Title Eight of Act 3815, as amended (RPC). Accordingly, there shall be incorporated into Title 8 of the same Code a new chapter to be known as Chapter 3 on Rape (Article 266-A). A) Rape: When and How Committed:

1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: a) Through force, threat or intimidation; b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and d) When the offended party is under 12 years of age or is demented, even though none of the above circs. mentioned above be present. 2) By any person who under any of the circumstances mentioned in par. 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another persons mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person. Art. 266-B Penalties : Rape under par. 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 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 18 years of age & the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the 3rd 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 or penal institution; 3) When the rape is committed in full view of the spouse, parent, any of the children or other relatives within the 3rd degree of consanguinity; 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 7 years old; 6) When the offender knows that he is afflicted w/ Human Immune Deficiency Virus (HIV) Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or any other sexually transmissible disease & the disease is transmitted to the victim; 7) When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Phils. or para-military units thereof or the PNP 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 has 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; and 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 par. 2 of the next preceding article shall be punished Prision Mayor. Whenever the Rape is committed w/ the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be Prision Mayor to Reclusion Temporal. When by reason or on the occasion of the Rape, Homicide is committed, the penalty shall be Reclusion Perpetua.

Reclusion Temporal shall also be imposed if the Rape is committed with any of the ten (10) aggravating/qualifying circs. mentioned in this article. Artcle 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 of the penalty: provided, That the crime shall not be extinguished or the penalty shall not be abated if the marriage is void ab initio ( All elements for valid marriage should be present. If the victim is under 18, no such thing as pardon through marriage). ( In the Family Code cohabitation is forgiveness). Article 266-D- Presumption 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 Art. 266-A. Effect of the re-classification of Rape into Crime against Persons- The procedural requirement of consent of the offended party to file the case is no longer needed bec. this is now a public crime unlike when it was still classified as Crime against Chastity. There is now an impossible crime of rape because impossible crime can only be committed against persons and property. Mental Retardate classified as person deprived of reason falls under Art. 266-A(1), subpar. (b), not under subpar. (d) Pp. vs. Magabo- Jan. 2001- 141 SCAD. Qualifying circumstances: 1) use of deadly weapon or by 2 or more persons

2) victim became insane on the occasion or by reason of the rape 3) rape is attempted and homicide is committed by reason of or on the occasion of. Pp. vs. Sabredo - The information did not allege that the offender & offended party were relatives within the 3rd degree of consanguinity. In view of the failure of the information to comply with this requirement, said degree of relation could not be taken into account in considering the penalty to be imposed. Pp. vs. Libo-on May 2002- l48 SCAD special qualifying cirs. must be alleged with certainty in the information, otherwise death penalty cannot be imposed. Pp. vs. Magabo supra Allegation in the information that the offender knew of the mental disability of the victim at the time of the commission of the crime is vital. Pp. vs. Elpedes- Jan. 2001 l42 SCAD & Pp. vs. Rondilla-Feb. 2001- complainants age should be alleged in the accusatory portion of the information. Pp.vs. Nunez- July 1999- l08 SCAD Information alleged that the victim is step-daughter of the accused; accused was found out to be the common-law spouse of the mother of the victim- viol. of the right to be informed of the charge against him; (Pp.vs. Motos- Oct. l999- ll4 SCAD; Pp.vs. Panique- Oct. l999- ll4 SCAD; Pp.vs. Ramon Dec. l999- 117 SCAD). Pp. vs. Banihit Aug. 200- 132 SCAD It is necessary that the allegation of the relation be specifiedsuch as within the 3rd degree of consanguinity or affinity; not merely uncle of the private complainant. Pp.vs. Onabia- April 1999- 105 SCAD rels. between stepbrother & stepsister cannot elevate the crime to qualified rape (not related by blood or affinity). Pp. vs. Borce April l998 93 SCAD Victim was raped twice, then hacked thrice on the face, two counts of Rape & Frustrated Murder. The accused inflicted the wounds to kill and silence her.

Force & violence required in rape cases is relative; it need not be over powering or irresistible. What is essential is that the force used is sufficient to consummate the purpose w/c the offender had in mind, or to bring about the result. Depends on the size, age, strength of the parties and their relation (Pp. vs. Momo- 59 Phil. 86; Pp. vs. Sarile-71 SCRA 593). There must be a showing of compulsion being resorted to and coercion being employed (Pp. vs. Godoy 72 SCRA 69). The element of voluntariness must be lacking. When some hesitation was shown by the woman or that she had contributed in some way to the realization of the act, then there is no rape ( Pp. vs. De Dios- 8 Phil. 279). No woman would have consented to have sexual intercourse with two or three men, in the presence of each other, unless the woman is a prostitute or as morally debased as one (Pp. vs. Soriano, et al., 35 SCRA 633). Intimidation includes the moral kind threatening with a knife. This is addressed to the mind & therefore, subjective. Its presence cannot be tested by any hard- and-fast rule, but must be viewed in the light of the victims perception & judgment at the time of the commission of the crime. The workings of the human mind under emotional stress are unpredictable. People react differently in such situations. Some may shout, some may faint; some may be shocked into insensibility ( Pp. vs. Oarga July 1996 72 SCAD). Pp. vs. Mabunga Nov. l992 in incestuous rape, employment of force or intimidation is not indispensable, bec. of the overpowering and overbearing moral influence of the father over the daughter, which takes the place of violence and offer of resistance required in rape cases. A sexual act between a father and a daughter is so revolting that it would be hard to believe that complainant would have submitted thereto if her will to resist had not been overpowered. Attempted Rape offender must commence the commission of the felony directly by overt acts but does not perform all the acts of execution by reason of some causes other than his own spontaneous desistance ( ex. Pulling up of skirt, revealing her breasts ). Old ruling: penetration-

Pp. vs. Erina- 40 Phil. 998 There being no conclusive evidence of the penetration of the genital organ of the offended party, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of a doubt and can only be found guilty of Frustrated Rape. For rape to be consummated, it is enough that mere proof of entrance of the male organ within the labia of the pudendum (Pp. vs. Pastores- 40 SCRA 498); or lips of the female organ ( Pp. vs. Conchadasupra). Pp. vs. Ytac- 95 SCRA 604- the insertion of the penis in its full length into the genital organ of the offended party and absence of emission of semen is no ground to hold that consummated rape has not been committed. Entry of the labia or lips of the female organ, merely without rupture or laceration of the vagina is sufficient to warrant conviction. Pp. vs. Labrador May 1999- The post mortem report showed that the victim was in a virgin-state physically; she still had her panties and jogging pants on-not Attempted Rape. Statutory Rape: 1) accused had a carnal knowledge w/ a woman 2) that the woman is below 12 years of age (Absence of force and sweetheart defenses cannot be sustained in Statutory Rape) Pp. vs. Garigadi Oct. l999, 114 SCAD & Pp. vs. Apostil- Dec. l999ll7 SCAD. Sexual intercourse with a girl under 12 years old is rape because she is incapable of giving rational consent to the sexual intercourse (pp. vs. Conchada- 88 Phil. 683). When the offended party is less than 12 years old, rape is committed although there was consent to the sexual act. The law does not consider that kind of consent voluntary and presumes that the offended party does not and cannot have a will of her own; and if she has not been subdued by intimidation or force, she has been deceived by the unchaste machinations of her corruptor ( Pp. vs. Gonzales 58 SCRA 265).

Although the offended party were engaged in prostitution, the accused is still criminally liable since the victims were under 12 years of age (Pp. vs. Perez). Rape is committed if a potion is given to the woman and as a result of which she felt dizzy and weak and experienced a sudden loss of control over her person and thereafter she was abused. This deprived the woman of reason and will to resist ( Pp. vs. Bautista- 102 SCRA 483). Guiding principles that the court must consider in deciding the case of Rape: Rape is essentially an offense of secrecy, not generally attempted except in dark or deserted and secluded places away from the prying eyes, & the crime usually commences solely upon the word of the offended party herself and conviction invariably turns upon her credibility, as the Peoples single witness of the actual occurrence (Pp. vs. De Guzman- Dec. l996- 77 SCAD). It is inconceivable and contrary to human experience and conduct that a crime of rape would be committed amidst a multiple of people within the premises of a school compound, where a Boy Scouts Jamboree program was in progress, and just a few steps, Barely 16 meters away, from the Phil. Constabulary outpost in the town proper of Sta. Maria, Ilocos Sur ( Pp. vs. Andrino 113 SCRA 531). Considering the severity of the penalties provided, Courts have been enjoined to take extreme care in weighing the evidence to avoid doing injustice to the accused. The Supreme Court has thus set guiding principles: a) an accusation of Rape can be made w/ facility, it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, tho innocent to disprove; b) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized w/ extreme caution; c) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits

and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense (Pp. vs. Excija- July l996- 71 SCAD). Doctrinal Principles : 1) Full or complete penetration of the complainants private parts is not necessary; introduction of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum is enough Pp.vs. Ligotan Sept. l996-74 SCAD & Pp. vs. Catoltol, Sr. Nov. 1996- 76 SCAD. 2) Absence of medical findings of a medico-Legal officer does not disprove the commission of rape, as medical exam. is not an element of Rape. Merely corroborative in nature. 3) When a rape victim says she was defiled she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed; 4) In incestuous rape, force and violence are not required. 5) Absence of external physical injuries does not signify lack of resistance. Rape w/ several homicides- if two persons died-,Special Complex Crime of Rape w/ Homicide-pen. applied to the highest. (Sanchez vs.Demetriou- Nov. l993- 46 SCAD En Banc). Obana vs. Soriano August 2001- Inserting a finger into the genitals of the girl or woman is Rape, as the term object is construed to includefinger. To exclude from the definition the insertion of a finger into the genital organ of the female or anal orifice of the victim, whereas the insertion of a bottle, a ballpen, or even a toothpick is included, would be unintelligible, capricious delimitation of what the law seek to expand. There is no rhyme nor reason in giving protection to the human person

against the degrading and perverse insertion of an instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of the victim, & yet refusing such protection to the victim when it is a finger or fingers that were inserted. But if the insertion of the finger was committed before the passing of the Anti Rape Law, the crime would only be Acts of Lasciviousness ( Pp. vs. Marino Feb. 2001- l43 SCAD). In rape, mere initial resistance is not the manifest and tenacious resistance that the law requires of the woman to justify the conclusion that the intercourse complained of is not voluntary ( Pp. vs. Lago 45 O.G. 1356).

Article 345: Civil liability of persons guilty of Rape, Seduction or Abduction: 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. Old ruling: ( Generic aggravating circumstances may be proved even tho not allegedPp. vs. Godinez- l06 Phil. 597)-increase the penalty to the max. but not beyond that provided by law. Qualifying circs. not alleged in the information may be proved as a generic aggravating circs. Pp. vs. Guba- 42 SCRA 109 & Pp. vs. Locao- Sept. 30 l974). change the nature of the crime).

New law: Section 9, Rule ll0 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure: Cause of Accusation The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment. Purpose/rationale that the accused be informed of the facts that are imputed to them as he is presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense- Panfilo M. Lacson vs. The Executive Secretary January 20, l999- l02 SCAd - 247 CRIMES AGAINST CIVIL STATUS Article 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 P1,000. The same penalties shall be imposed upon any person who shall conceal or abandon any legitimate child w/ 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 pars., shall suffer the pen. therein prescribed and also the pen. of TSD. Simulation of birth must be made in the record or birth; if in any other document, the crime is Falsification.

Article 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. Article 350: Marriage contracted against provisions of laws The pen.of PC in its medium and max. pers. shall be imposed upon any person who, w/o being included in the provisions of the next preceding article, shall contract marriage knowing that the requirements of the law have not been complied w/ 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 par. Mercado vs. Tan Aug. 2000- l3l SCAD Accused married Thelma G. Oliva on April 10, 1976 in Cebu City. While that marriage was still subsisting, he contracted a second marriage, this time with Ma. Consuelo Tan, who subsequently filed the complaint for Bigamy. Is the lack of judicial declaration of nullity of void marriage a cause for conviction of Bigamy? Yes. In Domingo vs. CA, the issue raised was whether a judicial declaration of nullity was still necessary for the recovery & the separation of properties of erstwhile spouses. Ruling in the affirmative, the Court declared: The Family Code has settled once and for all the conflicting jurisprudence on the matter. A declaration of the absolute nullity of a marriage is now explicitly required either as a cause of action or a ground for defense; in fact, the requirement for a declaration of absolute nullity of a marriage is also for the protection of the spouse, who, believing his or her marriage is illegal and void, marries again. With the judicial declaration of the nullity of his or her first marriage, the person who marries again cannot be charged w/ bigamy.

Such declaration is now necessary before one can contract a second marriage. Absent that declaration, we hold that one may be charged & convicted of Bigamy (Mercado vs. Tan cs.) May the nullity of the marriage be presumed by the parties? No. Where the absolute nullity of a previous marriage is sought to be invoked for the purpose of contracting a second marriage, the sole basis acceptable in law for said projected marriage to be free from legal infirmity is a final judgment declaring the previous marriage void. Parties should not merely assume. As a matter of policy, nullification of a marriage for the purpose of contracting another cannot be accomplished merely on the basis of the perception of either or both parties that their union is so defective as to render it void ipso jure. Distinction between Bigamy & Illegal Marriage: 1) In Bigamy: a) Subsequent marriage must be perfectly valid except that it is bigamous; b) Refers only to the contracting of a 2nd marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead. 2) In Illegal Marriage: a) Subsequent marriage is annullable or void even if there is no Ist marriage; b) Covers all marriages which are otherwise voidable or null & void other than bigamous marriage.

CRIMES AGAINST HONOR Article 353: Libel: A public and malicious imputation of a crime, or a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. Elements: 1) the allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another; 2) publication of the charge; 3) identity of the person defamed; & 4) existence of malice. (Vasquez vs. CA September l999). Publication if the material is communicated to a 3rd person. It is not required that the person defamed has read or heard about the libelous remark. What is material is that a 3rd person has read or heard the libelous statement, for a mans reputation is the estimate in which others hold him, not the good opinion which he has of himself. Identifiability it must be shown that at least a 3rd person or a stranger was able to identify him as the object of the defamatory statement. Rule of Malice: Art. 354: Every defamatory statement is presumed to be malicious, even if it is true, if no 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 security duty; an 2) A fair and true report, made in good Faith, w/o any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other official procs. which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said procs., or any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions. Art. 361 In every criminal prosecution for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the court 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 defendant shall be acquitted. 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 def. proves the truth of the imputation made by him, he shall be acquitted. Even if the defamatory statement is false, no liability can attach if it relates to official conduct, unless the public official concerned proves that the statement was made with actual malice- that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not (New York Times vs. Sullivan). In this case, the prosecution failed to prove not only that the charges made by petitioner were false but also that petitioner made them w/ knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard of whether they were false or not.

Infringement of freedom of expression -As Justice Brandeis said : -public discussion is a political duty & the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people. Construction of defamatory words: -a meaning w/c is natural and obvious in the plain and ordinary sense. Malice in law it is the malice which the law presumes to be present where the offender cannot establish justifiable reasons or good motives therefor. In this instance, the complainant need not prove its existence, because it is presumed by law. Malice in fact It is the malice which the complainant has to prove to exist. The offended party must prove, where malice in law does not exist, the existence of malice in fact in order to hold the offender criminally and civilly liable. This malice is relevant in qualified privileged statements. Even if malice in fact actually exists, and is proved, no criminal liability is incurred if the statements are absolutely privileged in character. What are privileged statements? Statements by lawyers in pleadings- relevant to the case it is still a matter of defense. Prior to its establishment, a Motion to Dismiss the case for Libel on this ground or a Motion to Quash during arraignment is premature, exception where the relevancy appears on the face of the pleadings. (Espiritu vs. CA March l995- 59 SCAD- ex. Allegation of loose morals of the mother and sisters in a child custody case filed by the father.

It is a settled principle in this jurisdiction that statements in the course of judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged. This absolute privilege remains regardless of the defamatory tenor and the presence of malice if the same are relevant, pertinent or material to the cause in hand or subject of the inquiry. Thus, the person, who made those statements such as the judge, lawyer or witness does not thereby incur the risk of being found liable thereon in a criminal prosecution or an action for the recovery of damages. Sarcastic, pungent and harsh allegations in a pleading although tending to detract from the dignity that should characterize proceedings in courts of justice, are absolutely privileged, if relevant to the issue ( Navarette vs. CA 325 SCRA, 121 SCAD, Feb. 2000). The purpose of this doctrine is not so muchfor the protection of those engaged in the public service and in the enactment and administration of law & promotion of public welfare, but for the members of the legislature, judges of courts, jurors, lawyers & witnesses to speak their minds freely & exercise their respective functions w/o incurring the risk of criminal prosecution or an action for damagesNavarette-ibid; & Deles vs. Aragona, Jr. ( forgers, swindlers,plunderers, bastards crime of falsification of a Deed of Sale w/ a Right To Repurchase. In determining the issue of relevancy, courts have adopted a liberal attitude by resolving all doubts in favor of relevancy.

People vs. Aquino SC emphasized that it is the rule that what is relevant should be liberally considered to favor the writer and the words are not to be scrutinized w/ microscopic intensity. Fortich vs. CA Feb. l997- 79 SCAD publicity is not satisfied in an Inter Office Memorandum.

C.V. Jalandoni vs. Drilon March 2000, 122 SCAD-The interest of society and the maintenance of good government demand a full discussion of public affairs. Complete liberty to comment on the conduct of public men is a scalpel in the case of free speech. The sharp incision of its probe relieves the abscesses of officialdom. Men in public life may suffer under the hostile and unjust accusation; the wound can be assuaged with the balm of a clear conscience. A public officer must not be too thin-skinned w/ reference to comment upon his official acts. Article 355: Libel by means of writings or similar means: -By means or writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition or any similar means. Pen. PC- min to med. per. or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 or both, in addition to the civil action (6 mos. & 1 day to 4 yrs. & 2 mos.) Article 360: Persons responsible: 1) Person who shall publish, exhibit, or cause the publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing or similar means; 2) Author or editor of a book or pamphlet, or editor or business manager of a daily newspaper, magazine or serial publication; Where to file Regional Trial Court a) Province or city- where the libelous article is printed

and first published; b)or where any of the offended parties resides at the time of the commission of the offense; If the public official is holding office in Manila: at the time of the commission of the offense: 1) RTC- Manila 2) RTC- where it is published or printed If the public official does not hold office in Manila: 1) RTC- where he holds office; 2) RTC - first printed and published 3) RTC- where he resides ( Not affected by the passage of RA 7691- all crim. cases w/c carry a penalty of six years and below are cognizable by the MTC, MCTC, MTCC or Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila). Pp.vs. MTC of Quezon City Dec. l996- 77 SCAD-Libel cases shall be tried by the RTC to the exclusion of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, MTC, MCTC & MTCC. Preliminary Investigation shall be conducted by the Provincial or City Prosecutor of the Province or City where the case is instituted. Can the RTC, in Libel cases, impose the penalty of a fine instead of imprisonment? Yes. Evidently, the court is given the discretion to impose the penalty of imprisonment or fine or both.

Torralba vs. CA October l996 Petitioner is a radio commentator who delivers commentaries affecting public interest. He has thus made some contributions to the cause of good government and is in effect rendering public service in his own way. Also, he has 5 children, 4 of whom are minors fully dependent upon him for support & who would one way or another bear the grudge of incarceration should the prison sentence be carried out. As the court is not only a court of law but also of justice and compassion, instead of a prison term, the petitioner is ordered to pay a fine of P3,000.00. Article 358: Slander: Oral Defamation: a) Serious & insulting in nature- AMa in its max. to PC in its min. per. b) simple AMenor or Fine not exc. P200 Article 359: Slander by Deed: acts which will cast dishonor, discredit or contempt upon another person AM in its max. per. to PC in its min. per. or a Fine ranging from P200 to P1,000; if not serious A Menor or a Fine not exceeding P200. Utterance Putang Ina Mo (Reyes vs. Pp. l37 Phil. & Pader vs. Pp. Feb. 2000120 SCAD- Expression; just an expletive that punctuates ones expression of profanity; common enough utterance in the dialect that is employed, rather than to slander. When is a defamatory remark considered serious and when is slight? In resolving the issue, the Court is guided by the doctrine of ancient respectability that defamatory words would fall under serious or slight depending not only upon their sense, grammatical significance, and accepted ordinary meaning judging them separately, but also upon the special circumstance of the case, antecedents or relationships

between the offended party and the offender, which might tend to prove the intention of the offender at the time. Considering the fact that the parties were neighbors; that petitioner was drunk at the time he uttered the defamatory words; and the fact that petitioners anger was instigated by what accused did when petitioners father died the oral defamation was not serious. Whether the offense committed is serious or slight oral defamation depends not only upon the sense and grammatical meaning of the utterances but also upon the special circumstances of the case, like the social standing or the advanced age of the offended party. When the offense have been qualified to grave oral defamation, it cannot be reduced to simple oral defamation by the claim that the slanderous works were said in the heat of anger.Besides, the slanderous words were uttered with evident intent to strike deep into the character of the victim ( Larobis vs. CA March l993). INCRIMINATORY MACHINATIONS Article 364: 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. Penalty Arresto Mayor Committed: by planting evidence on the subject innocent person. Planting of evidence or incriminating innocent persons committed by performing an act which the offender directly incriminates or imputes to an innocent person the commission of a crime (Huggland vs.Lantin Feb.2000-

122 SCAD). Ex. A person who took the wallet from the pants of a person & put it into the pocket of another. Article 364: Intriguing Against Honor: - Any intrigue which has for its purpose, to blemish the honor or reputation of a person. Penalty Arresto Menor or a Fine not exceeding P200. Intriguing against honor is also known as tsismis.The author is unknown, the offender appears to be repeating only what he heard others say. The offender does not really want to assume responsibility for the statement but imputes it to another from whom he learned or heard the statement. Ex. (They say ) Otherwise, if the source of the statement is known Slander. Article 365: Imprudence and Negligence: 1) Any person who, by reckless imprudence shall commit any act which, had it been intentional, would constitute: a) Grave Felony-penalty Arresto Mayor in its max. per. to PC in its med. per. b)Less Grave Felony penalty- Arresto Mayor in its min. & med. pers. c)Light Felony pen- Arresto Menor in its max. per. 2)Any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall commit an act which would, otherwise constitute a: a) Grave Felony pen- Arresto Mayor in its med. & max. pers. b. Less Grave Felony pen Arresto Mayor in its min. per. 3) When the execution of the act shall only have resulted to damage to property

of another. Pen Fine ranging from an amount equal to the value of such damages to 3x such value, but in no case be less than P25.00. 4) Any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall cause some wrong which, if done maliciously, would have constituted light felony. Reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act, taking into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical conditions 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. Imprudence deficiency of action. Negligence deficiency of perception Pen- next higher in degree if the offender fails to lend on the spot to the injured parties such help as may be in his hands to give (RA l970). In intentional crimes, the act itself is punished, but in negligence or imprudence, what is principally punished is the mental attitude or condition behind the act, the dangerous recklessness, lack of care or foresight. The correct title of the crime: Reckless Imprudence/ Negligence Resulting to Homicide or Damage To Property bec. the law punishes the negligent or careless act, not the result. Reckless imprudence is not a crime in itself but is simply a way of committing a crime and it merely determines a lower

degree of criminal liability. Negligence becomes punishable only when it results in a crime ( Lontok Jr. vs. Hon. Gorgonio). Penalties: 1) If the reckless imprudence or simple imprudence or negligence causes damage to property only, the penalty is a fine, not imprisonment, which is equal to the value of the damage to 3x such value but in no case be less than P25.00; 2) When death or physical injuries result, the penalty is imprisonment 3) In simple negligence or imprudence resulting in light felony, the penalty is censure and a fine not exceeding P200. Test of Negligence Did the defendant in doing the alleged act use the reasonable care and caution which an ordinary prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence. The law adopts the standard supposed to be supplied by the imaginary conduct of the discreet pater familias . Doctrine of Last Clear Chance the contributory negligence of the injured party will also not defeat the action, if the accused might, by exercise of reasonable care and prudence, have avoided the consequences of the negligence of the injured party. At most, such would only constitute a mitigating circumstance. This doctrine is applicable only in cases where both drivers are negligent ( Pp.vs. Quinones; Pp.vs. Lopez; Sy Kiao vs, CA.)

Doctrine of Pre-emption (in collision cases) The driver running along a thru-street has the privilege to go on and the driver about to cross should await & he has duty to stop. However, this is not absolute. Even if the driver of a motor vehicle crossing a thru-street was supposed to have waited (along the intersection) for the driver of the motor vehicle running along a thru-street, if the driver crossing the street had already reached the middle thereof, the other driver traveling along the thru-street, altho with a right of pre-emption, has the duty to stop to avoid collision. (Pp. vs. Taradji & Pp. vs. Panuyas).