Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
TITLE ELEVEN
CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY
Crimes against chastity
1.
Adultery (Art. 333);
2.
Concubinage (Art. 334);
3.
Acts of lasciviousness (Art. 336);
4.
Qualified seduction (Art. 337);
5.
Simple seduction (Art. 338);
6.
Acts of lasciviousness with the consent of the offended party (Art. 339);
7.
Corruption of minors (Art. 340);
8.
White slave trade (Art. 341);
9.
Forcible abduction (Art. 342);
10.
Consented abduction (Art. 343).
* The crimes of adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness are the so-called
private crimes. They cannot be prosecuted except upon the complaint initiated by the offended party. The
law regards the privacy of the offended party here as more important than the disturbance to the order of
society. For the law gives the offended party the preference whether to sue or not to sue. But the moment
the offended party has initiated the criminal complaint, the public prosecutor will take over and continue
with prosecution of the offender. That is why under Article 344, if the offended party pardons the offender,
that pardon will only be valid if it comes before the prosecution starts. The moment the prosecution starts,
the crime has already become public and it is beyond the offended party to pardon the offender.
Article 333
ADULTERY
ELEMENTS:
1. That the woman is married (even if marriage subsequently declared void)
2. That she has sexual intercourse with a man not her husband.
3. That as regards the man with whom she has sexual intercourses, he must know her to be married.
Notes:
* There are two reasons why adultery is made punishable by law. Primarily, it is a
violation of the marital vow and secondarily, it paves the way to the introduction of a spurious
child into the family.
* Adultery is a crime not only of the married woman but also of the man who had intercourse with a
married woman knowing her to be married. Even if the man proves later on that he does not know the
woman to be married, at the beginning, he must still be included in the complaint or information. This is so
because whether he knows the woman to be married or not is a matter of defense and its up to him to
ventilate that in formal investigations or a formal trial.
* If after preliminary investigation, the public prosecutor is convinced that the man did not know that the
woman is married, then he could simply file the case against the woman.
* The acquittal of the woman does not necessarily result in the acquittal of her co-accused.
In order to constitute adultery, there must be a joint physical act. Joint criminal intent is not necessary.
Although the criminal intent may exist in the mind of one of the parties to the physical act, there may be no
such intent in the mind of the other party. One may be guilty of the criminal intent, the other innocent, and
yet the joint physical act necessary to constitute the adultery may be complete. So, if the man had no
knowledge that the woman was married, he would be innocent insofar as the crime of adultery is
concerned but the woman would still be guilty; the former would have to be acquitted and the latter found
guilty, although they were tried together.
* A husband committing concubinage may be required to support his wife committing adultery under the
rule in pari delicto.
* For adultery to exist, there must be a marriage although it be subsequently annulled. There is no
adultery, if the marriage is void from the beginning.
Sigma Rho (
) reviewers
* Mitigated if wife was abandoned without justification by the offended spouse (man is entitled to
this mitigating circumstance)
* Abandonment without justification is not exempting but only a mitigating circumstance. One
who invokes abandonment in the crime of adultery hypothetically admits criminal liability for the
crime charged. (U. S. vs. Serrano, et al., 28 Phil. 230)
* While abandonment is peculiar only to the accused who is related to the offended party and
must be considered only as to her or him as provided under Article 62, paragraph 3,
nonetheless, judicially speaking, in the crime of adultery, there is only one act committed and
consequently both accused are entitled to this mitigating circumstance. (People vs. Avelino, 40
O.G. Supp. 11, 194)
Attempted: caught disrobing a lover
* There is no frustrated adultery because of the nature of the offense.
* In the case of People vs. Pontio Guinucud, et al., (58 Phil. 621), a private agreement was
entered into between the husband and wife for them to separate from bed and board and for
each of them to go for his and her own separate way. Thereafter, the wife Rosario Tagayum
lived with her co-accused Pontio Guinucud in a nearby barangay. Their love affair ultimately
embroiled the spouses conservative and reputable families in a human drama exposed in legal
battles and whispers of unwanted gossips. In dismissing the complaint, the Court ruled that
while a private agreement between the husband and wife was null and void, the same was
admissible proof of the express consent given by the condescending husband to the prodigal
wife, a license for her to commit adultery. Such agreement bars the husband from instituting a
criminal complaint for adultery.
* After filing the complaint for adultery and while the case is pending trial and resolution by the
trial court, the offended spouse must not have sexual intercourse with the adulterous wife since
an act of intercourse subsequent to the adulterous conduct is considered as implied pardon.
(People vs. Muguerza, et al., 13 C.A. Rep. 1079)
* It is seldom the case that adultery is established by direct evidence. The legal tenet has been
and still is circumstancial and corroborative evidence as will lead the guarded discretion of a
reasonable and just man to the conclusion that the criminal act of adultery has been committed
will bring about conviction for the crime. (U. S. vs. Feliciano, 36 Phil. 753)
Sigma Rho (
) reviewers
* If the charges consist in keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, there is no need for proof of sexual
intercourse. The conjugal dwelling is the house of the spouse even if the wife happens to be temporarily
absent therefrom. The woman however must be brought into the conjugal house by the accused husband
as a concubine to fall under this article. Thus, if the co-accused was voluntarily taken and sheltered by the
spouses in their house and treated as an adopted child being a relative of the complaining wife, her illicit
relations with the accused husband does not make her a mistress. (People vs. Hilao, et al., (C.A.) 52 O.G.
904).
* It is only when a married man has sexual intercourse with a woman elsewhere that
scandalous circumstances becomes an element of crime.
* For the existence of the crime of concubinage by having sexual intercourse under scandalous
circumstances, the latter must be imprudent and wanton as to offend modesty and sense of
morality and decency.
* When spies are employed to chronicle the activities of the accused and the evidence presented
to prove scandalous circumstances are those taken by the detectives, it is obvious that the
sexual intercourse done by the offenders was not under scandalous circumstances. (U.S. vs.
Campos-Rueda, 35 Phil. 51)
* Causal sexual intercourse with a woman in a hotel is not concubinage. Likewise, keeping of a
mistress in a townhouse procured and furnished by a married man who does not live or sleep
with her in said townhouse does not constitute concubinage since there is no cohabitation.
* The rule is that, if a married mans conduct with a woman who is not his wife was not confined to
occasional or transient interview for carnal intercourse but is carried n in the manner of husband and wife
and for some period of time, then such association is sufficient to constitute cohabitation. (People vs.
Zuniga, CA 57 O.G. 2497)
Sigma Rho (
) reviewers
Article 336
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness.
2. That it is done under any of the following circumstances:
a. by using force or intimidation, or
b. when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or
c. when the offended party is under 12 years of age.
3. That the offended party is another person of either sex.
Note that there are two kinds of acts of lasciviousness under the Revised Penal Code: (1) under Article
336, and (2) under Article 339.
1.
2.
(1)
(2)
being over 12 years of age, the lascivious acts were committed on him or her through
violence or intimidation, or while the offender party was deprived of reason, or otherwise
unconscious.
Article 339. Acts of Lasciviousness with the Consent of the Offended Party:
Under this article, the victim is limited only to a woman. The circumstances under which the
lascivious acts were committed must be that of qualified seduction or simple seduction, that is, the
offender took advantage of his position of ascendancy over the offender woman either because he
is a person in authority, a domestic, a househelp, a priest, a teacher or a guardian, or there was a
deceitful promise of marriage which never would really be fulfilled.
* Always remember that there can be no frustration of acts of lasciviousness, rape or adultery because no
matter how far the offender may have gone towards the realization of his purpose, if his participation
amounts to performing all the acts of execution, the felony is necessarily produced as a consequence
thereof.
* Intent to rape is not a necessary element of the crime of acts of lasciviousness. Otherwise, there would
be no crime of attempted rape.
* In the crime of acts of lasciviousness, the intention of the wrongdoer is not very material. The
motive that impelled the accused to commit the offense is of no importance because the
essence of lewdness is in the act itself.
Sigma Rho (
) reviewers
SEDUCTION
Article 337
QUALIFIED SEDUCTION OF A VIRGIN
Two classes of qualified seduction:
1. Seduction of a virgin over 12 and under 18 years of age by certain persons, such as
a person in authority, priest, teachers etc and
2. Seduction of a sister by her brother or descendant by her ascendant, regardless of
her age or reputation (incestuous seduction)
Elements:
1. That the offended party is a virgin, (presumed if she unmarried and of good reputation.)
2. That she must be over 12 and under 18 years of age.
3. That the offender has sexual intercourse with her.
4. That there is abuse of authority, confidence or relationship on the part of the offender ( person
entrusted with education or custody of victim; person in public authority, priest; servant)
Persons liable:
1.
2.
3.
* This crime also involves sexual intercourse. The offended woman must be over 12 but below 18 years.
* The distinction between qualified seduction and simple seduction lies in the fact, among others, that the
woman is a virgin in qualified seduction, while in simple seduction, it is not necessary that the woman be a
virgin. It is enough that she is of good repute.
Sigma Rho (
) reviewers
* The virginity referred to here, is not to be understood in so material a sense as to exclude the idea of
abduction of a virtuous woman of a good reputation. Thus, when the accused claims he had prior
intercourse with the complainant, the latter is still to be considered a virgin (U.S. vs. Casten, 34 Phil. 808).
But if it was established that the girl had a carnal relations with other men, there can be no crime of
Seduction as she is not a virgin.
* Although in qualified seduction, the age of the offended woman is considered, if the offended party is a
descendant or a sister of the offender no matter how old she is or whether she is a prostitute the crime
of qualified seduction is committed.
Illustration:
If a person goes to a sauna parlor and finds there a descendant and despite that, had sexual intercourse
with her, regardless of her reputation or age, the crime of qualified seduction is committed.
* In the case of a teacher, it is not necessary that the offended woman be his student. It is enough that
she is enrolled in the same school.
* Deceit is not necessary in qualified seduction. Qualified seduction is committed even though no deceit
intervened or even when such carnal knowledge was voluntary on the part of the virgin. This is because in
such a case, the law takes for granted the existence of the deceit as an integral element of the crime and
punishes it with greater severity than it does the simple seduction, taking into account the abuse of
confidence on the part of the agent. Abuse of confidence here implies fraud.
* The fact that the offended party gave her consent to the sexual intercourse is not a defense.
Lack of consent on the part of the complainant is not an element of the crime.
* The term domestic refers to a person usually living under the same roof with the offended
party. It includes all those persons residing with the family and who are members of the same
household, regardless of the fact that their residence may only be temporary or that they may
be paying for their board and lodging.
* A domestic should not be confused with a house servant. A domestic is not necessarily a
house servant.
* Where the offended party is below 12 years of age, regardless of whether the victim is a sister
or a descendant of the offender, the crime committed is rape.
* If the offended party is married and over 12 years of age, the crime committed will be
adultery.
* An essential element of a qualified seduction is virginity (doncella). It is a condition existing in
a woman who has had no sexual intercourse with any man. It does not refer to the condition of
the hymen as being intact.
* One who is charged with qualified seduction can be convicted of rape. But one who is charged
with rape cannot be convicted of qualified seduction under the same information. (People vs.
Ramirez, 69 SCRA 144)
* Even if the woman has already lost her virginity because of rape, in the eyes of the law, she
remains a virtuous woman even if physically she is no longer a virgin.
Sigma Rho (
) reviewers
* Deceit generally takes the form of unfulfilled promise to marry. The promise of marriage must
serve as the inducement. The woman must yield on account of the promise of marriage or other
forms of inducement. (People vs. Hernandez, 29 Phil. 109)
* Where the accused failed to have sex with this sweetheart over twelve (12) but below eighteen (18) years
old because the latter refused as they were not yet married, and the accused procured the performance of a
fictitious marriage ceremony because of which the girlfriend yielded, he is guilty of Simple Seduction.
(U.S. vs. Hernandez, 29 Phil. 109). Here, there was deceit employed. This act may now be considered
Rape under R.A. 8353, Sec. 2 par. 6.
* A promise of material things in exchange for the womans surrender of her virtue does not
constitute deceit.
* If a woman under 18 years of age but over 12 agrees to a sexual intercourse with a man who
promised her precious jewelries but the man reneges on his promise, there is no seduction that
the woman is of loose morals. (Luis B. Reyes)
Article 339
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS WITH THE CONSENT OF THE OFFENDED PARTY
ELEMENTS:
1. that the offender commits acts of lasciviousness or lewdness.
2. That the acts are committed upon a woman who is virgin or single or widow of good reputation,
under 18 years of age but over 12 years, or a sister or descendant regardless of her reputation or
age.
3. that the offender accomplishes the acts by abuse of authority, confidence, relationship, or deceit.
* When the acts of lasciviousness is committed with the use of force or intimidation or when the
offended party is under 12 years of age, the object of the crime can either be a woman or a
man.
* Where the acts of the offender were limited to acts of lewdness or lasciviousness, and no carnal
knowledge was had; but had there been sexual intercourse, the offense would have been Seduction, he is
guilty of Acts of Lasciviousness under this article.
Sigma Rho (
) reviewers
Article 340
CORRUPTION OF MINORS
Act punishable:
By promoting or facilitating the prostitution or corruption of persons underage to satisfy
the lust of another
* It is not required that the offender be the guardian or custodian of the minor.
* It is not necessary that the minor be prostituted or corrupted as the law merely punishes the act of
promoting or facilitating the prostitution or corruption of said minor and that he acted in order to satisfy the
lust of another.
Article 341
WHITE SLAVE TRADE
Acts penalized:
1. Engaging in the business of prostitution
2. Profiting by prostitution
3. Enlisting the service of women for the purpose of prostitution
* The person liable under Article 341 is the one who maintains or engages in the trade of
prostitution. A white slave is a woman held unwillingly for purposes of commercial prostitution.
A white slaver on the other hand is one engaged in white slave traffic, procurer of white slaves
or prostitutes.
* The most common way of committing this crime would be through the maintenance of a bar
or saloon where women engage in prostitution. For each intercourse, the women pay the
maintainer or owner of a certain amount in this case, the maintainer of owner of the bar or
saloon is liable for white slave trade. (People vs. Go Lo, 56 O.G. 4056)
Sigma Rho (
) reviewers
* Unlike in Rape and Seduction, in the crime of Abduction, whether Forcible or Consented, there is no
sexual intercourse. The acts are limited to taking away from a place the victim, but the same must be with
lewd designs, that is, with unchaste design manifested by kissing and touching the victims private parts.
* If the element of lewd design is present, the carrying of the woman would qualify as abduction;
otherwise, it would amount to kidnapping. If the woman was only brought to a certain place in order to
break her will and make her agree to marry the offender, the crime is only grave coercion because the
criminal intent of the offender is to force his will upon the woman and not really to restrain the woman of
her liberty.
* Where lewd design was not proved or shown, and the victim was deprived of her liberty, the crime is
Kidnapping with Serious Illegal Detention under this Article 267, RPC.
* The element of lewd designs, which is essential to the crime of abduction through violence
refers to the intention to abuse the abducted woman. If such intention is lacking or does not
exist, the crime may be illegal detention. It is necessary to establish the unchaste design or
purpose of the offender. But it is sufficient that the intent to seduce the girl is present. The evil
purpose of the offender may be established or inferred from the overt acts of the accused.
* If the offended woman is under 12 years old, even if she consented to the abduction, the crime is forcible
abduction and not consented abduction.
* Where the offended woman is below the age of consent, even though she had gone with the offender
through some deceitful promises revealed upon her to go with him and they live together as husband and
wife without the benefit of marriage, the ruling is that forcible abduction is committed by the mere carrying
of the woman as long as that intent is already shown. In other words, where the man cannot possibly give
the woman the benefit of an honorable life, all that man promised are just machinations of a lewd design
and, therefore, the carrying of the woman is characterized with lewd design and would bring about the
crime of abduction and not kidnapping. This is also true if the woman is deprived of reason and if the
woman is mentally retardate. Forcible abduction is committed and not consented abduction.
* Lewd designs may be demonstrated by the lascivious acts performed by the offender on her. Since this
crime does not involve sexual intercourse, if the victim is subjected to this, then a crime of rape is further
committed and a complex crime of forcible abduction with rape is committed.
* Lewd design does not include sexual intercourse. So, if sexual intercourse is committed against
the offended party after her forcible abduction, the offender commits another crime separate
and distinct from forcible abduction. In this case, the accused should be charged with forcible
abduction with rape. (People vs. Jose, et al., 37 SCRA 450)
Sigma Rho (
) reviewers
* If the main object of the offender is to rape the victim, and the forcible abduction was
resorted to by the accused in order to facilitate the commission of the rape, then the crime
committed is only rape. (People vs. Toledo, 83 Phil. 777)
* Where the victim was taken from one place to another, solely for the purpose of killing him
and not detaining him for any legal length of time, the crime committed is murder. (People vs.
Ong, 62 SCRA 174)
* True intention of the offender should be ascertained. If the detention is only incidental, the
same should be considered as absorbed. Otherwise, it should be treated as a separate offense.
When such a situation arises, we should consider the application of Article 48 on complex
crimes.
* The taking away of the woman may be accomplished by means of deceit at the beginning and then by
means of violence and intimidation later.
* The virginity of the complaining witness is not a determining factor in forcible abduction.
* In order to demonstrate the presence of the lewd design, illicit criminal relations with the person abducted
need not be shown. The intent to seduce a girl is sufficient.
* If there is a separation in fact, the taking by the husband of his wife against her will constitutes grave
coercion.
Distinction between forcible abduction and illegal detention:
When a woman is kidnapped with lewd or unchaste designs, the crime committed is forcible abduction.
When the kidnapping is without lewd designs, the crime committed is illegal detention.
> But where the offended party was forcibly taken to the house of the defendant to coerce her to marry
him, it was held that only grave coercion was committed and not illegal detention.
* Forcible abduction must be distinguished from the crime of kidnapping. When the violent
taking of a woman is motivated by lewd design, the crime committed is forcible abduction. But if
the motive of the offender is to deprive the woman of her liberty, the crime committed is
kidnapping. Abduction is a crime against chastity while kidnapping is a crime against personal
liberty.
Article 343
CONSENTED ABDUCTION
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offended party must be a virgin.
2. That she must be over 12 and under 18 years of age.
3. That the taking away of the offended party must be with her consent, after solicitation or cajolery
from the offender.
4. That the taking away of the offended party must be with lewd designs.
VIRGINITY may be presumed from the fact that the offended party is unmarried and has been
leading moral life. Virginity or maidenhood should not be understood in such a matter of fact as
to completely exclude a woman who has had previous sexual intercourse. If the previous sexual
intercourse was the result of the crime of rape, the intercourse committed with her against he
will and over her violent objection should not render her unchaste and a woman of bad
reputation.
Sigma Rho (
) reviewers
10
Article 344
PROSECUTION OF ADULTERY, CONCUBINAGE, SEDUCTION, ABDUCTION RAPE
AND ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
1. Adultery and concubinage must be prosecuted upon complaint signed by the offended spouse
2. Seduction, abduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness must be prosecuted upon complaint signed by:
a.
b.
c.
d.
offended party
by her parents
grandparents
guardians in the order in which they are named above
* The crimes of adultery and concubinage must be prosecuted upon a complaint signed by the
offended spouse. In the complaint, the offended party must include both guilty parties if they
are both alive.
* Distinguished between a private crime and a public crime. In the case of a private crime, the
same cannot be prosecuted de oficio, meaning it cannot be initiated by any person except the
offended party. These are the crimes against chastity such as seduction, adultery, concubinage
and acts of lasciviousness. These are crimes which are initiated with the filing of an information.
A public crime is one which can be prosecuted de officio, meaning it can be prosecuted by any
person interested to prosecute the same. The accusation is usually initiated with the filling of an
information.
* The law requires that the complaint must be initiated by the said persons in order that they
are named or enumerated in the article. If this legal requirement is not observed, the case
should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.
* If the offended party is of age and is in complete possession of her mental faculties, she alone
can file the complaint (People vs. Mandia, 60 Phil. 372)
* If the offended party cannot sign the complaint because of her tender age, the parents can do
it for her. The same can be done either by the father or the mother. (U.S. vs. Gariboso, 25 Phil
171 )
Sigma Rho (
) reviewers
11
What is the meaning of shall have consented which bars the institution of criminal
action for adultery or concubinage?
The term consent has reference to the tie prior to the commission of the crime. In other
words, the offended party gives his or her consent to the future infidelity of the offending
spouse.
> And so, while consent refers to the offense prior to its commission, pardon refers to the
offense after its commission. (People vs. Schnekenburger, et al., 73 Phil. 413)
Note: Marriage of the offender with the offended party extinguishes the criminal action or remit
the penalty already imposed upon him. This applies as well to the accomplices, accessoriesafter-the-fact. But marriages must be in good faith. This rule does not apply in case of multiple
rape
* In the crimes involving rape, abduction, seduction, and acts of lasciviousness, the marriage by the
offender with the offended woman generally extinguishes criminal liability, not only of the principal but also
of the accomplice and accessory. However, the mere fact of marriage is not enough because it is already
decided that if the offender marries the offended woman without any intention to perform the duties of a
husband as shown by the fact that after the marriage, he already left her, the marriage would appear as
having been contracted only to avoid the punishment. Even with that marriage, the offended woman could
still prosecute the offender and that marriage will not have the effect of extinguishing the criminal liability.
* Pardon by the offended woman of the offender is not a manner of extinguishing criminal liability but only
a bar to the prosecution of the offender. Therefore, that pardon must come before the prosecution is
commenced. When the prosecution is already commenced or initiated, pardon by the offended woman
will no longer be effective because pardon may preclude prosecution but not prevent the same.
* Pardon in crimes against chastity, is a bar to prosecution. But it must come before the
institution of the criminal action. (See the cases of People vs. Villorente, 210 SCRA 647; People vs.
Avila, 192 SCRA 635) To be effective, it must include both accused.
How about pardon declared by the offended party during the trial of the case? Such a
declaration is not a ground for the dismissal of the case. Pardon is a matter of defense which the
accused must plead and prove during the trial. (People vs. Riotes, C.A., 49 O.G.3403).
* All these private crimes except rape cannot be prosecuted de officio. If any slander or written
defamation is made out of any of these crimes, the complaint of the offended party is still necessary before
such case for libel or oral defamation may proceed. It will not prosper because the court cannot acquire
jurisdiction over these crimes unless there is a complaint from the offended party. The paramount
decision of whether he or she wanted the crime committed on him or her to be made public is his or hers
alone, because the indignity or dishonor brought about by these crimes affects more the offended party
than social order. The offended party may prefer to suffer the outrage in silence rather than to vindicate
his honor in public.
Article 345
CIVIL LIABILITY OF PERSONS GUILTY OF RAPE, SEDUCTION OR ABDUCTION
1. To idemnify the offended women
2. To acknowledge the offspring, unless the law should prevent him from doing so
3. In every case to support the offspring
* The civil liability of the adulterer and the concubine is limited to indemnity for damages caused
to the offended spouse. The law does not mention the adulteress in the crime of adultery such
that only the adulterer shall be held civilly liable.
* There is likewise no mention of the offender in the crime of acts of lasciviousness, as being
held liable for civil damages under Article 345, the law only mentioned the crimes of rape,
seduction and abduction.
Sigma Rho (
) reviewers
12
Article 346
LIABILITY OF ASCENDANTS, OTHER PERSONS ENTRUSTED WITH CUSTODY OF
OFFENDED PARTY WHO BY ABUSE OF AUTHORITY OR CONFIDENCE SHALL
COOPERATE AS ACCOMPLIES
TITLE TWELVE
CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVIL STATUS OF PERSONS
Crimes against the civil status of persons
1.
Simulation of births, substitution of one child for another and concealment or
abandonment of a legitimate child (art. 347);
2.
Usurpation of civil status (Art. 348);
3.
Bigamy (Art. 349);
4.
Marriage contracted against provisions of law (Art. 350);
5.
Premature marriages (Art. 351);
6.
Performance of illegal marriage ceremony (Art. 352).
Article 347
SIMULATION OF BIRTHS, SUBSTITUTION OF ONE CHILD FOR ANOTHER, AND
CONCEALMENT OR ABANDONMENT OF A LEGITIMATE CHILD
Acts Punished:
1. Simulation of births
2. Substitution of one child for another
3. Concealing or abandoning any legitimate child with the intent to cause such child to
lose its civil status
Requisites:
1. The child must be legitimate
2. The offender conceals or abandons such child
3. The offender has the intent to cause the child to lose its civil status
Elements of Simulation of Birth
1. Child is baptized or registered in the Registry of birth as hers
2. Child loses its real status and acquiires a new one
3. Actors purpose was to cause the loss of any trace as to the childs true filiation
Sigma Rho (
) reviewers
13
Article 348
USURPATION OF CIVIL STATUS
Committed by a person who represents himself as another and assumes the filiation or rights
pertaining to such person
Notes:
* There must be criminal intent to enjoy the civil rights of another by the offender knowing he is
not entitled thereto
* The term "civil status" includes one's public station, or the rights, duties, capacities and incapacities
which determine a person to a given class. It seems that the term "civil status" includes one's profession.
Sigma Rho (
) reviewers
14
For the crime of bigamy to prosper the first marriage must be valid. If the first marriage is
void from the beginning, such nullity of the marriage is not a defense in a charge of bigamy.
Consequently, when raised as a defense, the accused should be convicted since until and
unless annulled, the bond of matrimony remains or is maintained.
The second marriage must have all the essential requisites for validity were it not for the existence of
the first marriage.
* A simulated marriage is not marriage at all and can be used as a defense for bigamy
* Good faith is a defense in bigamy.
* One who, although not yet married before, knowingly consents to be married to one who is already
married is guilty of bigamy knowing that the latters marriage is still valid and subsisting.
* In the crime of bigamy, the second spouse is not necessarily liable. The language of Article
349 indicates the crime of bigamy is committed by one person who contracts a subsequent
marriage while the former marriage is valid and subsisting. If the second wife knew of the
previous marriage of the accused, she will be liable for the crime of bigamy but only as an
accomplice.
* There must be a summary proceeding to declare the absent spouse presumptively dead for
purposes of remarriage
* Failure to exercise due diligence to ascertain the whereabouts of the 1st wife is bigamy through
reckless imprudence
* A judicial declaration of the nullity of a marriage void ab initio is now required
* The language of the law is clear when it declared before the former marriage has been legally
dissolved. The Supreme Court said the even if the accused, as plaintiff in the civil case prevails,
and his first marriage is annulled, such pronouncement has no retroactive effect as to exculpate
him in the bigamy case. Parties to a marriage should not be permitted to judge its nullity, for
only competent courts have such authority. (Landicho vs. Relova, 22 SCRA 731, 735)
* The civil case for annulment of the first marriage does not pose a prejudicial question as to
warrant the suspension of the trial and proceeding in the criminal case for bigamy. (Roco, et al.,
Cinco, et al., 68 O.G.2952)
* One convicted for bigamy may be prosecuted for concubinage as both are distinct offenses
Sigma Rho (
) reviewers
15
* One who vouches that there is no legal impediment knowing that one of the parties is already
married is an accomplice
Distinction between bigamy and illegal marriage:
Bigamy is a form of illegal marriage. The offender must have a valid and subsisting marriage. Despite the
fact that the marriage is still subsisting, he contracts a subsequent marriage.
Illegal marriage includes also such other marriages which are performed without complying with the
requirements of law, or such premature marriages, or such marriage which was solemnized by one who is
not authorized to solemnize the same.
Article 350
MARRIAGE CONTRACTED AGAINST PROVISIONS OF LAWS
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender contracted marriage.
2. That he knew at the time that
a. the requirement of the law were not complied with, or
b. The marriage was in disregard of a legal impediment.
Note: Circumstance qualifying the offense: if either of the contracting parties obtains the
consent of the other by means of violence, intimidation or fraud
The requirements of the law for a valid marriage are:
1. The legal capacity of the contracting parties;
2. Their consent freely given;
3. Authority of the person performing the marriage; and
4. Marriage license, except in marriage under exceptional circumstances.
* The law further provides that for accused to be liable under this article, he should not be guilty
of bigamy because otherwise, the crime punished under Article 350 is deemed absorbed in the
bigamy.
Marriages contracted against the provisions of laws
1. The marriage does not constitute bigamy.
2. The marriage is contracted knowing that the requirements of the law have not been complied with or in
disregard of legal impediments.
3. One where the consent of the other was obtained by means of violence, intimidation or fraud.
4.
If the second marriage is void because the accused knowingly contracted it without complying with
legal requirements as the marriage license, although he was previously married.
5. Marriage solemnized by a minister or priest who does not have the required authority to
marriages.
Sigma Rho (
) reviewers
solemnize
16
* Article 84 of the Civil Code provides that no marriage license shall be issued to a widow until
after 300 days following the death of her husband, unless in the meantime she has given birth
to a child.
Article 352
PERFORMANCE OF ILLEGAL MARRIAGE CEREMONY
Act punished:
performance of any illegal marriage ceremony by a priest or minister of any religious
denomination or sect or by civil authorities
TITLE THIRTEEN
CRIMES AGAINST HONOR
Crimes against honor
1.
Libel by means of writings or similar means (Art. 355);
2.
Threatening to publish and offer to prevent such publication for a compensation (Art.
356);
3.
Prohibited publication of acts referred to in the course of official proceedings (Art. 357);
4.
Slander (Art. 358);
5.
Slander by deed (Art. 359);
6.
Incriminating innocent person (Art. 363);
7.
Intriguing against honor (Art. 364).
Article 353
LIBEL
ELEMENTS:
1. That there must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act,
omission, condition, status, or circumstances.
2. That the imputation must be made publicly.
3. That it must be malicious.
4. That the imputation must be directed at a natural or juridical person, or one who is dead.
5. That the imputation must tend to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of the person defamed.
Sigma Rho (
) reviewers
17
Malice in law This is assumed and is inferred from the defamatory character of an
imputation. The presumption of malice attaches to the defamatory statement especially if it
appears to be insulting per se. The law presumes that the defamer made the imputation
without good intention or justifiable motive.
Malice in fact This refers to malice as a fact. The presence and existence of personal ill-will
or spite may still appear even if the statement is not defamatory. So, where the defamatory
acts may be presumed from the publication of the defamatory acts imputed refer to the
private life of the individual, malice may be presumed from the publication of the defamatory
statement because no one has a right to invade anothers privacy.
Distinction between malice in fact and malice in law
Malice in fact is the malice which the law presumes from every statement whose tenor is defamatory. It
does not need proof. The mere fact that the utterance or statement is defamatory negates a legal
presumption of malice.
In the crime of libel, which includes oral defamation, there is no need for the prosecution to present
evidence of malice. It is enough that the alleged defamatory or libelous statement be presented to the
court verbatim. It is the court which will prove whether it is defamatory or not. If the tenor of the utterance
or statement is defamatory, the legal presumption of malice arises even without proof.
Malice in fact becomes necessary only if the malice in law has been rebutted. Otherwise, there is no need
to adduce evidence of malice in fact. So, while malice in law does not require evidence, malice in fact
requires evidence.
Malice in law can be negated by evidence that, in fact, the alleged libelous or defamatory utterance was
made with good motives and justifiable ends or by the fact that the utterance was privileged in character.
In law, however, the privileged character of a defamatory statement may be absolute or qualified.
When the privileged character is said to be absolute, the statement will not be actionable whether criminal
or civil because that means the law does not allow prosecution on an action based thereon.
Illustration:
As regards the statements made by Congressmen while they are deliberating or discussing in Congress,
when the privileged character is qualified, proof of malice in fact will be admitted to take the place of
malice in law. When the defamatory statement or utterance is qualifiedly privileged, the malice in law is
negated. The utterance or statement would not be actionable because malice in law does not exist.
Therefore, for the complainant to prosecute the accused for libel, oral defamation or slander, he has to
prove that the accused was actuated with malice (malice in fact) in making the statement.
Sigma Rho (
) reviewers
18
Publication is the communication of the defamatory matter to a third person or persons. So,
the delivery of a defamatory writing to a typesetter is sufficient publication. Writing a letter to
another person other than the person defamed is sufficient publication. (See Sazon vs. Court of
Appeals, 255 SCRA 692)
> The crime is libel if the defamation is in writing or printed media.
> The crime is slander or oral defamation if it is not printed.
* Person libeled must be identified. But the publication need not refer by name to the libeled
party. If not named it must be shown that the description of the person referred to in the
defamatory publication was sufficiently clear so that at least a 3rd person would have identified
the plaintiff.
* When a libel is addressed to several persons, unless they are identified in the same libel, even if there
are several persons offended by the libelous utterance or statement, there will only be one count of libel.
* If the offended parties in the libel were distinctly identified, even though the libel was committed at one
and the same time, there will be as many libels as there are persons dishonored.
Illustration:
If a person uttered that All the Marcoses are thieves," there will only be one libel because these particular
Marcoses regarded as thieves are not specifically identified.
If the offender said, All the Marcoses the father, mother and daughter are thieves. There will be three
counts of libel because each person libeled is distinctly dishonored.
* If you do not know the particular persons libeled, you cannot consider one libel as giving rise to several
counts of libel. In order that one defamatory utterance or imputation may be considered as having
dishonored more than one person, those persons dishonored must be identified. Otherwise, there will only
be one count of libel.
* Note that in libel, the person defamed need not be expressly identified. It is enough that he could
possibly be identified because innuendos may also be a basis for prosecution for libel. As a matter of
fact, even a compliment which is undeserved, has been held to be libelous.
Sigma Rho (
) reviewers
19
When the act or omission imputed constitutes a crime regardless of whether the offended party is
a private individual or a public officer;
2.
When the offended party is a government employee, even if the act or omission imputed does not
constitute a crime, provided if its related to the discharged of his official duties.
2.
3.
If a crime is a private crime, it cannot be prosecuted de officio. A complaint from the offended party is
necessary.
Libel
-false accusation need not be made under oath
Sigma Rho (
Perjury
-false accusation is made under oath
) reviewers
20
Sigma Rho (
) reviewers
21
Sigma Rho (
) reviewers
22
Article 355
LIBEL BY MEANS OF WRITING OR SIMILAR MEANS
A libel may be committed by means of
1.
Writing;
2.
Printing;
3.
Lithography;
4.
Engraving;
5.
Radio;
6.
Photograph;
7.
Painting;
8.
Theatrical exhibition;
9.
Cinematographic exhibition; or
10.
* In the enumeration above, television is not included, probably because at the time the Revised
Penal Code was conceived, television had not yet been invented. However, the law provides, or
any similar means which easily qualifies television is such species or category. (People vs.
Casten, C.A., G.R. No. 07924-CR promulgated December 13, 1974)
Article 356
THREATENING TO PUBLISH LIBEL
PUBLICATION FOR A COMPENSATION
AND
OFFER
TO
PREVENT
SUCH
Acts punished
1.
Threatening another to publish a libel concerning him, or his parents, spouse, child, or other
members of his family;
2.
Offering to prevent the publication of such libel for compensation or money consideration.
* It involves the unlawful extortion of money by appealing to the fear of the victim, through
threats of accusation or exposure. It contemplates of two offenses: a threat to establish a libel
and an offer to prevent such publication. The gravamen of the crime is the intent to extort
money or other things of value.
Blackmail In its metaphorical sense, blackmail may be defined as any unlawful extortion of money by
threats of accusation or exposure. Two words are expressive of the crime hush money. (US v. Eguia,
et al., 38 Phil. 857) Blackmail is possible in (1) light threats under Article 283; and (2) threatening to
publish, or offering to prevent the publication of, a libel for compensation, under Article 356.
Sigma Rho (
) reviewers
23
Article 358
ORAL DEFAMATION / SLANDER
Two Kinds of Oral Defamation:
1. action of a serious and insulting nature (Grave slander)
2. light insult or defamation not serious in nature (simple slander)
Factors that determine gravity of the offense:
a) expressions used
b) personal relations of the accused and the offended party
c) circumstances surrounding the case
Notes:
* The gravity of oral defamation depends not only on the expressions but also on the personal
relation of the accused with the offended party. Other circumstances like the presence of
important people when the crime was committed, the social standing and position of the
offended party are factors which may influence the gravity and defamatory imputation (Victorio
vs. Court of Appeals, 173 SCRA 645).
Sigma Rho (
) reviewers
24
Atienza, G.R. No. L-19857, Oct. 26, 1968 ) It is a common expression of anger or
displeasure. It is seldom taken in its literal sense by the hearer. It is viewed more as a
threat on the part of the accused to manifest and emphasize a point. (Reyes vs. People,
27 SCRA 686)
Article 359
SLANDER BY DEED
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender performs any act not included in any other crime against honor.
2. That such act is performed in the presence of other person or persons.
3. That such act casts dishonor, discredit or contempt upon the offended party.
Notes:
Slander by deed is a defamation committed by the offender against the complainant through
the performance of any act which casts dishonor, discredit or contempt upon another person.
* Slander by deed refers to performance of an act, not use of words.
Two kinds of slander by deed
1.
2.
* Whether a certain slanderous act constitutes slander by deed of a serious nature or not, depends on the
social standing of the offended party, the circumstances under which the act was committed, the occasion,
etc.
* The acts of slapping and boxing the woman, a teacher, in the presence of many people has
put her to dishonor, contempt and ridicule. (P v Costa)
* If the acts committed against the offended party caused her physical injury which did not
require medical attendance, then the crime would be maltreatment which is classified as slight
physical injuries.
P v Motita
> Accused held a mirror between the legs of complainant to reflect her private parts. The crowd
laughed. Guilty of slander by deed.
Distinctions:
a. Unjust Vexation-irritation or annoyance/anything that annoys or irritates without
justification.
b. Slander by Deed-irritation or annoyance + attendant publicity and dishonor or contempt.
c. Acts of lasciviousness-irritation or annoyance + any of 3 circumstance provided in Art335
of RPC on rape
Sigma Rho (
) reviewers
25
Article 360
PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR LIBEL
Who are liable:
a. person who publishes, exhibits or causes the publication or exhibition of any
defamation in writing or similar means(par.1)
b. author or editor of a book or pamphlet
c. editor or business manager of a daily newspaper magazine or serial
publication(par.2)
d. owner of the printing plant which publishes a libelous article with his consent and
all other persons who in any way participate in or have connection with its
publication (US v Ortiz)
* A defamatory statement by itself is not a crime. It is the undue publication of the defamatory
imputation which makes it a crime. It is therefore in this concept that proprietors and editors of
periodicals are also made responsible for the appearance of defamatory matters in any
newspaper under their management.
Venue of criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written defamation:
a. where the libelous article is printed and 1st published OR
b. where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the
offense
* Libel cases are within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts.
Inferior courts have no jurisdiction to try written defamation. (People vs. Hechanova, 54 SCRA
101)
Where one of the offended parties is a public officer:
a. if his office is in the City of Manila
- RTC of Manila OR
- city/province where the article is printed and 1st published
b. Otherwise
- RTC of the city/province where he held office at the time of offense OR
- where the article is 1st published
Where one of the offended parties is a private individual:
- RTC of province/city where he actually resides at the time of the crime
- where article was printed or 1st published
* In order to prevent controversies as to the venue of criminal actions for written defamation,
the information or complaint must contain averments as to whether the offended party is a
private or public officer at the time of the commission of the offense and whenever possible, the
place where the written defamation was printed and first published. (Agbayani, et al., vs. Hon.
Sayo, et al., L-47880, April 30, 1979)
Note: Offended party must file complaint for defamation imputing a crime which cannot be
prosecuted de oficio (e.g. adultery, concubinage, rape, seduction, abduction, and acts of
lasciviousness)
* Under the last paragraph of Article 360, only defamation consisting of the imputation of
private offenses such as adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness
Sigma Rho (
) reviewers
26
Article 361
PROOF OF THE TRUTH
Admissible when:
a. the act or omission imputed constitutes a crime regardless of whether the offended
party is a private individual or a public officer
b. the offended party is a government employee, even if the act or omission imputed
does not constitute a crime provided it is related to the discharge of his official duties
Requisites for Acquittal:
a. it appears that the matter charged as libelous is TRUE (for situations 1 and 2 above)
b. it was published with good motives and for a justifiable end (for situation 1 only)
Notes: The proof of the truth of the accusation cannot be made to rest upon mere hearsay,
rumors, or suspicion. It must rest upon positive direct evidence, upon which a definite finding
may be made by the court (US v Sotto)
* Admission on the part of the accused that he committed a mistake will not serve to free him
from criminal liability. But it may serve to mitigate the penalty imposed on him or lessen his civil
liability. ( Phee vs. La Vanguardia, 45 Phil 211 )
Article 362
LIBELOUS REMARKS
Libelous remarks or comments on privileged matters (under Art. 354) if made with malice in fact will
not exempt the author and editor.
* This article is a limitation to the defense of privileged communication.
* The main thrust of the law is to punish libelous remarks or comments on matters which are
privileged, if made with malice in fact. So, a newspaper reporter who distorts facts connected
with official proceedings or who adds comments thereon as to cast aspersion on the character of
the parties involved, is guilty of libel even through the defamatory matter is published in
connection with a privileged communication. (Dorr vs. U. S., 11 Phil. 706)
Sigma Rho (
) reviewers
27
* If the incriminating machination is made orally, the crime may be slander or oral defamation.
* If the incriminatory machination was made in writing and under oath, the crime may be perjury if there is
a willful falsity of the statements made.
* If the statement in writing is not under oath, the crime may be falsification if the crime is a material
matter made in a written statement which is required by law to have been rendered.
* As far as this crime is concerned, this has been interpreted to be possible only in the so-called planting
of evidence.
* There is such a crime as incriminating an innocent person through unlawful arrest. (People vs.
Alagao, et al., G.R. No. L-20721, April 30, 1966)
Article 364
INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR
How committed:
-by any person who shall make any intrigue which has for its principal purpose to blemish the honor
or reputation of another person
Notes:
* The crime is committed by resorting to any form of scheme or plot designed to blemish the
reputation of a person. The offender does not employ written or spoken words, pictures or
caricatures to ridicule the victim. Rather, he uses some ingenious, crafty and secret ploy which
produces the same effect.
* Intriguing against honor is referred to as gossiping. The offender, without ascertaining the truth of a
defamatory utterance, repeats the same and pass it on to another, to the damage of the offended party.
Who started the defamatory news is unknown.
* Where the source of polluted information can be traced and pinpointed, and the accused adopted as his
own the information he obtained, and passed it to another in order to cause dishonor to the complainants
reputation, the act is Slander and not Intriguing Against Honor. But where the source or the author of the
derogatory information can not be determined and the accused borrows the same, and without subscribing
to the truth thereof, passes it to others, the act is one of Intriguing Against Honor.
Sigma Rho (
) reviewers
28
Sigma Rho (
) reviewers
29
CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE
Article 365
ELEMENTS OF RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE:
1. That the offender does or fails to do an act.
2. That the doing of or the failure to do that act is voluntary.
3. That it be without malice.
4. That material damage results.
5. That there is inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the offender, taking into consideration
a. his employment or occupation
b. degree of intelligence, physical condition, and
c. other circumstances regarding persons, time and place.
Committing through reckless imprudence any act which, had it been intentional, would constitute a
grave or less grave felony or light felony;
2.
Committing through simple imprudence or negligence an act which would otherwise constitute a
grave or a less serious felony;
3.
Causing damage to the property of another through reckless imprudence or simple imprudence or
negligence;
4.
Causing through simple imprudence or negligence some wrong which, if done maliciously, would
have constituted a light felony.
* There is no more issue on whether culpa is a crime in itself or only a mode of incurring criminal liability.
It is practically settled that criminal negligence is only a modality in incurring criminal liability. This is so
because under Article 3, a felony may result from dolo or culpa.
Notes:
Test for determining whether or not a person is negligent of doing of an act which
results in injury or damages to another person or his property.
Would a prudent man in the position of the person to whom negligence is attributed, foresee
harm to the person injured? If so, the law imposes on the doer, the duty to refrain from the
course of action, or to take precaution against such result. Failure to do so constitutes
negligence. Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by ignoring the admonition borne of this
provisions, is the constitutive fact of negligence. (Picart vs. Smith, 37 Phil. 809, 813)
Sigma Rho (
) reviewers
30
Did the defendant, in doing the alleged negligent 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 penalties under Article 365 has no application in the following cases:
1. When the penalty provided for the offense ifs equal or lower than that provided in pars.1 and
2 of Article 365. In this case, the penalty shall be that which is next lower in degree than
that which should be imposed, in the period which the court may deem proper to apply.
2. When by imprudence or negligence and with violation of the Automobile Law, the death of a
person is caused, the penalty is prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
1) Art.64 on mitigating and aggravating circumstances not applicable.
2) Failure to lend on the spot assistance to victim of his negligence: penalty next higher in
degree.
3) Abandoning usually punishable under Art 275, if charged under Art 365 is only qualifying
and if not alleged cannot even be an aggravating circumstance.
4) Contributory negligencenot a defense, only mitigating
* The defense of contributory negligence does not apply in criminal cases committed through
reckless imprudence. It is against public policy to invoke the negligence of another to escape
criminal liability. (People vs. Quiones, C.A., 44 O.G. 1520)
* The above-mentioned doctrine should be reconciled with the doctrine of concurrent
proximate cause of two negligent drivers.
* In the case of People vs. Desalis, et al., C.A., 57 O.G. 8689, the two accused were drivers of two
speeding vehicles which overtook vehicles ahead of them and even encroached on the others
lane without taking due precaution as required by the circumstances. The court found the
concurrent or successive negligent act or omission of the two drivers as the direct and proximate
cause of the injury caused to the offended party. The court could not determine in what
proportion each driver contributed to the injury. Both were declared guilty for the injury
suffered by the third person.
* When negligence does not result in any injury to persons or damage to property, then no
crime is committed. Negligence becomes punishable when it results in the commission of a
crime. (Lantok, Jr. vs. Hon. Gorgonio, L-37396, April 30, 1979, 75 O.G. 7763)
Last clear chance doctrine> The contributory negligence of the injured party will not defeat the action if it be shown that the
accused might, by the exercise of reasonable care and prudence, have avoided the
consequences of the negligence of the injured party
Emergency rule> An automobile driver, who, by the negligence of another, is suddenly placed in an emergency
and compelled to act instantly to avoid a collision or injury is not guilty of negligence if he makes
a choice which a person of ordinary prudence placed in such a position might make even though
he did not make the wisest choice.
Doctrine of Pre-emption
> It is a rule in collision cases which the driver of a motor vehicle to make a full stop when
crossing a thru-street. Any accident therefore which takes place in said corner gives to rise to
the presumption of negligence on the part driver of the motor vehicle running thru-street has
already reached the middle part of the intersection. In such a case, the other driver who has the
right of way has the duty to stop his motor vehicle in order to avoid a collision. (People vs.
Taradji, 3 C.A. Rep. [25] 460)
Sigma Rho (
) reviewers
31
* Do not separate the accusation from the slight physical injuries from the other material result of the
negligence.
* If the criminal negligence resulted, for example, in homicide, serious physical injuries and slight physical
injuries, do not join only the homicide and serious physical injuries in one information for the slight physical
injuries. You are not complexing slight when you join it in the same information. It is just that you are not
splitting the criminal negligence because the real basis of the criminal liability is the negligence.
* If you split the criminal negligence, that is where double jeopardy would arise.
* Accused is not criminally liable for the death or injuries caused by his negligence to
trespassers whose presence in the premises he was not aware of. In the case of People vs.
Cuadra, C.A., 53 O.G. 7265, accused was a truck driver. Unknown to him, several persons
boarded his truck and while driving along a slippery road which has a declinations of 25 degrees,
the left front wheel of the truck fell into a ditch. In his effort to return the truck to the center of
the road, the truck turned turtle, throwing off two of the passengers who boarded the truck
without his knowledge. As a consequence, one of them died. Cuadra was acquitted of the crime
of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and physical injuries.
* Overtaking of another vehicle is a normal occurrence in driving. But when the overtaking is
done from right, it shows recklessness and disregard of traffic laws and regulations. It is likewise
so when the overtaking is done while another vehicle is approaching from the opposite direction.
This is a violation of Section 59(b) of the Motor Vehicle Law (People vs. Songalla, C.A., 67 O.G.
8330)
* Driving within the speed limit is not a guaranty of due care. Speed limits impose the maximum
speed which should not be exceeded. The degree of care required of a motorist is not governed
by speed limits but by the circumstances and conditions obtaining in the place at the particular
time. So, if the maximum speed limit is 80 kilometers per hour and the vehicle driven at 30
kilometers per hour, but because of the very slow pace of the vehicle, an accident occurs, the
observation of the speed limit will not be acceptable evidence of due care. (people vs. Caluza,
C.A., 58 O.G. 8060)
Force majeure in relation to negligence.
> Force majeure has reference to an event which cannot be foreseen or which being foreseen,
is inevitable. It implies an extraordinary circumstance independent of the will of the actor or
perpetrator. In negligence, the immediate personal harm or damage to property is perceivable
and can be prevented by the exercise of reasonable care. As the event is foreseeable, the failure
of the actor to use reasonable care to prevent harm or damage constitutes reckless imprudence
or simple negligence. (People vs. Eleazar )
Sigma Rho (
) reviewers
32