1.
Treason vs Sedition:
Treason, in its more general sense, is the “violation by
a subject of his allegiance to his sovereign or liege, lord or
to the supreme authority of the State.” Sedition, in its more
general sense, is “the raising of commotions or
disturbances in the State.” (Pg. 106)
2. Treason vs Rebellion:
If the levying of war is merely a civil uprising, without
any intention of helping an external enemy, the crime is not
treason. The offenders may be held liable for rebellion
under Article 135 in relation to Article 134 of this Code. (Pg.
6)
(a) The levying of war against the Government
would constitute treason when performed to aid
the enemy. It would also constitute an adherence
to the enemy, giving him aid and comfort.
The levying of war against the Government
during peace time for any of the purposes
mentioned in Article 134 is rebellion.
(b) Rebellion always involves taking up arms against
the Government; treason may be committed by
mere adherence to the enemy giving him aid or
comfort. (88)
3. Treason vs Espionage
Espionage is a crime not conditioned by the citizenship
of the offender. This is also true as regards treason, in view
of the amendment to Article 14.
But treason is committed only in time of war, while
espionage may be committed in both time of peace and in
time of war. Treason is limited in two ways of committing
the crime: levying war, and adhering to the enemy giving
him aid or comfort; while espionage may be committed in
many ways. (Pg. 26)
4. Piracy vs Mutiny
In piracy, the persons who attack a vessel or seize its
cargo are strangers to said vessels; while in mutiny, they are
members of the crew or passengers.
While the intent to gain is essential in the crime of
piracy, in mutiny, the offenders may only intend to ignore
the ship’s officers or they may be prompted by a desire to
commit plunder. (Pg. 34)
5. Trespass to dwelling vs Violation of Domicile
1st element of Violation to Domicile: The offender must
be a public officer or employee. If the offender who enters
the dwelling against the will of the owner thereof is a
private individual, the crime committed is trespass to
dwelling. (Art 280) (Pg. 65)
6. Rebellion vs Sedition
Rebellion – Common Crime, cannot be complexed with any
other crime; Sedition – Political Crime, overthrow social and
political disturbance.
7. Rebellion vs Subversion
Subversion (like treason) is a crime against national
security. Rebellion is a crime against public order.
8. Political crime vs Common Crime
Political crime refers to crimes committed or acts
omitted that injure - or are perceived as injuring
- the state, the state's government, or the
political system. Some examples of severe
political crime are treason, sedition and
terrorism.
9. Arbitrary Detention vs Illegal Detention
Public officers liable for arbitrary detention must be vested
with authority to detain or order the detention of persons
accused of a crime, but when they detain a person they have
no legal grounds therefor. (Shorter ans: The offender in
arbitrary detention is a public officer or employee). If the
offender is a private individual, the act of detaining
another is illegal detention(Art 267). (Pg. 43)
10. Prohibition, Interruption and Dissolution of Peaceful
Meetings vs Disturbance of Public Order
Only a public officer or employee can commit this crime [in
Art 131]. If the offender is a private individual, the crime is
disturbance of public order defined in Article 153
[Disturbance of Public Order]. (Pg. 75)
11. Inciting to Rebellion vs Proposal to Commit Rebellion
Inciting to rebellion distinguished from proposal to commit
rebellion.
1. In both crimes, the offender induces another to commit
rebellion.
2. In proposal, the person who proposes has decided to commit
rebellion; in inciting to rebellion, it is not required that the offender
has decided to commit rebellion.
3. In proposal, the person who proposes the execution of the crime
uses secret means; in inciting to rebellion, the act of inciting is
done publicly.
12. Illegal Association vs Illegal Assembly
Illegal association distinguished from illegal assembly.
1. In illegal assembly, it is necessary that there is an actual meeting
or assembly of armed persons for the purpose of committing any of
the crimes punishable under the Code, or of individuals who,
although not armed, are incited to the commission of treason,
rebellion, sedition, or assault upon a person in authority or his
agent; in illegal association, it is not necessary that there be an
actual meeting.
2. In illegal assembly, it is the meeting and attendance at such
meeting that are punished; in illegal associations, it is the act of
forming or organizing and membership in the association that are
punished.
3. In illegal assembly, the persons liable are: (1) the organizers or
leaders of the meeting, and (2) the persons present at meeting. In
illegal association, the persons liable are: (1) the founders,
directors and president, and (2) the members.
13. Direct Assault vs Serious Disobedience
Direct assault distinguished from resistance or serious
disobedience.
1. In direct assault, the person in authority or his agent must be
engaged in the performance of official duties or that he is assaulted
by reason thereof; but in resistance, the person in authority or his
agent must be in actual performance of his duties.
2. Direct assault (2nd form) is committed in four ways: (a) by
attacking, (b) by employing force, (c) by seriously intimidating,
and (d) by seriously resisting a person in authority or his agent;
resistance or serious disobedience is committed only by resisting
or seriously disobeying a person in authority or his agent.
3. In both direct assault by resisting an agent of a person in
authority and resistance against an agent of a person in authority,
there is force employed, but the use of force in resistance is not so
serious, as there is no manifest intention to defy the law and the
officers enforcing it. The attack or employment of force which
gives rise to the crime of direct assault must be serious and
deliberate; otherwise, even a case of simple resistance to an arrest,
which always requires the use of force of some kind, would
constitute direct assault and the lesser offense of resistance or
disobedience in Art. 151 would entirely disappear.
(People vs. Cauan, CA-G.R. No. 540, Oct. 11, 1938)
But when the one resisted is a person in authority, the use of any
kind or degree of force will give rise to direct assault.
If no force is employed by the offender in resisting or disobeying a
person in authority, the crime committed is resistance or serious
disobedience under the first paragraph of Art. 151.
14. Quasi-Recidivism vs Reiteracion
Quasi-recidivism, distinguished from reiteracion.
The aggravating circumstance of "reiteracion" requires that the
offender against whom it is considered shall have served out his
sentences for the prior offenses. Here, all the accused were yet
serving their respective sentences at the time of the commission of
the crime of murder. The special aggravating circumstance of
quasi-recidivism (Art. 160, R.P.C.) was correctly
considered against all the accused. (People vs. Layson, et al., L-
25177, Oct. 31, 1969, 30 SCRA 93)
15. Forgery vs Falsification
Forgery and falsification, distinguished.
The term forgery as used in Art. 169 refers to the falsification and
counterfeiting of treasury or bank notes or any instruments payable
to bearer or to order. Falsification is the commission of any of the
eight (8) acts mentioned in Art. 171 on legislative (only the act of
making alteration),
public or official, commercial, or private documents, or wireless,
or telegraph messages. See Title Four, Chapter One, Section Four.
16. Use of fictitious name vs Concealing true name
Distinction between use of fictitious name and concealing true
name.
1. In use of fictitious name, the element of publicity must be
present; in concealing true name and other personal circumstances,
that element is not necessary.
2. The purpose in use of fictitious name is any of those three
enumerated (to conceal a crime, to evade the execution of a
judgment, or to cause damage); in concealing true name it is
merely to conceal identity.
17. Prevaricacion vs Bribery
Prevaricacion distinguished from bribery.
The third form of direct bribery (Art. 210) is committed by
refraining from doing something which pertains to the official duty
of the officer. Prevaricacion (Art. 208) is committed in the same
way. In this regard, the two felonies are similar. But they differ in
that in bribery, the offender refrained from doing his official duty
in consideration of a gift received or promised. This element is not
necessary in the crime of prevaricacion.
18. Direct Bribery vs Indirect Bribery
Direct bribery distinguished from indirect bribery.
1. In both crimes, the public officer receives gift.
2. While in direct bribery there is an agreement between the public
officer and the giver of the gift or present, in indirect bribery,
usually, no such agreement exists.
3. In direct bribery, the offender agrees to perform or performs an
act or refrains from doing something, because of the gift or
promise; in indirect bribery, it is not necessary that the officer
should do any particular act or even promise to do an act, as it is
enough that he accepts gifts offered to him by reason of his office,
(cited in Pozar vs. Court of Appeals, 132 SCRA 729)
19. Illegal Use of Public Funds vs Malversation
Illegal use of public funds or property distinguished from
malversation under Art. 217.
1. The offenders are accountable public officers in both crimes.
2. The offender in illegal use of public funds or property does not
derive any personal gain or profit; in malversation, the offender in
certain cases profits from the proceeds of the crime.
3. In illegal use, the public fund or property is applied to another
public use; in malversation, the public fund or property is applied
to the personal use and benefit of the offender or of another person.
20. Malversation and Falsification vs Infidelity of Documents
When the person received money orders, signed the signatures of
the payees thereon, collected and appropriated the respective
amounts thereof, the person is guilty of Malversation and
falsification, the latter crime having been committed to conceal
the Malversation.
But when the person receives the letters or envelopes containing
money orders for transmission, and the money orders are not sent
to the addresses, the postmaster cashing the same for his own
benefit, he is guilty of infidelity in the custody of papers.
21. Abandonment of Office or position vs Dereliction of Duty
In Abandonment of office or position, the crime is committed by
any public officer while in dereliction of duty, the crime is
committed only by public officers who have the duty to institute
prosecution for the punishment of violations of the law.
In abandonment of office or position, the public officer abandons
his office to evade the discharge of his duty while in dereliction of
duty, the public officer does not abandon his office but he fails to
prosecute an offense by dereliction of duty or by malicious
tolerance of the commission of offenses.
22. Abortion vs Infanticide
If the fetus acquired human form but it did not have its own life,
independently of the mother. It could not subsist itself outside the
maternal womb which results in the death of the fetus, the crime
is abortion.
If the fetus could sustain an independent life, after its separation
from the maternal womb and is killed the crime is infanticide.
23. Physical Injuries vs Attempted or Frustrated homicide
If there is no intent to kill on the part of the offender, he is liable
for physical injuries.
If the offender have an intent to kill the victim, he is liable for
attempted or frustrated homicide.
24. Seduction vs Abduction
In Seduction, it is to excite a woman to unlawful sexual intercourse
by promise of marriage or other means of persuasion without the
use of force..
In Abduction, it is to take away a woman from her house or the
place where she may be for the purposes of carrying her to another
place with intent to marry or to corrupt her.
In abduction, the taking away of the woman must be against her
will and sexual intercourse is not necessary.
In seduction, there is no use of force and sexual intercourse is
necessary.
25. Libel vs Slander vs Slander by Deed
Libel is defamation committed by means of writing, printing,
lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting or theatrical or
cinematographic exhibition, or any other similar means while
Slander is oral defamation. Slander is libel committed by oral
(spoken) means, instead of writing.
Slander by deed involves an act while libel or slander involves
words written or uttered.
26. Seduction vs Act of Lasciviousness
There must be sexual intercourse in seduction.
If there is no sexual intercourse and only acts of lewdness are
performed, the crime is act of lasciviousness.
27. Murder vs Homicide
Murder is the unlawful killing of any person which is not a parricide
or infanticide provided any of the qualifying circumstances
mentioned in Art 248 is present.
Homicide is the unlawful killing of any person which is neither
parricide, murder nor infanticide and is not attended by any of the
circumstances of murder, parricide or infanticide.
28. Grave Coercion vs Grave Threats
In grave threats, the threat must be to inflict a wrong amounting
to a crime upon the person, honor, or property of the offended
party or that of his family.
In grave coercions, it is committed by any person without authority
to prevent or compel another, by means of violence, threat, or
intimidation to do something against his will, whether it be right or
wrong.
29. Theft vs. Robbery
Article 293 of the RPC defines robbery as a crime
committed by “any person who, with intent to gain, shall take any
personal property belonging to another, by means of violence
against or intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything.”
Theft, on the other hand, is committed by any person
who, with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation
of persons nor force upon things, shall take the personal property of
another without the latter’s consent⁠.
30. Kidnapping and Failure to Return a Minor vs. Kidnapping
and Serious Illegal Detention
Article 270 of the RPC or Kidnapping and Failure to
Return a Minor as amended by Sec. 5 of RA No. 18, punishes the
deliberate failure by the person having the custody of the minor to
restore such minor to his parents or guardian.
Under Article 267 or Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention, the kidnapping of a minor is also punished. While under
Art. 270, the offender is entrusted with the custody of the minor, in
Article 267, the offender is not entrusted with the custody of the
victim.
31. Exploitation of Minors vs. Inducing a Minor to Abandon his
Home
If the purpose of inducing the minor to abandon his home
is to follow any person engaged in any of the callings of being an
acrobat, gymnast, rope-walker, diver, wild-animal tamer or circus
manager or to accompany any habitual vagrant or beggar, it is
exploitation of minors; if there is no such purpose, it is including a
minor to abandon his home under Art. 271
35. Estafa with Abuse of Confidence vs. Malversation
In estafa with abuse of confidence, the crime is
committed by misappropriating, converting or denying having
received money, goods or other personal property; in malversation,
the crime is committed by appropriating, taking or misappropriating
or consenting, or, through abandonment or negligence, permitting
any other person to take the public funds or property.

In inducing a minor to abandon his home under Art. 271,

the victim is a minor under 18 years of age; in exploitation of
minors, he must be under 16 years of age.
32. Qualified Trespass vs. Other Forms of Trespass
In qualified trespass, the offender is a private person; in
other forms of trespass, the offender is any person
In qualified trespass, the offender enters a dwelling
house; in other forms of trespass, the offender enters closed
premises or fenced estate.
In qualified trespass, the place entered is inhabited; in the
second, the place entered is uninhabited.
36. Acts of Lasciviousness vs. Attempted Rape
The difference between attempted rape and acts of
lasciviousness lies in the intent of the perpetrator as deduced from
his external acts. The intent referred to is the intent to lie with a
woman. Attempted rape is committed when the touching of the
vagina by the penis is coupled with the intent to penetrate;
otherwise, there can only be acts of lasciviousness. Inasmuch as the
touching of the victim's organ by the penis of accused was but a
mere incident of the "rubbing against or between the victim's thighs"
which in no way manifests an act preliminary to sexual intercourse,
accused-appellant should only be convicted of acts of
lasciviousness.

In qualified trespass, the act constituting the crime is

dwelling against the will of the owner, in other forms of trespass, it
is entering the closed premises or the fenced estate without securing
the permission of the owner or caretaker thereof.
In qualified trespass, the prohibition to enter is express
or implied; in other forms of trespass, the prohibition to enter must
be manifest.
37. Acts of Lasciviousness vs. Grave Coercion
If a victim was taken from her house against her will,
slapped and maltreated, her drawers taken off and her hands and feet
bound by the accused to compel her to admit that she stole the shoes
of a certain person, the crime was grave coercion. (People vs.
Fernando et al., 8 A.C. Rep 219)

33. Robbery with Force Around Things vs. Robbery with
Violence Against Intimidation of Persons.
Robbery with force upon things must be committed in an
inhabited place and by a band; while robbery with violence against
or intimidation of persons must be committed in an uninhabited
place or by a band.
In this Bailoses case, the compulsion by beating the girl
is included in the constructive element of force in the crime of act
of lasciviousness. In the Fernando case, the compulsion is the very
act constituting the offense of grave coercion (compelling the
offended party to admit the theft).

34. Brigandage vs. Robbery in Band

Both brigandage and robbery in band require that the

offenders form a band of robbers.

In brigandage, the purpose of the offenders is any of the

following: (1) to commit robbery in the highway; or (2) to kidnap
persons for the purpose of extortion or to obtain ransom; or (3) for
any other purpose to be attained by means of force and violence, in
robbery in band, the purpose of the offenders is only to commit
robbery, not necessarily in the highway.

In brigandage, the mere formation of a band for any of

the purposes mentioned in the law is sufficient, as it would not be
necessary to show that the band actually committed robbery in the
highway, etc.; in robbery in band, it is necessary to prove that the
band actually committed robbery, as a mere conspiracy to commit
robbery is not punishable.