2019 CRIMINAL LAW
BAR EXAMINATIONS
I. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK 1
A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Mala in se vs. Mala Prohibita
Mala in se
(Malum in se)
Act punished is one inherently
wrong or wrong from its very
nature.
Good faith and lack of criminal
intent are valid defenses unless
they are product of criminal
negligence or culpa
Mitigating and aggravating
circumstances are appreciated in
imposing the penalties
Generally punished under the
RPC.
The following examples of
violations under special penal
laws are considered mala in se:
1. Piracy in Philippine waters
(PD No. 532)
2. Brigandage in the highways
(PD No. 532)
3. Plunder (RA 7080)
Likewise, when the special laws
require that the punished act be
committed knowingly and
willfully, criminal intent is
Mala in se
(Malum in se)
Mala Prohibita
(Malum Prohibitum)
Wrong merely because
prohibited by statute.
Good faith or lack of criminal
intent are not valid defenses; it is
enough that the prohibition was
voluntarily violated
Such circumstances are not
appreciated unless the special
law has adopted the scheme or
scale of penalties under the RPC.
Generally involves violation of
special laws
Not all acts punishable under
RPC is mala in se. The crime of
technical malversation,
punished under Art. 220 of the
RPC, was held to be a crime
that is malum prohibitum. The
law punishes the act of
diverting public property
earmarked by law or ordinance
for a particular public purpose
for another public purpose. The
prohibited act is not inherently
immoral, but becomes a
Mala Prohibita
(Malum Prohibitum)
required to be proved before criminal offense because
criminal liability may arise. positive law forbids its
commission on considerations
of public policy, order, and
convenience. Therefore, good
faith and lack of criminal intent
are not valid defenses (Ysidoro
v. People, G.R. No. 192330,
November 14, 2012). (BAR 2015)
APPLICABILITY AND EFFECTIVITY OF THE RPC
Characteristics of Criminal Law
1. Generality
2. Territoriality
3. Prospectivity
Generality of criminal law means that the criminal law of the
country governs all persons within the country regardless of their
race, belief, sex or creed. This characteristic has no reference to
territory rather this refers to persons that may be governed by the
penal laws.
Exceptions:
1. Treaty stipulations and international agreements (e.g. RP-
US Visiting Forces Accord.)
2. Laws of Preferential Application (e.g. RA 75 penalizes acts
which would impair proper observance by the Republic
and its inhabitants of the immunities, rights, and privileges
of duly-accredited foreign diplomatic representatives in
the Philippines;
3. The principles of public international law;
 4. Members of the Congress are not liable for level or slander
in connection with any speech delivered on the floor of the
house during a regular or special session. (1987
Constitution, Article IV, Sec 11)
5. Sovereigns and other Chiefs of States
6. Ambassadors, ministers, plenipotentiary, ministers
resident and chafes d’affaires.
Only the heads of diplomatic missions, as well as members of
the diplomatic staff, excluding the members of administrative
technical and service staff, are accorded diplomatic rank.
Consuls, vice-consuls, and other commercial representatives of
foreign nation are not diplomatic officers. Consuls are subject
to the penal laws of the country where they are assigned
UNLESS there is treaty exempting them.
Territoriality means that the penal laws of the country have force
and effect only within its territory. It cannot penalize crimes
committed outside the same.
XPNs: Art. 2 of the RPC (BAR 2000)
1. Should commit and offense while on a Philippine ship or
airship;
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of
the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued
by the Government of the Philippine Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction
into these islands of the obligations and securities
mentioned in the preceding number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit
an offense in the exercise of their functions; or
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security
and the law of nations.
There are also certain exceptions brought about by international
agreements and practice.
The territory of the country is not limited to the land where its
sovereignty resides but includes also its maritime and interior
waters as well as its atmosphere.
Terrestrial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercise over land.
Fluvial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over maritime and
interior waters.
Aerial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over the
atmosphere.
The Archipelagic Rule: All bodies of water comprising the
maritime zone and interior waters abounding different islands
comprising the Philippine Archipelago are part of the Philippine
territory regardless of their breadth, depth, width or dimension.
The Philippines adopted the Archipelagic Rule on the fluvial
jurisdiction.
Under the International Law Rule, when a strait within a country
has a width of more than 6 miles, the center land in excess of 3
miles on both sides is considered international waters. Hence, on
the fluvial jurisdiction there is presently a departure from the
accepted International Law Rule.
So if a foreign merchant vessel is in the center land and a crime
was committed, the crime will be prosecuted before the Philippine
courts.
The international law theories on aerial jurisdiction:
(1) Atmosphere over the country is free and not subject to the
jurisdiction of the subjacent state, except for the
protection of its national security and public order.
 Under this theory, if a crim is committed on board a
foreign aircraft at the atmosphere of a country, the law of
that country does not govern unless the crim affects the
national security.
(2) Relative theory – the subjacent state exercises jurisdiction
over its atmosphere only to the extent that it can
effectively exercise control thereof.
Under this theory, if a crime was committed on an aircraft
which is already beyond the control of the subjacent state,
the criminal law of that state will not govern anymore. But
if the crime is committed in an aircraft within the
atmosphere over a subjacent state which exercises
control, the its criminal law will govern.
(3) Absolute theory – the subjacent state has complete
jurisdiction over the atmosphere above it subject only to
innocent passage by aircraft of foreign country.
Under this theory, if the crime is committed in an aircraft,
no matter how high, as long as it can establish that it is
within the Philippine atmosphere, Philippine criminal law
will govern. This is the theory adopted by the Philippines.
Prospectivity (irretrospectivity) – acts or omissions will only be
subject to a penal law if they are committed after a penal law had
already taken effect. Vice-versa, this act or omission which has
been committed before the effectivity of a penal law could not be
penalized by such penal law because penal laws operate only
prospectively.
Ortega stands: The exception where a penal law may be given
retroactive application is true only with a repealing law. If it is an
original penal law, that exception can never operate. What is
contemplated by the exception is that there is an original law and
there is a repealing law repealing the original law. It is the
repealing law that may be given retroactive application to those
who violated the original law, if the repealing penal law is more
favorable to the offender who violated the original law. If there is
only one penal law, it can never be given retroactive effect.
Rule of prospectivity also applies to administrative ruling and
circulars.
Effect of repeal of penal law to liability of offender:
What affects the criminal liability of an offender is not whether a
penal law is expressly or impliedly repealed; it is whether it is
absolutely or totally repealed, or relatively or partially repealed.
A repeal is absolute or total when the crime punished under the
repealed law has been decriminalized by the repeal. Because of
the repeal, the act or omission which used to be a crime is no
longer a crime. An example is RA 7363, which decriminalized
subversion.
A repeal is partial or relative when the crime punished under the
repeal law continues to be a crime inspite of the repeal. This
means that the repeal merely modified the conditions affecting the
crime under the repealed law. The modification may be
prejudicial or beneficial to the offender. Hence, the following rule:
Consequences if repeal of penal law is total or absolute:
(1) If a case is pending in court involving the violation of the
repealed law, the same shall be dismissed, even though the
accused may be a habitual delinquent. This is so because
all persons accused of a crime are presumed innocent until
they are convicted by final judgment. Therefore, the
accused shall be acquitted.
(2) If a case is already decided and the accused is already
serving sentence by final judgment where the convict is
not a habitual delinquent, then he will be entitled to a
 release unless there is a reservation clause in the penal
law that it will not apply to those serving sentence at the
time of the repeal. But if there is no reservation, those who
are not habitual delinquents even if they are already
serving their sentence will receive the benefit of the
repealing law. They are entitled to release.
This does not mean that if they are free to escape. If they
escape, they commit the crime of evasion of sentence, even
if there is no more legal basis to hold them in penitentiary.
This is so because prisoners are accountabilities of the
government; they are not supposed to step out simply
because their sentence has already been, or that the law
under which they are sentenced has been declared null
and void.
If they are not discharged form confinement, a petition for
habeas corpus should be filed to test the legality of their
continued confinement in jail. As for a jail guard who
allowed the accused to go without order from the court
will commit infidelity in the custody of prisoners.
If the convict, on the other hand, is a habitual delinquent,
he will continue serving the sentence in spite of the fact
that the law under which he was convicted has already
been absolutely repealed.
Consequences if repeal of penal law is partial or relative:
(1) If a case is pending in court involving the violation of the
repealed law, and the repealing law is more favorable to
the accused, it shall be the one applied to him. So whether
he is a habitual delinquent or not, if the case is still pending
in court, the repealing law will be the one to apply unless
there is a saving clause in the repealing law that it shall not
apply to pending causes of action.
(2) If a case is already decided and the accused is already
serving sentence by final judgment, even if the repealing
law I partial or relative, the crime still remains to be a
crime. Those who are not habitual delinquents will benefit
on the effect of that repeal, so that if the repeal is more
lenient to them, it will be the repealing law that will
henceforth apply to them.
Consequences if repeal of penal law is express or implied
(1) If a penal law is impliedly repealed, the subsequent repeal
of the repealing law will revive the original law. So the act
or omission which was punished as crime under the
original law will be revived and the same shall again be
crimes although during the implied repeal they may not be
punishable;
(2) If the repeal is express, the repeal of the repealing law will
not revive the first law, so the act or omission will no longer
be penalized.
These affects of repeal do not apply to self-repealing laws or
those which have automatic termination.
Republic Act (RA) No. 10951 adjusted the amount or the value
of property and damage on which a penalty is based and the fines
imposed under the RPC.
Pro reo principle
The doctrine provides that whenever a penal law is to be
construed or applied and the law admits of two interpretations –
one lenient to the offender and one strict to the offender – that
interpretation which is lenient or favorable to the offender will be
adopted.
This is in consonance with the fundamental rule that all doubts
shall be construed in favor of the accused and consistent with
presumption of innocence of the accused.
B. FELONIES
1. Criminal liabilities and felonies
Felonies are acts or omissions punishable by the RPC.
An act contemplated in criminal law refers to any bodily
movement tending to produce some effect in the external world
it being unnecessary that the same be actually produced, as
the possibility of its production is sufficient (Reyes, 2012).
An omission contemplated in criminal law means inaction; the
failure to perform a positive duty which one is bound. There
must be a law requiring the doing or performance of a duty.
(i.e. Misprison of treason, failure of an accountable officer to
render accounts).
Kinds of felonies:
1. Intentional felonies (Dolo) – committed with criminal intent.
2. Negligent felonies (Culpa) – where the wrongful acts result
from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill.
Requisites of a felony:
1. Criminal intent or negligence. Criminal negligence takes the
place of criminal intent in case of culpa.
2. Freedom of action – voluntariness on the part of the person to
commit the act or omission or that he is not acting under
duress;
3. Intelligence – means the capacity to know and understand the
consequences of one’s act.
Negligence – means deficiency in perception or lack of foresight,
or failure to pay proper attention and to use due diligence in
foreseeing injury or damage to be caused.
Imprudence – means a deficiency in action or lack of skill, or
failure to take necessary precaution to avoid injury to another.
Mens rea referred to as the gravemen of the offense. Men rea of
the crime depends upon the element of the crime.
Examples:
1. In theft, the mens rea is the taking of property belonging
to another with intent to gain.
2. In falsification, the mens rea is the commission of forgery
with intent to pervert the truth.
3. In robbery, the mens rea is the taking of property
belonging to another coupled with the employment of
intimidation or violence upon persons or things.
Intent refers to the use of a particular means to effect the desired
result. It is a mental state, the existence of which is demonstrated
by the overt acts of a person.
Intent is categorized into:
1. General criminal intent – presumed from the mere doing of a
wrong act hence does not require proof other than the
commission of the unlawful act. Nonetheless, the presumption
can always be rebutted by proof of lack of intent. (BAR
2014)
2. Specific criminal intent – not presumed because it is an
ingredient or element of a crime, like intent to kill in the
crimes of attempted or frustrated homicide/parricide/
murder.
Motive is the moving power or force which impels a person to a
desired result.
Motive is not an element of a crime and immaterial in the
determination of criminal liability. However, in the following
instances, motive is material when:
1. The acts bring about variant crimes;
2. The identity of the accused is doubtful;
3. The evidence on the commission of the crime is purely
circumstantial;
4. There is a need to determine whether direct assault is
present, as in offenses against person in authority when
the assault is committed while not being in the
performance of his duties;
5. In ascertaining the truth between two antagonistic theories
or versions of the killing; and
6. Where there are no eyewitnesses to the crime and where
suspicion is likely to fall upon a number of persons.
The importance of classifying the felonies at their severity is to
determine:
1. Whether these felonies can be complexed or not (Art. 48,
RPC);
2. The prescription of the crime and the prescription of the
penalty (Art. 90, RPC);
3. Whether the accessory is liable (Art. 16, RPC);
4. The duration of the subsidiary penalty [Art. 39(2), RPC];
5. The duration of the detention in case of failure to post the
bond to keep the peace (Art. 35); and
6. The proper penalty for quasi-offenses (Art. 365, par. 1, RPC).
GRAVE vs. LESS GRAVE vs. LIGHT Felonies
(Classification of felonies according to their gravity)
Article 9, RPC:
Grave felonies - are those to which the law attaches the capital
punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are
afflictive, in accordance with Article 25 of this Code.
Less gave felonies - are those which the law punishes with
penalties which in their maximum period are correctional in
accordance with abovementioned article.
Light felonies are those infractions of law or the commission of
which the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding Forty
thousand pesos (₱40,000) or both is provided (amended by RA
10951).
Factors to be considered in imposing a penalty:
1. Stages of execution;
2. The degree of participation;
3. The presence of attending circumstances.
For grave or less grave felonies, the persons liable are the
principals, accomplices and accessories.
Light felonies are punishable only when they are consummated
UNLESS committed against persons or property. Moreover, only
principals and their accomplices are liable for the commission of
light felonies.
Crimes considered as light felonies:
1. Slight physical injuries;
2. Theft (when the value of thing stolen is not over 500 pesos
and theft is committed under the circumstances
enumerated under RPC, Art. 308, par.3);
3. Alteration of boundary marks;
4. Malicious mischief (when the value of the damage does not
exceed P40,000 or cannot be estimated);
5. Intriguing against honor; and
6. Alarms and Scandals.
NOTE: If one assists in the escape of another who committed
Alarms and Scandals, he is not liable under RPC but may be
liable under PD 1829.
Criminal liability, Article 4, RPC – Criminal liability is incurred
by a person:
1. Committing a felony although the wrongful act done be
different from that which he intended; and
2. Performing an act which would be an offense against persons
or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or on account of the employment of
inadequate or ineffectual means.
Aberratio ictus, Error in personae, and Praeter Intentionem
(Causes which may produce a result different from that
which the offended intended)
MISTAKE IN IDENTITY (Error in personae) – The offender
intends the injury on one person but the hard fell on another. In
this situation the intended victim was not at the scene of the crime.
MISTAKE IN BLOW (Aberratio ictus) – A person directed the
blow at the intended victim, but because of poor aim, that blow
landed on somebody else. In aberratio ictus, the intended victim
and the actual victim are both at the scene of the crime.
INJURIOUS CONSEQUENCES ARE GREATER THAN THAT
INTENDED (Praeter intentionem) – The injury is on the intended
victim but the resulting consequence is so grave a wrong than
what was intended. It is essential that there is a notable disparity
between the means employed or the act of the offender and the
felony which resulted.
This means that the resulting felony cannot be foreseen from the
acts of the offender. (A, without intent to kill, struck the victim
on the back, causing the victim to fall down and hit his head
on the pavement.)
Praeter intentionem is a mitigating circumstance particularly
covered by paragraph 3 of Article 13.
The three enumerated situations are always the result of an
intentional felony or dolo. These situations do not arise out of
criminal negligence.
Mistake of fact is the misapprehension of facts on the part
of the person who caused injury to another. He is not, however,
criminally liable, because he did not act with criminal intent.
It is necessary that had the facts been true as the accused
believed them to be, the act is justified. Moreover, the offender
must believe that he is performing a lawful act. An honest
mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent
which arises upon the commission of a felonious act.
NOTE: Mistake of fact is a defense only in intentional felonies.
Hence, if the offender acted in negligence or imprudence, he will
still be criminally liable.
Requisites of mistake of fact
1. That the act done would have been lawful had the facts
been as the accused believed them to be;
2. That the intention of the accused in performing the act is
lawful; and
3. That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on
the part of the accused.
Immediate cause may be a cause which is far and remoe from the
consequence which sets into motion other causes that resulted in
the felony.
Proximate Cause – that cause, which, in natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces
the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.
As a rule, the offender is criminally liable or all the consequences
of his felonious act, although not intended, if the felonious act is
the proximate cause of the felony.
Proximate cause does not require that the offender needs to
actually touch the body of the offended party. It is enough
that the offender generated in the mind of the offended party
the belief that made him risk himself.
If a man creates in another person’s mind an immediate sense
of danger, which causes such person to try to escape, and, in
so doing, the latter injures himself, the man who creates such
a state of mind is responsible for the resulting injuries (People v.
Toling, G.R. L-27097, January 17, 1975
The felony committed is not the proximate cause of the
resulting injury when:
1. There is an efficient intervening cause between the felony
committed and the resulting injury; or
2. Resulting injury or damage is due to the intentional act of
the victim.
Efficient intervening cause – an intervening active force which
is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of
the accused.
Circumstances which are considered as inefficient
intervening causes:
1. The weak physical condition of the victim
2. The nervousness or temperament of the victim
3. Causes which are inherent in the victim, such as the victim’s
inability to swim
4. Refusal of the injured party to be subjected to medical
attendance
5. Erroneous or unskillful medical treatment
Circumstances which are considered as inefficient intervening
causes 1. The weak physical condition of the victim 2. The
nervousness or temperament of the victim 3. Causes which are
inherent in the victim, such as the victim’s inability to swim 4.
Refusal of the injured party to be subjected to medical
attendance 5. Erroneous or unskillful medical treatment NOTE:
Although the above-mentioned circumstances may have
intervened in the commission of the crime, the offender is still
liable for the resulting crime because the proximate cause
Although the above-mentioned circumstances may have
intervened in the commission of the crime, the offender is still
liable for the resulting crime because the proximate cause his
act remains and these circumstances are inefficient.
The death of the victim is presumed to be the natural
consequence of the physical injuries inflicted, when the
following facts are established:
1. That the victim at the time the physical injuries were
inflicted was in normal health.
2. That death may be expected from the physical injuries
inflicted.
3. That death ensued within a reasonable time.
2. Circumstances affecting criminal liability
3. Persons liable and degree of participation
C. PENALTIES
D. EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
E. CIVIL LIABILITY IN CRIMINAL CASES
II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK 2
A. Crimes against National Security and Laws of Nations
B. Crimes against the Fundamental Law of the State
C. Crimes against Public Order
D. Crimes against Public Interest
E. Crimes against Public Morals
F. Crimes committed by Public Officers
1. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment (Art. 204);
2. Judgment rendered through negligence (Art. 205);
3. Unjust interlocutory order (Art. 206);
4. Malicious delay in the administration of justice (Art. 207);
5. Prosecution of offenses; negligence and tolerance (Art.
208);
6. Betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor – Revelation of
secrets (Art. 209);
7. Direct bribery (Art. 210);
8. Indirect bribery (Art. 211);
9. Qualified bribery (Art. 211-A);
10. Corruption of public officials (Art. 212);
11. Frauds against the public treasury and similar offenses
(Art. 213);
12. Other frauds (Art. 214);
13. Prohibited transactions (Art. 215);
14. Possession of prohibited interest by a public officer (Art.
216);
15. Malversation of public funds or property – Presumption of
malversation (Art. 217)
16. Failure of accountable officer to render accounts (Art. 218);
17. Failure of a responsible public officer to render accounts
before leaving the country (Art. 219);
18. Illegal use of public funds or property (Art. 220);
19. Failure to make delivery of public funds or property (Art.
221);
20. Conniving with or consenting to evasion (Art. 223);
21. Evasion through negligence (Art. 224);
22. Escape of prisoner under the custody of a person not a
public officer (Art. 225);
23. Removal, concealment or destruction of documents (Art.
226);
24. Officer breaking seal (Art. 227);
25. Opening of closed documents (Art. 228);
26. Revelation of secrets by an officer (Art. 229);
27. Public officer revealing secrets of private individual (Art.
230);
28. Open disobedience (Art. 231);
29. Disobedience to order of superior officer when said order
was suspended by inferior officer (Art. 232);
30. Refusal of assistance (Art. 233);
31. Refusal to discharge elective office (Art. 234);
32. Maltreatment of prisoners (Art. 235);
33. Anticipation of duties of a public office (Art. 236);
34. Prolonging performance of duties and powers (Art. 237);
35. Abandonment of office or position (Art. 238);
36. Usurpation of legislative powers (Art. 239);
37. Usurpation of executive functions (Art. 240);
38. Usurpation of judicial functions (Art. 241);
39. Disobeying request for disqualification (Art. 242);
40. Orders or requests by executive
officers to any judicial authority (Art.
243);
41. Unlawful appointments (Art. 244);
and
42. Abuses against chastity (Art. 245).
G. Crimes against Persons
1. Parricide (Art. 246);
2. Murder (Art. 248);
3. Homicide (Art. 249);
4. Death caused in a tumultuous affray (Art. 251);
5. Physical injuries inflicted in a tumultuous affray (Art. 252);
6. Giving assistance to suicide (Art. 253);
7. Discharge of firearms (Art. 254);
8. Infanticide (Art. 255);
9. Intentional abortion (Art. 256);
10. Unintentional abortion (Art. 257);
11. Abortion practiced by the woman herself or by her parents
(Art. 258);
12. Abortion practiced by a physician or midwife and
dispensing of abortives (Art. 259);
13. Duel (Art. 260);
14. Challenging to a duel (Art. 261);
15. Mutilation (Art. 262);
16. Serious physical injuries (Art. 263);
17. Administering injurious substances or beverages (Art.
264);
18. Less serious physical injuries (Art. 265);
19. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment (Art. 266).
20. RAPE (Art. 266-A; 266-B; 266-C, 266-D; and RA 8353)
Corpus delicti in crimes against persons means the actual
commission of the crime charged. It means that a crime was
actually perpetrated, and does not refer to the body of the
murdered person.
In all crimes against persons in which the death of the victim is an
element of the offense, there must be satisfactory evidence of (1)
the fact of death and (2) the identity of the victim.
Article 246. Parricide. - Any person who shall kill his father,
mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his
ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse, shall be guilty of
parricide and shall be punished by the penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death. (RPC)
The law does not require knowledge of relationship between the
accused and victim. Hence, if the accused intended to kill another
but by mistake killed his own father, Article 49 of the RPC will
apply as regards the proper penalty to be imposed, which is the
penalty for the lesser offense in its maximum period.
Article 49. Penalty to be imposed upon the principals when the
crime committed is different from that intended. - In cases in
which the felony committed is different from that which the
offender intended to commit, the following rules shall be
observed:
 1. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be
higher than that corresponding to the offense which the
accused intended to commit, the penalty corresponding to
the latter shall be imposed in its maximum period.
2. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be lower
than that corresponding to the one which the accused
intended to commit, the penalty for the former shall be
imposed in its maximum period.
3. The rule established by the next preceding paragraph shall
not be applicable if the acts committed by the guilty person
shall also constitute an attempt or frustration of another
crime, if the law prescribes a higher penalty for either of
the latter offenses, in which case the penalty provided for
the attempted or the frustrated crime shall be imposed in
its maximum period
The personal relationship of the husband to wife cannot be
transferred to a stranger that the hired killer is liable for murder.
While the husband is liable for parricide as principal by
inducement for hiring a killer to kill his wife.
In killing a spouse, there must be a valid subsisting marriage at the
time of the killing. Also, the information should allege the fact of
such valid marriage between the accused and the victim.
The Supreme Court has also ruled that Muslim husbands with
several wives can be convicted of parricide only in case the first
wife is killed. There is no parricide if the other wives are killed
although their marriage is recognized as valid. This is so because
a Catholic man can commit the crime only once. If a Muslim
husband could commit this crime more than once, in effect, he is
being punished for the marriage which the law itself authorized
him to contract.
An adopted child is considered as a legitimate child but since the
relationship is exclusive between the adopted and the adopter,
killing the parents of the adopter is not considered as parricide of
other legitimate ascendants.
The child killed by his parent must be at least three days old. If the
child is less than three days old, the crime is infanticide, which is
punishable under Art. 255.
That the mother killed her child in order to conceal her dishonor
is not mitigating. This is immaterial to the crime of parricide,
unlike in the case of infanticide.
Article 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional
circumstances. - Any legally married person who having surprised
his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with
another person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act
or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious
physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro.
If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other kind, he
shall be exempt from punishment.
These rules shall be applicable, under the same circumstances, to
parents with respect to their daughters under eighteen years of
age, and their seducer, while the daughters are living with their
parents.
Any person who shall promote or facilitate the prostitution of his
wife or daughter or shall otherwise have consented to the
infidelity of the other spouse shall not be entitled to the benefits
of this article.
Elements:
 1. A legally married person or a parent surprises his spouse or
daughter, the latter under 18 years of age and living with
him, in the act of committing sexual intercourse;
2. He or she kills any or both of them or inflicts upon any or
both of them any serious physical injury in the act or
immediately thereafter; and
3. He has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his
wife or daughter, or that he or she has not consented to the
infidelity of the other spouse.
Stages contemplated under Art. 247:
1. When the offender surprised the other spouse with a
paramour or mistress in the act of committing sexual
intercourse.
Surprise means to come upon suddenly or unexpectedly.
2. When the offender kills or inflicts serious physical injury
upon the other spouse and paramour while in the act of
intercourse, or immediately thereafter, that is, after
surprising.
“Immediately thereafter” means that the discovery, escape,
pursuit and the killing must all form parts of one
continuous act. The act done must be a direct result of the
outrage of the cuckolded spouse (Reyes, 2012). (BAR
1991)
So if the surprising took place before any actual sexual intercourse
could be done because the parties are only in their preliminaries,
the article cannot be invoked anymore.
If the surprising took place after the actual sexual intercourse was
finished, even if the act being performed indicates no other
conclusion but the sexual intercourse was had, the article does not
apply.
The article presumes that a legally married person who surprises
his or her better half in actual sexual intercourse would be
overcome by the obfuscation he felt when he saw them in the act
that he lost his head. The law, thus, affords protection to a spouse
who is considered to have acted in a justified outburst of passion
or a state of mental disequilibrium. The offended spouse has no
time to regain his self-control.
Article 247 does not provide that the victim is to be killed instantly
by the accused after surprising his spouse in the act of intercourse.
What is required is that the killing is the proximate result of the
outrage overwhelming the accused upon the discovery of the
infidelity of his spouse. The killing should have been actually
motivated by the same blind impulse.
If there was already a break of time between the sexual act and
the killing or inflicting of the injury, the law presupposes that the
offender regained his reason and therefore, the article will not
apply anymore.
A upon coming home, surprised his wife, B, together with C. The
paramour was fast enough to jump out of the window. A got the
bolo and chased C but he disappeared among the neighborhood.
So A started looking around for about an hour but he could not
find the paramour. A gave up and was on his way home.
Unfortunately, the paramour, thinking that A was no longer
around, came out of hiding and at that moment, A saw him and
hacked him to death. There was a break of time and Article 247
does not apply anymore because when he gave up the search, it is
a circumstance showing that his anger had already died down.
In the case of People v. Abarca, 153 SCRA 735, two persons
suffered physical injuries as they were caught in the crossfire
when the accused shot the victim. A complex crime of double
frustrated murder was not committed as the accused did not have
the intent to kill the two victims. Here, the accused did not commit
murder when he fired at the paramour of his wife. Inflicting death
under exceptional circumstances is not murder. The accused was
held liable for negligence under the first part, second paragraph of
Article 365, that is, less serious physical injuries through simple
negligence. No aberratio ictus because he was acting lawfully.
This article is also made available to parents who shall surprise
their daughter below 18 years of age in actual sexual intercourse
while “living with them.” The phrase “living with them” is
understood to be in their own dwelling, because of the
embarrassment and humiliation done not only to the parent but
also to the parental abode. If it was done in a motel, the article
does not apply.
Homicide committed under exceptional circumstances, although
punished with destierro, is within the jurisdiction of the Regional
Trial Court and not the MTC because the crime charged is
homicide or murder. The exceptional circumstances, not being
elements of the crime but a matter of defense, are not pleaded. It
practically grants a privilege amounting to an exemption for
adequate punishment. The banishment is intended more for the
protection of the offender rather than a penalty.
Article 248. Murder. - Any person who, not falling within the
provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of
murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum
period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant
circumstances:
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with
the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the
defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.
2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise.
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck,
stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car
or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles,
or with the use of any other means involving great waste and
ruin.
4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the
preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a
volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public
calamity.
5. With evident premeditation.
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the
suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his
person or corpse.
Elements of murder:
1. That a person was killed;
2. That the accused killed him;
3. That the killing was attended by any of the qualifying
circumstances mentioned in Art. 248; and
4. That the killing is not parricide or infanticide.
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes
against the person employing means, methods or forms in the
execution thereof that tend directly and especially to insure its
execution without risk to himself arising from the defense
which the offended party might make.
The essence of treachery is that the offended party was denied the
chance to defend himself because of the means, methods, form in
executing the crime deliberately adopted by the offender. It is a
matter of whether or not the offender party was denied the chance
of defending himself.
If the offended was denied the chance to defend himself, treachery
qualifies the killing to murder. If despite the means resorted to by
the offender, the offended was able to put up a defense, although
unsuccessful, treachery is not available. Instead, some other
circumstance may be present. Here is an illustration below:
If the offender used superior strength and the victim was
denied the chance to defend himself, there is treachery. The
treachery must be alleged in the information. But if the
victim was able to put up an unsuccessful resistance, there
is no more treachery but the use of superior strength can be
alleged and it also qualifies the killing to murder.
A frontal attack does not necessarily rule out treachery. The
qualifying circumstance may still be appreciated if the attack was
so sudden and so unexpected that the deceased had no time to
prepare for his or her defense (People v. Perez, G.R. No. 134756,
February 13, 2001).
One attendant qualifying circumstance is enough. If there are
more than one qualifying circumstance alleged in the information
for murder, only one circumstance will qualify the killing to
murder and the other circumstances will be taken as generic.
To be considered qualifying, the particular circumstance must be
alleged in the information. If what was alleged was not proven and
instead another circumstance, not alleged, was established during
the trial, even if the latte constitutes a qualifying circumstance
under Article 248, the same can not qualify the killing to murder.
The accused can only be convicted of homicide.
If the offender may have not intended to kill the victim but he only
wanted to commit a crime against him in the beginning, he will
still be liable for murder if in the manner of committing the felony
there was treachery and as a consequence thereof the victim died.
This is based on the rule that a person committing a felony shall
be liable for the consequences thereof although different from
that which he intended. Hence, so long as the means, methods and
form in the execution is deliberately adopted, even if there was no
intent to kill, there is treachery.
When a person is killed by fire, the primordial criminal intent of
the offender is considered. If the primordial criminal intent of the
offender is to kill and fire was only used as a means to do so, the
crime is only murder. If the primordial criminal intent of the
offender is to destroy property with the use of pyrotechnics and
incidentally somebody within the premises is killed, the crime is
arson with homicide. But this is not a complex crime under Article
48. This is single indivisible crime penalized under Article 326,
which is death as a consequence of arson. That somebody died
during such fire would not bring about murder because there is
no intent to kill in the mind of the offender. He intended only to
destroy property. However, a higher penalty will be applied.
Cruelty includes the situation where the victim is already dead
and yet, acts were committed which would decry or scoff the
corpse of the victim. The crime becomes murder. Hence, this is not
actually limited to cruelty. It goes beyond that because even if the
victim is already a corpse when the acts deliberately augmenting
the wrong done to him were committed, the killing is still qualified
to murder although the acts done no longer amount to cruelty.
Under Article 14, the generic aggravating circumstance of cruelty
requires that the victim be alive, when the cruel wounds were
inflicted and, therefore, must be evidence to that effect. Yet, in
murder, aside from cruelty, any act that would amount to scoffing
or decrying the corpse of the victim will qualify the killing to
murder.
The following are holdings of the Supreme Court with respect to
the crime of murder:
1. Killing of a child of tender age is murder qualified by
treachery because the weakness of the child due to his
tender age results in the absence of any danger to the
aggressor.
 2. Evident premeditation is absorbed in price, reward or
promise, if without the premeditation the inductor would
not have induced the other to commit the act but not as
regards the one induced.
3. Abuse of superior strength is inherent in and
comprehended by the circumstance of treachery or forms
party of treachery.
4. Treachery is inherent in poison.
5. Where one of the accused, who were charged with murder,
was the wife of the deceased but here relationship to the
deceased was not alleged in the information, she also should
be convicted of murder but the relationship should be
appreciated as aggravating.
6. Killing of the victims hit by hand grenade thrown at them is
murder qualified by explosion not by treachery.
The essence of kidnapping or serious illegal detention is the actual
confinement or restraint of the victim or deprivation of his liberty.
If there is no showing that the accused intended to deprive their
victims of their liberty for some time and there being no
appreciable interval between their being taken and their being
shot, murder and not kidnapping with murder is committed.
Dwelling and nocturnity are not included in the enumeration of
qualifying circumstances. But nocturnity or night time can be a
method or form of treachery. In such case, it is treachery, not night
time that is qualifying.
Article 249. Homicide. - Any person who, not falling within the
provisions of Article 246, shall kill another without the attendance
of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding
article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by
reclusion temporal.
Homicide is the unlawful killing of a person not constituting
murder, parricide or infanticide.
Evidence to show intent to kill is important only in attempted or
frustrated homicide. This is because if death resulted, intent to kill
is conclusively presumed. It is generally shown by the kind of
weapon used, the parts of the victim’s body at which it was aimed,
and by the would inflicted.
Otherwise stated, there is intend to kill in attempted or frustrated
homicide, whereas in physical injuries, there is none. However, if
as a result of the physical injuries inflicted, the victim died, the
crime will be homicide because the law punishes the result, and
not the intent of the act.
The following are holdings of the Supreme Court with respect to
the crime of homicide:
(1) Physical injuries are included as one of the essential
elements of frustrated homicide.
(2) If the deceased received two wounds from two persons
acting independently of each other and the wound inflicted
by either could have caused death, both of them are liable
for the death of the victim and each of them is guilty of
homicide.
This ruling is applicable only when there is no conspiracy
between or among the accused. When there is conspiracy, it
is not necessary to apply this ruling because in such case,
the act of one is the act of all.
(3) If the injuries were mortal but were only due to negligence,
the crime committed will be serious physical injuries
through reckless imprudence as the element of intent to kill
in frustrated homicide is incompatible with negligence or
imprudence.
 (4) Where the intent to kill is not manifest, the crime committed
has been generally considered as physical injuries and not
attempted or frustrated murder or homicide.
(5) When several assailants not acting in conspiracy inflicted
wounds on a victim but it cannot be determined who
inflicted which would which caused the death of the victim,
all are liable for the victim’s death.
Note that while it is possible to have a crime of homicide through
reckless imprudence, it is not possible to have a crime of
frustrated homicide through reckless imprudence.
if the offender used an unlicensed firearm in committing murder
or homicide, it will not be considered as qualified illegal
possession of firearm. The use of the unlicensed firearm is not
considered as separate crime but shall be appreciated as a mere
aggravating circumstances (People vs. Avecilla, GR No. 117033,
February 15, 2001).
Accidental homicide: It is the death of a person brought about by
a lawful act performed with proper care and skill, and without
homicidal intent such as in a boxing bout. Where the game is freely
permitted by law or local ordinance, and all the rules of the game
have been observed, the resulting death or injuries cannot be
deemed felonious, since the act of playing the game is a lawful act.
RAPE
(Article 266-A, 266-B, 266-C, 266-D and REPUBLIC ACT NO.
8363)
Rape is no longer a crime against chastity. It has been re-classified
under RA 8353 as a crime against person.
Kinds of rape under RA 8353:
1. Traditional concept (under Article 335 of the RPC) – carnal
knowledge with a woman against her will. The offended party
is always a woman and the offender is always a man.
2. Sexual assault – committed with an instrument or an object
or use of the penis with penetration of the mouth or anal
orifice. The offended party or offender can either be a man or
a woman, that is, if the woman or a man uses an instrument
in the anal orifice of a male, she or he can be liable for rape.
A violation of the body orifices by the fingers is within the
expanded definition of rape under RA 8353. Insertion of the
finger into the female genital is rape through sexual assault.
However, there should be evidence of at least the slightest
penetration of the sexual organ and not merely a brush or graze
on its surface.
Elements of rape by a man who shall have carnal knowledge
of a woman
1. Offender is a man;
2. Offender had carnal knowledge of the woman; and
3. Such act is accomplished under any of the following
circumstances:
a. Through force, threat or intimidation; (BAR 1992)
b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or is
otherwise unconscious;
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of
authority; or
d. When the offended party is under 12 years of age or is
demented, even though none of the above circumstances
mentioned above be present.
Elements of rape by sexual assault (BAR 2005)
1. Offender commits an act of sexual assault committed by any
of the following means:
 a. By inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or
anal orifice, or
b. By inserting any instrument or object into the genital or
anal orifice of another person
2. The act of sexual assault is accomplished under any of the
following circumstances:
a. By using force or intimidation, or
b. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious, or
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abused of
authority, or
d. When the woman is under 12 years of age or demented
There is no crime of frustrated rape because the slightest
penetration of penis into the labia of the female organ
consummates the crime of rape. However, mere touching alone of
the genitals and mons pubis or the pudendum can only be
considered as attempted rape, if not acts of lasciviousness.
Effects of the reclassification of rape into a crime against person:
1. The procedural requirement of consent of the offended party
to file the case is no longer needed because this is now a
public crime, unlike when it was still classified as a crime
against chastity; and
2. There is now an impossible crime of rape because impossible
crimes can only be committed against persons or property.
Effects of pardon on the criminal liability of the accused
charged with rape (BAR 2002):
1. The offended woman may pardon the offender through a
subsequent valid marriage, the effect of which would be
the extinction of the offender’s liability. In such case, it is
the marriage that extinguishes the offender’s liability, not
because of the pardon which extinguished criminal
liability only if granted before the institution of the
criminal case in court; or
2. Similarly, the legal husband maybe pardoned by
forgiveness of the wife provided that the marriage is not
void ab initio (Art. 266-C).
Under the new law, the husband may be liable for rape, if his wife
does not want to have sex with him. It is enough that there is
indication of any amount of resistance as to make it rape. (People
v. Lumawan, G.R. No. 187495, April 21, 2014)
Rape may now be prosecuted de oficio; a complaint for rape
commenced by the offended party is no longer necessary for its
prosecution. Consequently, rape is no longer considered a private
crime which cannot be prosecuted, except upon a complaint filed
by the aggrieved party. Hence, pardon by the offended party of the
offender in the crime of rape will not extinguish the offender’s
criminal liability. Moreover, an Affidavit of Desistance even
when construed as a pardon in the erstwhile “private crime” of
rape is not a ground for the dismissal of the criminal cases, since
the actions have already been instituted. To justify the dismissal
of the complaints, the pardon should have been made prior to the
institution of the criminal actions (People v. Bonaagua, G.R. No.
188897, June 6, 2011, People v. Borce, G.R. No. 189579, September
12, 2011
Proof of hymenal laceration is not an element of rape. An intact
hymen does not negate a finding that the victim was raped.
Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even
without laceration of the hymen, is enough to constitute rape, and
even the briefest of contact is deemed rape (People v. Crisostomo,
G.R. No. 183090, November 14, 2011).
Rape is essentially a crime committed through force or
intimidation, that is, against the will of the female. It is also
committed without force or intimidation when carnal knowledge
of a female is alleged and shown to be without her consent. It
should no longer be debatable that rape of a mental retardate falls
under paragraph 1(b), of Article 266-A, because the provision
refers to a rape of a female “deprived of reason,” a phrase that
refers to mental abnormality, deficiency or retardation (People v.
Butiong, G.R. No. 168932, October 19, 2011).
Proof of hymenal laceration is not an element of rape. An intact
hymen does not negate a finding that the victim was raped.
Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even
without laceration of the hymen, is enough to constitute rape, and
even the briefest of contact is deemed rape (People v. Crisostomo,
G.R. No. 183090, November 14, 2011).
Instances to consider the crime as qualified rape:
1. When by reason or on occasion of the rape, a homicide is
committed. (BAR 1998, 2009)
2. When the victim is under 18 years of age and the offender
is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or
the common law spouse of the victim.
A step-brother or step-sister relationship between the
offender and the offended party cannot elevate the crime
to qualified rape because they are not related either by
blood or affinity. The enumeration is exclusive.
When the offender in rape has an ascendancy or influence
on the offended party, it is not necessary that the latter put
up a determined resistance. Moreover, in incestuous rape
of minor, proof of force and violence exerted by the
offender are not essential. Moral ascendancy or parental
authority of the accused over the offended party takes the
place of violence.
3. When the victim is under the custody of the police or
military authorities or any law enforcement or penal
institution.
4. When rape is committed in full view of the husband,
parent, any of the children or other relatives within the
third civil degree of consanguinity.
5. When the victim is engaged in a legitimate religious
vocation or calling and is personally known to be such by
the offender before or after the commission of the crime.
6. When the victim is a child below 7 years old.
Statutory rape – sexual intercourse with a girl below 12
years old regardless whether the sexual intercourse was
with her consent because the law presumes that the
victim, on account of her tender age, does not and cannot
have a will of her own. Be it noted that the mental and not
chronological age are considered.
7. When the offender knows that he is inflicted with
HIV/AIDS or any other sexually transmissible disease and
the virus or disease is transferred to the victim.
8. When committed by any member of the AFP or
paramilitary 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.
9. When by reason or on occasion of the rape, the victim has
suffered permanent physical mutilation or disability.
10. When the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended
party at the time of the commission of the rape.
11. 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
(Art. 266-B).
NOTE: The foregoing circumstances are in the nature of
qualifying aggravating circumstances which must be specifically
pleaded or alleged with certainty in the information.
Sweetheart theory in rape - As held in People v. Cabanilla, the
sweetheart defense is an affirmative defense that must be
supported by convincing proof. Having an illicit affair does not
rule out rape as it does not necessarily mean that consent was
present. A love affair does not justify rape for a man does not have
an unbridled license to subject his beloved to his carnal desires
against her will (People v. Cias, G.R. No. 194379, June 1, 2011).
Rape shield rule - The character of the woman is immaterial in
rape. It is no defense that the woman is of unchaste character,
provided the illicit relations were committed with force and
violence. A woman of loose morals could still be a victim of rape,
the essence thereof being carnal knowledge of a woman without
her consent.
The new rap law required that there be a physical overt act
manifesting resistance, if the offended party was in a situation
where he or she is incapable of giving valid consent, this is
admissible in evidence to show that carnal knowledge was against
his or her will. Mere initial resistance, which does not indicate
refusal on the part of the offended party to the sexual intercourse,
will not be enough to bring about the crime of rape.
However, resistance is not an element of rape. A rape victim has
no burden to prove that she did all within her power to resist the
force or intimidation employed upon her. As long as the force or
intimidation is present, whether it was more or less irresistible is
beside the point (People v. Baldo, G.R. No. 175238, February 24,
2009).
Physical resistance need not be established in rape when
intimidation is exercised upon the victim who submits against her
will to the rapist’s lust because of fear for her life or personal
safety (People v. Tuazon, G.R. No. 168650, October 26, 2007).
In rape, the force and intimidation must be viewed in light of the
victim’s perception and judgment at the time of the commission of
the crime. As already settled in jurisprudence, not all victims react
the same way.
The medico-legal findings are “merely corroborative in
character and is not an element of rape”. The prime consideration
in the prosecution of rape is the victim's testimony, not
necessarily the medical findings; a medical examination of the
victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape. The victim's
testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict an accused
(People v. Perez, G.R. No. 191265, September 14, 2011).
Crime committed if the victim was a minor: The accused can be
charged with either Rape or Child Abuse and be convicted
therefor. The case of People v. Abay, is enlightening and
instructional on this issue. It was stated in that case that if the
victim is 12 years or older, the offender should be charged with
either sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 or rape under
Art. 266-A (except par. 1[d]) of the RPC. However, the offender
cannot be accused of both crimes for the same act because his
right against double jeopardy will be prejudiced. A person cannot
be subjected twice to criminal liability for a single criminal act.
Likewise, rape cannot be complexed with a violation of Section
5(b) of RA 7610. Under Sec. 48 of the Revised Penal Code (on
complex crimes), a felony under the RPC (such as rape) cannot be
complexed with an offense penalized by a special law (People v.
Dahilig G.R. No. 187083, June 13, 2011).
The special complex crime of rape with homicide is committed
when the victim died on the occasion or by reason of rape.
Attempted rape vs. Acts of lasciviousness: Under attempted
rape, there is intent to effect sexual cohesion, although
unsuccessful. While, in acts of lasciviousness there is no intention
to lie with the offended woman. The intention is merely to satisfy 14. Discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence
lewd design. (Art. 290);
15. Revealing secrets with abuse of office (Art. 291);
16. Revealing of industrial secrets (Art. 292).
H. Crimes against Personal Liberty and Security
Crimes against liberty:
Article 286. Grave Coercion:
1. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention (Art. 267);
2. Slight illegal detention (Art. 268); Kinds of grave coercion:
3. Unlawful arrest (Art. 269);
1. Preventive
4. Kidnapping and failure to return a minor (Art. 270);
2. Compulsive
5. Inducing a minor to abandon his home (Art. 271);
6. Slavery (Art. 272); By means of violence, threats or intimidation, prevent another
7. Exploitation of child labor (Art. 273); from doing something not prohibited by law, or compel him to do
8. Services rendered under compulsion in payment of debts something against his will, be it right or wrong. The person that
(Art. 274). restrained the will and liberty of another had no authority of the
law/ordinance or the right to do so.
Crimes against security:
The violence employed in grave coercion must be immediate,
1. Abandonment of persons in danger and abandonment of
actual or imminent. Coercion is consummated even if the offended
one's own victim (Art. 275);
party did not accede to the purpose of the coercion. The essence
2. Abandoning a minor (Art. 276);
of coercion is an attack on individual liberty.
3. Abandonment of minor by person entrusted with his
custody; indifference of parents (Art. 277); The main purpose of the statute in penalizing grave coercion is
4. Exploitation of minors (Art. 278); precisely to enforce the principle that no person may take the law
5. Trespass to dwelling (Art. 280); into how own hands and that ours is a government of law and not
6. Other forms of trespass (Art. 281); of men.
7. Grave threats (Art. 282);
8. Light threats (Art. 283); When a person prohibits another to do an act because the act
9. Other light threats (Art. 285); done is a crime, and violence and intimidation is employed
10. Grave coercions (Art. 286); there is no grave coercion because the act from which a person is
11. Light coercions (Art. 287); prevented from doing is a crime. It may only give rise to threat or
12. Other similar coercions (Art. 288); physical injuries, if some injuries are inflicted.
13. Formation, maintenance and prohibition of combination of However, in case of grave coercion where the offended party is
capital or labor through violence or threats (Art. 289); being compelled to do something against his will, whether it be
wrong or not, the crime of grave coercion is committed if violence
or intimidation is employed in order to compel him to do the act.
Qualifying circumstances of Grave Coercion
4. If the coercion is committed in violation of the exercise of
the right of suffrage.
5. If the coercion is committed to compel another to perform
any religious act.
6. If the coercion is committed to prevent another from
performing any religious act.
Article 287. Light Coercion: Imposed upon
1. Any person who, by means of violence, shall seize anything
belonging to his debtor for the purpose of applying the same
to the payment of the debt. In this paragraph, violence is
applied by the offender who is a creditor.
2. Any other coercions or unjust vexations committed without
violence, but which unjustifiably annoys or vexes an innocent
person.
As a punishable act, unjust vexation should include any human
conduct which, although not productive of some physical or
material harm would, however, unjustifiably annoy or vex an
innocent person.
Article 288. Other similar coercions; (Compulsory purchase of
merchandise and payment of wages by means of tokens.) -
imposing upon:
1. Any person, agent or officer of any association or corporation
forcing or compelling, directly or indirectly, or knowingly
permitting the forcing or compelling of the laborer/employee
of the offender to purchase merchandise of commodities of any
kind from him;
2. Any person paying the wages due his laborer or employee by
means of tokens or objects other than the legal tender currency
of the Philippines, unless expressly requested by such laborer
or employee.
I. Crimes against Property
1. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons
(Art. 294);
2. Attempted and frustrated robbery committed under
certain circumstances (Art. 297);
3. Execution of deeds by means of violence or intimidation
(Art. 298);
4. Robbery in an inhabited house or public building or edifice
devoted to worship (Art. 299);
5. Robbery in an inhabited place or in a private building (Art.
302);
6. Possession of picklocks or similar tools (Art. 304);
7. Brigandage (Art. 306);
8. Aiding and abetting a band of brigands (Art. 307);
9. Theft (Art. 308);
10. Qualified theft (Art. 310);
11. Theft of the property of the National Library and National
Museum (Art. 311);
12. Occupation of real property or usurpation of real rights in
property (Art. 312);
13. Altering boundaries or landmarks (Art. 313);
14. Fraudulent insolvency (Art. 314);
15. Swindling (Art. 315);
16. Other forms of swindling (Art. 316);
17. Swindling a minor (Art. 317);
18. Other deceits (Art. 318);
19. Removal, sale or pledge of mortgaged property (Art. 319);
20. Destructive arson (Art. 320);
21. Other forms of arson (Art. 321);
 22. Arson of property of small value (Art. 323);
23. Crimes involving destruction (Art. 324);
24. Burning one’s own property as means to commit arson
(Art. 325);
25. Setting fire to property exclusively owned by the offender
(Art. 326);
26. Malicious mischief (Art. 327);
27. Special case of malicious mischief (Art. 328);
28. Damage and obstruction to means of communication (Art.
330);
29. Destroying or damaging statues, public monuments or
paintings (Art. 331).
Article 308. Who are liable for theft. - Theft is committed by
any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against or
intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal
property of another without the latter's consent.
Theft is likewise committed by:
1. Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to
deliver the same to the local authorities or to its owner;
2. Any person who, after having maliciously damaged the
property of another, shall remove or make use of the fruits
or object of the damage caused by him; and
3. Any person who shall enter an inclosed estate or a field where
trespass is forbidden or which belongs to another and without
the consent of its owner, shall hunt or fish upon the same or
shall gather cereals, or other forest or farm products.
Elements:
1. There is taking of personal property;
2. Property taken belongs to another;
3. Taking was done with intent to gain;
4. Taking was done without the consent of the owner; and
5. Taking is accomplished without the use of violence against
or intimidation of persons of force upon things (Baltazar
v. People, G.R. No. 164545, November 20, 2006).
Taking means the act of depriving another of the possession and
dominion of movable property. The taking must be accompanied
by the intention, at the time of the taking, of withholding the
thing with some character of permanency.
Unlawful taking is deemed complete from the moment the
offender gains possession of the thing even if he has no
opportunity to dispose of the same.
Unlawful taking, which is the deprivation of one’s personal
property, is the element which produces the felony in its
consumption stage. At the same time, without unlawful taking as
an act of execution, the offense could only be attempted theft, if at
all. With these considerations, under Article 308 of the RPC, theft
cannot have a frustrated stage. Theft can only be attempted or
consummated (Valenzuela v. People, G.R. No. 160188, June 21,
2007).
In the old ruling, when a person stole a check but was not able to
use the same because the check bounced, he shall be guilty of the
crime of theft, according to the value of the parchment. In the new
ruling, following under the same circumstances, he shall be guilty
of an impossible crime (Jacinto v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
162540, July 13, 2009).
Theft Estafa
The crime is theft if only the Where both the material and
physical or material juridical possession are
transferred, misappropriation
 Theft Estafa
possession of the thing is of the property would
transferred. constitute estafa. J. Crimes against Chastity

1. Adultery (Art. 333);

Theft Roberry 2. Concubinage (Art. 334);
The offender does not use The offender uses violence or 3. Acts of lasciviousness (Art. 336);
violence or intimidation or intimidation or enters a house 4. Qualified seduction (Art. 337);
does not enter a house or or building through any of the 5. Simple seduction (Art. 338);
building through any of the means specified in Article 299 6. Acts of lasciviousness with the consent of the offended
means specified in Article 299 and 302. party (Art. 339);
and 302. 7. Corruption of minors (Art. 340);
8. White slave trade (Art. 34);
9. Forcible abduction (Art. 342);
10. Consented abduction (Art. 343).
Article 310. Qualified theft. - The crime of theft shall be
punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees than those
respectively specified in the next preceding article, if:
Kinds of Acts of Lasciviousness:
1. Committed by a domestic servant, or 1. Under Article 336 (Acts of lasciviousness)
2. committed with grave abuse of confidence, or 2. Under Article 339 (Acts of lasciviousness with the
3. if the property stolen is motor vehicle, mail matter or large consent of the offended party)
cattle or
4. if the property stolen consists of coconuts taken from the Article 336. Acts of Lasciviousness
premises of the plantation or
Element of Acts of Lasciviousness (Article 336):
5. if the property stolen consists of fish taken from a fishpond
or fishery, or 1. Offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness
6. if property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, against a person of either sex:
typhoon, volcanic erruption, or any other calamity, vehicular 2. It is done under any of the following circumstances:
accident or civil disturbance. (As amended by R.A. 120 and B.P. a. By using force or intimidation;
Blg. 71. May 1, 1980). b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious;
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of
authority; or
d. When the offended party is under 12 years of age or is
demented.
Under Art. 336, acts of lasciviousness is committed when the act
performed with lewd design was perpetrated under
circumstances which would have brought about the crime of rape
if sexual intercourse was effected. Where circumstances however
are indicative of a clear intention to lie with the offended party,
the crime committed is Attempted Rape.
It is essential that the acts complained of be prompted by lust or
lewd designs and that the victim did not consent or encourage
such acts.
Always remember that there can be no frustration of acts of
lasciviousness, rape or adultery. From the moment the offender
performs all elements necessary for the existence of the felony, he
actually attains his purpose and, from that moment, all the
essential elements of the offense have been accomplished.
Note: Mere words can constitute sexual harassment unlike in acts
of lasciviousness, where there must be overt acts.
Seduction is committed by enticing a woman to unlawful sexual
intercourse by promise of marriage or other means of persuasion
without use of force.
Article 337. Qualified Seduction –
Acts that constitute qualified seduction:
1. Seduction of a virgin over 12 years and under 18 years of
age by certain person, such as , a person in authority,
priest, house servant, domestic, guardian, teacher or any
person who, in any capacity shall be entrusted with the
education or custody of the woman seduced:
Elements: (BAR 2007)
a. Offended party is a virgin which is presumed if she
is unmarried and of good reputation;
b. She is over 12 and under 18 years of age;
c. Offender has sexual intercourse with her; and
d. There is abuse of authority, confidence or
relationship on the part of the offender.
2. Seduction of a sister by her brother, or descendant by her
ascendant, regardless of her age or reputation.
In this case, it is not necessary that the offended party is
still a virgin.
Virginity for purposes of qualified seduction does not mean
physical virginity. It refers to a woman of chaste character or
virtuous woman of good reputation.
Virginity is not to be understood in so a material sense as to
exclude the idea of abduction of a virtuous woman of a good
reputation. Thus, when the accused claims he had prior sexual
intercourse with the complainant, the latter is still to be
considered a virgin. But if it was established that the girl had
carnal relations with other men, there can be no crime of
seduction as she is not a virgin.
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.
Article 338. Simple Seduction Article 336 Article 339
If the offended party is a woman, The offended party must be a
Elements: she need not be a virgin. virgin.
1. Offended party is over 12 and under 18 years of age;
2. She must be of good reputation, single or widow;
3. Offender has sexual intercourse with her; and K. Crimes against the Civil Status of Persons
4. It is committed by means of deceit. L. Crimes against Honor
M. Quasi-offenses (or Criminal Negligence)
The deceit usually takes the form of promise to marry. If the
promise to marry is made after the sexual intercourse, there is no III. SPECIAL LAWS
deceit. Neither is there deceit if the promise is made by a married A. Anti-Arson Law (Secs 1 to 5, PD 1613, as amended by
man, the woman knowing him to be married. Virginity of the PD1744)
offended party is not required.
B. Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 (Secs 3[a-c], 4, and 5,
RA 9775)
Article 339. Acts of lasciviousness with the consent of the C. Anti-Fencing Law of 1979 (Secs 2 and 5, PD 1612)
offended party – D. Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Sec 3, RA 3019, as
amended)
Elements: E. Anti-Hazing Act of 2018 (Secs 2 and 3, RA 8049, as
1. Offender commits acts of lasciviousness or lewdness; amended by RA 11053)
2. Acts are committed upon a woman who is virgin or single F. Anti-Hijacking Law (Secs 1 abd 3, RA 6325)
or widow of good reputation, under 18 years of age but
G. Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009 (Sec 3
over 12 years, or a sister or descendant regardless of her
[a,b,d,f] and 4, RA 9995)
reputation or age; and
3. Offender accomplishes the acts by abuse of authority, H. Anti-Plunder Act (Secs 1 and 2, RA 7080, as amended by
confidence, relationship, or deceit. RA 7659)

Article 336
The acts are committed under
circumstances which, had there
been carnal knowledge, would
amount to rape.
The offended party is a female or
a male.
Article 339
The acts of lasciviousness are
committed under the
circumstances which, had there
been carnal knowledge, would
amount to either qualified
seduction or simple seduction.
The offended party could only be
female.
Public Officer - means any person holding any public office in the
Government of the Republic of the Philippines by virtue of an
appointment, election or contract. (Sec 1(a))
Government includes the National Government, and any of its
subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities, including
government-owned or -controlled corporations and their
subsidiaries. (Sec 1(b))
Person includes any natural or juridical person, unless the context
indicates otherwise. (Sec 1(c))
Ill-gotten wealth means any asset, property, business enterprise
or material possession of any person within the purview of
Section Two (2) hereof, acquired by him directly or indirectly
through dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or
business associates by any combination or series of the following
means or similar schemes:
1) Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or
malversation of public funds or raids on the public
treasury;
2) By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift,
share, percentage, kickbacks or any other form of
pecuniary benefit from any person and/or entity in
connection with any government contract or project or by
reason of the office or position of the public officer
concerned;
3) By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of
assets belonging to the National Government or any of its
subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities or
government-owned or -controlled corporations and their
subsidiaries;
4) By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly
any shares of stock, equity or any other form of interest or
participation including promise of future employment in
any business enterprise or undertaking;
5) By establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial
monopolies or other combinations and/or
implementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit
particular persons or special interests; or
6) By taking undue advantage of official position, authority,
relationship, connection or influence to unjustly enrich
himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage
and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of
the Philippines. (Sec 1(d)).
Section 2. Definition of the Crime of Plunder; Penalties - Any
public officer who, by himself or in connivance with members of
his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business
associates, subordinates or other persons, amasses, accumulates
or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of
overt or criminal acts as described in Section 1(d) hereof, in the
aggregate amount or total value of at least Seventy-five million
pesos (P75,000,000.00), shall be guilty of the crime of plunder and
shall be punished by life imprisonment with perpetual absolute
disqualification from holding any public office. Any person who
participated with said public officer in the commission of plunder
shall likewise be punished. In the imposition of penalties, the
degree of participation and the attendance of mitigating and
extenuating circumstances shall be considered by the court. The
court shall declare any and all ill-gotten wealth and their interests
and other incomes and assets including the properties and shares
of stock derived from the deposit or investment thereof
forfeited in favor of the State.
It is a crime committed by a public officer by himself or in
connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or
consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other
persons, by amassing, accumulating or acquiring ill-gotten wealth
through a combination or series of overt acts in the aggregate
amount or total value of at least P50 million (Sec. 2, RA 7080, as
amended by RA 7659). (BAR 2014)
Plunder is a crime defined and penalized under RA 7080, which
became effective in 1991. This crime somehow modified certain
crimes in the RPC insofar as the overt acts by which a public officer
amasses, acquires, or accumulates ill-gotten wealth are felonies
under the RPC like bribery (Articles 210, 211, 211-A), fraud
against the public treasury (Article 213), other frauds (Article
214), malversation (Article 217), when the ill-gotten wealth
amounts to a total value of P50 Million (the amount was reduced
from P75 million by RA 7659).
Short of the amount, plunder does not arise. Any amount less than
P50,000,000.00 is a violation of the Revised Penal Code or the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
There must be at least 2 predicate crimes committed before one
can be convicted of plunder.
Elements of Plunder:
1. The offender is a public officer who acts by himself or in
connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity
or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates, or
other persons;
2. That he amassed, accumulated or acquired ill-gotten wealth
through a combination or series of the over or criminal acts
under Sec 1(d) of RA 7080, as amended.
Under the law on plunder, the prescriptive period is 20 years
commencing from the time of the last overt act.
The legislative declaration in RA No. 7659 that plunder is a
heinous offense implies that it is a malum in se. for when the acts
punished are inherently immoral or inherently wrong, they are
mala in se and it does not matter that such acts are punished in a
special law, especially since in the case of plunder the predicate
crimes are mainly mala in se. Indeed, it would be absurd to treat
prosecutions for for plunder as though they are mere
prosecutions for violations of the Bouncing Check Law or of an
ordinance against jaywalking, without regard to the inherent
wrongness of the act. RA No. 7080 provides that “in the imposition
of penalties, the degree of participation and the attendance of
mitigating and aggravating circumstances shall be considered by
the court.
Combination refers to at least two different acts in the above
enumeration.
Series refers to at least 3 overt acts covered by the enumeration.
Pattern refers to every overt or criminal acts indicative of the
overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy for purposes of
establishing the crime of plunder.
I. Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995 (Sec 3, RA 7877)
Section 3. Work, Education or Training -Related, Sexual
Harassment Defined. - Work, education or training-related sexual
harassment is committed by an employer, employee, manager,
supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher, instructor, professor,
coach, trainor, or any other person who, having authority,
influence or moral ascendancy over another in a work or training
or education environment, demands, requests or otherwise
requires any sexual favor from the other, regardless of whether
the demand, request or requirement for submission is accepted by
the object of said Act.
In a work-related or employment environment, sexual
harassment is committed when:
 (1) The sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or in the
employment, re-employment or continued employment of
said individual, or in granting said individual favorable
compensation, terms of conditions, promotions, or privileges;
or the refusal to grant the sexual favor results in limiting,
segregating or classifying the employee which in any way
would discriminate, deprive ordiminish employment
opportunities or otherwise adversely affect said employee;
(2) The above acts would impair the employee's rights or
privileges under existing labor laws; or
(3) The above acts would result in an intimidating, hostile, or
offensive environment for the employee.
In an education or training environment, sexual harassment is
committed:
(1) Against one who is under the care, custody or supervision of
the offender;
(2) Against one whose education, training, apprenticeship or
tutorship is entrusted to the offender;
(3) When the sexual favor is made a condition to the giving of a
passing grade, or the granting of honors and scholarships, or
the payment of a stipend, allowance or other benefits,
privileges, or consideration; or
(4) When the sexual advances result in an intimidating, hostile or
offensive environment for the student, trainee or apprentice.
Any person who directs or induces another to commit any act
of sexual harassment as herein defined, or who cooperates in
the commission thereof by another without which it would
not have been committed, shall also be held liable under this
Act.
J. Anti-torture Act of 2009 (Secs 3[a, b], 4, and 5, RA 9745)
K. Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 (Secs 3, 4 and 6,
RA 9208, as amended)
L. Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of
2004 (Secs 3, 5, and 26, RA 9262)
Violence against women and their children refers to any act or
a series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is
his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person
has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a
common child, or against her child whether legitimate or
illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in or
is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or
suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts,
battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of
liberty (Sec. 3, RA 9262).
Punishable acts under RA 9262 (Sec.5):
(b) Causing physical harm to the woman or her child;
(c) Threatening to cause the woman or her child physical harm;
(d) Attempting to cause the woman or her child physical harm;
(e) Placing the woman or her child in fear of imminent physical
harm;
(f) Attempting to compel or compelling the woman or her child
to engage in conduct which the woman or her child has the
right to desist from or desist from or conduct which the
woman or her child has the right to engage in, or attempting
to restrict or restricting the woman's or her child's freedom
of movement or conduct by force or threat of force, physical
or other harm or threat of physical or other harm, or
intimidation directed against the woman or child. This shall
include, but not limited to, the following acts committed
with the purpose or effect of controlling or restricting the
woman's or her child's movement or conduct:
 (1) Threatening to deprive or actually depriving the
woman or her child of custody to her/his family;
(2) Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her
children of financial support legally due her or her
family, or deliberately providing the woman's
children insufficient financial support;
(3) Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her
child of a legal right;
(4) Preventing the woman in engaging in any legitimate
profession, occupation, business or activity or
controlling the victim's own mon4ey or properties, or
solely controlling the conjugal or common money, or
properties;
(g) Inflicting or threatening to inflict physical harm on oneself
for the purpose of controlling her actions or decisions;
(h) Causing or attempting to cause the woman or her child to
engage in any sexual activity which does not constitute rape,
by force or threat of force, physical harm, or through
intimidation directed against the woman or her child or
her/his immediate family;
(i) Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct,
personally or through another, that alarms or causes
substantial emotional or psychological distress to the
woman or her child. This shall include, but not be limited to,
the following acts:
(1) Stalking or following the woman or her child in public
or private places;
(2) Peering in the window or lingering outside the
residence of the woman or her child;
(3) Entering or remaining in the dwelling or on the
property of the woman or her child against her/his will;
(4) Destroying the property and personal belongings or
inflicting harm to animals or pets of the woman or her
child; and
(5) Engaging in any form of harassment or violence;
(j) Causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or
humiliation to the woman or her child, including, but not
limited to, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, and denial
of financial support or custody of minor children of access
to the woman's child/children.
Prescriptive Period: Acts falling under Sections 5(a) to 5(f) shall
prescribe in twenty (20) years. Acts falling under Sections 5(g) to
5(I) shall prescribe in ten (10) years. (SECTION 24, RA 9262)
The elements of the crime of violence against women through
harassment are:
4. The offender has or had a sexual or dating
relationship with the offended woman;
5. The offender, by himself or through another,
commits an act or series of acts of harassment (or
any of the acts under Sec 3 of RA 9262) against the
woman; and
6. The harassment alarms or causes substantial
emotional or psychological distress to her (Ang v. CA,
G.R. No. 182835, April 20, 2010).
NOTE: A single act of harassment is enough to convict an offender.
Section 3(a) of RA 9262 punishes “any act or series of acts” that
constitutes violence against women. A single act of harassment,
which translates into violence, would be enough. Punishing only
violence that is repeatedly committed would license isolated ones
(Ang v. CA, G.R. No. 182835, April 20, 2010).
That dating relationship ceased prior to violence is NOT a
defense: It is immaterial whether the relationship had ceased for
as long as there is sufficient evidence showing the past or present
existence of such relationship between the offender and the victim
when the physical harm was committed (Dabalos v. RTC, Branch
59, Angeles City (Pampanga), G.R. No. 193960 January 7, 2013).
Acts included under Sec. 3:
1. Physical violence – refers to acts that include bodily or
physical harm;
2. Sexual violence – refers to an act which is sexual in nature
committed against a woman or her child;
3. Psychological violence – refers to acts or omission
causing or likely to cause mental or emotional suffering of
the victim such as but not limited to intimidation,
harassment, stalking, damage to property, public ridicule
or humiliation, repeated verbal abuse and mental
infidelity. It includes causing or allowing the victim to
witness the physical, sexual or psychological abuse of a
member of the family to which the victim belongs, or to
witness pornography in any form or to witness abusive
injury to pets or to unlawful or unwanted deprivation of
the right to custody and/or visitation of common children.
4. Economic abuse - refers to acts that make or attempt to
make a woman financially dependent which includes, but
is not limited to the following:
a) withdrawal of financial support or preventing the
victim from engaging in any legitimate profession,
occupation, business or activity, except in cases
wherein the other spouse/partner objects on valid,
serious and moral grounds as defined in Article 73
of the Family Code;
b) deprivation or threat of deprivation of financial
resources and the right to the use and enjoyment of
the conjugal, community or property owned in
common;
c) destroying household property;
d) controlling the victims' own money or properties or
solely controlling the conjugal money or properties.
Sexual violence includes, but not limited to:
a) rape, sexual harassment, acts of lasciviousness, treating a
woman or her child as a sex object, making demeaning and
sexually suggestive remarks, physically attacking the
sexual parts of the victim's body, forcing her/him to watch
obscene publications and indecent shows or forcing the
woman or her child to do indecent acts and/or make films
thereof, forcing the wife and mistress/lover to live in the
conjugal home or sleep together in the same room with the
abuser;
b) acts causing or attempting to cause the victim to engage in
any sexual activity by force, threat of force, physical or
other harm or threat of physical or other harm or
coercion;
c) Prostituting the woman or child.
"Battery" refers to an act of inflicting physical harm upon the
woman or her child resulting to the physical and psychological or
emotional distress.
"Battered Woman Syndrome" refers to a scientifically defined
pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms found in
women living in battering relationships as a result of cumulative
abuse.
Battered Woman Syndrome as a Defense. – Victim-survivors who
are found by the courts to be suffering from battered woman
syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability
notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying
circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code.
In the determination of the state of mind of the woman who was
suffering from battered woman syndrome at the time of the
commission of the crime, the courts shall be assisted by expert
psychiatrists/ psychologists. (Sec 26, RA 9262)
Dating relationship refers to a situation wherein the parties live
as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or are
romantically involved over time and on a continuing basis during
the course of the relationship (Sec. 3(e), RA 9262). A casual
acquaintance or ordinary socialization between two individuals in
a business or social context is not a dating relationship.
Whereas, the Sexual relations refer to a single sexual act which
may or may not result in the bearing of a common child (Sec. 3(f),
RA 9262).
Stalking refers to an intentional act committed by a person who,
knowingly and without lawful justification follows the woman or
her child or places the woman or her child under surveillance
directly or indirectly or a combination thereof.
Safe place or shelter refers to any home or institution
maintained or managed by the Department of Social Welfare and
Development (DSWD) or by any other agency or voluntary
organization accredited by the DSWD for the purposes of this Act
or any other suitable place the resident of which is willing
temporarily to receive the victim.
Children refers to those below eighteen (18) years of age or older
but are incapable of taking care of themselves as defined under
Republic Act No. 7610. As used in this Act, it includes the biological
children of the victim and other children under her care.
M. Bouncing Checks Law (Sec 1, BP 22)
N. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (Secs 5, 11,
15, and 21, RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640)
O. Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulations
Act (Secs 28 and 29, RA 10591)
P. Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Sec 4 to 6, RA
10175)
Q. Human Security Act of 2007 (Secs 3 to 6, RA 9372)
R. New Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016 (Secs 3 to 4, RA 10883)
S. Obstruction of Justice Law (Sec. 1, PD 1829)
T. Special Protection of Children Against Abuse,
Exploitation, and Discrimination Act (Secs 3[a], 5, and
10, RA 7610)
"Child abuse" refers to the maltreatment, whether habitual or
not, of the child which includes any of the following:
(1) Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual
abuse and emotional maltreatment;
(2) Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or
demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a
human being;
(3) Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for survival,
such as food and shelter; or
(4) Failure to immediately give medical treatment to an injured
child resulting in serious impairment of his growth and
development or in his permanent incapacity or death.
Punishable acts:
1. Child prostitution and other sexual abuse (Sec 5);
2. Child trafficking (Sec 7);
3. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and
Other Conditions Prejudicial to the Child's Development (Sec
10).
Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. –
Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any
other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any
adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in
prostitution and other sexual abuse.
Persons liable for child prostitution (Sec 5):
(a) Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or induce child
prostitution which include, but are not limited to, the
following:
(1) Acting as a procurer of a child prostitute;
(2) Inducing a person to be a client of a child prostitute by
means of written or oral advertisements or other
similar means;
(3) Taking advantage of influence or relationship to
procure a child as prostitute;
(4) Threatening or using violence towards a child to
engage him as a prostitute; or
(5) Giving monetary consideration goods or other
pecuniary benefit to a child with intent to engage such
child in prostitution.
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or
subject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the
victims is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators
shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape
and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised
Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may
be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when
the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be
reclusion temporal in its medium period; and
(c) Those who derive profit or advantage therefrom, whether
as manager or owner of the establishment where the
prostitution takes place, or of the sauna, disco, bar, resort,
place of entertainment or establishment serving as a cover
or which engages in prostitution in addition to the activity
for which the license has been issued to said establishment.
Instances when there is an attempt to commit child prostitution:
1. Any person who, not being a relative of a child, is found alone with
the said child inside the room or cubicle of a house, an inn, hotel,
motel, pension house, apartelle or other similar establishments,
vessel, vehicle or any other hidden or secluded area under
circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to believe
that the child is about to be exploited in prostitution and other
sexual abuse.
2. Any person is receiving services from a child in a sauna parlor or
bath, massage clinic, health club and other similar establishments
(Sec. 6, RA 7610).
Child trafficking - There is child trafficking when any person engages in
trading and dealing with children including, but not limited to, the act of
buying and selling of a child for money, or for any other consideration,
or barter (Sec. 7, RA 7610).
Attempt to commit child trafficking - There is an attempt to commit
child trafficking:
a. When a child travels alone to a foreign country without valid reason
therefor and without clearance issued by the Department of Social
Welfare and Development or written permit or justification from
the child's parents or legal guardian;
b. When a person, agency, establishment or child-caring institution c. Conduct any illegal activities (Sec. 10, RA 7610)
recruits women or couples to bear children for the purpose of child
trafficking;
c. When a doctor, hospital or clinic official or employee, nurse, Section 9. Obscene Publications and Indecent Shows. – Any
midwife, local civil registrar or any other person simulates birth for
person who shall hire, employ, use, persuade, induce or coerce a
the purpose of child trafficking; or
d. When a person engages in the act of finding children among low- child to perform in obscene exhibitions and indecent shows,
income families, hospitals, clinics, nurseries, day-care centers, or whether live or in video, or model in obscene publications or
other child-caring institutions who can be offered for the purpose pornographic materials or to sell or distribute the said materials
of child trafficking (Sec. 8, RA 7610). shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium period.
Persons liable for other acts of neglect, abuse, cruelty or
exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to the child's If the child used as a performer, subject or seller/distributor is
development: below twelve (12) years of age, the penalty shall be imposed in its
1. Any person who shall commit any other acts of child abuse, maximum period.
cruelty or exploitation or to be responsible for other conditions
prejudicial to the child's development;
Any ascendant, guardian, or person entrusted in any capacity with
2. Any person who shall keep or have in his company a minor,
twelve (12) years or under or who in ten (10) years or more his the care of a child who shall cause and/or allow such child to be
junior in any public or private place, hotel, motel, beer joint, employed or to participate in an obscene play, scene, act, movie or
discotheque, cabaret, pension house, sauna or massage parlor, show or in any other acts covered by this section shall suffer the
beach and/or other tourist resort or similar places, Provided, penalty of prision mayor in its medium period.
That this provision shall not apply to any person who is related
within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity or any bond
recognized by law, local custom and tradition or acts in the
performance of a social, moral or legal duty;
3. Any person who shall induce, deliver or offer a minor to any one
prohibited by this Act to keep or have in his company a minor as
provided in the preceding paragraph;
4. Any person, owner, manager or one entrusted with the
operation of any public or private place of accommodation,
whether for occupancy, food, drink or otherwise, including
residential places, who allows any person to take along with him
to such place or places any minor herein described; or
5. Any person who shall use, coerce, force or intimidate a street
child or any other child to;
a. Beg or use begging as a means of living;
b. Act as conduit or middlemen in drug trafficking or
pushing; or