Crim Rev Transcript Midterms
Crim Rev Transcript Midterms
Crim Rev Transcript Midterms
2018-2019
How proved:
2 witness rule for the same overt act; or Misprision is the failure to report treason. Misprision is a crime only in
confession by accused in open court treason. It does not mean to say that if you failed to report other crimes,
that there can be no crime anymore. There will still be a crime but we do
Who can commit Treason: not call them misprision.
Only Filipino citizens, regardless of residence, and resident
aliens can commit treason. Non-resident aliens CANNOT ILLEGAL ASSEMBLY
commit this crime.
(Regalado believes that non-resident aliens who conspire There is no crime of inciting to commit treason. While there is a crime of
with Filipino traitors can be liable.) inciting to commit rebellion, inciting to commit sedition, there is no crime
of inciting to commit treason.
Page 1 of 37
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
Art 2 on extra-territoriality applies (as distinguished from universal Only Filipino citizens, regardless of residence, and resident
jurisdiction and transnational crime) aliens can commit treason. Non-resident aliens CANNOT commit
this crime.
All the crimes that are punished under Title 1 can be prosecuted extra (Regalado believes that non-resident aliens who conspire with
territorially because under Art 2 provide crimes against national Filipino traitors can be liable.)
security and law of nation.
Although rebellion and coup d’etat affect national security, they So generally, it can only be committed by Filipino Citizens because
were classified as crimes against public order because at the time Treason is a crime involving breach of loyalty and loyalty can only be
of the passage of RPC, rebellion was small- scale and coup d’etat expected from Citizens or Residents. If a person is neither a citizen nor
was unheard of. resident, we cannot expect Loyalty.
How proved:
Rebellion is not found in Title 1. 1) 2-witness rule for the same overt act; or
2) confession by accused in open court
Is it a crime against national security?
Failure to report Conspiracy to Commit Treason – that, when the main crime is a political offense, the other crimes
Misprision of Treason committed ion the furtherance thereof will be absorbed.
Failure to report Inciting to Sedition – Inciting to Sedition
Failure to Report Treason – Not misprision (because what Reasons why we cannot complex it are:
should be reported is the "Conspiracy" to commit Treason. 1. The SC said so; and
2. If we apply the political offense doctrine wherein there is a
political crime, all other offenses that are committed in
MISPRISION; ACCESSORY: furtherance of such crime will acquire the political color and
will be absorbed, regardless of the penalties.
While the law says that the penalty shall be that of
accessory to treason, the offender is actually charged as So it is common wherein the common crime carries with it a
principal to MISPRISION OF TREASON under Art. 116, higher penalty than the political crime. We adopt the doctrine
and NOT as ACCESSORY under Art. 114. of absorption. All common crimes will be absorbed. We do
not also separate the crimes. We absorb.
Acts punished:
MISPRISION – GOOD FAITH AS A DEFENSE
Entering without authority a warship xxx to obtain information
Since Misprision of Treason is by dolo, good faith can be a defense. xxx of a confidential natural relative to the defense of the
(e.g., accused thought that the person to whom he made the report is Philippines.
an authority mentioned in the law, i.e., governor, mayor, fiscal) Disclosing to the representatives of a foreign nation the
contents of the information referred to above which he had by
It is not really, mala in se, in a sense. It is prohibited if you think about reason of his public office.
it but good faith may still be a defense.
Note: THIS IS OBVIOUSLY OUTDATED. Espionage by hacking
computers is not covered here.
The defenses of “righteous action” (that the collaborator also
helped save some guerillas from death) and of “suspended
allegiance” (by reason of change of sovereignty) were declared The only way to commit this crime is either you enter a warship owned
untenable. (PP v. Victoria, 78 Phil 122; Laurel v. Misa, 77 Phil 856) by the Philippines, once inside you must steal information relating to
the defense of the Philippines. If you do not enter the warship, you
cannot violate this crime. The second way of committing this is while
In Misprision, there is failure to report and the penalty should be that of you are in the custody of confidential information relating to the
an accessory but he will not be charged as accessory. it is only the defense of the Philippines and you disclose it to foreign country.
PENALTY as accessory.
If you remember the elements in certain crimes, there are crimes
where the elements are very specific.
While the law says that the penalty shall be that of accessory to
treason, the offender is actually charged as principal to EXAMPLE:
MISPRISION OF TREASON under Art. 116, and NOT as
ACCESSORY under Art. 114. MALVERSATION
Page 3 of 37
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
ART. 120 CORRESPONDENCE WITH HOSTILE COUNTRY Now, before the amendment of 122 and 123, Piracy and Mutiny could
only be committed in the high seas; but then came Republic Act 7659,
Another war crime which was actually the new Death Penalty Law. And under that law,
The law uses the word “with hostile country”, not “to” the definition of Piracy has been EXPANDED – It does not also include
somebody living in an enemy territory. piracy committed in the high seas but also piracy committed within
Philippine waters.
EXAMPLE:
Muadto ka'g Olango Island, naay mu-pirate adto. That's still considered
piracy. It doesn't have to be a vessel.
Page 4 of 37
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
Aside from that, PD 532 also punishes as piracy those acts committed violated but the body in the information which described and narrated
by PASSENGERS or CREW. the ultimate facts of the case. So long as the elements of crime are
mentioned, the information is sufficient.
So, it punished piracy within Philippine waters and it also included not
only third persons or strangers, but also passengers or crew. Q1: What were the justifications or arguments of the court in
supporting the finding that Hiong is liable for piracy under the
WHEREAS, under 122, 123, passengers or crew CANNOT commit Philippine law?
piracy. Under 532, EVEN passengers or crew can commit piracy.
1. Concept of continuing crime.
RA 7659
As ruled by the Supreme Court, “As regards the contention that the
So when Congress passed 7659, it did not only prescribed the Death trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of accused-
Penalty Law for certain crimes, it also redefined the crimes that fell appellant Hiong since the crime was committed outside Philippine
under the coverage of the Death Penalty Law. waters, suffice it to state that unquestionably, the attack on and seizure
of "M/T Tabangao" (renamed "M/T Galilee" by the pirates) and its
It redefined the crime of piracy. Not only did it say that the penalty for cargo were committed in Philippine waters, although the captive vessel
the crime of piracy is death, it also redefined piracy to INCLUDE piracy was later brought by the pirates to Singapore where its cargo was off-
within Philippine waters. loaded, transferred, and sold. And such transfer was done under
accused-appellant Hiong's direct supervision. Although Presidential
7659 also redefined Rebellion. It redefined certain crimes, including Decree No. 532 requires that the attack and seizure of the vessel and
piracy. its cargo be committed in Philippine waters, the disposition by the
pirates of the vessel and its cargo is still deemed part of the act of
When the new Death Penalty Law was subsequently repealed, the piracy, hence, the same need not be committed in Philippine waters.”
repeal only covered the penalty - that there shall be no more Death (People v. Tulin, 2001)
penalty. It did NOT restore the old definitions of the crime. So, when
the new Death Penalty Law redefined what is piracy, and subsequently 2. Piracy as a crime against humanity.
was repealed, it did not bring back the old definition. It has retained the
definition as redefined by the aforesaid law. Therefore, the new There is universal jurisdiction. Hence, it can be tried anywhere.
definition still remains. “Moreover, piracy falls under Title One of Book Two of the Revised
Penal Code. As such, it is an exception to the rule on territoriality in
Now, therefore, what stands is that we have 122 and 123 as amended criminal law. The same principle applies even if Hiong, in the instant
by 7659. 122 and 123 talks about piracy committed in the high seas as case, were charged, not with a violation of qualified piracy under the
well as in Philippine waters, but only involving LARGE VESSELS. And penal code but under a special law, Presidential Decree No. 532 which
this kind of piracy can only be committed by STRANGERS or THIRD penalizes piracy in Philippine waters. Verily, Presidential Decree No.
PERSONS. They cannot be committed by passengers or crew. 532 should be applied with more force here since its purpose is
precisely to discourage and prevent piracy in Philippine waters. It is
PD 532 still remains. likewise, well-settled that regardless of the law penalizing the same,
It covers vessels not covered under Articles 122, 123 of the piracy is a reprehensible crime against the whole world.” (People v.
RPC Tulin, 2001)
It includes Piracy committed by passengers of the vessel
Q2: Which of the justifications is the most compelling and why?
Q: Is there no mutiny in the Philippine waters involving small
boats? The compelling one is the argument on the extraterritoriality principle.
Hence, even if the crime (where Hiong actively participated) happened
Yes, because Mutiny can only be committed under RA 7659; RA 7659 in Singapore, pursuant to the extraterritoriality principle, the Philippine
only covers large vessels. courts can still try the case involving the crime of Piracy.
Q: How about if the Piracy is committed in the high seas by crew Q3: Which is more compelling on the two arguments in People vs.
members? Tulin?
Apply People vs. Tulin. In People vs. Tulin, the charges were for Mali: I have to agree with Miss Gonzaga. Regardless if it’s a
Qualified Piracy. Qualified Piracy is not found under PD 532, but in continuing crime, it falls under Art 2 which provides that all courts have
Article of 132 of the Revised Penal Code. The Piracy in Tulin was jurisdiction on crimes against humanity (?)
committed before RA 7659, which amended the RPC; therefore, RA
7659 should not have been applicable, but the SC somehow reasoned Carreon: The first one is compelling, because when we talk about
the case pursuant to RA 7659. The case was decided by the Court ten Article 2 (can’t hear). Following the continuing crime doctrine, having
years after it was committed. There was indeed a mix-up in the participated in a continuing crime of piracy which is a transnational
procedure, however, it would not affect the substance since under the crime, would include Yong having participated in the crime. He is still
narration of the charges, there was no distinction of what Piracy law liable.
was violated (whether under PD 532 or the RPC.)
Villanueva: Both are very compelling. As to the first reason, the act of
SEVENTH WEEK OF DISCUSSIONS (FEBRUARY 27-28, 2019) Yong in disposing the goods was an essential part of piracy. That is
why he is still liable for being a continuing crime.
Fiscal was raising the issue on the application of PD 532 for crimes
But the nature of the crime itself is a crime against humanity. It’s part of
committed in small boats and big vessels outside of the Philippine
the second article of the RPC. Territorial application is applicable. One
territory since PD 532 specifically mentions that piracy can only be
of the reasons is sufficient to convict Heong. But existence of both
committed within the Philippine territory.
fortifies the liable of Heong. Let’s go to the person and nature of the
crime itself.
This is when the celebrated case of PP v. Tulin comes in. Note that the
Supreme Court mixed up all the relevant laws including RA 7659 even
Question: What if the crime now is piracy but committed outside
if this law was no longer existing at the time of the commission of the
of the PH Territory in a small boat? Will People vs. Tulin answer
crime. However, procedurally, the case would not be defective with
this question?
respect to the jurisdiction aspect because what matters is not the law
Page 5 of 37
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
The last time, we said that under the law itself not yet being interpreted Where the public officer acted in good faith and without
by Tulin, just the wording of the law, it would seem like PD 532 would culpable negligence, there is no arbitrary detention even if it
only tell us that the crime should be committed within the PH territory subsequently turns out that the person detained was innocent
and it does not matter what the boat is. of a crime. (PP v. Ancheta, 68 Phil 415) as in effect, the
accused acted under a mistake of fact.
Under Art 122 and 123 as amended, it can be committed outside PH
waters but it must be committed in a large vessel. Arbitrary detention can be committed through unlawful arrest
or through imprudence. (PP v. Batallones 23 Phil 46), but
So will Tulin answer the question? they cannot be complexed, because unlawful arrest becomes
an element.
Kung wa niagi sa Philippines, and therefore we take out the argument
of continuing crime… For example the piracy was committed in
Somalia, we can prosecute pursuant to the Extraterritorial Theory
under Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code plus the justis humanis Here we are talking about a person being arrested without lawful cause
generis. by a public officer.
Therefore, we can prosecute the Somali pirates thru Philippines laws The difference between this and illegal detention is on who commits
but we were not able to catch them. the detention. Because if it’s a private person then it will be illegal
detention.
Therefore can we prosecute Somali pirates using Philippine law?
There should be arbitrariness or maliciousness in the decision. The SC
Yes. Problem is enforcement. How can we arrest them? This is due to ruled that this crime can be committed via negligence or imprudence, it
Tulin, we can use Phil Laws to prosecute piracy wherever it is is not always intentional. This crime is mala in se, thus good faith can
committed and whatever the kind of boat is used in the crime. Tulin is be a defense.
very important.
Example:
TITLE 2 Naay gahantak (coin gambling game) or pot session, then here comes
CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE the police rounding up all of them including Juan who was not actually
participating in the hantak. Niagi ra sya padung Criminal law class.
What is the fundamental law of the state? Having been detained will there be a case against him?
Constitution.
If there was negligence then kay wa sya magtarung kinsa iyang
Meaning to say all the crimes under Title 2 are violations of the gipanakup, if the police did not exercise enough prudence in the
Constitution particularly of the Bill of Rights. A violation of your bill of arresting, even if he thought he was one of those, arbitrary detention
rights will amount to a crime. can still be committed. But if Juan actually participated then and there
was no negligence on part of the police then it would be valid plus
We have a separate title because for example one of the crimes good faith.
punished here is if a person is arrested or liberty is deprived without
proper procedure, there is a crime. Remember illegal detention is higher than Art 124. Slight illegal
detention is reclusion temporal, while serious illegal detention is
General Rule: Title 2 and all its crimes can only be committed by a Reclusion perpetua.
public official.
Why is it that arbitrary detention carries a lower penalty compared
Exception: The only exception that can be committed by a private to illegal detention?
person is offending religious beliefs.
Because TO A CERTAIN DEGREE, a public official MAY actually
Reason why only public officials can commit the crimes because the detain, whereas a private individual does not have any right at all. So if
constitution guarantees the respect by the state and its actors of the the latter detains someone it is considered grave.
citizens’ rights. so that if the pact is violated, the state will punish the
violation. But if the reason why the public official is detaining somebody is not
because he thinks that that somebody has committed a crime, but
because he has private reasons like if nangutang siya nimo, the
ART. 124 ARBITRARY DETENTION motivation is not anymore in line with his public office. And so, it is not
anymore arbitrary detention but illegal detention. In fact, that is already
Elements: kidnapping for ransom.
1. Offender is public officer or employee;
2. Offender detains a person; Just because a person is a public official, it does not mean that he
3. Detention is without legal grounds. cannot anymore commit illegal detention. He can if he is doing it in his
private capacity, and nothing to do with his public function.
Page 6 of 37
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
ART. 125. DELAY IN THE DELIVERY OF DETAINED PERSONS SORIA V. DESIERTO (GR 153524-25, JAN. 31, 2005)
TO THE PROPER JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES. (This is also a form
of arbitrary detention in its generic sense.) In the evening of May 13, 2001, the day before elections,
accused were arrested without warrant for illegal possession
Detention is for a legal ground! of firearms.
12 hours – light offenses At 6:30PM of May 14, the complaint was docketed at the
18 hours – correctional penalties prosecutor’s office. He was ordered released by the
36 hours – afflictive or capital penalties prosecutor as 22 hours had already elapsed. The information
72 hours for violations of Human Security Act was filed only on May 15.
Citing Medina v. Orozco, SC ruled that there was no
violation of Art. 125. Sundays, holidays and election days are
What do you mean by these periods? EXCLUDED in the computation being “no office days”.
These are the periods by which the person who arrested suspects can
legally detain them even without a court order. After the period of time,
SAYO V. CHIEF OF POLICE (GR L – 2128 MAY 12, 1948)
the detaining officer must secure a Commitment Order. Otherwise, the
continued detention would be violative of Art125.
For the purpose of determining the criminal liability of an
officer detaining a person for more than 6 hours xxx, the
(8 hours under RA 10360 is period to refer to LSWDO) means of communication as well as the hour of arrest and
This contemplates of a warrantless arrest. other circumstances, such as the time of surrender and the
material possibility of the fiscal to make the investigation and
file in time the necessary information, must be taken into
Under RA 9344 which is the Juvenile Justice Law, a child in conflict consideration (Cited in Soria v. Desierto)
(CICL) with the law can be taken into custody but within 8 hours the If there is an extraneous circumstance, the deadline may be
police must submit the CICL to the Local Social Welfare and extended
Development Officer (LSWDO).
Page 7 of 37
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
Was there delay? A: It will fall under number 3. The asking to leave does not have to be
uttered.
No. because if there are extraneous circumstances, the deadline will
be extended. If a house is locked then the entry is prohibited. If you enter
nonetheless even without a prohibition then that would be number 1.
MEDINA V. OROZCO Prohibition isn’t limited to the verbal prohibition or manifestation it may
also constitute an act that the entry is prohibited.
From the time of accused’s arrest to the filing of the
Information, more than 72 hours have elapsed.
Nov. 7 was a Sunday, Nov. 8 was a holiday, Nov. 9 was ART. 129 SEARCH WARRANTS MALICIOUSLY OBTAINED
election day. These were “no office days”, and are excluded AND ABUSE IN THE SERVICE OF THOSE LEGALLY
in the counting of the periods under Art. 125. OBTAINED
The accused were brought to court the very first office day
following the arrest. Art. 125 was not violated. If witness-deponent executes an Affidavit which was used to
secure the warrant, he could be liable for Perjury if not in
conspiracy with public officials, otherwise, if there was
conspiracy, crime is Art. 129.
ART. 126 DELAYING RELASE
But it does not necessary mean that it always lawful since a public
When there is judgment of acquittal, it is not subject to appeal, it is not officer even if armed with a search warrant, we still have to talk about
subject to any kind of motion. Judgment of acquittal is immediately final HOW the search warrant was OBTAINED.
an executor. The judge may then issue an order of release. If there is Example:
an order of release, it must be released immediately. Expect for some
procedural matters, the person must be released otherwise there will It was obtained by reason by misrepresentation or if there is abuse in
be violation of delaying of release. the implementation then Art. 129 could be committed.
Situation #1:
ART. 127 EXPULSION
The searching officer entered into a house and there was an occupant
Public officer or employee compels a person to change and imo “gipang-karate” ang mga kwarto or whatever causing
residence or leave the Philippines, without lawful authority. unnecessary damage to the property. It is a crime under Art. 129.
The case where the mayor of Manila ordered the prostitutes to go The search warrant will only order the specific things. If it is generally
to Davao is a violation of this provision. worded then it is a void search warrant for being a general warrant
thus all the things seized will be inadmissible as evidence. It will never
happen that the search warrant will be generally worded and will
always be specific.
ART. 128 VIOLATION OF DOMICILE
The search warrant will not lump all the crimes in 1 search warrant
Elements:
because it will void the search warrant since it will become a scatter
1. Committed by public officer
shot warrant.
2. Who enters the dwelling against the owner’s will; OR
3. Searches for papers and other effects inside the
Situation #2:
dwelling without previous consent of the owner; OR
(entry here is with consent)
The search warrant says “To any officer of the law, you are hereby
4. Refuses to leave the premises which he surreptitiously
ordered to search the house of juan dela cruz and seize the video
entered, after being required to depart. (what is
karera”. Then you went inside the house and when you are already
punished is the refusal to leave)
inside, you pickpocketed a wallet. You took a cellphone and laptop.
There is no such thing is an illegal possession of laptop.
“Against the will” There is no such thing as illegal possession of laptop.
- It different that without consent. Against the will means there
was prohibition but the prohibition was violated. You’re only commanded to search and confiscate video karera. You
cannot find a video karera inside a wallet. Why are you searching the
Searches for papers and other effects inside the dwelling without wallet? That would be an illegal search already. Therefore, that would
previous consent of the owner be a crime under Article 129.
- Natuktok ka. Gipadayon ka. Igdayon nimo, wala raka ning
apil sa ilang paniudto, nanglili pajud ka. Searching for sud- That’s what I’ve been telling police officers when I give lectures.
an.
Nganu man mu ingun ang SW you are authorized to search for
“Refusing to leave” drugs, nya ig human ninyu ug search kay naa man lage jewelry,
- It can also be refusing to leave after being ordered to leave. laptop. Naa diay nay proceeds ang illegal possession?
Question: What if the person enters but the owner was not given
the chance to prohibit?
Page 8 of 37
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
Ang nay proceeds kay ang transaction. Transaction means there is search if there are at least 2 witnesses from the community of good
sale. That would be a crime. moral standing or at least or presumed to be of good moral standing.
ART. 130 SEARCHING DOMICILE WITHOUT WITNESSES – ART. 131 PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION, DISSOLUTION OF
Only if the occupant is absent PEACEFUL MEETINGS
Art. 129 and 130 are also often referred to as Violation of The government has the right to require permits for
Domicile in its generic sense. gatherings, unless done in declared “freedom parks”,
otherwise the meeting would be a violation. Such permit is
only to regulate the peace and not to inconvenient the public.
Then we go to search in domicile without witnesses. Now we have to
take into consideration two things here. Rule 126 of the Rules of Court
says that public officials who are armed with an SW can legally search We know that although under the Constitution, everyone has a right to
a house even if there are no occupants provided there are at least two peaceably assemble and air their grievances, the reality is that we still
witnesses. need to secure a permit from the local chief executive. However, if the
local chief executive will not act on the request, then it can be deemed
Who should these 2 witnesses be? approved. Specially for politicians, it can be deemed approved after a
lapse of a certain period.
They must be residents or people in the community itself who are of
legal and good moral standing. Otherwise known as barangay tanod. However, in the case of Bayan Muna, the SC said that since this is a
constitutional right, LGUs are enjoined to make a proclamation or
So, therefore, if the police officers have SWs, they can bring barangay declaration of certain spaces that they will designate as freedom parks
tanods, so that when there are no occupants, they can still go ahead so they must designate a certain area in the locality where they can
and enter the place and conduct the search without violating the rules. still gather and do whatever peacefully even without a permit.
Because the rules say you can go ahead even if the house has no
occupant provided that there are 2 witnesses but they must come from Where is the Freedom Park in Cebu City?
the community. There is no requirement that they should be elected.
Any person who is of good moral standing. Colon Street.
Take note however of the special law R.A. 9165. Under this law, the Because if you go to Carbon, nobody actually will listen. “Freedom
inventory for drugs must be made in the presence of media OR DOJ Park” is actually the baligyaanan ug buwak dira sa Carbon. Plaza
(we call it now NPS or National Prosecution Service). Independencia and Fuente Osmena, you still need a permit. The only
place where you will not need a permit is in Colon Street. In the case, it
Why is that? was said that every LGU must declare a Freedom Park.
Can you imagine DOJ is a very big department. Gamay ra nag budget But for Cebu City, the Freedom Park is not what we call the “Freedom
but dako na siya nga department. So DOJ actually includes NBI and Park” in Carbon. Our Freedom Park is in Colon Street.
Bureau of Immigration. So when you say DOJ, how about kung ang
muadtu didtu kay Immigration? Unsa may kalibutan ana? Now they are Question: What is the scope of interruption?
changing it in RA 10640, the amendatory law.
Any kind of interruption. In the Bayan Muna case, SC said it is a
Under this law, they are changing it already to representative of constitutional right. Therefore, authorities can only interfere if there are
the NPS but what does representative of the NPS mean? issues of peace and order. Before the Bayan Muna ruling, what was
implemented by the police was calibrated police response. That is so
Because NPS means National Prosecution Service. And these are the vague which can be a license to abuse. So SC changed it to maximum
prosecutors. However it does not say prosecutor. It just says tolerance. That is now the legal response when there are meetings and
representative of NPS. Ug nganu diay kung among janitor diay? Weird. peaceful rallies. Rallies are not always peaceful, as long as the
But it is not indispensable. Because the law says “media OR”. And the meeting is peaceful, police are not supposed to interrupt. If they do, it
law is so unclear. I don’t know if pabor sa kontra or whatever. is a crime.
The law leaves a lot to interpret and if interpreted, the law favors the Question: If there is no permit to rally, can the police interrupt?
accused and against the state. That would mean acquittals. So what
happens is that there’s a lot of acquittals. In the first place, you are not authorized to rally there. Then the police
can interrupt.
So what does “media” mean?
Under LGC, the City Sanggunian has a right to regulate the flow of
If naa koy programa sa radio kay namaligya kog herbal. Or naa koy traffic and the use of city streets. If it is a city street, it falls under the
programa kay nagmugna kog relihiyun? Diba? Media gihapun because jurisdiction of the city government. If the city government says, you
I have a regular media time. Media can be all kinds of media. cannot do it here. Then, you cannot do it. In case of national highways,
there is a law against obstruction of national highways, with more
So that’s a different thing. It has nothing to do with Article 130. RA reasons you cannot do it there.
9165 on the requirement of media or NPS or elected public official.
For elected public official, that is a must. But the elected public official TITLE 3
must be elected. Therefore, the barangay tanod will not do because CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
first he must be elected. Second, the elected public official need not
come from the place. There is no requirement. It can be the silingan
barangay captain. These are crimes where the threats to security are internal.
Page 9 of 37
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
These are crimes which disrupt or tend to disrupt the In deciding if the crime is rebellion, not murder, it becomes
functions of government. imperative for our courts to ascertain whether or not the act
Unlike Title 1, there is no foreign sovereignty involved in Title was done in furtherance of a political end.
3 felonies. In such cases the burden of demonstrating political motive
falls on the defense, motive being a state of mind which the
accused, better than any individual, knows…[I]t is not enough
The definition of rebellion not only included the manner of committing that the overt acts of rebellion are duly proven. Both purpose
the crime but also the component crimes. The definition of rebellion and overt acts are essential components of the crime. With
should be armed public apprising and the purpose must always be either of these elements wanting, the crime of rebellion legally
political. does not exist. (Prosecutor of Zamboanga v. CA, GR 125796
Dec. 27, 2000)
Under the old RPC, there should be an armed public apprising
committed by means of murder, robbery, so on and so forth. So the
means of committing rebellion was also included in the definition. Under the Ocampo v. Obando case, where there is rebellion, you
cannot complex it because we adopt the Doctrine of Absorption.
However, in the 1990s when legislator introduced as well the crime of Common crimes committed in the furtherance of rebellion are
coup d’état they also redefined rebellion cutting the portion specifying absorbed by the political crime. It doesn’t matter that the common
the component crimes. crime absorbed carries a higher penalty.
Now, it is not enough you go to Fuente Osmena “mag rebelde ta”, Illustration:
there must be a substantial number of rebels.
A rebel in Marawi killed 20 people, committed arson or robbed. That
It is more massive than insurrection. Under our law, rebellion and will only be rebellion. Because they are absorbed, it will result in a
insurrection are both punished under the same provision. Whether bailable offense. If he is a ranking member, he can post bail. SO there
rebellion or insurrection, it doesn’t matter because the elements remain were cases filed for rebellion. If it was terrorism it would have been non
the same. Both can be interchangeably used. baliable.
Other acts committed in pursuance of Rebellion are absorbed In Rebellion, there is taking up arms against the
in the crime itself because they acquired a political character. government. In Sedition, there is public uprising which is
tumultuous, but not armed.
Divested of its common complexion, any ordinary act,
however grave, assumes a different color by being absorbed (In Tumultuous Disturbance under there is public disturbance but
in the crime of rebellion, which carries a lighter penalty than participants are lesser in number than sedition)
the crime of murder. In deciding if the crime committed is In Rebellion, the purpose is always political.
rebellion, not murder, it becomes imperative for our courts to
ascertain whether or not the act was done in furtherance of a In Sedition, the purpose maybe political or social. It is for
political end. this reason that there may be complexing in Sedition
PP v. Lavediora GR 112235 November 29, 1995 (PP v. Kamlon, Oct. 24, 1963), as the Political Offense
Doctrine may not apply.
Political crimes are those directly aimed against the political order, REBELLION SEDITION
as well as such common crimes as may be committed to achieve a Always armed May or may not be armed
political purpose. The decisive factor is the intent or motive. Always political May be social purpose
But in both crimes there must be public uprising. Without which, we
may have a crime of Direct Assault
(first kind).
If a crime usually regarded as common, like homicide, is
perpetrated for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to the
Government the territory of the Philippine Islands or any part CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT REBELLION
thereof, then it becomes stripped of its “common” complexion,
inasmuch as, being part and parcel of the crime of rebellion, the Attendance in meetings to discuss plant to bring down a
former acquires the political character of the latter. (Pp. v government is a mere preparatory step to commit the acts
Hernandez, 99 Phil 515) constituting Rebellion.
This is a crime punished under Art. 136 as Conspiracy To
Commit Rebellion, and not as Rebellion punished under Art.
134.
Beltran, et al v. Gonzalez, June 1, 2007
Page 10 of 37
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
Proposal and Inciting are two different things and two different crimes: ART. 134 REBELLION OR INSURRECTION
Inciting Elements:
The act must be done publicly 1. Rising publicly and taking arms against the government;
The Inictor may or may not have decided to commit the 2. Substantial number of rebels required;
crime itself. 3. For the purpose of removing from allegiance to the
government or its laws, the territory of the Philippines of
Proposal any body of land, naval or other armed forces, or for the
Usually done secretly purpose of depriving the president or congress of any of
their powers or prerogatives.
The person proposing must have decided to commit the
crime
Rebellion is more massive than Insurrection. The objective of
Proposal can be a crime in itself for proposal to commit
rebellion is the complete overthrow of the government, whereas in
treason, proposal to commit rebellion. There is no proposal
Insurrection, only minor changes are desired.
to commit Sedition. It can be a crime in itself but it is not a
mode of committing criminal liability meaning if the person
proposed to did not accept or if the crime itself does not
happen, then the proponent will not commit any criminal
liability because it is not a means of incurring criminal The gravamen of the crime of rebellion is an armed public uprising
liability. against the government. (Aquino, RPC)
So, if there is no punishment for the mere proposal such as
proposal to commit murder then there will be no penalty but
if the murder has been committed, the crime will not be Other acts committed in pursuance of Rebellion are absorbed
proposal, he would be liable as principal by inducement. in the crime itself because they acquired a political character.
PROPOSAL AND INCITING TO REBELLION Divested of its common complexion, any ordinary act,
however grave, assumes a different color by being
absorbed in the crime of rebellion, which carries a lighter
In inciting, the acts must be done publicly, whereas in
penalty than the crime of murder. In deciding if the crime
proposal, the acts are usually done secretly
committed is rebellion, not murder, it becomes
In proposal, the one who proposes has decided to commit imperative for our courts to ascertain whether or not the
rebellion, in inciting, the offender has not decided to commit
act was done in furtherance of a political end.
rebellion himself
PP v. Lavediora GR 112235 November 29, 1995
Acts punished are Conspiracy, Proposal and Inciting to
Rebellion and Coup d’etat; Conspiracy and Inciting to
Sedition. WHAT ARE POLITICAL CRIMES?
Political crimes are those directly aimed against the political order,
COMPLEXING REBELLION as well as such common crimes as may be committed to achieve a
political purpose. The decisive factor is the intent or motive.
On Oct. 24, 1990, RA 6968 amended Arts. 134, 135 and 136
and punished the crime of Coup d’etat. The amendment
removed the enumeration of the overt acts or means of If a crime usually regarded as common, like homicide, is
committing rebellion. perpetrated for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to the
According to some legal scholars, the amendment gave way Government the territory of the Philippine Islands or any part
to the possibility of complexing. thereof, then it becomes stripped of its “common” complexion,
However, this view was never supported by the SC. Instead, inasmuch as, being part and parcel of the crime of rebellion, the
SC reiterated the Political Offense Doctrine that absorbs former acquires the political character of the latter. (Pp. v
common crimes committed in the furtherance of political Hernandez, 99 Phil 515)
objectives (Ocampo v. Abando GR 176830, 185587, 185636,
190005 Feb 11, 2014) even crimes punished under SPL.
POLITICAL OFFENSE DOCTRINE
(Enrile v. Amin)
Because they are part of the political offense, there can be no
complexing as they are deemed absorbed as part of the main crime
Complexing of Political Crimes
and because they are part of the main crime they cannot be charged
and punished separately.
We have already agreed before Pre-Mid that there can be NO
COMPLEXING OF POLITICAL CRIMES.
In the case of ENRILE VS. AMIN, the Political Offense Doctrine does
not limit itself to crimes that are punishable under the Revised Penal
Code but as well as to crimes that are punished under Special Penal
Law.
Page 11 of 37
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
OCAMPO v. ABANDO: THE RULE AND THE EXCEPTION TO ART. 139 SEDITION
POLITICAL OFFENSE DOCTRINE
There must be a public and tumultuous uprising, not
Under the Political Offense Doctrine, common crimes, necessarily armed;
perpetrated in furtherance of a political offense, are divested There must be force, intimidation or other unlawful means;
of their character as “common” offenses and assume the Purpose maybe political or social
political complexion of the main crime of which they are mere
ingredients, and, consequently, cannot be punished
separately from the principal offense, or complexed with the
same, to justify the imposition of a graver penalty. Sedition does not absorb murder committed by reason or in
furtherance thereof. (Pp v Kamlon, Oct. 24, 1963). There may
be complexing. (But if the objective is political and NOT
We have this very interesting case that happened before. There was social, Political Offense Doctrine applies.
an accused in a rebellion case and he could not post bail because we
filed a case for murder which is not bailable. It was easy for the police
and prosecutor to file murder because you could just raise that
somebody died, and that person was killed by the accused. Very There is no proposal to commit Sedition.
simple, two things. But the accused who happens to be charged by
murder cannot post bail.
Sedition is punished even if the actual sedition does not happen. It is
punished even if it is still on its conspiracy stage but there is no such
The Supreme Court said, it's not the problem of the Prosecutor to
crime as proposal to commit sedition, only conspiracy and inciting to
prove that you committed it in the furtherance or Rebellion. You, the
sedition.
accused, have the burden to prove it. And so kini na accused niingon,
hoy fiscal dili man to murder kabalo man mong Rebellion. Nya, kay
Sedition may be political or social and because it may be social, the
wala man mi ebidensya na Rebelde ka. Paghimo sa ug affidavit (lol)
political offense may or may not apply. It depends on the objective of
malay namo sa reasons nimo ato. Because it would be harder to prove
the sedition.
Rebellion.
The main difference between sedition and rebellion is that in sedition it
So in the case of Prosecutor of Zamboanga, it tells us that "the
is not necessarily armed. There is still public uprising but not
burden of demonstrating the political motive falls on the
necessarily armed. If there are armed person involved in sedition, their
defense".
penalty is different from those who are not armed.
Q: What if the crime charged is murder but the defense proved
So, in order to be sedition, the manner of committing is by force,
that it was rebellion, procedurally, can he still be charged of
intimidation or unlawful mean.
rebellion?
If there is public uprising but the uprising is not by force, intimidation or
A: Yes. But that would be very easy because he is actually supplying
unlawful means, it would be constitutionally protected. It would be part
the evidence against you. Alkansi lang mi gamay because instead of
of the constitutionally protected thus it would not amount to crime. The
murder which is reclusion perpetua, you will only have to suffer
only time that it would be a crime of sedition is when it is committed
reclusion temporal.
with the use of force, intimidation or other unlawful means. So if there
are utterances, even if they tend to agitate the audience but does not
Q: Is there no double jeopardy here?
have the effect of inspiring them or agitating them or order that they
would commit unlawful acts, then it would still be a constitutionally
A: No. There is no double jeopardy here because they have different
protected right.
elements.
The objective need not be political.
In a situation where the accused is charged of murder but the accused
said that “I’m actually a rebel.” The accused here is actually
Can Sedition be complexed?
incriminating himself. Not only with the crime of rebellion but also with
the crime of murder except the murder in this case is absorbed.
The answer to that would depend on the objective of the sedition:
Page 12 of 37
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
Dangerous tendency rule - the test to determine whether an If Sedition results from the incitement, the inciter is
utterance is a rightful expression of the freedom of speech or considered a principal by inducement for Sedition.
inciting to sedition, usually used during politically tense If Sedition did not result, he will be liable only for Inciting To
situations. (Espuelas v. People, 90 Phil 524) Sedition.
Inciting To Sedition is not a continuing crime.
Clear and present danger – the evil consequence of the Umil v. Ramos Oct. 3, 1991
utterance must be ‘extremely serious and the degree of
imminence extremely high’ before the utterance can be
punished. This is more strict rule and usually used in normal So, according to Umil vs. Ramos, it is not a continuing crime. For every
times. Adhered to by SC in a number of cases. (Primicias v. seditious utterance, one count. Igka-ugma, lain nasad; ig sunod adlaw,
Fugso; Ver v. Arca; ABS-CBN v. COMELEC, Jan 28, 2000) another napud. It is not a continuing crime.
How do we know that the speech is constitutionally-protected and BUT under Art. 143, when there is a meeting conducted to commit
a valid exercise of the freedom of speech, of the freedom of Treason, the attendants thereof, including the organizers thereof, could
expression, the freedom to air grievances against the government be punished for ILLEGAL ASSEMBLY, but not for inciting.
- how do we know that it's a valid exercise or a crime constituting
inciting to sedition? For Sedition, we have Conspiracy and Inciting.
Whereas, under more normal circumstances, it could be the CLEAR It applies to any kind of legislative body, whether national or local. It
AND PRESENT DANGER RULE – meaning, it will not be a crime should be with the use of force or fraud.
UNLESS it presents a clear and present danger. If it is only a
pasumbingay, the presumption is that it is constitutionally protected, ART. 144 - DISTURBING THE PROCEEDING OF LEGISLATIVE
and therefore, it is not a crime. So, if sedition results, it will be liable for BODIES.
the sedition. And if sedition results from inciting to sedition, he will be
liable for sedition as well and he will be considered as a PRINCIPAL ART. 145 ON VIOLATION OF PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY.
BY INDUCEMENT. But if sedition will not result, he will not be liable for
sedition but his crime would be INCITING TO SEDITION. This can only be committed against the National legislature.
Page 13 of 37
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
b) Employs force;
ART. 146 PUNISHES THE ACTIVITY/MEETING; c) Makes a serious intimidation; or
d) Makes a serious resistance
There must be a meeting.
The intimidation and resistance must be serious, otherwise, it would
ART. 147 PUNISHES THE ASSOCIATION ITSELF, WHETHER fall under Art. 151.
MEETING OR NOT.
Example:
Meeting is not required. Membership in an illegal association is a
crime. In a checkpoint, a person is asked for his license, and he refuses to
present it, he is not liable for resistance, but for disobedience.
Art. 146 can be committed 2 ways (by leaders and organizers, 3. At the time of the assault the person in authority or his agent
even if they are not the speakers): a) Is engaged in the actual performance of official duties;
b) That he is assaulted by reason of the past performance
Audience is incited to commit treason, rebellion, sedition, or of official duties;
direct assault;
Attended by armed persons for the purpose of committing Not in the actual performance of public functions.
any crime under the RPC (Teehankee dissenting, Alonto v.
Enrile, GR 54095, July 25, 1980) Example:
If there is both no public uprising and not armed, the crime is direct
assault. PP v Sion, Aug. 11, 1997
1. Offender
Persons in authority and agents of persons in authority need not be
a. Makes and attack;
public officials.
b. Employs force;
c. Makes a serious intimidation; or
d. Makes a serious resistance WHEN A PRIVATE PERSON CAN BE THE VICTIM OF DIRECT
ASSAULT:
2. The person assaulted is a person in authority or his
agent. 1. If he is a person in authority or an agent of a person in
authority, even if he is not a public officer, i.e.,
3. At the time of the assault the person in authority or his professors, lawyers;
agent
a. Is engaged in the actual performance of official 2. If offender employs violence against private person for
duties; similar purpose as rebellion or sedition but without public
b. That he is assaulted by reason of the past uprising;
performance of official duties;
3. If he comes to the aid of a person in authority Art. 152
4. Offender knows that the one he is assaulting is a person aab [EA 1978 (1957); BP 873 on lawyers (1985)]
in authority or his agent in the exercise of his duties.
1. Offender:
a) Makes and attack;
Page 14 of 37
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
Penalty is higher if any of the ff. is present: Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or
the agents of such person can be committed if the
Prision Correccional med to max and P1,000 fine offender resists or SERIOUSLY disobeys such person.
Disobedience which is not serious carries a lower
1. Committed with a weapon;
penalty. (2nd par. Of Art. 151)
2. Offender is public officer or employee;
3. Offender lays hand upon a PA
1. Refusing to obey summons without valid excuse; ART. 154 is unlawful use of means of publication and unlawful
2. Refusing to be sworn; utterances. Differs from libel or slander the purpose is to humiliate,
3. Refusing to answer or produce documents; under Art. 154, the purpose is to cause alarm. If you spread false or
4. Restraining another from attending or inducing fake news, that can be Art. 154 if the purpose is to alarm. But if
disobedience to summons purpose is not to alarm but to humiliate then that would be libel.
Page 15 of 37
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
ON BAIL
ART. 155 ALARMS AND SCANDALS
So if a person was on bail, he did not escaped but he did not appear
1. Discharge firearm, rocket, firecracker, other explosive in during the trial. Trial proceeded in absentia. And so, after the trial in
a town or public place calculated to cause alarm or absentia, promulgation of judgment was also done in absentia. He
danger; could not be found anymore.
2. Instigate or take part in charivari or other disorderly
meeting offensive to another or prejudicial to public, Is he deemed to have escaped?
tranquility;
3. Disturbing the public peace while wandering about at No, because he was not committed to prison and departed unlawfully.
night or while engaged in any other nocturnal When he went out of jail, there was a release order by virtue of the
amusements; posting of bail bond. So he did not depart unlawfully.
4. Causing disturbance or scandal in public places while
intoxicated or otherwise, provided that the In relation to Art 93, on the prescription of penalty, the penalty will not
circumstances do not fall under Art. 155. also prescribe because in order for it to proscribe, there must be an
escape.
Art. 155 is alarms and scandal, the purpose is to cause alarm. Take note that if you are caught again after evading sentence, duha na
Discharge of firearm is for the purpose of causing. If the firearm is imong kaso. If you are not caught, the penalty on the first crime could
aimed at a person, that would be illegal discharge. Alarms and prescribe but the second crime will not prescribe. You can still be
scandals should not be aimed. Firing under alarms and scandals convicted of Article 157.
should not be aimed. That is what we call an indiscriminate firing.
When a case is already filed in court, you are now under the
If you aim, without intent to kill, that would illegal discharge. But if jurisdiction of the court who can order a bench warrant. So you will be
aimed, plus intent to kill, actually discharged, even if no injuries, that is arrested still, but not because you have committed another crime but
homicide, murder, parricide, or infanticide. because of the first crime.
If you escape, remember you have a pending case thus court can
ART. 156 DELIVERY OF PRISONERS FROM JAIL issue an alias warrant or a bench warrant (Was not able to hear the
question of the student huhu)
Act punished is removing from jail a person confined Bench Warrant is for the disobedience to the court.
therein or help the escape of such person. Alias Warrant is for your crime.
Penalty is higher if by means of violence, intimidation or
bribery.
ART. 160 QUASI-RECIDIVISM
Page 16 of 37
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
TITLE 4
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST ARTS. 166 and 167 punishes forging, importing and uttering
instruments payable to bearer and not payable to bearer.
CAPI are crimes which involve defraudation of the public ART. 169 HOW FORGERY IS COMMITTED
in general.
Disturbance of the financial and economic affairs of the Arts. 167 and 168 are committed by:
state a. Giving a treasury or bank note or instrument the
appearance of a true and genuine document;
b. Erasing, substituting, counterfeiting or altering the
figures, letters, words or signs therein
ART. 161. COUNTERFEITING THE GREAT SEAL OF THE
PHILS. AND THE SIGNATURE OR STAMP OF THE CHIEF
EXECUTIVE If you have a play money which is usually having an indication that I t
is a play money, without an indication then that could be a crime.
Falsifying the President’s signature is not a crime of
Falsification, but falls under Art. 161. If you place a beard to the face of Ninoy in the bill there would be a
crime because you are altering the bill.
Page 18 of 37
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
Question: So if the crime was falsification, is it correct to say that It is not the use but the time it was falsified.
the reckless imprudence was the means in committing it?
PP vs. TAN BOMPING, MARCH 15, 1026
Remember that he was not convicted under Art. 171. So we cannot
say that it is merely the mode. He was convicted under Art. 365. Which A deed acknowledged before a notary public is a public document
means the crime is 365 and not 171. and the fact that the false dates were written into the documents
here in question BEFORE said documents were presented to the
That has been cleared in the case of Jaaassson Ivler. In the case, the notary does not alter the character of the crime as Falsification of
SC made it clear that negligence is not a mode of committing a felony. Public Document if they were so presented by the party who
Culpa can be a mode in committing a crime but it can also be felony in committed the falsification or at his instance.
itself. Art. 365 defines the penalty and the definition of the penalty
which means that it is a crime in itself.
But in this case, it would seem that SC deemed imprudence resulting What if pagsuwat nimo di paman siya public kay wala pa siya gi
in falsification was covered in the orginal charges of Art. 171. So wala notaryohan?
natay mahims. So if you really want to be clarified, read the case!!!
Kay wala raba moy mahimo. Kinahangalan raba mo mutuo. SC said it already is public, the moment you write it, you do not have to
make it notarized just to make it public. (akin to your bar application)
Question: So what’s the answer to the question – is falsification
intentional felony?
ART. 173 FALSIFICATION OF WIRELESS, TELEGRAPH,
TELEPHONE MESSAGE
You would probably qualify. Art. 171 is a crime that is intentional
felony. But it can also be committed through culpa as decided by the
ART. 174 FALSE MEDICAL CERTIFICATES,
SC in the case of Sevilla.
CERTIFICATES OF MERIT OR SERVICE, ETC.
Question: What penalty is graver?
ART. 175 USING FALSE CERTIFICATE
Art 171 – prision mayon; Art 172 – prision correccional; Art 365 could
be arresto mayor. Kung ikiha apil ang staff, naa siyay defense of good ART. 176 MANUFACTURING AND POSSESSION OF
faith. Since this is a malum in se crime, good faith is a defense. INSTRUMENTS OR IMPLEMENTS FOR FALSIFICATION
Page 19 of 37
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
ART. 180 – False testimony against a defendant ART. 200 – Grave scandal – is any highly scandalous
act offensive to morals and good customs and
ART. 181 - False testimony favorable to the
committed publicly OR within the knowledge and view of
defendant
the public.
ART. 182 – False testimony in civil cases
1. Accused made a statement under oath or executed an Grave scandal must be directed to the sense of decency
affidavit; or good customs and NOT on property.
2. It pertains to a material matter; Public view is not always necessary as long as the fact
3. It was made before a competent officer; was performed in a public place.
4. There is a deliberate assertion of falsehood;
5. It is required by law.
QUESTIONS FROM THE CLASS:
Material matter is the main fact which is the subject of the inquiry Yes. It does not mean it cannot be committed in your home. Like
or any circumstance which tends to prove that fact, or any fact or exhibitionists, for example. You are in your home but it is within public
circumstance which tends to corroborate or strengthen the view. Because it says committed publicly OR within the knowledge and
testimony relative to the subject of the inquiry, or which legitimately view of the public.
affects the credit of any witness who testifies.
How about in a private car?
There are two acts punished under this article: What if the car is tinted?
1. Soliciting any gift or promise as a consideration Yes, it’s not grave scandal. To be committed, it must be done publicly
from refraining from taking part; or within public view. Now, here’s the problem though- if it’s a public
2. Attempting to cause bidders to stay away place because it can fall within the description of committed publicly.
Because it says “OR” so even if it’s not within public view but it is
NOTE: In both instances, there must be a public auction. committed publicly, like in a public place not in a public view like in SM
but in the parking lot. So it’s “OR”. Take note that the word used by the
law is “OR”.
This 2nd mode of committing is more commonly known as a BUY-
OUT. It’s a buy-out wherein certain bidders will tell other bidders that
“bid-bid lang mo ug joke then we’ll buy you out.”. It’s actually common.
This crime can be committed by any person whereas under RA 3019
there must be collusion or conspiracy with a public official.
Page 20 of 37
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
Here, the mere possession of obscene literature is not punished. What For RA 3019, “public officers” has a wider scope, and
is punished is possession coupled with distribution, publishing, selling includes temporary, contractual, casual employees or
and exhibiting. This could be the crime committed by bars that have those receiving compensation from the government.
these obscene exhibitions. In Maniega v. PP 88 Phil 494, SC held that it is not the
nature of the appointment but the duties performed that
Q: How about the lingam massage? is determinative.
A: These are not necessarily within the under this provision. There are
no exhibitions. They are done privately, there could be prostitution. But
as long as there is no exhibition and shows, that might not be covered. MALFEASANCE, MISFEASANCE, NONFEASANCE
If it is just like 2 people in the room.
Malfeasance is the doing of something which is wrong
and should not be done;
Art. 202 – VAGRANTS AND PROSTITUTES
Misfeasance is the doing of an act which maybe
performed but is done erroneously
Under the RPC, prostitutes are penalized.
Non-feasance is the omission to do an act that should
Under RA 9208, aab RA 10364, trafficked sexual
be done.
workers are considered victims.
Under the RPC, only women can be considered
prostitutes
Prostitutes under the RPC require habituality in NOTE: In terms of gravity, malfeasance is the most serious one
engaging in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct. followed by misfeasance then non-feasance.
Can Art. 202, RPC be reconciled with RA 9208, and RA
10364? Why do we need to know that?
Because while it is true that they are offenses, one may only give rise
to an administrative offense not a criminal offense.
1902. Thus prostitution can only be criminalized if they are women.
Page 21 of 37
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
VILLAROSA vs. YADAO, MARCH 13, 2013 Aside from the refraining, there must also be proof of maliciously
refraining of filing the case.
It is well-settled that a judge’s failure to interpret the law
or to properly appreciate the evidence presented does
not necessarily render him liable. BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION:
Only errors tainted with fraud, dishonesty, gross
ignorance, bad faith or deliberate intent to do an Distinctions between bribery and corruption:
injustice will be sanctioned.
In this case, the Court ruled that a violation can only give Direct bribery – in connection with the performance of
rise to administrative sanction and only the OCA can his official duties
impose such sanctions. Varies from Yasin v. Felix Indirect bribery – given by reason of his office
ART. 208
Art. 208 penalizes dereliction of office by prosecutor, by There was an applicant for promotion and somehow she got this idea
maliciously refraining from instituting prosecution, or that if she will give something to the supervisor, it will facilitate her
promotion. So, they agreed to meet in a restaurant. She literally
tolerating the commission of offense.
handed something under the table. The supervisor received it. Police
Art. 209 punishes “prevarication” or betrayal of trust by
officers arrested her. The supervisor saw something so she received it
an attorney
and then law enforcers swooped down on her and charged her for
bribery.
NOTE: Prevaricacion covers any dereliction of duty whereby the
public officer violates his oath of office.
SC ruled that we cannot say that there is receiving for the purpose of
doing something in relation to her office. Something was being handed
she took it.
In Crim Pro, the prosecutor cannot be compelled by mandamus from
instituting a criminal case because he is given a wide latitude of Does that mean that there was acceptance to do something?
discretion in determining probable cause.
It was not shown. It was not shown that they previously agreed. There
However, in this case, despite that there is probable cause but the was no evidence that they already came into an agreement. What is
prosecutor maliciously refrained from instituting a criminal case, he can important is the parties must have come into an agreement in order
be liable under this article.
Page 22 of 37
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
that we can say that there is bribery. Minus that agreement, it could not
be bribery. QUALIFIED BRIBERY
In Pozar, if the money was not accepted the crime would only be
attempted corruption. Here the public official must be a law enforcer and he did not arrest or
prosecute somebody who has committed a crime punishable by
In indirect bribery it is not necessary that there be an agreement reclusion perpetua or death. He will serve the penalty for the person
because there is nothing to be performed. There is just a giving and no that he let go.
condition. Being a malum in se, good faith is a defense in corruption.
FRAUDS AND ILLEGAL EXACTION
Here a foreigner gave money to certain public officials. He thought the
money would be use for pa Xerox. So he was acquitted. The crimes penalized under Arts. 213 to 216 also fall
under the crimes punished as graft and corrupt practices
under RA 3019.
PP vs. FRANCISCO, MARCH 26, 1924
Page 23 of 37
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
4Ps in very remote places where there are no banks. What they do is
ART. 217, MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR deposit in Palawan. If the staff of Palawan will misappropriate it, that
PROPERTY would still be malversation.
ELEMENTS: Will that be qualified theft?
1. Offender is an accountable officer;
(not answered)
2. Public funds or property are involved;
3. He has custody by reason of his office;
In number 4, (example) here we have a court sheriff. So if there is a
4. There is misappropriation (either by himself or by
judgment debt, the court sheriff will levy on the properties and he will
another);
have custody of the properties which will be auctioned. If he
5. Committed through intent or negligence
misappropriates, then he will be liable for malversation not qualified
theft.
This now include private persons who had custody of the funds by The Supreme Court said “No you cannot be convicted for Technical
some other reason. Malversation for a charged for Malversation because these are
different crime with different elements.”
EXAMPLE:
Take note the difference between Parungao and Ppl vs. Sevilla, where
the crime was Falsification of a Public Document and the accused was
Page 24 of 37
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
The Supreme Court said that for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in ART. 239 – Usurpation of legislative powers
Falsification is embraced and included in the charged of Falsification.
ART. 240 – Usurpation of executive functions
(judge)
EVASION, REMOVAL & INFIDELITY
ART. 241 – Usurpation of judicial functions
Evasion of service of sentence is committed by the
convicted prisoner; ART. 242 – Disobeying request for disqualification
Removal is committed by any person, prisoner maybe
convicted or not; ART. 243 – Orders or requests by executive officers
Infidelity is committed by a public officer having custody to any judicial authority
(Art. 223) or by private person having custody (Art. 225);
could refer to convicted or non-convicted prisoner ART. 244 – Unlawful appointments
ABANDONMENT OF OFFICE OR POSITION (ART 238) It is infanticide if the victim is less than 3 days old.
When a public officer, before the acceptance of his resignation,
abandon his office, or refuses to perform the job So, if the victim is already 3 days old, the crime becomes murder.
Why murder?
Page 25 of 37
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
Only one will qualify the killing and the others will be considered as
PARRICIDE (S-A-D) ordinary aggravating circumstances.
Ascendants, descendants – must be by consanguinity, EXAMPLE:
legitimate. Legitimacy not an issue if committed by
parents/children. There was treachery and evident premeditation. The evident
Relationship must be by blood premeditation will qualify the killing and treachery can now just be
Spouse – must be legitimate ordinary aggravating on the penalty because whether there's additional
aggravating, we have already reached the most severe penalty.
The victim and the offender are related as spouse, ascendant or It might not play a role in the seriousness of the penalty that the convict
descendant. For spouses, the relationship should be legitimate. For will serve, but later on it will still have a bearing when time comes for
ascendants or descendants, the relationship must be legitimate as well the application of parole; because early parole maybe denied if there
except in the case of parents and children because here the legitimacy are other circumstances attending to the commission of the crime.
will not matter.
These are the qualifying circumstances. If there is treachery, taking
advantage of superior strength, aid of armed men, employing means to
MURDER weaken, that's only counted as ONE (1), because they are grouped as
one.
Qualifying circumstance must be specifically sought for
by the accused for the purpose of killing But if there is only one, that is enough. But if there is only treachery,
PP v. Galura CA 68 OG 3159, cantharides case. Here, that is enough. But if there is treachery, etc., they will be treated as
if serious physical injuries resulted, crime would be Art. one. So, the others will not be treated as ordinary aggravating
264 (circumstance).
PD 1613 applies if killing is on the occasion of arson.
However, if there is EVIDENT PREMIDITATION, that's enough. But if
there is as well treachery, that's what I said earlier that it will become
ordinary aggravating. Pero kung puros lang #1, that will be treated as
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES: only one. The others will not be ordinary aggravating, because they are
lumped together.
1. Treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with
the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken [Story about one of her class in Crim 1]
the defense or to insure or afford impunity;
2. In consideration of a price, reward or promise; Then there's this question, very interesting: WHAT IF THE INTENTION
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, WAS TO RAPE THE CORPSE, and in order to be able to rape the
shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault corpse, he killed?
upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by
means of motor vehicles, or with the use of means In a complex crime, one should be a means to commit another. In this
involving great waste and ruin; case, what is the other crime? An impossible crime. But we cannot
4. On the occasion of calamities have an impossible crime if we have another crime, so what now?
5. With evident premeditation
6. With cruelty, by augmenting the suffering of the victim, This could actually be the case – the crime could possibly be murder
or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse. since it's premeditated. There's also outraging. So, if the crime is
already premeditated, the crime would already be murder!
There are 6 groups of qualifying circumstances. So what will happen to the Necrophilia?
NOTE: MEMORIZE THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES!! That would only be an ordinary aggravating, now because it's already
qualified.
So if the killing is qualified with any of the enumerated, the killing is
qualified to murder. But in order to be qualifying, it should be This situation is actually outraging. But since we already qualified
specifically sought in the commission of the crime. because obviously, the killing was already premeditated kay gusto man
niyang patyon in order to commit something else. So, if it's already
In People vs Galura, it is the prevailing thought that in order the premeditated PLUS this, that would translate the killing to murder and
circumstances to be qualifying, the circumstance should be specifically since we have already TWO qualifying, the other qualifying will
sought. become ORDINARY AGGRAVATING.
Here the guy dated a girl and placed some chemical in the food of the
girl in the hope and fervent prayer that the girl will be excited for the QUALIFYING: TREACHERY BY SUDDEN ATTACK
“next episode” and that did not happen because the victim died. So,
2 requisites:
the guy was sued for murder and the CA said in order to qualify the
killing to murder, that use of the poison must be specifically sought 1. At the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position
which is not present in this case. to defend himself;
2. The offender consciously adopted the particular means,
NOTE: This is a Court of Appeals case method or form of attack employed by him.
PREVAILING THOUGHT: The aggravating much more with the PP v. Tadeo GR 127660 & 144011-12 Sept. 17, 2002
qualifying circumstances, these circumstances must be specifically
sought to have the effect of increasing the crime.
What if there are more than one qualifying circumstances? TREACHERY, requisites:
1. At the time of the attack, the victim was not in the position to
protect himself; and
2. Means should be particularly adapted
Page 26 of 37
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
Page 27 of 37
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
Even if there is no more bearing to the penalty to be imposed, it will The best way to answer is to borrow the words of the law or the case.
have a bearing for purposes of application for Parole. That was the
discussion with respect to special complex. When there is a question and I want certain words in the answer, I go
first by 10 points. It’s a method of deduction. If there are missing
With special complex, if it’s murder it’s reclusion perpetua; if it’s keywords, I will deduct 2 points.
robbery with homicide, it’s still RP; if robbery with homicide nya naa
pajud Rape, still RP.
KILLING A PERSON:
The point, like I said, is it will have no effect tungud RP na daan, pero
kung dili RP, such as Robbery with SPI, the other circumstances will A. VICTIM IS KILLED: (regardless of intent)
still have a bearing. But if its RP, what’s the point? Later on it will have HOMICIDE – with or without intent to kill; maybe
because for purposes of applying for parole, inig abot sa 20 years and committed thru reckless or simple imprudence;
one day you are already eligible for parole but that may be denied if MURDER – if qualifying circumstance/s is/are
there are other aggravating circumstances. present
INFANTICIDE – if victim is less than 3 days old;
Q: So is it possible that there would be treachery as well as the PARRICIDE – if victim is ascendant/descendant or
ordinary circumstance of night time if not specifically sought to legitimate spouse
weaken defenses or ensure impunity?
B. WITH INTENT TO KILL:
Yes, because the treachery can consist in other things. c. Fatal injury – FRUSTRATED murder, homicide,
parricide, infanticide
Q: But if specifically sought for that purpose it will be considered d. Non-fatal injury or no injury – ATTEMPTED
as one? No longer in the maximum penalty? homicide, murder, parricide, infanticide
EXAMPLE:
When a person is killed, the crimes may be homicide, murder,
Juan wanted to kill Pedro, and to facilitate the crime he sought the infanticide, or parricide.
cover of darkness, but he employed other means of weakening the
defense, let’s say he applied other means. Let’s say it constitutes Parricide has something to do with the relationship. Infanticide has
treachery. That would be treachery in itself. something to do with the age of the victim. Murder when there are
qualifying circumstances present.
The Night time would be ordinary aggravating. Such as if the
perpetrator uses craft or disguise. The use of disguise is an ordinary But when the victim is not killed, you do not immediately assume that
aggravating, coupled with treachery you would have a qualified as well there is intent to kill. You have to make a distinction whether there was
as an ordinary aggravating. You would still have to allege that all of intent to kill or if none.
those were specifically sought.
If no intent to kill, you cannot charge the accused of murder or
Q: Would the aggravating(?) apply to the good conduct time? homicide or attempted or frustrated stages thereof. It can only be either
physical injuries which could be serious, less serious, or slight; or
Good conduct would usually have an impact if there if preventive mutilation when there is no intent to kill but there is intent to deprive the
imprisonment. Good conduct would still have to be evaluated by the victim of some part of the body or the use of it.
Director of Prisons. Remember if there is good conduct if the minimum
penalty is reached then the person may already be granted parole. If there is no injury, but it resulted in public humiliation, it may be
slander by deed or maltreatment. Or if there is inconvenience, it could
However, despite the good conduct, if there are other crimes be unjust vexation.
committed, such as robbery with homicide and rape, or robbery with
homicide where 5 people died. That’s only one sentence due to the If there is intent to kill, we need to determine the wound. Whether it is
one special complex crime. Death of one has the same penalty as fatal or not. If fatal, it is frustrated, if not fatal or no wound at all, it
death of 5, although the same penalty is imposed, later on these would be attempted.
circumstances could play a role in the early grant of parole ASIDE
FROM the good conduct. What is important in the attempted is not the wound but the intent
to kill.
Unbeknownst to many, the heirs will actually be made to comment. If
the killer asks for parole then the heirs will be made to comment. All
these things play a role in the grant of early parole. Q: Can there be a crime of Frustrated Homicide through
reckless imprudence?
NINTH WEEK OF DISCUSSIONS (MARCH 13, 2019)
No. Frustrated or Attempted
When there is evident premeditation, there is cruelty, and treachery, Homicide/Murder/Parricide/Infanticide
evident premeditation is enough to qualify the crime. The other Can only be committed when there is Intent To Kill,
circumstances may only be treated as ordinary aggravating hence, it cannot be committed through imprudence.
circumstances. Each one of those qualifying circumstance has their
own requisites.
TREACHERY – victim was not able to defend himself and the offender We cannot have a crime of frustrated homicide through reckless
consciously adopted a particular means in attacking the victim imprudence because in the frustrated stage, there has to be the
specific criminal intent to kill. Since the intent is inconsistent with
EVIDENT PREMEDITATION – requisites must be mastered. imprudence, then we cannot have such crime.
Page 28 of 37
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
If the firearm is just wara-wara, that is not attempted stage even if There must be force committed but it is not anymore necessary if there
there is intent to kill. is knowledge of the pregnancy.
FOR GRAVE THREATS, THREATS MUST BE CLEAR A few years in the past, there was a debate on whether there should
This must be done in a clear manner otherwise the mere drawing of be knowledge but no intent or no knowledge and no intent.
the firearm is not grave threats. It’s only other light threats.
So, the knowledge is not important as long as the fetus died by
reason of force.
ART. 254. DISCHARGE OF FIREARM
Regalado thinks that Unintentional Abortion may be committed without
The firearm is aimed, but there is no intent to kill. Since, force if committed by a pharmacist dispending a drug. But this is only
it must be directed at another, it cannot be committed an opinion.
thru imprudence.
Is there a complex crime of discharge of firearm and According to the law, there can be unintentional abortion if the crime is
serious or less serious physical injuries? Yes (Justice committed with the use of force and violence.
Javier)
If only slight physical injuries are inflicted, there are 2 It cannot be committed thru intimidation. So if you hate your neighbor
crimes: discharge and slight physical injuries. (Justice or classmate and you send her text in the evening that caused her
Javier) abortion, that cannot be unintentional abortion.
NOTE: Discharge of Firearm is a crime under RPC, not under (Naay nangutana sa background: WHAT IF GIRECITS KA? Hahaha)
RA 10951, hence can be complexed. Ladjaalam does not
apply. (RA 10591) Can be complex?
Yes. If a person killed the mother and also in the process kille the fetus
Indiscriminate firing is not illegal discharge. It is considered as alarms inside, then we will probably have murder with unintentional abortion or
and scandals if the intent is to cause alarms. intentional abortion.
The rights of the unborn child is protected. The second kind of mutilation carries a lower penalty than the first.
INTENTIONAL ABORTION So what’s the difference between the second kind of mutilation
1) Committed by a third person and serious physical injuries?
Page 29 of 37
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
2 KINDS OF RAPE:
ART. 263 SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES 1. Carnal knowledge
2. Sexual assault
3 factors that must concur in deformity:
1. There is ugliness/deformity;
2. Deformity/ugliness is visible; MEANS ADOPTED:
3. Deformity/ugliness will not heal naturally
a. Through force, threat or intimidation;
b. Offended is deprived of reason;
Fiscal’s statement on exams: c. Fraudulent machination or abuse of authority;
d. Offended party is under 12 years old or demented
When I give you a problem in this chapter and the victim is a relative
like a father or a child please be specific if its serious physical injuries.
Be specific that it is serious physical injury by reason of qualifying THROUGH FORCE, THREAT OR INTIMIDATION
circumstance. This is one of the crimes which we usually take for
granted. There is such a thing as CONSTRUCTIVE FORCE – there is really no
physical force but when the offender is related to the victim or has
Serious physical injury can be qualified when any of these moral ascendancy over the victim, such that the mere fact alone of his
circumstances are present and there is no intention to kill. Otherwise if authority would already intimidate the victim, example the offender is
there was intent to kill then the crime could be frustrated parricide or the father or the ascendant of the victim then, the physical force may
murder. Minus the intent to kill then it is qualified serious physical not be required because the fact of being an ascendant already
injuries constitutes CONSTRUCTIVE FORCE.
SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES: In incest for example, tenacious resistance is NOT required anymore
because of constructive force.
ART 263. KINDS OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES: (DIFFERENT
PENALTIES)
Page 30 of 37
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
In the crime of Rape, penetration is an essential act of Absent the nexus between the overt acts and the intent to have carnal
execution to produce the felony. Thus, for there to be knowledge, we cannot say that the crime is the attempted stage of
an Attempted Rape, the accused must have rape. To be an attempted rape, the overt act should show that that is
commenced the act of penetrating his sexual organ to the intention – to have carnal knowledge.
the vagina of the victim but for some cause or accident
other than his own spontaneous desistance, the To be attempted, the avert act should already show that the intention is
penetration, however slight, is not completed. to have carnal knowledge.
Perez v. CA, GR 143838 May 9, 2002
The slightest penetration should already consummate the crime of
rape. It’s either there is or none. If none yet but the acts who the
intention to penetrate – attempted. The reason is there are many
IS THERE FRUSTRATED RAPE? victims who are tender age. Hymenal laceration is not necessary so
long as there is penetration, however slight.
Necessarily, rape is attempted if there is no penetration
of the female organ because not all acts of execution However, mere epidermal touching is not yet touching. It could be
were performed. Taking into account the nature, attempted rape but not rape.
elements and manner of execution of the crime of rape
and jurisprudence on the matter, it is hardly conceivable
how the frustrated stage of rape can ever be committed. MAY A WOMAN COMMIT RAPE?
PP v. Aca-ac, GR 142500, 20 April 2001; also PP v.
Orita Yes, but as a conspirator
The model who was a woman and who conspired with his boyfriend to
PP v. Basquez GR 144035, Sept. 27, 2001 rape her co-model. Even is she was a woman, she lead the way for the
Penile invasion necessarily entails contact with the labia. rape to happen, she can be charged with rape (by sexual intercourse.)
Even the briefest of contacts, without laceration of the but a conspirator or accomplice.
hymen, is deemed to be rape.
DEGREE OF RESISTANCE REQUIRED
BALEROS vs. PP, FEB. 22, 2006 PP v. Gondaway, July 23, 2002
Any physical overt act manifesting resistance in any
When is rape consummated, attempted degree from the victim is admissible as evidence of
When is the crime attempted rape, when acts of lack of consent. Tenacious resistance is not
lasciviousness required. Neither is determined and persistent
When is there no acts of lasciviousness, when there is physical struggle necessary.
unjust vexation This is a deviation from PP v. Lago, CA 46 O.G 1356
which required tenacious resistance and not mere initial
reluctance
PP v. Guttierez May 9, 2003
The attempt which the RPC punishes is that which has a
logical connection to a particular, concrete offense; that
which is the beginning of the execution of the offense by Tenacious resistance is no longer required because this can be
over acts leading directly to its realization and committed through intimidation or constructive force. When a person is
consummation. intimidated, he may not be able raise a tenacious resistance.
Absent the unavoidable connection, as where the
purpose of the offender is not certain, what obtains Character of the victim – immaterial in rape.
is an attempt to commit an indeterminate offense.
Overt or external act is some physical activity indicating
the intention to commit a particular crime, more than a
mere planning or preparation, which if carried out to its
termination, will necessarily ripen into a concrete
offense.
In this Balleros case, the accused was waiting for the woman to pass
by in some remote area and when she passed by, he immediately
hugged her and made her smell a cloth which is soaked in some kind
Page 31 of 37
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
Physical resistance need not be proved in rape RAPE: SIMPLE, ORDINARY COMPLEX AND SPECIAL
when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and COMPLEX
she submits herself, against her will, to the rapist’s
advances because of fear for her life and personal Taking of the victim for the purpose of rape, the taking
safety. forms part of the crime of rape, the crime is simply
RAPE. There will be as many counts as there are rapes.
Incestuous rape – physical resistance not required, Taking was with lewd designs, thereafter rapes were
ascendancy of offender is considered constructive committed – the first crime is ordinary complex crime
force. of Forcible Abduction with Rape, succeeding acts
Statutory rape – consent of the victim in statutory rape are simple rapes.
has no bearing because her minority makes her Taking was to deprive liberty, then rape committed,
incapable of giving consent. crimes is special complex crime of Kidnapping with
Rape, all succeeding acts are absorbed.
RAPE IN SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME So there were 5 rapes. The crimes would be forcible abduction with
rape but only for the 1st rape. For the succeeding rapes will be simple
In Robbery with Rape, the primary purpose must be to rape.
rob.
In Kidnapping with Rape, the main purpose must be to What does that mean?
deprive liberty
In Forcible Abduction with Rape, the taking must be It means that the forcible abduction if we apply the formula under Art.
with lewd designs but not necessarily an element of 48. The forcible abduction was a means in committing the 1st rape. It
Rape, otherwise the crime would simply be Rape. was not anymore used as a means in committing the succeeding
(Garcia and Lining cases) rapes. Because she was already in the place.
We ordinarily complex the first and not the succeeding rapes. It would
ROBBERY WITH RAPE result in a graver penalty than a simple rape.
If the primary purpose is to rob, the victim may even be a co-robber.
Provided, that the rapist is also a robber. (Regalado) However, if the main purpose of the taking is to deprive the person of
her liberty then the crime would be a special complex crime of
So long as the main purpose is to rob and the rape was also kidnapping with rape. In this crime, there would only be 1 indivisible
committed. But even she was raped, she will be liable to rape. The crime. All other crimes committed, they will be absorbed.
others who were present who did not try to prevent the rape will be
liable as will. EXAMPLE:
KIDNAPPING WITH RAPE 5 people kidnap her and took turns in raping her then there would be
If the victim was taken from one place to another so that she could be no 5 counts of rape but only 1 kidnapping with rape and with 1 single
raped. The taking is part of the design of the act to rape. The effect of penalty.
that is if the victim was raped by several people and was raped several
times, there will be as many counts of simple rape as there were
PP vs. AMARO JULY 18, 2014
sexual intercourse. So if she was taken by a gang, and brought half a
kilometer for the purpose of raping, the crime is rape.
A 7-year old girl met a man who promised to take her
home. She was given food to eat, which caused her to
If 3 people who rape her, 3 counts of rape. The penalties would be 3
pass out. She was brought to the accused’s house and
reclusion perpetua.
raped repeatedly.
FORCIBLE ABDUCTION WITH RAP
Forcible Abduction with Rape was committed;
Taking was with lewd design with forcible taking and it cannot be
Rape was statutory
shown it the purpose of the taking is to rape
The employment of deception suffices to constitute the
PEOPLE vs. GARCIA forcible taking for a 7-year old.
If you have a gang of 4 people who took the victim and brought her
from one place to another. Accused A, B, C, D and E raped her, the
crimes will be: Always be forcible abduction with if she consented. The girl here
1. Forcible abduction with rape – for the first rape consented because she was given food to eat, but then she can’t give
2. Rapes – for the succeeding rapes. her consent.
For the forcible abduction was a means of committing the first rape. It But if she is 15 year old then we would probably have been consented
was not anymore the means to commit the subsequent rapes. So we abduction. This is a crime of “taban” or elope with a minor.
only ordinary complex the first.
Q: Can there be rape through forcible abduction because the
forcible abduction is used as a necessary means in committing
the crime of rape?
Because it is funny sounding. But yes, you could say that. There is no
hard and fast rule.
There have been numerous cases under that. For the longest time, SC
would use that “no woman would lie about being raped” line. But it
Page 32 of 37
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
does not mean that that is the only argument or reason for the ruling.
Otherwise, if that’s the only reason, then wala untay na acquitted. MEANS ADOPTED:
It’s a combination of all those things. But that’s a standard line when it a. Through force, threat or intimidation;
comes to credibility of the testimony of the woman. That becomes b. Offended is deprived of reason;
standard but it’s not always the case. Meaning to say, the SC already c. Fraudulent machination or abuse of authority;
believed the testimony and already believed that the crime was d. Offended party is under 12 years old or demented
committed and they interpose that line to justify why they believe so
but that’s not the only reason why the crime resulted. So, you will find
in many rape cases that that is the reasoning for the conviction.
A B C D E took X with lewd design, forcibly abducted her and took her
Questions from class: to a place to rape her. A raped X first then B, C, D and E.
A man and a woman consented to have sex. The woman insists that What would be the cases?
they have to use a condom during intercourse. However, in the middle
of the sexual encounter, the man took off the condom. SC said forcible abduction with rape for the rape committed personally
by A. Everybody will be liable because of the conspiracy. The second
Is there rape? rape committed by B, all of them will be liable. 5 cases, each case all
of the will be liable.
That’s a case in the Netherlands. We do not have it here. It’s
criminalized in another country. What is criminalized in the Philippines What if the rape was consented at first?
is the lack of consent and the sex against the will, not in the condom.
It’s the sex itself-if consented or not. If not consented, then that would If the sex was consented at first then we do not have force, threat or
be rape. Not consented because maybe the victim was deprived of intimidation.
reason or maybe it was against the will of the victim. What is not
consented was the sex. But if they consented on the sex but not on the In the middle of the game, the woman changed her mind.
manner to do it, that’s not the issue in rape. The issue in rape is – was
the sex consented? Was it through force, threat or intimidation when the guy
continued? Was she forced? Intimidated? Or deprived of reason?
What if pag first nisugut nya in the middle, wala na nisugut. Is it
rape? If yes, that would be rape.
The penetration was consented. Di ko ka-relate ha. Single. LOL. There has to be force, threat or intimidation. Older cases would require
physical force and the degree of resistance should be serious
Input from Mi-Ann Balagon based on her thesis: resistance. It is the means above that would constitute rape.
That’s the practice of STEALTHING. The consent is with the condition Q: 9 year old boy; 30 year old woman?
that you are going to have protection. In the middle of sexual
intercourse, tantangun niya. The question now is- Is consent in a Rape must be committed by a man and the victim must be a woman
continuum? Does it exist at one point nya kung matangtang ang for the first kind of rape, rape by carnal knowledge.
condition, does it invalidate the consent? Or mawala ba jud siya the
moment ang condition dili ma satisfy? In rape by sexual assault, it may still involve the female genitalia, anus,
mouth. In the case of vagina, it should not be the male genitalia. Object
There is jurisprudence already from 2 foreign countries. The first one or other body part.
was dismissed because it was a political case. The grounds were not
convincing when you tackle it with regard to rape. In the other case, For anal sex and oral sex, it could be the male genetalia. But in oral
they really convicted the guy. But lower court pa lang. It did not reach sex, to be rape by sexual assault, the one “nga gi blowjob” must be the
yet the SC. In our case, I found out in my thesis, a jurisprudence that accused. “ni blow job” it is acts of lasciviousness. Not all kinds of sex
says that when you give consent, the conditions that attach to your falls under rape by sexual assault.
consent, must be present all through out. Otherwise, if the condition is
removed, consent did not exist. Answer: child abuse nalang. It doesn’t fall to any kind of rape
Murag, matangtang ang consent from the start. It is not a continuum Anal, vaginal or oral sex fall under rape by sexual assault. There’s only
nga from Point A where ni sugut ka; Point B, gitantang ang condition; a list of what these acts are. If the act is not one of those enumerated
Point C ang end. Dili siya ang Point A to B valid, ang Point B to C dili then it is not rape by sexual assault.
na. It is not a continuum. Ana ang SC nga pag abut sa point B, mawala
ang condition, the consent from point A itself, wala gyud. So if it’s a 9 year old boy and there is carnal knowledge with a 30 year
old (of course it cannot be rape with carnal knowledge because it can
Fiscal: What was the story there? Is it about a condom? only be committed by a man. Unya sa sexual assault, vaginal man.) So
maybe it will be child abuse to be sure. In our jurisprudence the only
Mi-Ann: Yes. way you can commit rape is through the means stated in the law.
in its generic sense. The same is true for serious physical injuries.
That’s in robbery with homicide or robber with serious physical injuries.
KIDNAPPING – MAIN OBJECTIVE IS DEPRIVATION OF
LIBERTY But for kidnapping, this special complexing was made possible
because of a special penal law, not the RPC. Therefore you can have
ART. 267 Kidnapping, when serious: kidnapping with murder, parricide provided it’s not minor or ascendant.
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more There is no kidnapping with serious physical injuries. If kidnapping is
than three days. (3 days per RA 7659, Dec. 13, 1993; 5 attended with serious physical injuries, it becomes illegal detention as
days per RA 1084, June 15, 1954 and RA 18, Sept. 25, defined in Art 267 (3).
1946)
2. If it shall have been committed simulating public EXAMPLE:
authority.
3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted When Vhong Navarro was padlocked in a condo unit for like 30 mins it
upon the person kidnapped or detained; or if threats to became serious illegal detention.
kill him shall have been made.
4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor,
female or a public officer. Kidnapping with serious physical injuries (Regalado p. 490) is
NOT a special complex crime but is Serious Illegal Detentions
as defined in Art. 268, No. 3) Torture may be committed
The wording of the law is not proper such that it would seem like if the without injuries.
kidnapper is a female, that the kidnapping is serious. No. It’s when the
victim is the female, not the kidnapper.
KIDNAPPING WITH TORTURE
As added by RA 7659 if the kidnapping is for the purpose of collecting
ransom, it is always serious. It doesn’t have to be 3 days, etc. The torture here does not have the same definition as the Torture
punished under the Special Penal Law.
Any other kind of kidnapping or detention is light.
Why?
PP vs. PAMATLOG GR 208682 JULY 7, 2016 Because kidnapping with torture which is punished as a special
complex crime was only found in 7659 which is an earlier Law
RA 7659 provides that death penalty shall be imposed if compared to the Torture Law. So there was no Torture Law yet at the
the motive of the kidnappers is to extort ransom for the time when we have the special complex crime of Kidnapping with
release of the victim although none of the circumstances Torture.
mentioned under Par. 4 of the elements of kidnapping
were present. Why is it important to know?
Kidnapping for ransom is always serious.
Penalty is reclusion perpetua in lieu of death penalty It is because under the Torture Law, Torture can only be committed by
considering the passage of RA 9346. a Public officer, by an officer of the law. Not just a public officer but an
officer of the law, meaning one is tasked with law enforcement.
And under the Torture Law, torture must be for a reason, and that
ART. 267 (Kidnapping and Illegal Detention) cannot be reason must be that the victim is tortured so that he will give
committed by a parent on his own child. Arts. 270 and 271 can information or to be able to extract information.
be committed by parents.
That is not the same Torture that is required in order that we can have
If victim is minor, female or public officer, detention Kidnapping with Torture. So even if we do not have kidnapping with
is serious even if it is less than 3 days serious physical injuries, if the physical injuries amounts to torture as
well, even if it did not actually result in serious physical injuries that
would be special complex.
Art 267 itself specifically excludes parents. If the victim is a minor,
except when the accused are parents. We apply Art 270 and 271. But ELEMENTS OF KIDNAPPING: (BOTH MUST BE PRESENT)
not Art 267. 1.) The actual deprivation of liberty and;
2.) The intent to deprive liberty.
SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES ARISING FROM KIDNAPPING Both must be present.
(RA 7659):
EXAMPLE:
1. Kidnapping with death;
2. Kidnapping with rape;
You have a boardmate, nagdali ka kay premid ka. You locked the room
3. Kidnapping with torture
not knowing that your boardmate was still inside. There is deprivation
of liberty but there was no "intent" to deprive liberty, hence no crime of
kidnapping.
Kidnapping with serious physical injuries (Regalado p. 490) is
NOT a special complex crime but is Serious Illegal Detentions
as defined in Art. 268, No. 3) Torture may be committed
without injuries.
In kidnapping with death, the law does not say kidnapping with
homicide, unlike in robbery with homicide. When the law itself makes
the designation, you cannot change it. For homicide, it should be taken
Page 34 of 37
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
When the creditor detains the debtor and releases him only after the
MEANING OF DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY payment of the debt. The crime is kidnapping for ransom. Voluntary
release will not mitigate.
PP v. Madsali, GR 179570, Feb. 4, 2010
The victim was fetching water when accused arrived and KIDNAPPING WITH RAPE
took her to the forest against her will.
Serious illegal detention consists not only of placing In MADSALI, the conspirator who did not rape but watched the rape
a person in an enclosure, but also of detaining or are liable for Kidnapping with Rape.
depriving him in any manner of his liberty.
Although AAA was not actually confined in an enclosed So therefore, we apply the Codrilla, wherein in Conspiracy (bec this
place, she was clearly restrained and deprived of her involves a special complex crime) that anybody who was present and
liberty, because she was tried up and her mouth stuffed did not try to prevent will be liable as well provided that he is present.
with a piece of cloth.
COMPLEXING KIDNAPPING
PP v. Benedicto Ramos, GR 118570 Oct. 12, 1998 Accused convicted of the special complex crime of
The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual Kidnapping For Ransom With Murder.
deprivation of the victim’s liberty coupled with an The rule is, where the person kidnapped is killed in the
indubitable proof of intent on the part of the course of the detention, regardless of whether the
malefactor to effect such restraint of the offended party’s killing was purposely sought or was merely an
liberty. afterthought, the kidnapping and murder or homicide
The term “actual deprivation of liberty” consists not only can no longer be complexed under Art. 48, nor be
of placing a person in an enclosure but also of detaining treated as separate crimes, but shall be punished as a
a person or depriving him in any manner of his liberty.” special complex crime under the last paragraph of
Art. 267, as amended. (PP v. Ramos, Oct. 12, 1998)
The amendment under RA 7659 introduced in our
In Ramos and other cases such as Madsali, the actual deprivation of criminal statutes the concept of “special complex
liberty consists not only of placing a person in an enclosure, it may be crime” of kidnapping with or homicide. It effectively
an open space. eliminated the distinction drawn by the courts between
those cases where the killing of the kidnapped victim
In PP vs. MADSALI, the woman was taken into the forest and forest is was purposely sought by the accused, and those where
an open space but it still considered as kidnapping. the killing of the victim was not deliberately resorted to
but was merely an afterthought.
In Kidnapping, what is not necessary is not the taking. It is the Consequently, the rule now is: Where the person
deprivation of liberty. kidnapped is killed in the course of the detention,
regardless of whether the killing was purposely
Earlier, we said there are only two elements and the taking is not part sought or was merely an afterthought, the
because it is not necessary. Although we commonly call the crime kidnapping and murder or homicide can no longer
kidnapping, it may be that there is no taking at all. be complexed under Art. 48, nor be treated as
separate crimes, but shall be punished as a special
EXAMPLE: complex crime under the last paragraph of Art. 267,
as amended by RA No. 7659.
Imong gi-intentionally podlock imo roommate. Did you take your room PP v. Dionaldo y Ebron GR 207949 July 23, 2014;
mate somewhere? NO, but can there still can be kidnapping. also PP v. Larranaga,cited in PP v. Madsali, Feb. 4,
2010
In RAMOS, SC clarified that in RA 7659, with 7659, regardless of
whether the killing was purposely sought or was merely an
afterthought.
CRIME COMMITTED IF THE VICTIM IS MINOR
It doesn't matter, what is important is that there was Kidnapping as the
primary purpose and the death occurs whether the death was ART. 270 – offender is entrusted with custody and
intentional or not intentional, it will always be special complex. refused to return the minor.
PP v. Cherry Bondoc, May 23, 1994
Before, complexing was under Art 48, ordinary complexing, so
therefore before, the kidnapping must be a means to commit murder in
order that there can be complexing. NOW, IT’S NOT NECESSARY
The offender is entrusted with the custody and refuses to return the
ANYMORE.
minor. So, if the baby was entrusted but not with full consent or
knowledge, then it will not be Art. 270 but rather Art 267.
KIDNAPPING
Remember the nurse who kidnapped a baby at Vicente Sotto. She
Ransom – is the money, price or consideration paid or dressed up as a nurse and took the baby in the pretext that the baby
demanded for redemption of a captured person or will be vaccinated but did not return the baby.
persons, a payment that releases a person from
captivity. In that case, my take on that, it should not be Art. 270 but it should be
In Kidnapping for ransom, voluntary release will not Article 267 because he was not really entrusted with the custody. He
mitigate the crime. was only made to take the baby in order to be vaccinated.
When the creditor detains a debtor and releases him
only after the payment of the debt, there is kidnapping
for ransom.
Page 35 of 37
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
1. The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the
ART. 271 – Offender induces the minor to abandon his home. crime be threatened to commit, if the offender shall have made the
If the victim is a minor, the penalty is RP, whether the child threat demanding money or imposing any other condition, even
was snatched or taken (Art. 267), or received by the though not unlawful, and said offender shall have attained his
purpose. If the offender shall not have attained his purpose, the
accused to whom custody was entrusted (Art. 270), unless penalty lower by two degrees shall be imposed.
the offender be the father or mother, in which case the
penalty is Arresto Mayor. If the threat be made in writing or through a middleman, the penalty
shall be imposed in its maximum period.
2. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos, if
PP vs. ANGELINA MENDOZA JULY 31, 1989 the threat shall not have been made subject to a condition.
Minor was lured away from his parents in Luneta, taken Art. 283. Light threats. — Any threat to commit a wrong not constituting a crime,
elsewhere and later sold. made in the manner expressed in subdivision 1 of the next preceding article,
shall be punished by arresto mayor.
The charges state that the crime committed was Art.
270, but the body of the Info also stated that the Art. 284. Bond for good behavior. — In all cases falling within the two next
accused “kidnap and carry away the victim, preceding articles, the person making the threats may also be required to give
separating him from his mother without the bail not to molest the person threatened, or if he shall fail to give such bail, he
knowledge and consent of his parents and shall be sentenced to destierro.
deliberately failing to return him…”
Art. 285. Other light threats. — The penalty of arresto menor in its minimum
Accused was convicted under Art. 267, not 270. period or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person who, without being included in the provisions of the next
In Mendoza case, the family was in Luneta and the minor wa lured preceding article, shall threaten another with a weapon or draw such
away even if migo na sila sa bata, that would still be Article 267 and weapon in a quarrel, unless it be in lawful self-defense.
not Article 270.
2. Any person who, in the heat of anger, shall orally threaten another
with some harm not constituting a crime, and who by subsequent acts
PP vs. AIDA MARQUEZ, APRIL 13, 2011 show that he did not persist in the idea involved in his threat, provided
that the circumstances of the offense shall not bring it within the
What is punished is NOT the kidnapping but the provisions of Article 282 of this Code.
deliberate failure to restore the minor to his parents or
3. Any person who shall orally threaten to do another any harm not
guardians. constituting a felony.
Indeed, the word ‘deliberate’ as used in Art. 270 must
imply something more than negligence – it must be Art. 286. Grave coercions. — The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not
premeditated, headstrong, foolishly daring or exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, without authority
intentionally and maliciously wrong. of law, shall, by means of violence, prevent another from doing something not
prohibited by law, or compel him to do something against his will, whether it be
right or wrong.
What happened here was she was the yaya, she took the baby and
If the coercion be committed for the purpose of compelling another to perform
failed to return the baby. any religious act or to prevent him from so doing, the penalty next higher in
degree shall be imposed.
The SC said that this is not a crime because the yaya got sick that’s
why she wasn’t able to return the baby. What is punished is not the Art. 287. Light coercions. — Any person who, by means of violence, shall seize
kidnapping but the deliberate failure to return the minor. anything belonging to his debtor for the purpose of applying the same to the
payment of the debt, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum
SECTION TWO. — TRESPASS TO DWELLING period and a fine equivalent to the value of the thing, but in no case less than 75
pesos.
Art. 280. Qualified trespass to dwelling. — Any private person who shall enter
the dwelling of another against the latter's will shall be punished by arresto mayor Any other coercions or unjust vexations shall be punished by arresto menor or a
and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos. fine ranging from 5 pesos to 200 pesos, or both.
If the offense be committed by means of violence or intimidation, the penalty Art. 288. Other similar coercions; (Compulsory purchase of merchandise
shall be prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine not and payment of wages by means of tokens.) — The penalty of arresto mayor
exceeding 1,000 pesos. or a fine ranging from 200 to 500 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any
person, agent or officer, of any association or corporation who shall force or
The provisions of this article shall not be applicable to any person who shall enter compel, directly or indirectly, or shall knowingly permit any laborer or employee
another's dwelling for the purpose of preventing some serious harm to himself, employed by him or by such firm or corporation to be forced or compelled, to
the occupants of the dwelling or a third person, nor shall it be applicable to any purchase merchandise or commodities of any kind.
person who shall enter a dwelling for the purpose of rendering some service to
humanity or justice, nor to anyone who shall enter cafes, taverns, inn and other The same penalties shall be imposed upon any person who shall pay the wages
public houses, while the same are open. due a laborer or employee employed by him, by means of tokens or objects other
than the legal tender currency of the laborer or employee.
Art. 281. Other forms of trespass. — The penalty of arresto menor or a fine not
exceeding 200 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who shall enter Art. 289. Formation, maintenance and prohibition of combination of capital
the closed premises or the fenced estate of another, while either or them are or labor through violence or threats. — The penalty of arresto mayor and a
uninhabited, if the prohibition to enter be manifest and the trespasser has not fine not exceeding 300 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, for the
secured the permission of the owner or the caretaker thereof. purpose of organizing, maintaining or preventing coalitions or capital or labor,
strike of laborers or lock-out of employees, shall employ violence or threats in
such a degree as to compel or force the laborers or employers in the free and
Trespass may be committed in an uninhabited place or inhabited legal exercise of their industry or work, if the act shall not constitute a more
place. serious offense in accordance with the provisions of this Code.
SECTION THREE. — THREATS AND COERCION GRAVE THREATS, LIGHT THREATS AND OTHER LIGHT
THREATS
Art. 282. Grave threats. — Any person who shall threaten another with the
infliction upon the person, honor or property of the latter or of his family of any
wrong amounting to a crime, shall suffer:
Page 36 of 37
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
COERCION
COERCION THREATS
The purpose is immediately The act desired are not
achieved immediately consummated
Usually refers to future harm The harm is here and now
The harm is directed against the
The harm is directed towards the
person, family, honor and
person of the victim.
property
Absorbed in other crimes
Chapter Three
DISCOVERY AND REVELATION OF SECRETS
If the offender shall not reveal such secrets, the penalty shall be arresto mayor
and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos.
Art. 291. Revealing secrets with abuse of office. — The penalty of arresto
mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any manager,
employee, or servant who, in such capacity, shall learn the secrets of his
principal or master and shall reveal such secrets.
-END-
Page 37 of 37