-1-

CRIMINAL LAW 2 NOTES

ATTY. VILLA-IGNACIOS LECTURES
(These are unedited notes that are in no way comprehensive, so please use them with
caution)

Article 246 Parricide

When there is a mistake in the identity of the victim in which case Art. 49 will be
applied, which is the penalty prescribed upon the principals when the crime
committed is different from that intended

When the spouse or daughter under 18 years of age and living with her parents is
killed under exceptional circumstances covered under Art. 247

When the offender killed any of his relatives mentioned in the definition of the
crime of parricide through negligence or reckless imprudence under Art. 365

Is the killing of a step-father, adopted child or father parricide? NO

If the child is less than 3 days old the crime is not parricide but infanticide

If the spouse the one killed, the accused must be married to him or her, otherwise
the killing is homicide or murder

The private relation of the offender with the victim shall aggravate or mitigate the
crime as against the accused to whom they are attendant
Article 247 - Death or Physical Injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances

The article will not apply to the Chavit case

Accused must be legally married and will not apply to common-law relationship

Does not define a crime but provides for a singular mitigating circumstance for the
crimes of parricide, homicide and serious physical injuries committed under
exceptional circumstances

If only slight or less serious physical injuries were committed --> Art. 247 operates
as an absolutory cause to exculpate the accused from criminal liability

People v. Quedan (Sept. 2, 2002) --> by invoking Art. 247, the offender waives his
right to the constitutional presumption of innocence and bears the burden of
proving the following the elements of Art. 247

People v. Abarca - though quite a length of time, about an hour, had passed
between the time the accused-appellant discovered his wife having sexual
intercourse with the victim and the time the latter was actually shot, the shooting
must be understood to be the continuations entitled to the benefit of Art. 247
Article 248 Murder

Killing of any person not parricide or infanticide, attendant with the enumerated
circumstances

All the qualifying circumstances enumerated are also aggravating circumstances

except outraging or scoffing at the victim's person or corpse

Treachery will absorb --> abuse of superior strength and in aid of armed men

In consideration of a prize, reward or promise --> two offenders --> principal by

inducement, principal by direct participation

When is the killer not liable for murder qualified by premeditation even if he
premeditated prior to the commission of the crime?
o

When the person killed is different from the intended victim o When the
offender is liable for parricide o When the victim is a child less than 3 days

KIT ENRIQUEZ

-3-

old --> infanticide o When the killing of the victim is by means of poison.
Because evident premeditation is absorbed in killing through the use of
poison
Is there a crime of frustrated homicide through reckless imprudence?
o

No. In homicide there is intent to kill or malice, because frustrated homicide

presupposes intent to kill or malice whereas reckless imprudence is voluntary
but without malice or intent to kill

Article 249 - Death Caused in Tumultuous Affair

People v. Olimbada (September 2002) --> one that takes place between several
persons who engage in a tumultuous manner where a person is injured or killed
Article 253 - Giving Assistance to Suicide

Committing suicide is not a crime, but the one who assisted the other is criminally
liable, if to the extent that he did the killing the person assisting is liable for
homicide

Mercy killing or euthanasia not a defense

Giving suggestions as to manner --> positive and direct cooperation amounting to

giving assistance to suicide

Mere passive attitude does not constitute to Art. 253

Article 155 v. Article 254 v. Attempted or frustrated homicide

Article 155 - merely discharges firearm within a town or public place which
produces alarm or danger with no intent to kill

Article 254 - discharges firearm against or on a certain person without intent to kill
but with the intention to frighten the offended party

Attempted or frustrated - with intent to kill the offended party

Infanticide

If the infant is less than 3 days of age --> crime is infanticide

Penalty --> parricide if committed by parents of other legitimate ascendants;

murder if committed by any third person

If the child was born dead but the offender is unaware of such fact and he tried to
kill the child he will be liable for the impossible crime of infanticide

Art. 255 provides for a special mitigating circumstance when the purpose for
committing the crime by the mother and maternal grandparents was for the
purpose of concealing the dishonor of the mother

Treachery is inherent
Art. 256 to 258 Intentional Abortion

Is there a crime of abortion through imprudence?

o Yes. Abortion through imprudence may be committed as for instance a driver
of an automobile through reckless imprudence bumped a pregnant woman
who suffered an abortion --> abortion through reckless imprudence, cannot

KIT ENRIQUEZ

-3-

be intentional abortion not intended, not unintentional abortion because the

victim was not intentionally exerted the violence
Is there an impossible crime of abortion?
o Yes. If the woman is not pregnant but the offender believes that she is
pregnant because of her bulging abdomen and he used violence to cause an
abortion this is an impossible crime where the act performed would have
been abortion which is a crime against persons where it not for the inherent
impossibility of committing it.
Abortion may be committed by a third person (256), woman and her parents
(258), physician (259) Knowledge of women's parents essential in intentional
abortion, such knowledge not necessary in unintentional abortion --> may be
committed by violence through reckless imprudence
People v. Salufrania (March 30, 1988) --> court convicted offender of parricide
with unintentional abortion; controlling decision with respect to the question may
abortion be complexed with homicide
o Here the accused was convicted of parricide with unintentional abortion
Unintentional abortion can be committed only through corporal or physical
violence, even if violence is committed through reckless imprudence.
o Exception: Physicians can commit unintentional abortion under Art. 259 -->
taking advantage of scientific knowledge and skill unless committed through
negligence in which case Art. 365 or criminal negligence will apply
o If to save the mother --> justified and not punishable under Art. 11 (4) -->
state of necessity
What are the usual problems asked ?
o Where the accused threatens a woman and because of fright woman had an
abortion --> crime only threats, no unintended abortion without violence
o If grave threats were resorted to precisely to cause abortion through fear and
shock --> complex crime of grave threats and intentional abortion but if only
light threats were employed, they will be separate crimes
o If a woman took abortives or abortives were administered to her to cause
abortion when in fact she is not really pregnant. What crime is committed?
--> Impossible crime o f abortion. But if woman actually pregnant, but
abortion was prevented by medical intervention, the crime is frustrated
abortion
o What crime is committed if the wife suffered an abortion due to an injurious
drug administered by her husband through mistake? --> no crime was
committed, the injuries suffered will not amount ot physical or corporal
violence required for unintentional abortion under Art. 257, nor will it fall
under art. 264 as the provision specifically pertains to knowingly
administering injurious substance without intent to kill

Article 260 Duel

Duel not a merely an agreement to fight but

Penalty for death in a duel: same as that for homicide, but if the duel takes place
the crime of challenging to a duel in Art. 261 is already present
Mutilation

R.A. 7610 --> victim is a minor, mutilation and serious physical injuries inflicted
shall be punished by reclusion perpetua

KIT ENRIQUEZ

-3-

Mutilation --> intentionally depriving victim of reproductive organs, rendering it

useless; but if act is unintentional offender is liable for serious physical injuries
resulting in impotence under Art. 263 par. 1
Intentionally chopping off a part of the victim's body is also mutilation
Cruelty inherent in mutilation, if the victim dies then it is murder qualified by
cruelty
Wounding, assaulting or administering injurious substance without intent to kill
Severity of injuries and offender's liability except for mutilation is determined by
duration of victim's incapacity
Blindness in Art. 263 (1) --> total blindness and not only a loss of an eye or partial
loss of vision in both eyes
Total loss of hearing Art. 263 (2) --> if auditory defect only in one ear, punishable
under Art. 263 (3)
Take note of periods for incapacity
Art. 263 (3) --> must be exposed to view and cannot be healed by nature

Article 264

It is committed by knowingly administering injurious substance or beverages but

there is no intent to kill, otherwise it is frustrated murder with a qualifying
circumstance of use of poison

Slapping another without impaling incapacity or medication is slight physical

injuries but if the purpose or result is to humiliate the victim the offense is slander
by deed under art. 356
Chapter 3: R.A. 8385 --> Anti-Rape Act

Date of enactment and effectivity

New law expanded definition of rape

Rape classified into two: sexual intercourse, sexual assault (new, broaden the
concept of rape)

Sexual assault --> may be committed by any person (through the use of the penis
or any object)

Husband can be held liable for rape as expressly implied in par. 2 of Art. 266-C -->
must have the right of consortium, legal separation --> no right of consortium

R.A. 7610 vs. Sexual intercourse and lascivious conduct and rape involving minors
o
People v. Jalosjos (Nov. 16, 2001) --> R.A. 7610 in fact provides that if the child is
below 12 years old, the accused must be prosecuted under Art. 266-A of the RPC,
conversely if the child is above 12 but below 18, then the accused must be
prosecuted under R.A. 7610 for the socalled child abuse offense.
o

August 20, 2008 - Consensual Sexual Intercourse with a minor (People v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. 171863)
The offender was then 22 years old, when he had carnal knowledge of a 14 year
old girl. The information or the charge sheet alleges the rape of a minor victim.
The offender was charged with violation of Sec. 5, R.A. 7610 (why? Because it is a
consensual sexual intercourse - hardly within the ambit of rape in the RPC)
The offender was convicted, but on appeal was acquitted, holding that even if
respondent was charged under Sec. 5 of R.A. 7610, the same would have been
acquitted as the element under Sec. 5 of the R.A. 7610 was not alleged in the
information
Malto v. People: contrary ruling

KIT ENRIQUEZ

-3-

Absence the allegation in the charge sheet of coercion under R.A. 7610,
respondent would have to be acquitted. o The SC in Ortega v. People (G.R. No
151085, JUSTICE NACHURA)
14 year old accused raped 8 year old (1998) In 1999 the lower court convicted
him. The CA affirmed the decision. While on appeal in the SC, the juvenile justice
and welfare and system act was promulgated. Age of criminal liability raised to 18.
Does the new law apply to the accused?
YES. Even with the specific provision of the applicability and
effectivity of the new law, the accused is entitled to the beneficial
effects of the law. Civil Damages - liable; Moral Damages - liable
If accused convicted of political crime of rebellion and escapes (liable for Art. 156),
but subsequently the state declared amnesty. Is the accused still liable for evasion
of sentence?
o Art. 59 - extinction of criminal liability --> amnesty one of the causes of total
extinction of criminal liability
o The amnesty however only pertains to the rebellion and not to evasion of
service of sentence, the court therefore won't be deprived of jurisdiction;
unless the amnesty includes the forgiveness of all other offenses arising from
the act of rebellion
In Bigamy, the parties cannot on their own declare the prior or previous marriage
as void ab initio or voidable --> must be made through a judicial declaration of
nullity. Hence, even if prior marriage is void, if without judicial declaration, still
liable for bigamy.
o However, in one case the court ruled that if the marriage was only signed
and was never solemnized before a solemnizing officer, there is no marriage
and no liability for bigamy
Penalties for RAPE:
o

Art. 266-B Aggravating Circumstances added, presence of any one if duly

alleged and proved will warrant the single indivisible penalty of death in any
offense committed under Art. 266-A

(par. 1) not under par. 2 o Penalty when victim is demented --> reclusion
perpetua (crime is simple rape without knowledge of affliction)
o

When offender knew of the mental disability or emotional disorder of the

victim --> death
Effect of pardon under 266-C
Pardon of the legal husband
For sweetheart defense to be sustained, the accused must prove and establish
that the victim and accused were lovers and the victim consented to the alleged
sexual relations
What are the rules with respect to paragraph 1 Art. 266-A?
o

In People v. Dalisay (408 SCRA 357) --> the court reiterated the well settled
rule that full penetration is not required to consummate carnal knowledge,
proof of entrance and slight penetration is sufficient; slightest and manifest
touching of the labia and the penis; nor is it material that the man did not
ejaculate or no traces of spermatozoa were found

People v. Ogag --> force and intimidation must be sufficient, not result in
death or physical injuries
If victim's father, no resistance or sufficient resistance is required (People v.
Gerardo)\
Rape results in victim's insanity --> reclusion perpetua to death

KIT ENRIQUEZ

-3
2-

2
3

Special complex crimes limited to: attempted or consummated rape with homicide
(reclusion perpetua to death)
o

Rape with homicide is a special complex crime --> penalty is death o Rape is
attempted and homicide is committed --> reclusion perpetua o Rape is
committed, homicide is not consummated --> not a special complex crime o
Rape is committed, homicide is not --> not a special complex crime o
Attempted or frustrated homicide not a necessary means to commit rape, not
a complex or compound crime

Crimes against personal security and liberty

Kidnapping and serious illegal detention o It is kidnapping and serious

illegal detention if committed under any of the circumstances in
Art. 267 o What is the technical difference between kidnapping and serious
illegal detention o Kidnapping --> carrying away of a person from a place to
another o Detention --> does not require the taking away of the person from one
place to another, may be detained in his own home; crime is committed by a
private individual
o If public officer --> arbitrary detention, may be liable for illegal
detention if public officer acting in private and not official
capacity
o R.A. 7659 --> consequences of when the victim is killed, dies,
raped or subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts --> special
complex crime, kidnapping/illegal detention with homicide,
murder, rape or physical injuries o U.S. v. Ancheta --> ruling
abandoned

KIT ENRIQUEZ

-1-

People v. Ramos (Oct. 12, 1998) --> accused kidnapped female victim
for ransom and killed her (special complex crime --> kidnapping with
ransom --> sentenced to death)

Illegal detention of wife by husband? Is it possible?

YES. If such restrain is unjustified and unlawful, in the means adapted

as his spousal rights does not extend to illegal restraint of those who
are mentally sound and physically fit

In Art. 270 --> Kidnapping and failure to return a minor --> its textual
substance is limited only to failure to return a minor by the person
entrusted with his custody; but prior to its amendment there used to
be paragraphs in Art. 270, the second paragraph pertaining to
kidnapping.

Art. 272 --> term kidnapped used, 387 SCRA 342 --> court held that
what was actually being punished is not the kidnapping of the minor
but rather the deliberate failure of the custodian to restore the minor
to his parents of his guardians and that the word deliberate as used in
Art. 270 must imply more than mere negligence, premeditated, head
strong, foolishly daring, intentionally or maliciously wrong

Art. 271 --> inducing minor to leave his home --> must be committed
with criminal intent --> engage in dangerous things, accompany a
beggar or vagrant --> offense is exploitation of minor

Art. 272 --> enslavement --> if purpose of enslaving first paragraph

should govern if for profit or prostitution the second paragraph will
apply

Art. 274 --> the victim debtor is required to work as a servant or

worker in a farm as farm laborer, if the victim is forced to work in other
capacities but for the same purpose the creditor will be liable for
coercion

Art. 275 --> abandonment of person in danger and abandonment of

his own victim --> shall fail to render assistance to a person whom he
shall find in an uninhabited place, wounded or dying --> if person dies,
without person rendering assistance will he be liable under Art. 275?
Art. 275 refers to a deliberate abandonment of a person found in an
uninhabited place --> liable for homicide pursuant to Art. 4 par. 1
(person committing a felony although the wrongful act done was
different from that which was not intended) --> graver offense

Sec. 10(e) R.A. 7610 amended penalties under Art. 248-249, 262, 337,
339, 340 and 341

Art. 280 - Qualified trespass to dwelling

Art. 281 - Other forms of trespass o SC in a recent case ruled that the
respondent in entering the dwelling of another to close the
overflowing faucet is not trespass to dwelling even if there is another
faucet that can be closed --> when he entered the dwelling there is no
malice or criminal intent, it was done to protect his unit from possible
damage
Violation of domicile by public officer v. Trespass to dwelling o Violation
of domicile committed by three different ways (enters, searches
papers, refuses to leave)

Trespass committed on ly in one way, entry into the dwelling against the
express or implied prohibition of the occupant

Door ajar/unlocked occupant asleep

Door tied with a string

KIT ENRIQUEZ

-1-

Late night, entry made through opening not intended for that purpose,
occupants sleeping

Expressly prohibited by the master of the house, servant girl allows boyfriend
to enter --> YES, both will be liable for trespass to dwelling (indispensable
cooperation)

If entrance effected by violence --> used by offender at any time (before,

during or immediately after) --> there is trespass even if the door was open
at the time, occupant not in position to prevent entry

Word violence --> both against persons and force upon things --> loosening a
door bar with the use of a bolo or screwdriver, cutting the string keeping the
door shut are acts of violence notwithstanding People v. Abling

Threats and Coercion

If the act threatened is a crime it will always be grave threats under 282

If subject to a condition par. 1, if not par. 2

Threat made in the heat of anger, and the offender did not persist --> light threats

Error: shall orally threat another with some harm not constituting a crime --> word
NOT should be deleted (People v. Untalan) --> always a light threat

The bond referred to shall only be required in grave threats and light threats and
merely conditioned upon the accused

No bond in threats under Art. 285 and other light threats

Threats v. Coercion o
Not immediately consummated --> grave threats o
Correspondingly achieved --> grave coercion o Harm in the future --> threats
o
Harm is immediate and impending in a present confrontation --> threats o
Directed towards the victim's honor, property, person or victim's family -->
threats o On the person of the victim --> coercion

Grave coercion o
Preventing another by means of violence, threats,
intimidation from something not prohibited by law
o
Compelling another
Unjust vexation --> any other coercion, no crime of attempted or frustrated unjust
vexation, as being a light felony not being a crime against person or property, only
punishable when consummated

288 and 289 o Superseded or impliedly repealed by the labor code and other
related labor laws o
Any acts of violence or compulsion mentioned therein are
punishable under the RPC
In 290 regardless of whether or not contents are revealed the accused is liable,
but the penalty depends on whether or not he makes that revelation
Parents, guardians in custody of minor are excluded
Spouses are also excluded because of the theoretic identity of their interests
Revealing secrets by abuse of office by managers, officers or servants o
If
o
required by law --> no liability
Damage is not necessary
Other prohibited acts of revelation by a lawyer who reveals his clients secrets and
revelation of secrets of a private individual by a public officer
o

Prejudice is an element of the crime

KIT ENRIQUEZ

-1-

Robbery

Robbery with violence or intimidation and robbery by use of force upon

things
Robbery and theft have three similar elements:

Intent to gain or animus

lucrandi o
Unlawful
taking/transportation

Robbery: violence or intimidation of persons or force upon things

Theft: stealth or strategy

o

Personal property as subject

People v. Reyes (March 26, 2003; 399 SCRA 538) o Principle that in robbery intent
to gain is presumed form the unlawful taking of personal property belonging to
another and that the person divested of personal property need not be the owner
thereof
o

A defense and claim of ownership in good faith by the offender even if the
claim is untenable destroys the element of animus lucrandi or intent to gain
conversely where the claim of ownership is patently a mere ploy or was
made in bad faith, animus lucrandi exists

Mere intent to gain is sufficient even if no actual gain resulted, as with

temporary disturbance of property rights is generally sufficient in crime
against property
Unlawful taking sufficient if object was taken and held by offender in a manner to
dispose of it as intended, even if possession is merely transitory or temporary
Subject matter being any personal property the rule is that as long as it does not
belong to the accused, it is immaterial if said offender stole it from the owner, a
mere possessor or even from a thief of the property
The test for purposes of the RPC to declare the property as personalty in crimes of
robbery in theft is whether or not the object is susceptible of appropriation or
transportation or transfer from one place to another without altering its nature or
presence
Mode of commission:
o

Violence against or intimidation of persons o Use of force upon things

The moment there is violence or intimidation the unlawful taking is robbery which
should be present form the commencement of the felony
In robbery through force upon things it will be robbery is force described under
Art. 299
What is the rule when robbery is committed with violence or intimidation or force
upon things is likewise employed (two modes present in one instance of robbery) o
Crime categorized under the first mode
If an owner shall forcibly take the personalty from its lawful possessor what crime
is committed?
o

The crime would be estafa since the owner cannot commit robbery of his own
property or theft even if he uses violence or intimidation

Large cattle: Anti-cattle rustling law o

Art. 294 (Penalties of robbery with violence, etc.) o Apply only when robbery takes
place without entering an inhabited house, under the circumstances under 299
o

G.R. 140932, Feb. 28, 2001

Punished as a single crime and has become known as special complex

crimes, in Art. 294 the robbery and homicide must be consummated

KIT ENRIQUEZ

-1-

Homicide used in its generic sense and includes any kind of killing whether
parricide or murder or where several persons are killed (name: robbery with
homicide)

Relationship if it was parricide, cruelty or treachery if it was murder will only

become an aggravating circumstances and not murder

Rules
People v. Mangulubnan: committed when by reason or on occasion of the robbery,
the crime of homicide should have been committed, one of the accused fired gun
at the ceiling without idea that person hiding therein. Homicide produced on the
occasion of the robbery was by reason or as a result of the robbery in as much as
it is only the result without reference or distinction as to the circumstances, poses
or modes of persons intervening in the crime to be taken into consideration
Must have intention to take personalty belonging to another with intent to gain
If after commission of robbery, the intention of the offender must either to defend
the possession, do away with the witness, make way for escape
Person killed --> any person, that would cover one or more of the robbers
themselves or innocent bystanders or responding police officers
Robbery with rape o Rape must be consummated for the special complex crime
under Art. 294 and 297 to apply o In People v. Cariaga: robbery with attempted
rape not under Art. 48 as complex crime or 294 as they are distinct crimes
o

Offender before committing rape must have intention to take personal

property belonging another with intent to gain and the robbery is
accompanied by rape

Homicide and rape committed --> crime is robbery with homicide with rape
as an aggravating circumstance

Multiple homicide or rape in the course of or by reason of robbery, these

additional homicide or rape not appreciated as an aggravating circumstance
despite a resultant anomalous situation as when robbery with rape is on
equal footing as robbery with multiple rape
Enumeration for aggravating circumstances is exclusive
People v. Sultan (April 27, 200) --> it can neither increase the penalty nor be
prosecuted separately, they are to be disregarded as if such crimes were not
committed and the victims did not exist (penalty the same, maximum penalty, not
further aggravate liability)
Anomalous situation --> described as in so far as the court is
concerned additional homicide not committed victims never
existed

Robbery with mutilation or serious physical injuries o On occasion of robbery o

Must be those described in Art. 263 o Becoming insane, impotent or blind, use of
speech, power to hear, smell or lost an eye, foot, arm or leg or use of such
member or has become incapacited for work which he was before engaged

Robbery unnecessary violence or intimidaiton o

Inflicted physical injuries in par.
o
3 and 4 of Art. 263
Injuries inflicted on person not responsible for the
commission of the robbery
Simple robbery (intimidation only) o Injuries not contemplated in par. 1 to 4 only
involve simple or slight physical injuries, absorbed in robbery
Attempted or frustrated robbery with homicide is also a special complex crime
with only one penalty

KIT ENRIQUEZ

-1-

Unless the killing deserves a penalty higher than reclusion perpetua in its
maximum possible if killing is parricide, murder or infanticide (reclusion perpetua
to death)

Physical injuries without intent to kill and victim did not die, injuries absorbed
in attempted or frustrated robbery committed

Serious physical injuries not fall under Art. 284 nor under Art. 297, Art. 48
then should apply, single act constitute two or more grave or less grave
felonies, offense necessary means to commit the other (penalty for most
serious crime)

Art. 298 --> violence against or intimidation of persons o Can be committed by

any person
Use of force upon things o
Robbery in an uninhabited place

Robbery in an inhabited place o Use of force must have been for the purpose
of entry or to enable the offender to enter the building

Term force refers to both physical and constructive force

Physical: breaking of any wall
Constructive: Through an opening not intended as ingress or egress, fictitious
name, picklocks, public officer
Art. 299 any armed persons but only for the purpose of determining penalty if
used to intimidate (Art. 294 or 297)
Ships or vessels; distinguish from piracy
Robbery

Genuine keys stolen from owner also considered as false keys o Possession of false
keys no penalty or punishment unless together with picklocks and similar tools

Theft

Laurel v. Abrogar (Feb. 27, 2006) -- intangible properties are proper subjects of
theft because they may be taken, carried away or appropriated
They should not be equated with service provided to the public, property but not
subject of theft

The taking personal property of another with intent to gain but without violence o
Offender does not always take the thing from another, he may have received the
thing from another, but if he acquires only the material possession of the things
and appropriates it is liable for theft and not for estafa

Estafa or Swindling

Two basic and indispensable elements:

o

Abuse of confidence or deceit as the means of committing the crime o

Damage or intent to cause damage capable of pecuniary estimation as basis of
penalty
Estafa by abuse of confidence
Estafa by means of deceit
Person injured need not be the owner of the goods (People v. Salazar)
Reimbursement or restitution of the sums swindled does not extinguish criminal
liability
Estafa has features similar to that of theft o US v. Vera: flawed, if offender received
by offender, appropriation may still be considered theft

KIT ENRIQUEZ

-1-

Juridical possession of object transferred in estafa --> theft only physical

possession is transferred

When is there juridical possession?

When would there only be civil liability?
Diaz v. People (August 26, 2008) --> the private complainant gave accused the
amount of P200k in trust to be lent to other people but there is also an agreement
that the same must be returned to the complainant at any time upon demand.
Failure to account upon demand is already estafa
If material possession, juridical possession and ownership are also transferred
default in return --> give rise only to a civil liability (take away ownership: criminal
responsibility of liability)
Money paid by students: not estafa, only civil liability

There must be a formal demand o

Exception: (People v. Villegas)
When the offender's obligation subject to a period
Accused cannot be located despite due diligence
Motor Vehicle, personal use, leased to another: crime is estafa (in juridical
possession of the vehicle), but if it is a passenger jeep rented out and later sold by
the accused, qualified theft (reversed People v. Bonifacio in People v. Isaac) -->
public utility vehicle cannot be rented out for private purposes, contract void -->
only material possession and not juridical --> misappropriation or conversion not
estafa but qualified theft

Rules constituted by partners in a partnership o If a property was contributed for a

specific partnership purpose and the accused partner converted the same for his
own benefit: estafa

Contributed for general partnership purpose, no estafa without prior liquidation

of partnership assets
Rules of acts of sales commission agent o Such retention or deduction has been
authorized no criminal liability o Detention for the protection against a possible
civil controversy --> no estafa --. Pending mutual accounting between the parties;
principal failed to pay agents accrued commission of larger amount

Retention not authorized nor for protection of civil dispute there is liability for
estafa
By taking undue advantage of signature in blank and by writing any document
above such signature in blank

If paper with signature in blank delivered but not filled up in accordance with
instruction:
Crime is estafa but may constitute as falsification too, falsification is
absorbed o If not delivered: crime is falsification, cannot be estafa (Art. 171 par.
3) as there is no abuse of confidence

If signature secured by fraud (estafa by inducement through deceit to sign a

document) o Par. 1 C different from Art. 316 (person executing any fictitious or
simulated contract, in the latter case person who executed the fictitious contract
is himself the one who signed the same)

By false pre-tense or deceit (par. 2 and 3 or Art. 315) o Where the accused
obtained money from the offended party on a promise that he would work for the
approval of certain application but did not succeed--> contract of service

KIT ENRIQUEZ

-1-

But is the accused had no intention to perform services --> estafa (People v.
Wilson Yi) o Accused commits crime of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code,
his act of causing damage under the false pre-tense that he has been licensed to
engage in recruitment and placement activities for which he was paid by the
victim will make him liable for estafa --> may be convicted for both illegal
recruitment (malum prohibitum) and estafa (malum in se)
Post-dating a check or Issuance of check in favor of an obligation when the
offender had no funds in the bank or has insufficient funds (par. 2 d)

Also known as estafa through bouncing checks

Distinguished from B.P. 22 which is malum prohibitum v. Malum inse)
Elements of deceit and damage in estafa not required in violation of BP 22
BP 22 classified as crime against public interest; estafa classified as crime against
property
In BP 22 the drawer is liable even if the check is issued in payment of a preexisting obligation which is not the rule in the case of estafa
The issuance by the offender of the check must be prior to or
simultaneously with the transaction, otherwise if the check is
issued in payment for pre-existing legal obligation no estafa is
committed
Par. 2d amended by R.A. 4885 eliminated element of the offense that
the offender had:
Knowledge of lack of or insufficiency of funds; instead a prima facie evidence of
deceit is now established if drawer fails to deposit amount necessary to cover the
check within 3 days from notice of its dishonor
Under the RPC if the check was issued by the debtor only for security of the
creditor as in the nature of a promissory note and not to be encashed: no estafa is
committed, deceit would be absent --> but not so in BP 22, even if only for
security or guaranty still within the ambit of BP 22
Estafa through bouncing checks committed against an indorsee (original payee)
If the payee is aware of the drawer's deceit the payee and the drawer are coprincipals in the offense committed against the indorsee (par. 2 A); if in collusion
with the drawer then estafa under par. 2 d will apply. By virtue of P.D. 818 which
increased the penalty of estafa through bouncing check --> additional 1 year for
every one year exceeding 22,000 --> not exceed 30 years (penalty will now be
reclusion perpetua; 20 years and 1 day to 40 years) (People v. Isleta)
*Check: Recuerdo v. People Jjune 27, 2006) --> reimbursement or restitution
shall not extinguished liability, not affected by compromise of complainant
and accused --> good faith is a valid defense in estafa by post-dating a check
--> debtor arranged a payment scheme with the creditor and to repay the
value of the check
Article 315 is the principal law on swindling and estafa, two basic and
indispensable elements:
abuse of confidence or deceit as the means of committing the crime, damage or
intent to cause damage capable of pecuniary estimation as the basis of the
penalty
Two classifications: estafa by means of deceit and abuse of confidence
If the offender does not deny receiving such goods, but denies their value or
quality, that will only hold him civilly liable
No intention to defraud --> malicious mischief
Committed by public Officer --> offense under Art. 226

KIT ENRIQUEZ

-1-

Other kinds of Swindling -Art. 361

No. 1

Disposal of real property --> property actually exists but does not belong to
offender; if it does not exist it will be estafa (falsely pretending to possess
property)

Mere intent to cause damage is not sufficient --> there must be actual
damage

No. 2 o People v. Escueta --> misrepresented that property is free from

encumbrance o If duly recorded in the Resgistry of Deeds, constructive notice -->
not applicable to estafa by means of deceit (Aug. 28, 1985 case)

Art. 317 - Swindling a Minor

Age of the minor discussed in Reyes has already been settled by the Family Code
setting the age of majority to 18 years of age
Art. 318 - Other deceits

Any kind of deceit resorted to by the offender to prejudice the victim

Catch all provision in the Code

Examples:
o

A offered to serve as a domestic servant but left after he received advance

wages o Showing one lot to an interested buyer but thereafter sold him a
different lot o In interpreting dreams for profit if the fortune teller would also
deceive the victim saying he had supernatural powers it will be estafa under par.
2A (pretending to possess power)
Arson

Art. 320 restored by PD 1744, later amended RA 7659

Sec. 6 PD 1613 --> prima facie evidence of arson
If by reason or on occasion of arson death occurs the crime of homicide is
absorbed
Attempted Arson
Frustrated Arson
Consummated Arson
A person attempting to burn collected some rocks, soaked in gasoline and placed
them in the building, when he was about to light a match he was chased by a
person -- attempted; if rags are lit --> frustrated; and if a building is burned
People v. Malugan (1704470, Sept. 20, 2006) --> where both burning and death
occurred o Main objective is burning of the building and death occurs --> crime is
arson, homicide absorbed
o

Main objective to kill and fire is resorted to accomplish --> murder only o Main
objective is to kill, and offender kills victim, fire resorted to, to cover up killing
--> two crimes: homicide or murder and arson

KIT ENRIQUEZ

-1-

Malicious Mischief

Cannot be committed through reckless imprudence

There is simple malicious mischief and qualified or special malicious mischief

where offender shall in addition be liable for other consequences of his criminal
act

If damaged property also appropriated --> crime is theft; after having damaged
the property of another shall remove or make use of the same --> punishable
under Art. 308
Crimes against chastity/private crimes

Crimes which cannot be prosecuted de officio because of the

requirement that the prosecution thereof should be by a sworn written
complaint by the offended party --> procedural requirement ->
condition sine qua non --> jurisdictional)

People v. Morigo (may be used also in the crime of concubinage)

There are two crimes against chastity which can be prosecuted de

officio:
o

Corruption of Minors o White Slave Trade o State can proceed with

the prosecution regardless of whether a sworn written complaint has
been executed by the victim
Crime cannot be prosecuted de officio (not a crime against chastity) o
Violation of Art. 360 (last paragraph) --> libel by imputation of a crime
such as adultery or concubinage and other offenses enumerated under
the provision
o

GR: libel can be prosecuted de officio (the last paragraph an

exception)
Adultery is committed by a married woman who should have sexual
intercourse with a man not her husband, the man knowing her to be
married
o

People v. Zapata --> each sexual intercourse constitute a crime of

adultery should be rationalized as adulterous acts on different
occasions

Consent and Pardon of adulterous acts

The present doctrinal rule is that consent applies to future acts while
pardon refers to past acts
Importance of distinction
The importance of the distinction lies in the fact that consent is valid
and will exculpate liability even if granted only to the offending
spouse but pardon to absolve must be granted to both offenders
o

Last paragraph: special extenuating or mitigating circumstance

(People v. Alberto --> wife was given two degrees lower and another
degree lower because it was proved that she acted in the honest
belief and in good faith that her husband was dead --> VI: cannot
satisfy the doctrine, wife acted in a mistake of fact; the court should
have acquitted her instead as there was no criminal intent)

Even if marriage subsequently declared void or voidable -->

prosecution will prosper o
Can there be a separate crime of
adultery and bigamy?

KIT ENRIQUEZ

-1-

Can there be adultery and concubinage (Del Prado v. Dela Fuente) o

Concubinage in three ways:
Mistress in conjugal dwelling
Having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances with a
woman other than the wife

Co-habiting o Married man brought to the conjugal dwelling a girl and

introduced the same to his wife as a relative who would be staying in
the house while looking for a work. Without wife's knowledge man and
girl would have carnal knowledge. Would Art. 334 or concubinage in the
first mode apply to that situation?
Will not apply, not introduced as a concubine but as a relative
The law requires that the girl be brought it to the conjugal dwelling in
that status, as a mistress

Under the second mode, proof of actual sexual intercourse is not required so
long as it can be resonably concurred that such occurred

Co-habiting in another place, requires both accused actually live together as

husband and wife o A married man, would every now and then, would go to
an apartment to have liaison with his girlfriend

Under the third mode cohabiting in any other place requires that both
accused actually live together as husband and wife, occasional visit or
transient visit does not amount to co-habitation (habituality only
required in the first and third modes of commission of the crimes)

Acts of lasciviousness o Lewd design --> always consummated o

Offense is committed against either sex in Art. 336 except in Art.
339
In Art. 337 the penalty for the commission or corruption of minors,
white slave trade has been raised one degree if victim is under 12
years of age
Simple seduction --> deceit
Qualified --> abuse of authority; physical virginity as it is understood
in medical science is not required, what is required is only legal
virginity --> the idea of abduction of virtuous woman or good
reputation

Abuse of authority by person in public authority --> guardian, teacher,

person entrusted with the victim, priest, relationship of brother, not by
adoption
Promise of marriage is principal inducement for seduction --> but if fraudulent
machination to seduce girl would that not constitute as Rape? VI: YES
Corruption of Minors and white slave trade o CM --> minors must be used, either
sex, must not necessarily for profit, single act, WST --> minority may not be
involved, females, for profit, generally committed habitually
o

White Slave Trade may be with or without the consent of the woman --> while
slavery for the purpose of immoral traffic is committed against her will

Abduction

Art. 342 - forcible abduction

Art. 343 - consented abduction

KIT ENRIQUEZ

-1-

There must be lewd designs, for some appreciable period of time (permanence not
necessary)
After intercourse of the victim is not required in abduction
Lewd design is sufficient to make the offender liable

Prosecution of Adultery etc

Last paragraph, epitaph --> rape is still there, but since the crime of rape has
been transported from private crimes to crimes against persons the same should
be deemed deleted from the text of Art.
344

Concubinage and adultery can be prosecuted only by the offended spouse -->
even if incapacitated

In complaint filed by offended spouse, even if minor is valid (under the old law -->
when minor can still marry)

Subsequent marriage between the offended party and the accused shall delete
the liability and the penalty together with the co-principals and accomplices
except in adultery and concubinage or marriage invalid, in bad faith, to escape
criminal liability or responsibility
Simulation of birth etc.

Purpose: to effect or attain the civil status of another

Simulation of birth --> to prove that she is not sterile

But to extort money --> estafa

Girlfriend says that she is pregnant without taking the child of another, and asks
for money from the boyfriend (without money) --> other deceits (Art. 318) --> if
man actually believed the girl, if not there may be estafa (read commentaries)
Bigamy

There are three kinds of illegal marriage provided for in Chapter 2 of

Illegal marriages:
o

Bigamy - Art.
349 o Marriage
contrary to
marriage law o
Premature
marriage
Bigamy --> essential first marriage valid, second marriage valid had it
not been for the existence of the first marriage
o

Conflicting
decisions were
laid to rest by
the family code
(Aug. 3, 1988)
adopted
doctrines in
Vda. De
consanguera
While the second marriage should be presumed null and void ab initio
there was still a need for a judicial declaration nullity of second marriage

KIT ENRIQUEZ

-1-

Art. 14 --> absolute nullity for previous marriage may be invoked only
by final judgment declaring previous marriage void
August 2008 (Morigo decision) -- > if the alleged marriage consisted
only of signing the marriage contract --> parties did not go through the
solemnization, there is no first marriage to speak of
The rules in adultery and bigamy are different o Adultery may be
committed even if marriage is void o Bigamy cannot be committed when
first marriage is void o In this particular situation a problem can be
crafted: If a man and a woman gets married to respective spouses,
contract marriage with each other and have sexual relations thereafter.
What will their liability be?
Woman --> Adultery and bigamy, if first marriage null and void not liable
for bigamy and only adultery
Man --> Bigamy and adultery if he knew the status of the woman as
married as well, if without knowledge bigamy only
Knowledge of the marriage of the woman is essential for
concubinage, if his first marriage is null and void ab initio and he
did not know the woman is married --> the man has no liability
May a married man be liable for bigamy and concubinage?

If he marries and subsequently cohabits with the second wife (US v. Diaz,
reiterated in US v. Cabrera, People v. Schnekenburger)
Prescriptive period for bigamy: does not commence from the commission thereof
but from the time of its discovery by the complainant spouse. But if subsequent
marriage was solemnized in a church and registered --> there is present
constructive notice --> shouldn't prescriptive period begin to run on the date of
registry of the subsequent marriage? The rule on constructive notice is not
applicable, while it may be considered that the bigamous marriage was celebrated
publicly and registered the said rule cannot apply, bigamous marriage entered
into in secrecy to the offended spouse and in a place where offender known as not
a marriage person
While in Art. 350, marriage against provisions of law --> full knowledge that legal
requirements not complied with
Art. 351 premature marriage o Premature marriage --> widow contracted marriage
within period of 301 days within the death of the first spouse --> obsolete (to
avoid issue of doubtful paternity)
o

Supposing girl contracts 2nd marriage and has the child tested for DNA and
the child is that of the deceased spouse, would the woman be liable for
contracting premature marriage?

When is the period set aside?

If without marriage license --> also liable under Art. 350 and 351

People v. Masinsin --> purpose of Art. 351 to avoid cases of doubtful

paternity, woman not liable if she has already delivered, conclusive proof
that she is not pregnant by the previous spouse because he was permanently
sterile; distinguished from impotency

KIT ENRIQUEZ

-1-

Art. 353 -> Libel

Complainant as to the last phrase --> blacken memory of one who is dead -->
heirs or the estate can take action against one who cause dishonor to memory of
person dead

Oral defamation v. Slander v. Libel --> means of commission

Two types of qualified privileged communication

In 355 libel by means of writing or similar means --> take note that television
programs have not been included in the enumeration of how libel could be
committed
o If made through TV program --> People v. Casten --> court ruled that libel
can also be committed in television programs or broadcasts although the
same has not been included in
the enumeration of the means of committing the crime of libel --> not
mentioned because not yet in existence but included as any "similar means"
(Villa-Ignacio: what of the rule on constructing the law in favor of the
accused?) --> follow jurisprudence

Libel should be distinguished from slander under Art. 358

Oral defamation -- which would be simple or great slander

Prescriptive period of slander --> grave, oral defamation and slander by deed (6
months); simple slander (2 months or 60 days)

The word PUTA --> not an imputation of prostitution o The court in the case of
Reyes --> Merely an expression of disgust or displeasure and not by itself an oral
defamation
o But what if with dirty finger --> if merely to annoy or irritate --> unjust
vexation, if to embarrass and humiliate, put victim in dishonour --> slander
Art. 359 --> intent to humiliate offended party, if intent not duly proven --> may
be matreatment by deed (Art. 266)
Offender took hold of the teacher's hair and started shaking the school teacher's
head --> what crime was committed?
o Depend on the intent --> act of hitting the teacher to dishonor the teacher
--> slander o If to hurt --> physical injury o Art. 148 (direct assault) --> if
committed in the performance of her duty, or by reason of performance of
duty --> would constitute direct assault (after amendment of RPC on who are
persons in authority)
Art. 360 -- last paragraph o Sworn written complaint is required, whether
imputation committed orally or in writing o What if the imputation would involve
the crime of rape, can that be prosecuted by the State even without a sworn
written statement?
YES --> crime no longer a crime against chastity not a private crime anymore,
reclassified as a crime against person, state notwithstanding absence of sworn
written statement can prosecute (Villa-Ignacio: exercise in futility --> no witness to
be presented)
Is 363 or incriminating innocent persons equivalent to malicious prosecution?
o What is malicious prosecution? Should it be under Art. 363 or 364?
Not in the RPC, a civil law concept --> closest in the RPC is perjury or false
testimony in a judicial proceeding
In Strebel --> no crime of malicious prosecution as the same is a civil concept in
Art. 2208 par. 3 Feb. 28, 1962 case

KIT ENRIQUEZ

-1-

Criminal Negligence

Rule in designation of the offense involving criminal negligence and resulting in

physical injuries or homicide or damage to property?
o Which is being punished? The resulting offense of the manner of commission of
the offense?

Should be reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, simple negligence causing

damages to property

Is abandonment a commission or an ommission?

o

An act of commission --> shall abandon -->

committing a felony o
If abandonment of one's
own victim --> an ommission
Nevermind Title 15
SOME PROBLEMS ASKED IN CLASS:
Article 246 - Parricide
1. A an illegitimate son of B killed the legitimate son of B. Is he guilty of parricide?
No because in the case of ascendants such as grandparents, their relationship
with the killer must be legitimate. The same is true with the other descendants
(grandchildren or great grandchildren)
2. A had been married to B in China before he came to the Philippines, here A
married X. In a quarrel A killed X. Is A liable for parricide?
No. The marriage of A with X being bigamous, his relationship with X is
illegitimate. To constitute parricide the person killed must be a legitimate spouse
of the offender. A will be liable for homicide instead
3. A is married to B, A planned to kill B. A hired C a stranger to kill B with a pistol
furnished by D, the brother of A. C the hired killer shot to death B. What crime
was committed by A, C and D. A is liable for parricde
C for murder
D for
Article 247
1. A surprised his wife and her paramour. But the paramour was able to run away,
the husband chased the paramour. Unable to catch up with the paramour the
husband returned to the wife who he found at the stairs of the house. The
husband killed the wife. May the husband be given the benefit of Art. 247?
Yes. In the act of sexual intercourse or immediately thereafter --> interpreted
differently
2. Where the husband kills a woman in flagrante meaning in the act of sexual
intercourse with another man, in the mistaken belief that she was his wife. May
the husband be given the benefit of Art. 247?

KIT ENRIQUEZ

-1-

No. But the husband will be excused from liability because of mistake of fact,
provided all the requisites or elements for claiming so are present
3. A killed B because the latter provoked the former during an earthquake and
eruption of a volcano. Is A liable for murder?
No. There is no showing that the accused took advantage of the eruption of the
volcano and earthquake and more importantly he was provoked. The fact that he
killed the victim during an earthquake is not the determining circumstance but
the provocation
4. A killed B in an uninhabited place and at night time purposely sought by A to
facilitate the commission of the crime. Is A liable for murder?
No because uninhabited place and night time are not qualifying circumstances in
murder.
Other Articles
1. A without intent to kill fired his gun at B, but only slight physical injuries were
committed
Illegal discharge of firearm and slight physical injuries. No intent to kill. Although
the two crimes were the result of one single act, a slight physical injuries cannot
form a complex crime with illegal discharge of firearm
2. A suffered abortion by natural cause. Fetus in human form, above 6 months.
While the fetus was still alive, it was buried by the servant as instructed by the
mother. Would the mother and the servant be liable criminally?
No because the fetus in view of its age which is only 6 months did not have its
own life independent of that of the mother. A fetus under these conditions had
necessarily to succumb a few moments after its expulsion from the maternal
womb. The crime of infanticide not committed, in this crime the infant must be
able to subsist outside the maternal womb and less than 3 days old. No abortion
because the expulsion was through natural cause --> no intent to commit
abortion
3. A, a stranger poisoned a pregnant woman to kill her. As a consequence, she died
and the fetus in her womb also died. What crime was committed?
Murder, because A killed the woman by means of poison. Poison is a qualifying
circumstance of murder. It cannot be a complex crime of murder with intentional
abortion because the abortion was not intended. The crime cannot also be
complexed with unintentional abortion because there was no violence used.
4. May an owner of a house commit trespass to dwelling in his own house? YES.
Lessor-lessee relationship
5. Accused without intent to kill, entered the dwelling. Owner raises alarm of
intrusion and is killed.
What is the liability of the person entering the dwelling?
Separate charges of trespass to dwelling and homicide

KIT ENRIQUEZ

-1-

6. If with intent to kill --> Homicide aggravated by dwelling

KIT ENRIQUEZ