Duman \ I-E \ CRIM I \ Prof.
Gutierrez \ Page 1
Criminal Law II
Case Ticklers
PART I
Crimes Against National Security and the Law of
Nations
TREASON
Laurel vs. Misa
That the accused claim that his allegiance as a Filipino
citizen was suspended and that there was a change of
sovereignty over the Phil Islands:
• A citizen or subject owes, not a qualified and
temporary, but an absolute and permanent
allegiance, which consists in the obligation of
fidelity and obedience to his government of
sovereign. The absolute and permanent
allegiance of the inhabitants of a territory
occupied by the enemy to their legitimate
government or sovereign is not abrogated or
severed by the enemy occupation, because
the sovereignty of the government or
sovereign de jure is not transferred thereby
the occupier.
• Just as treason may be committed against
the Federal as well as against the State Govt,
in the same way treason may have been
committed during the Japanese occupation
against the sovereignty of the US as weel as
against the sovereignty of the Phil
Commonwealth; and that the change of our
gorm of govt from commonwealth to republic
does not affect the prosecution of those
charged with the crime of treason committed
during the commonwealth, bec it is an
offense against the same govt and the same
sovereign people.
People vs. Perez
That the women were brought by the accused to the
Japanese soldiers for sexual purposes:
• Commandeering of women to satisfy the lust
of Japanese officers or men or to enliven the
entertainments held in their honor was not
reason even though the women and the
entertainments helpted to make life more
pleasant for the enemies and boost their
spirit.
• The law of treason does not prescribe all
kinds of social, business and political
intercourse bet the belligerent occupants of
the invaded country and it inhabitants.
People vs. Prieto
That the accused help in torturing guerillas with
Japanese soldiers:
• two-witness rule: It is necessary that the two
witnesses corroborate each other not only on
the whole overt act but on any part of it.
• Torture and atrocities as aggravating
circumstances –the use hereof instead of the
usual and less painful method of execution
will be taken into account to increase the
penalty under art. 14(21).
• Plea of guilty to some counts: considered
mitigating circumstance.
People vs. Manayao
That the accused with a band, massacred a barangay
and two 10-year old girls witnessed the crime:
• Makapili is not part of the Japanese Army but
just an org of Filipino traitors, pure and
simple.
• Defense of State: constitutional duty of
citizen cannot be cast off in time of war. The
citizen has a constitutional duty to defend the
State and cannot be cast off when his country
is at war by the siple expedient of subscribing
to an oath of allegiance to support the
constitution or laws of a foreign country, and
an enemy country at that, or be accepting a
commission in the military, naval or air
service of such country or by desserting from
the Phil Army, Navy or Air Corp.
People vs. Adriano
That the accused is a member of the Makapili and
wore uniforms and that the two witnesses refer to
different acts on different days:
• Makapili direct evidence of adherence and
giving aid and comfort to enemy. Unless
forced upon one against his will, membership
in the makapili org imports treasonable
intent, considering the purpose for which the
organization was created, the members
would shed blood and sacrifice their lives.
• Adherence, unlike overt act, need not be
proved by the oaths of two witnesses.
• Makapili as an overt act: the membership
must be established by the deposition of two
witnesses.
• It is necessary to produce two direct
witnesses to the whole overt act. It may be
possible to piece bits together of the overt
act, but if so, each bit must have the support
of two oaths.
ESPIONAGE
CA 616
PIRACY
People vs.Lol-lo and Saraw
That the accused are claiming that they do not belong
to the Phil territory:
• Piracy is robbery or forcible depredation on
the high seas, without lawful authority and
done animo furandi (with intent to steal) and
in the spirit and intention of universal
hostility.
• Piracy is a crime not against any particular
State byt against all mankind. It may be
punished in the competent tribunal or any
country where the offender may be found or
into which he may be carried. The jurisdiction
of piracy unlike all other crimes had not
territorial limits.
People vs. Rodriguez
• PD 532 (Anti-Piracy Law) amended 134 and
its effect was to create the crime of qualified
piracy where rape, murder or homicide is
committed. No mitigating circumstance shall
be appreciated regardless of plea of guilt.
• Recall: crew members of the vessel
committed crime
People vs. Siyoh
That the accused committed with triple murder and
frustrated murder in piracy:
• Recall: There was a lone survivor Antonio De
Guzman who was shot in the waters but was
not killed.

• Number of persons killed on the occasion of
piracy, not material; Piracy, a special complex
crime punishable by death—but the number
of persons killed on the occasion of piracy is
not material. PD 532 considers qualified
piracy as a special complex crime punishable
by death. (not anymore-RP)
HIJACKING
RA 6235
Crime Against the Fundamental Laws of the State
ARBITRARY DETENTION
Rule 112, sec 6
Rule 113, sec 5
Umil vs. Ramos
• Case of 8 habeas corpus.
• Arrest without a warrant is justified when the
person arrested is caught in flagranti delicto.
An arrest without a warrant of arrest under
sec. 5 par a and b of Rule 113 of the Rules of
Court, as amended, is justified when the
person arrested is caught in flagranti delicto,
viz in the act of committing an offensel or
when an offense has just been committed
and the person making the arrest has
personal knowledge of the facts indicating
that the person arrested has committed it.
• Habeas Corpus; Subversion; The crimes of
rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal
to commit such crimes and offenses
committed in furtherance thereof of in
connection therewith constitute direct
assaults against the State are in the nature
continuing crimes. Rolando Dural was
arrested for being a member of the NPA, an
outlawed subversive organization. Subversion
being a continuing offense, the arrest of
Rolando Dural without warrant is justified as
it can be said that he was committing an
offense when arrested. The crimes, and
crimes or offenses committed in furtherance
thereof or in connection therewith constitute
direct assaults against the State and are in
the nature of continuing crimes.
People vs Burgos
• The case where the firearm was left to be
buried to the ground and the wife pointed
where the firearm was.
• Warrant of arrest; personal knowledge
required of an officer arresting a person who
has just committed is committing or is about
to commit an offense-udner sec6(a) of Rule
113, the officer arresting a person who has
committed, is committing, or is about to
commit an offense must have personal
knowledge of that fact. The offense must also
be committed in his presence.
• For arrests without warrant to be lawful, it is
required that a crime must in fact or actually
have been committed first. In arrests without
warrant under Sec 6(b) it is not enough that
there is reasonable ground to believe that the
person to be arrested has committed a crime.
A crime must in fact or actually have been
committed first. That a crime has actually
been committed is an essential precondition.
It is not enough to suspect that a crime may
have been committee. The fact of the
commission of the offense must be
undisputed. The test of reasonable ground
applies only to the identity of the perpetrator.
Milo vs. Salanga
• The barrio captain who detained a person for
11 hours. His contention was that he is not a
public officer.
• Arbitrary detention is committed by a public
officer who, without legal grounds, detains a
person. The officer liable for Arbitrary
detention must be vested with authority to
detain or order the detention of persons
accused of a crime.
• PD 299 was signed into law, barrio captains
or barangay captain were recognized as
persons in authority.
DELAY IN DELIVERY OF DETAINED PERSON
EO 272
Rule 112, sec 7
RA 7438
SEARCH WARRANTS MALICIOUSLY OBTAINED
Duman \ I-E \ CRIM I \ Prof. Gutierrez \ Page 2
Rule 126
Stonehill vs. Diokno
• Several judges issued 42 search warrants to
seize all docs and papers showing all business
transactions of petitioners.
• Requisites for issuing search warrants-
Constitution provides that no warrant shall
issue but upon probable cause, to be
determined by the judge, and that the
warrant shall particularly describe the things
to be seized.
• Search warrants authorizing the seizure of
books of accounts and records showing all the
business transactions of certain person,
regardless of whether the transactions were
legal or illegal, contravene the explicit
command of the Bill of Rights that the things
to be seized should be particularly described
and defeat its major objective of eliminating
general warrants.
Burgos vs. Chief of Staff
• 2 search warrants against Metropolitan Mail
and We Forum newspapers premises.
• Probable cause for search: as such facts and
circumstances which would lead a reasonably
discreet and prudent man to believe that an
offense has been committed and that the
objects sought in connection with the offense
are in the place sought to be searched.
• A search warrant against a publisher must
particularize the alleged criminal or
subversive material to be seized. The
application and/or its supporting affidavits
must contain a specification, stating with
particularity the alleged subversive material
he has published or intending to publish.
OFFENDING RELIGIOUS FEELINGS
People vs. Mandoriao
• The case where the microphone was allegedly
grabbed (but there was no sound when the
accused spoke).
• A religious meeting is an assemblage of
people met for the purpose of performing
acts of adoration to the Supreme Being or to
perform religious services in recognition of
God as an object or worship, love and

obedience, it matters not the faith with
respect to the Deity entertained by the
persons so assembled.
• Mere saying of prayers and singing of hymns
would render such place as place devoted to
religious worship.
• Notoriously offensive- must be direct against
a dogma or ritual or upon an object of
veneration. Mere grabbing of mic might be
punishable as public disturbance under 153.
People vs. Baes
• The case where the funeral passed thru the
Catholic churchyard.
• The court held that WON the act complained
of is offensive to the religious feelings of the
Catholics, is a question of fact which must be
judged only according to the feelings of the
Catholics and not those of other faithful ones,
for it is possible that certain acts may offend
the feelings of those who profess a certain
religion, while not otherwise offensive to the
feelings of those professing another faith.
• Laurel Dissenting: Offense to religious
feelings should not be made to depend upon
the more or less broad or narrow conception
of any given particular religion but should be
gauged having in view the nature of the acts
committed and after scrutiny of all the facts
and circumstances which should be viewed
through the mirror of an unbiased judicial
criterion. Otherwise, the gravity of leniency of
the offense would hinge in the subjective
characterization of the act from the point of
view of a given religious denomination or sect
and in such a case, the application of the law
would be partial and arbitrary, withal,
dangerous, especially in a country said to
once the scene of religious intolerance and
prosecution.
People vs. Tengson
• Burial rights performed inside a Roman
Catholic Cemetery.
• For an act to be notoriously offensive to
religious feelings it must be directed against a
religious practice or dogma or tiutal ofr the
purpose of ridicule. The act of performing
burial rites inside a Roman Cathoilic
Cemetery, in accordance with the rules of
practices of the sect Christ is the Answer by
reading passages from the bible, etc is not
notoriously offensive to the feelings of
religious persons, provided there was no
intent to mock, scoff at or to desecrate any
religious act or object venerated by people of
a particular religion.
People vs. Nanoy
• Drunk got inside a Church and grab the song
leader.
• The accused is only guilty of unjust vexation
penalized by 287 (2). He did not perform acts
notoriously offensive to the feelings of the
faithful. Neither did he cause such serious
disturbance as to interrupt or disturb the
services of the congregation.
Crimes Against Public Order
REBELLION, INSURRECTION, COUP D’ETAT
RA 6968
Enrile vs. Salazar
• Honasan charged with rebellion with murder
and multiple frustrated murder.
• Hernandez doctrine prohibits complexing of
rebellion with any other offense. The rejection
of both options shapes and determines the
primary ruling of the Court, which is that
Hernandez remains binding doctrine
operating to prohibit the complexing of
rebellion with any other offense committed on
the occasion thereof, either as a means
necessary to its commission or as an
unintended effect of an activity that
constitutes rebellion.
• Gutierrez Jr Concurring: Rebellion consists of
many acts; the crime of rebellion consists of
many acts. The dropping of one bomb cannot
be isolated as a separate crime. of rebellion.
Neither should the dropping of one hundred
bombs or the firing of thousands of machine
gun bullets be broken up into a hundred or
thousands of separate offenses. The killing of
civilians during a rebel attack on military
facilities furthers the rebellion and is part of
the rebellion.
Umil vs. Ramos, supra
• As a continuing crime.
Duman \ I-E \ CRIM I \ Prof. Gutierrez \ Page 3
Enrile vs. Amin
• Enrile was charged with rebellion complexed
with murder and a violation under PD 1829
Sec. 1(c) obstruction of justice bec he gave
food and comfort to Honasan.
• Being in conspiracy with Honasan, petitioner’s
alleged act of harboring or concealing was fo
no other purpose but in furtherance of the
crime of rebellion thus constituting a
component thereof. It was motivated by the
single intent or resolution to commit the
crime of rebellion. The decisive factor is the
intent or motive.
• All crimes whether punishable under a special
law or general law which are mere
components or ingredients or committed in
furtherance thereof, become absorbed in the
crime of rebellion and cannot be isolated and
charged as separate crimes in themselves. So
whether punishable by RPC or a special law,
the Hernandez case still is the ruling that
these common crimes are absorbed in
rebellion.
People vs Dasig
• Case where the accused shot a police during
a gun battle with other traffic enforcers.
• Appellant is liable for the crime of rebellion,
not murder, not murder with direct assault
upon a person in authority.
• Rebellion is committed by taking up arms
against the government, among other means.
In this case, appellant not only confessed
voluntarily his membership with the sparrow
unit but his killing of the officer. The sparrow
unit is the liquidation squad of the NPA with
the objective of overthrowing the duly
constituted govt.
• The ISLAW is not applicable to persons
convicted of rebellion. Crime of rebellion is
penalized by prison mayor and fine not
exceeding 20K. (But this is now changed by
RA 6968 as shown in 135).
•
People vs. Lovedioro
• A policeman was walking and he was killed by
the accused.
• In deciding if the crime committed is rebellion
not murder, it becomes imperative for the

courts to ascertain won the act was done in
furtherance of a political end. The political
motive of the act should be conclusively
demonstrated.
• It is not enough that the overt acts of
rebellion are duly proven. From the
foregoing, it is plainly obvous that it is not
enough that the overt acts of rebellion are
duly proven. Both purpose and overt acts are
essential components of the crime. With
either of these elements wanting, the crime
of rebellion legally does not exist.
• If no political motive is established and
proved, the accused should be convicted of
the common crime and not of rebellion. In
cases of rebellion, motive relates to the act,
and mere membership in an organization
dedicated to the furtherance of rebellion
would not, by and of itself, suffice.
SEDITION
People. Cabrera
• Phil Constabulary vs. the Manila police where
the PC vowed revenge.
• Sedition in its more general sense is the
raising of commotions or disturbances in the
State.
• The Phil Law on the subject makes all persons
guilty of sedition who rise publicly and
tumultously in order to obtain by force or
outside of legal methods any one of five
objects, including that of inflicting any act of
hate or revenge upon the person or property
of any official or agent of the Insular Govt or
of a provincial or municipal govt.
• It is not necessary that the offender should
be a private citizen and the offended party a
public functionary.
• Conspiracies are generally proved by a
number of indefinite acts, conditions and
circumstances which vary according to the
purposes to be accomplished. IF it be proved
that the defendants pursued by their acts the
same object, one performing one part and
another part of the same so as to complete it
with a view to the attainment of that same
object one will be justified in the conclusion
that they were engaged in a conspiracy to
effect that object.
INCITING TO SEDITION
US vs Tolentino
• Theatrical work which was alleged to be
seditious.
• 7 modes of committing the offense:
a. uttering seditious words or speeches
b. writing, publishing, or ciculating of scurrilous
libels against the govt.
c. writing, publishing or circulating of scurrilous
libels which tend to disturb or obstruct any
lawful officer in executing his office
d. or which tend to instigate others to cabal or
meet together for unlawful purposes
e. which suggest or incite rebellious
consipiracies
f. which tend to stir up people against lawful
authorires or to disturb the peace of the
community, safety and order of the govt
g. knowlingly concealing such evil practices
Espuelas vs. People
• Suicide note that he was not pleased with
Roxas administration.
• A published writing which calls our govt one
of corroks and dishonest persons infested
with Nazis and Fascists i.e. dictators and
which reveals a tendency to produce
dissatisfaction or a feeling incompatible with
the disposition to remain loyal to the govt is a
scurrilous libel against the govt.
• Criticism of govt how it may legally be done-
any citizen may criticize his govt and govt
officials and submit his criticism to the free
trade of ideas. However such criticicim should
be specific and therefore constructive
specifying particular objectionable actuations
of the govt. it must be reasoned or tempered
and not a contemptuous condemnation of the
entire govt set up.
Umil vs. Ramos, supra
• Sedition as a continuing act.
VIOLATION OF PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY
Martinez vs. Morfe
• Martinez and Bautista were members of the
Constitutional Convention. They were
arrested for falsification of docs-birthday and
Duman \ I-E \ CRIM I \ Prof. Gutierrez \ Page 4
distribution of free food, drinks and cigs at 2
public meetings
• Sec 15, Art VI of the Constitution makes it
clear that parliamentary immunity from
arrest does not cover any prosecution for
treason, felony, and breach of the peace.
• American law: Bu common parliamentary law,
the members of the legislature are privileged
from arrest on civil process during the
session of that body, and for a reasonable
time before and after, to enable them to go to
and return from the same. A prosecution for
a criminal offense is thus excluded from this
grant of community.
ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS
RA 8294
People vs. Quijada
• Case where a dance was held in a basketball
court and Quijada kept on pestering Iroy’s
sister and Quijada killed the brother.
• He was convicted of two separate offenses of
murder and illegal use of firearm aggravated
with illegal use of firearm.
• The unequivocal intent of the second par of
section 1. of PD 1866 is to respect and
preserve homicide or murder as a distinct
offense penalized under the RPC and to
increasae the penalty for illegal possession of
firearm where such a firearm is used in killing
a person.
• Its clear language yields no intention of the
lawmaker to repeal or modify, pro tanto,
Articles 248 and 249 of the RPC in such a way
that if an unlicensed fiream is used in the
commission of homicide or murder, either of
these crimes, as the case may be, would only
serve to aggravate the offense of illegal
possession of firearm and would not anymore
be separately punished.
• The words of the subject provision are
palpably clear to exclude any suggestion that
either of the crimes of homicide and murder,
as crimes mala in se under the RPC is
obliterated as such and reduced as a mere
aggravating circumstance in illegal possession
of firearm whenever the unlicensed firearm is
used in killing a person.
• The only purpose of the provision is to
increase the penalty prescribed in 1st par of

sec 1—reclusion temporal in its max to
reclusion perpetua to death.
People vs. Feloteo
• Accused played with an armalite and shot
Sotto who was playing with friends after their
drink.
• Under RA 8294, the offeses of murder and
illegal use or possession of firearm are
integrated into a single offense. In the recent
case of People vs. Molino, gave retroactive
application to RA No. 8294 considering that
under the new law, the offenses of murder
and illegal use or possession of firearm are
integrated into a single offense.
• With the amendments introduced by RA 8294
to PD 1866, the use of unlicensed firearm in
killing the victim is no longer considered as a
separate offense, instead, it is considered as
an aggravating circumstance. Liable for
murder and the use of firearm is only an
aggravating circumstance.
People. Vs. Narvasa
• There was a report of missing carabaos, pigs,
and goats. Police chanced upon the gang of
appellants. There was a volley of gunfire and
a policeman was killed. The trial court
convicted the accused illegal use of firearm in
its aggravated form.
• The second element of illegal possession of
firearms can be proven by the testimony or
the certification of a representative of the
PNP Firearms and Explosives Unit that the
accused was not a license of the firearm in
question.—As to proof that appellants had no
license or permit to possess the firearm in
question, we have held that the second
element of illegal possession of firearms can
be proven by the testitmony or the
certification of a representative of the PNP
Firearm and Explosives Unit that the accused
was not a licensee of the firearm in question.
DIRECT ASSAULT
People vs. Beltran
• Battle in the Puzon’s compound.
• Shooting at the mayor and a policeman on
duty is attempted murder with assault.
• The Maypr was a person in authority and
Tolentino was a policeman who at the time
was in uniform. They were performing their
official duties to maintain peace and order in
the community.
People vs. Dollantes
• The case where the accused brandished a
knife challenging anyone to fight with him
when the brgy. Captain was giving a speech.
• Barangay captain was killed while in the
performance of his duties. The records
showed that the barangay captain was in the
act of trying to pacify the accused who was
making trouble in the dance hall when he was
stabbed to death.
DELIVERY OF PRISONERS FROM JAIL
Alberto vs. De la Cruz
• Case where the accused was summoned at
the house of the governor to fix the fence.
• In order to be guilty under 223 (connivance)
and 224 (negligence), it is necessary that the
public officer had consented to, or connived
in, the escape of a prisoner on the part of the
person in charge is an essential condition in
the commission of the crime of faithfulness in
the custody of the prisoner. If the public
officer charged with the duty of guarding him
does not connive with the fugitive, then he
has not violated the law and is not guilty of
the crime.
• Negligence in the custody of a prisoner under
224 of the RPC punishable if it is definitely
and deliberately committed.
EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE
Tanega vs. Masakayan
• Accused was convicted with slander but she
didn’t serve her sentence.
• The elements are that the offender is a
convict by final judgment; he is serving the
sentence of deprivation of liberty and he
evades the service of sentence by escaping
during the term of his sentence.
Duman \ I-E \ CRIM I \ Prof. Gutierrez \ Page 5
• The prescription commence from date when
culprit should evade the service of his
sentence.
People vs. Abilong
• The accused was sentenced with destierro
(100M from Manila)
• One who, sentenced to destierro by virtue of
final judgment, and prohibited from entering
the City of Manila, enters said city within the
period of his sentence is guilty of evasion of
sentence under article 157, RPC.
VIOLATION OF CONDITIONAL PARDON
Torres vs. Gonzales
• The accused was convicted of estafa but then
he was granted a conditional pardon provided
he would not violate any penal laws. He was
charged 20 counts of estafa but he was not
yet convicted of final judgment.
• A convict granted conditional pardon who is
recommitted must of course be convicted by
final judgment of a court of the subsequent
crime or crimes with which he was charged
before the criminal penalty for such
subsequent offense can be imposed upon.
The parolee or convict who is regarded as
having violated the provisions thereof must
be charged, prosecuted and convicted by final
judgment before he can be made to suffer
the penalty under 159.
QUASI-RECIDIVISM
People vs. Dionisio
• The Happy Go Lucky gang vs. Batang
Mindanao case.
• The accused are quasi-recidivists, having
committed the crime charged while serving
sentence for a prior offense. The maximum
penalty prescrived by law for the new felony
(murder) is death, regardless of the presence
or absence of any mitigating or aggravating
circumstance or the complete absence
thereof. But for lack of requisite votes,
reclusion perpetua is imposed.
Crimes Against Public Interest
COUNTERFEITING

People vs. Kong Leon
• The Spanish Penal Code from which the law
punishing the fabrication and uttering of
counterfeit coins is evidently derived, the
fabrication of a local coin withdrawn from
circulation is punishable, it stands to reason
that the counterfeiting of foreign coin, even if
withdrawn from circulation in the foreign
country of its origin, should also be
punishable, because the reason for punishing
the fabrication of a local coin withdrawn from
circulation is not alone the harm caused to
the public by the fact that it may go into
circulation, but the danger that a word, or sign contained in Exhibit A has been
counterfeiter produces by his stay in the
country, and the possibility that he may later
apply his trade to making of coins in actually
circulation.
• The law of the US on its currency became a
part of the general law which our courts of
justice are bound to apply and enforce.
MUTILATION OF COINS
PD 247
FORGERY
Del Rosario vs. People
• Erasure and alteration of figures in genuine
treasury notes-The possession of genuine
treasury notes of the Philippines any of the
“figures, letters, words or signs contained” in
which had been erased and/or altered, with
knowledge of such erasure and alteration,
and with the intent to use such notes in
enticing another to advance funds for the
avowed purpose of financing the manufacture
of counterfeit treasury notes of the
Philippines, is punishable.
People vs. Galano
• Balut case and the Victory note payment
• can accrue. While it is true that a time record
• The forgery here committed comes under the
first paragraph of Article 169 or the Code (By
giving to a treasury or bank note or any
instrument payable to bearer or to order
mentioned therein, the appearance of a true
and genuine document). This provision does
not only contemplate situations where a
spurious, false or fake document or
instrument is given the appearance of a true
and genuine document, but also to situations
involving originally true and genuine
documents which have been withdrawn or
demonetized, or have outlived their
usefulness. The case under consideration
could not come within the second paragraph
of the aforesaid article (By erasing,
substituting , counterfeiting or altering by any
means the figures, letters, words or signs
contained therein) because no figure, letter,
erased, substituted, counterfeited or altered.
The forgery consists in the addition of a word
in an effort to give to the present document
the appearance of the true and genuine
certificate that it used to have before it was
withdrawn or has outlived its usefulness.
FALSIFICATION
People vs. Romualdez
• Case of Bar Exam where the scores of a
certain Mabunay were changed.
• The contention that the papers which
defendant ER altered were not public or
official documents is untenable because the
examination of candidates for admission to
the bar is a judicial function. The alterations
made in such papers, under the
circumstances proven in this case, of the
grades given to them by the correctors,
constitute the crime of falsification of public
documents.
Beradio vs. CA
• The accused was the Chief of Office, Office of
Election registrar who was accused as having
falsified her daily time record.
• Where non-faithful statement of daily hours
of work in time record has not caused
damages to the Govt, no crime of falsification
is an official document, it is not criminally
falsified if it does not pervert its avowed
purpose as when it does not cause damage to
the government. It may be different in the
Duman \ I-E \ CRIM I \ Prof. Gutierrez \ Page 6
case of a public document with continuing
interest affecting the public welfare which is
naturally damaged if that document is
falsified where the truth is necessary for the
safeguard and protection of that general
interest.
Luague vs. CA
• Case where the wife signed the payroll
warrant after her husband died.
• Absence of criminal intent by petitioner wife
when she signed her husband’s name as
payee. Absence of damage an element to be
considered to determine presence of criminal
intent. Govt did not sustain financial loss due
to encashment of checks by the wife.
• While it is not meant to imply that if there is
no damage there can be no falsification, but
that the absence of damage is an element to
be considered to determine whether or not
there is criminal intent. (Damage is not
necessary in falsification but is intent
necessary?)
Cabigas vs. People
• Case of lost treasury bills and that on the
Securities Delivery Receipt, he crossed out
with a red ink the said doc and notated “for
adjustment”.
• There is no falsification if the correction was
made to speak the truth. It is a settled
doctrine that in falsification byu an employee
under par no 4 of Art 171 which reads by
making untruthful statements in the narration
of facts, the ff elements must concur:
a. offender makes in a doc untruthful
satatments in a narration of facts
b. that he has a legal obligation to disclose the
truth of the facts narrated by him
c. the facts narrated by the offender are
absolutely false
d. that the perversion of truth in the narration of
facts was made with the wrongful intent of
injuring a third person
• In the absence of a legal obligation to
disclose or reveal the truth, accused cannot
be convicted of falsification. The practice was
for his own convenience and also for
reference purposes.
People cs. Sandaydiego

• Case where Samson made vouchers for the
alleged construction of a bridge but there
wasn’t really any construction. The vouchers
were encashed at Sandaydiego’s office and
not at the Cashier’s.
• A person in possession of falsified document
and made us of it is presumed to be material
author of falsification.
USE OF FALSIFIED DOCUMENTS
• If falsification was resorted to hide
malversation, falsification and malversation
People vs. Dava
are separate offenses, not complex crimes.
Each falsification of a voucher constitutes one
crime and falsification of each voucher
constitutes one offense. It is settled that if
the falsification was resorted to for the
purpose of hiding the malversation, the
falsication and maversation are separate
offenses. The falsification of six vouchers
constitutes six separate or distinct offenses
and each misappropriation as evidenced by a
provincial voucher constitutes a separate
offense. The six misappropriations evidenced
by the six vouchers constitute six distinct
offenses. ( As compared to Villalon, Dava
and Cortez case?)
USURPATION
Syquian vs. People
People vs. Cortez
• Mayor appointed one woman as clerk but
there were no funds available and no special
ordinance creating said position.
• The existence of a wrongful intent to injure a
third person is not necessary when the
falsified document is a public document.
People vs. Villalon
• Case where a document of mortgage was
Gigantoni vs. People
falsified by the accused alleging that he has
obtained the signatures of the De Guzman
brothers.
• The falsification of a public document may be
a means of committing estafa because before
the falsified document is actually utilized to
defraud another, the crime of falsification has
already been consummated, damage or
intent to cause damage not being an element
of the crime of falsification of public, official
or commercial documents. The damage to
another is caused by the commission of
estafa, not by falsification of the document,
hence, the falsification of the public, official
or commercial document is only a necessary
means to commit the estafa.
• In the crime of falsification of a public
document, the prescriptive period
commences from the time the offended party
had constructive notice of the alleged forgery
after the document was registered with the
Register of Deeds.
• Case where Dava acquired a falsified driver’s
license after his previous license was
confiscated due to a felony he committed.
• Driver’s license a public document.
• The driver’s license being a public document,
proof of the fourth element of damage caused
to another person or at least an intent to
cause such damage has become immaterial.
• In falsification of public or official documents,
the principal thing being punished is the
violation of the public faith and the
destruction of the truth proclaimed therein.
• Case where the accused pretended to be a
BIR agent and that he presented an ID card
with other BIR papers.
• The crime was usurpation of authority thru
falsification of a public document by a private
person. The falsification was the means
employed by the defendant to perpetrate the
crime of usurpation.
• Case where accused claimed that he was an
agent of CIS of the Phil Constabulary and
went to Pal to conduct verification of same
travel by the Black Mountain officials and
presented an ID.
• Usurpation of authority and usurpation of
official functions- Art 177 of the RPC on
usurpation of authority or official functions-
any person:
a. who knowingly and falsely represent himself
to be an officer, agent and representative of
Duman \ I-E \ CRIM I \ Prof. Gutierrez \ Page 7
any department or agency of the Phil Goct or
of any foreign govt (Usurpation of authority)
b. under pretense of official position, performs
any act pertaining to any person in authority
or public officer of the Phil Govt or any forein
govt or any agency thereof, without being
lawfully entitled to do so. (Usurpation of
official functions)
• Accused was previously a member of the said
organization however it was not proven by
the prosecution that he was dismissed from
the org and that he no longer possesses such
authority. However the SOLGEN argued that
in makes no difference whether the accused
was suspended or dismissed from the service
for both imply the absence of power to
represent oneself as vested with authority to
perform acts pertaining to an office to which
he knowingly was deprived of. He should
have been charged of usurpation of official
functions and not of usurpation of authority,
thus, he was acquitted.
USING FICITITIOUS NAME
CA 142
Legamia vs. IAC
• Case where a woman used the name Corazon
Reyes instead of Corazon Legamia y Rivera
bec she has been living with Emilio Reyes for
20 years but not married.
• She assumed the role as his wife and used
his name without any sinister purpose or
personal material gain in mind. She applied
for benefits upon his death not for herself but
for their son. (“You may have your own
Corazon” statement of the Court).
ILLEGAL USE OF UNIFORMS OR INSIGNIA
RA 75
RA 493
PERJURY
Diaz vs. People

• Case where the accused made it appear that
he was a 4th yr student with Bachelor of Arts
at the Cosmopolitan and Harvardian Colleges
and this was a requirement for his
reappointment as School Administrative Asst.
• As defined, perjury is the willful and corrupt
assertion of falsehood under oath of
affirmation administered by authority of law
on a material matter.
• All elements present:
a. that the accused made a statement under
oath or executed an affidavit upon a material
matter.
b. That the statement or affidavit was made
before a competent officer, authorized to
receive and administer oath
c. That in that statement or affidavit, the
accused made a willful and deliberate
assertion of a falsehood
d. That the sworn statement or affidavit
containing the falsity is required by law or
made for legal purpose.
MACHINATIONS IN PUBLIC AUCTIONS
Ouano vs. CA
• Case where auction was manipulated.
• Causing another bidder to stay away from the
auction in order to cause reduction of the
price of the property auctioned. These acts
constitute a crime where Ouano and Eschavez
had promised to share in the property in
question as a consideration for Ouano’s
refraining from taking part in the public
auction, and they had attempted to cause
and in fact succeeded in causing another
bidder to stay away from the auction in order
to cause reduction of the price of the
property auctioned.
• Property forfeited in favor of the govt.
Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs
RA 9165
Crimes Against Public Morals
GAMBLING
PD 1602
LOI 816
IMMORAL DOCTRINES, OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS AND
EXHIBITIONS
PD 960 as amended by PD 969
People vs. Kottinger
• WON the pictures portraying the inhabitants
of the bountry in native dress are
obscene/indecent.
• The word obscene and the term obscenity
may be defined as meaning something
offensibve to chastity, decency or delicacy.
• Indecency is an act against good behaviour
and a just delicacy.
• Test of Obscenity: The test ordinarily followed
by the courts in determining whether ea
particular publication or other thing is
obscene within the meaning of the statutes,
is whether the tendency of the matter
charged as obscene is to deprave or corrupt
those whose minds are open to such immoral
influences and into whose hands a publication
or tother article charged as being obscene
may fall.
• Another test of obscenity is that which shocks
the ordinary and common sense of men as an
indecency.
• Test: What is the judgment of the aggregate
sense of the community reached by the
publication or other matter? What is the
probably reasonable effect on the sense of
decency, purity, and chastity of society
extending to the family?
People vs. Aparici
• Case where the woman danced wearing furry
white girdle with a middle piece punctuating
attend on the things she was supposed to
hide.
• Test of Obscenity: It may be conceded that
nudity itself is not inherently indecent
obscene. Mere nudity in painting and
sculpture is not obscenity as they may be
considered pieces of art. But the artistic, the
aesthetic and the pulchritude in the nude
body of a living woman may readily be
transformed into an indecent and obscene
object, by postures and movements of such
body which produce perceptible and
Duman \ I-E \ CRIM I \ Prof. Gutierrez \ Page 8
discernable reaction in the public or audience
witnessing the same. The object of the law is
to protect the morals of the public. The
reaction of the public, therefore, during the
performance of the dance by the appellant
should the gauge in the determination
whether appellant’s danicing or exhibition
was indecent or immoral. The test in the
Kottinger applies.
People vs. Padan
• The Toro case.
• But an actual exhibition of the sexual act,
preceded by acts of lasciviousness, can have
no redeeming features. In it there is no room
for art. One can see nothing in it but clear
and unmitigated obscenity, indecency and an
offense to public morals, inspiring and
causing as it does, nothing but lust and
lewdness and exerting a corrupting influence
exp on the youth of the land.
VAGRANCY
PD 1563
Perez vs. Navarro-Domingo
• Vagrancy law declared unconstitutional by the
MTC.
• There cannot be malice by mere loitering or
tramping or wandering about without visible
means of support because the only person
affected thereby or prejudiced or injured by
such circumstances would be the person
himself and not other third parties. There is
nothing to protect society from these acts
and it is this precisely which is repugnant
because it impinges on the individual’s right
of freedom of expression and freedom of
locomotion, as guaranteed by the Bill of
Rights.
• Lack of visible means of support should be
punishable unless it affects other persons or
prejudices them.
• Poverty cannot be a criminal act. (Attacking
the social status of the person).
RA 9208
Crimes Committed by Public Officers

BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS
Manipon vs. Sandiganbayan
• Case where the deputy sheriff said that he
can remedy the withdrawal of the garnished
amount so that they can have something for
New Year.
• Direct bribery: The crime of direct bribery as
defined in 210 in RPC consists of the ff
elements:
1) that the accused is a public officer
2) that he received directly or through another
some gift or present, offer or promise
3) that such gift, present or promise has been
given ion consideration of his commission of
some crime, or any act not constitutiong a
crime, or to refrain from doing something
which it is his official duty to do and
4) that the crime or act relates to the exercise of
his functions as public officer
• The promise of a public officer to perform an
act or to refrain from doing it may be express
or implied.
Dacumas vs. Sandiganbayan
• The settlement of tax liability which reduced
the tax of the Revilla Interiors.
• Pulling out assessment papers and the like
was not part of his official duties, thus
elements for direct bribery were not all met.
• Besides the promised act was not impossible
to carry out given his 29 years in service, he
surely knows his way around. (expanded
meaning of official duties)
PD 46
PD 749
GRAFT AND CORRUPTION
RA 1379
Almeda vs. Perez
• Case where the accused is an NBI director
and was charged with violation of the Anti-
Graft Law bec his salary was out of prop with
his present acquisition of cash and properties.
• Test to determine whether a proceeding is
cibvil or criminal: forfeiture proceedings may
either be civil or criminal in nature and may
be in rem or in personam.
• If the proceeding does not involve the
conviction of the wrongdoer for the offense
charged the proceeding is of a civil nature
and under the statutes which specifically so
provide, where the act or omission for which
the forfeiture is imposed is not also a
misdemeanor, such forfeiture may be sued for
and recovered in a civil action.
• The proceeding in Anti-Graft Law is not a
criminal proceeding bec it does not terminate
in the imposition of a penalty but merely in
the forfeiture of the properties illegally
acquired in favor of the State and bec the
procedure outlined therein leading to
forfeiture is that provided in a civil action.
Cabal vs. Kapunan
• Case where the AFP chief of staff was
charged with graft and corruption and his
defense was his rights against self-
incrimination.
• Proceedings for forfeiture of peoperty are
deemed criminal or penal and hence, the
exemption of defendants in criminal cases
from the obligation to be witness against
themselves are applicable thereto.
• Distinguished from Almeda v.s Perez, wherein
an amendment in the information was
allowed bec it is only civil in nature however
this doctrine refers to the purely procedural
aspect of the said proceeding and has no
bearing on the substantial rights of the
respondents therein particularly their
constitutional right against self-incrimination.
Republic vs. CA
• Case where the Staff Engr of the Reg Office
of the Bureau of Public Highways in Cebu was
charged with graft and corruption but was
later able to justify the acquired properties
and wealth.
• Law creates a presumption against the public
officer or employee who acquires property
grossly disproportionate to his income i.e.
that the property was unlawfully acquired.
Duman \ I-E \ CRIM I \ Prof. Gutierrez \ Page 9
This presumption is juris tantum. It may be
rebutted by the public officer or employee by
showing to the satisfaction of the court that
his acquisition of the property was lawful.
• In determining whether of not there is
unexplained wealth under RA 1379 the courts
are not bound by the statements of assets
and liabilities filed by the resp. The statute
affords the resp every opportunity to explain
to the satisfaction of the court how he had
acquired the property in question.
RA 3019
Morfe vs Mutuc
• Case where the constitutionality of RA 3019
was challenged bec it infringes liberty.
• To declare a law unconstitutional, the
infringement of constitutional rights must be
clear, categorical, and undeniable. While in
the attainment of public good, no
infringement of clear, categorical, and
undeniable, that what the Constitution
condemns, the statue allows. In other words,
to declare a law unconstitutional, such
constitutional violation must be clear and
categorical.
•
Jaravata vs. Sandiganbayan
• Case where the teacher received payments
from other teachers for the release of their
salary differentials.
• There is no law which invests the petitioner
with the power to intervene in the payment of
the salary differentials of the complainants or
anyone for that matter. Far from exercising
any power, the petitioner plated the humble
role of a supplicant whose mission was to
expedite payment of the salary differentials.
In his official capacity as assistant principal,
he is not required by law to intervene in the
payment of the salary differentials.
Accordingly, he cannot be said to have
violated the law aforecited although he
exerted efforts to facilitate the payment of
the salary differentials.
• Sec 3 (b) of RA 3019 refers to a public officer
whose official intervention is required by law
in a contract or transaction. (“in his pofficial
capacity has to intervene under the law”).
Trieste vs. Sandiganbayan

• Case where the Mayor has signed vouchers
where he has granted the bidding to Trigen
where he is also the President and a major
stockholder.
• What the Anti-Graft Law prohibits is the
actual interevention by a public official in the
transaction in which he has a financial
interest. What is contemplated in section 3(h)
of the law is the actual intervention in the
transaction in which one has financial or
pecuniary interest in order that liability may
attach.
• The official need not dispose his shares in the
corporation as long as he dons not do
anything for the firm in its contract with the
office. For the law iams to prevent dominant
use of influecen, atuhoroty and power.
Mejorada vs. Sandiganbayan
• Case of the Engr who has negotiated with the
house and lot owners for the construction of
a road and the complainants alleged that
they were divested of a large proportion of
their claims and receiving payment in an
amount even lower that the actual damage
they incurred.
• Section 3 cited above enumerates in eleven
subsections the corrupot practices of any
public officer declared unlawful. Its reference
to any public officer is without distinction or
qualification and it specifies the acts declared
unlawful. The last sentence of the par (e) is
intended to make clear the inclusion of
officers and employees of offices or govt corp
which under the ordinary concept of public
officers may not come within the term. It is a
strained construction of the provision to read
it as applying exclusively to public officers
charged with the duty of granting licenses
and permits or other concessions.
PLUNDER
RA 7080
Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan
MALVERSATION
Labatagos vs. Sandiganbayan
• Case of the pregnant cashier and collecting
officer who filed for an LOA but still went to
the office to collect tuition fees and other fees
for the uniform of the basketball team of the
school.
• Malversation consists not inly in
misappropriation or converting public funds
or property to one’s personal use but also
knowingly allowing others to make use or of
misappropriate them.
Estepa vs. Sandiganbayan
• Paymaster case.
• In crime of malversation, all that is necessary
for conviction is proof that accountable officer
had received the public funds and that he did
not have them in his possession when
demand therefore was made and he could not
satisfactorily explain his failure so to account.
• An accountable officer may be convicted for
malversation even if there is not direct
evidence of personal misappropriation where
he has not been able to explain satisfactorily
the absence of the funds involved.
• Under 217 there is prima facie evidence of
malverdation where the accountable public
officer fails to have duly forthcoming any
public funds with which he is chargeable upon
demand by duly authorized officer.
Ilogon vs. Sandiganbayan
• Vales case.
• The fact that petitioner did not personally use
the missing funds is not a valid defense and
will not exculpate him from his criminal
liability. And as aptly found by respondent
Sandiganbayan, the fact the immediate
superiors of the accused have acquiesced to
the practice of giving out case advances for
convenience did not legalize the
disbursements.
Azarcon vs. Sandiganbayan
Duman \ I-E \ CRIM I \ Prof. Gutierrez \ Page 10
• Case where Azarcon was requested by the
Director of the BIR to distraint the goods,
chattels or other props of Ancla bec a
delinquent taxpayer.
• Although sec 206 of the NIRC authorizes the
BIR to effect a constructive distraint by
requiring any person to preserve distrained
prop there is no provision in the NIRC
constituting such person a public officer by
reason of such requirement. The BIR’s power
authorizing a private indiv to act as
depositary cannot be stretched to include the
power to appoint him as a public officer.
• Consideration of ART. 222 private indiv as
public officer. SC ruled that a private indiv
who has in his charge any of the public funds
or prop enumerated and commits any of the
acts defined should likewise be penelized with
the same penalty meted to erring public
officers. Nowhere in the said provision is it
expressed or implied that a private indiv be
deemed a public officer. Azarcon and Ancla,
his co-accused, are both private indivs.
INFIDELITY IN THE CUSTODY OF PRISONERS
Rodillas vs. Sandiganbayan
• Case where the police allowed the woman to
go to the CR without inspecting first if there
was a way for her to escape.
• It was improper for pet to allow pris to have
lunch with family when he was supposed to
bring the pris back to jail which is 1K away
from the sala of the judge. It is his duty to
take necessary precautions to assure the
absence of any means of escape. A failure to
undertake these precautions will make his act
one of definite laxity of negligence amounting
to deliberate non-performance of duty.
Crimes Against Persons
PARRICIDE
People vs. Jumawan
• Presentacion should have been accused of
parricide but her relationship with deceased is
not alleged in the information, she, like the
others, can be convicted of murder only
qualified by abuse of superior strength.

• Although not alleged in the information,
relationship is an aggravating circumstance
aand should be assigned against appellants.
Relationship is inherent in parricide but she
stands convicted of murder. As to the others,
the relationships of father-in-law and brother-
in-law aggravate the crime. Penalty for
murder with aggravating circ is death but
there is a lack of the necessary votes
therefore, reclusion perpetua.
People vs. Tomotorgo
• Art. 49 not apply to cases where more
serious consequences not intended by the
offender result from his felonious act bec
under art. 4, par 1 of the same Code, he is
liable for all the direct and natural
consequences of his unlawful act. His lact of
intention to commit so grave a wrong is, at
best, mitigating.
• People vs. Alburquerque: Art 49 applies only
to cases where the crime committed is
different from that intended and where the
felony committed befalls a different person.
• People vs. Laureano et. Al.: Art 246 of the
RPC punishes parricide with the penalty of
reclusion perptua to death, which are two
indivisible penalties. As the commission of the
act was attended by mitigating circ with no
aggrav, the lesser penalty, which is rec
perpetua should be imposed.
• SC held that the fact that appellant intended
to maltreat the victim only or inflict physical
injuries does not exempt him from liability for
the resulting more serious crime.
DEATH OR PHYSICAL INJURIES INFLICTED UNDER
EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
People vs. Abarca
• Elements of Art. 247: a. legally married
surprises spouse in the act of sex with
another person b. that he kills any or both of
them in the act or immediately after. These
elements present in the case.
• Although an hour has passed bet the sex act
and the shooting of Koh, the shooting must
be understtod to be the continuation of the
pursuit of the victim by the accused.
• Art only requires that the death caused be
the proximate result of the outrage
overwhelming the accused after chancing
upon his spouse in the basest act of infidelity.
But the killing should have been actually
motivated by the same blind impulse and
must not have been influenced by external
factors.
MURDER AND HOMICIDE
People vs. Buensuceso
• Case where the policeman was trying to get
the knife from Tayag and eventually led to a
chase and killed Tayag.
• Where several assailants inflicted wounds on
a victim but it cannot be determined who
inflicted which wound, all the assailants are
liable for victim’s death.
•
People vs. Pugay
• There is nothing in the records that shows
that there was a precious conspiracy or unity
of criminal purpose and intention bet the two
accused immediately before the crime. There
was no animosity and their meeting at the
scene of the crime was accidental. They only
want to make fun of the deceased.
• There is an absence of intent to kill and that
his act was just part of their fun-making that
evening. Treachery-deliberate attack and
employing means to insure its execution
removing any form of defense from the
offended party.
• His act however doesn’t relieve him of crim
resp. Burning the clothes of victim would
cause at the very least some kind of physical
injury.
• ART 4, criminal liability shall be incurred by
any person committing a felony although the
wrongful act done be different from what is
intended.
• Pugay was convicted of Homicide thru
reckless imprudence and Samson was
convicted of Homicide.
UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION
People vs. Salufrania
• Parricide with unintentional abortion. No
evidence to show that accused had the
Duman \ I-E \ CRIM I \ Prof. Gutierrez \ Page 11
intention to cause an abortion. Appellant
alleges that, assuming he indeed killed his
wife, there is no evidence to show that he
had the intention to cause an abortion. In this
contention, appellant is correct. He should
not be held guilty of the complex crime of
Parricide with Intentional Abortion but of the
complex crime of Parricide with Unintentioanl
Abortion. It has not been established that
there was intent to cause abortion.
HAZING
RA 8049
RAPE
RA 8353
People vs. Orita
• 16-year old nirape sa boarding house. Babae
tumakas nang nakahubo.
• Perfect penetration is not essential for the
consummation of rape—clearly in the crime of
rape, from the moment the offender has
carnal knowledge of his victim he actually
attains his purpose and from that moment
also all the essential elements of the offense
have been accomplished. Nothing more is left
to be done by the offender because he has
performed the last act necessary to produce
the crime. Thus, the felony is consummated.
• Uniform has been set that for the
consummation of rape, perfect penetration is
not essential. Any penetration of the female
organ by the male organ is sufficient. Entry of
the labia or lips of the female organ, without
rupture of the hymen or laceration of the
vagina is sufficient to warrant conviction.
Necessarily, rape is attempted if there is no
penetration of the female organ bec not all
acts of execution was performed. The
offender merely commenced the commission
of a felony directly by overt acts.
People vs. Mangalino

• 6-year old, Grade I pupil, nirape ni Lolo.
Binigyan ng P2.00.
• In Statutory rape, proof of intimidation or
force used on the victim or lack of it is
immaterial. Carnal knowledge with a woman
below 12 years of age is statutory rape.
• Full penetration is not required. It is enough
that there is proof of entrance of the male
organ within the labia or pudendum of the
female organ. Slightest penetration enough
to consummate the crime.
People vs. Balbuena
• Tomboy na nirape.
• Absence of injury on victim and absence of
torn dresses and underwear does not negate
truth of rape complaint and credibility of
victim’s testimony.
• Description of a typical Filipina. That a Filipina
could not easily decide to come out in the
open and be subjected to public contempt
and ridicule.
People vs. Castro
• Si Kuya pinatayo si Diana sa inodoro at doon
minolestiya. Diana 6 years old.
• Entry, to the least extent, of the labia or lips
of the female organ is sufficient.
People vs. Atento
• Rape with a 17-year old retardate who claims
that sex was “masarap”. Intellect of a 9-12
year-old kid.
• If sexual intercourse with a victim under
twelve years of age is rape, the it should
follow that carnal knowledge with a 17-year
old whose mental capacity is that of a 7-year
old would constitute rape. “This is even so
even if the circumstances of force and
intidmidation or of the victim being deprived
of reason or otherwise unconscious are
absent.
People vs. Campuhan
• Nahuli ni nanay si houseboy na
pinagtangkaang rape-in ang 4-year old na
anak.
• Touching when applied to rape cases does not
simply mean mere epidermal contact,
stroking or grazing of organs, aslight brush or
scrape of the penis on the external layer of
the victim’s vagina, or the mons pubis—there
must be sufficient and convincing proof that
the penis indeed touched the labias or slid
into the female organ and not merely stroked
the external surface thereof, for an accused
to be convicted of consummated rape.
• In People vs. De la Pena we clarified that the
decisions finding a case for rape even if the
attacker’s penis merely touched the external
portions of the female genitalia were made in
the context of the presence or existence of an
erect penis capable of full penetration. Where
the accused failed to achieve an erection, had
a limp or flaccid penis or an oversized penis
which could not fit into the victim’s vagina,
the Court nonetheless held that rape was
consummated on the basis of the vicitm’s
testimony that the accused repeatedly tried
but in vain to insert his penis into her vagina
and in all likelihood reached the labia of her
pudendum as the victim felt his organ on the
lips of her vulva, or that the penis of the
accused touched the middle part of her
vagina.
• And the labias, which are required to be
touched by the penis, are by their natural
situs or location beneath the mons pubis or
the vaginal surface, to touch them with the
penis is to attain some degree of penetration
beneath the surface, hence, the conclusion
that touching the labia majora or the labia
minors of the pudendum constitutes
consummated rape.
People vs. Gallo
• Accused wanted to apply retroactivity of
doctrine in subsequent cases to make his
penalty reclusion perpetua instead of death.
• The additional attendant circumstances
introduced by RA 7659 should be considered
as special qualifying circumstances distinctly
aaplicable to the crime of rape and if not
pleaded as such could only be appreciated as
generic aggravating circumstances. The Court
in the case of People vs. Garcia ratiocinated
that the additiona lattnedant circumstances
introduced by RA 7659 should be considered
as special qualifying circumstances distinctly
applicable to the crime of rape and if not
pleaded as such could only be appreciated as
generic aggravating circumstances.
Duman \ I-E \ CRIM I \ Prof. Gutierrez \ Page 12
• Accused-appellant’s relationship to the victim
although proven but not alleged in the
information, cannot be considered to be
qualifying circumstance—the bove indictment
has not specifically alleged that the accused-
appellant is the victim’s father; accordingly,
accused-appellant’s relationship to the victim
although proven during the trial cannot be
considered to be a qualifying circumstance.
People vs. Berana
• Brother-in-law raped the 14-year old sister of
his wife with consent of the young child. Guy
claims he was seduced.
• Proof of external injuries inflicted on the
complainant is not indispensable in a
prosecution for rape committed with force or
violence.
• Affinity is defined as the rlation which one
spouse bec of marriage has to blood relatives
of the other. The connection existing, in
consequence of marriage bet each othe
married persons and the kindred of the other.
To effectively prosecute accused-aplealng for
the crim of rape committed by a relative by
affinity within the third civil degree, it must
be established that a) he is legally married to
the complainant’s sister and b) complainant
and accused-appellant’s wife are full or half
blood siblings.
RA 9262
PART II
Crimes Against Personal Liberty and Security
KIDNAPPING AND ILLEGAL DETENTION
People vs. Tomio
• Japanese guy was tricked by his countrymen.
• Even granting for the sake of argument that,
in effect, there was created a simple loan
contract bet appellants and Mr. Nagao, as
asserted by the appellant, the deprivation of
the former’s liberty until the amount shall
have been fully “paid” to them, is still
kidnapping or illegal detention for ransom. In
People vs. Akiran-If the kidnapping were to

compel the victim to fulfill his promise
defraying the hospital expenses of a brother
of one of the accused, there is still kidnapping
for ransom, since if that were indeed the
purpose, the accused need not kidnap the
victim.
People vs. Mercado
• Sister of the “wife” was dragged and kept in a
store until she tells the accused where her
sister is.
• Where the victim was actually restrained or
deprived of her freedom by the accused to
force her to produce her sister, the common-
law wife of the accused, the rim is not grave
coercion but illegal detention.
• Mitigating circ of obfuscation must arise from
lawful sentiments.
People vs. Del Socorro
• Accused allegedly found a girl and claimd that
the little girl voluntary went with her. Gave
her to a physician in Rizal.
• Obiter: The court here commented- to cut
down on the illicit traffic of children, the Court
urges the prosecution of persons to whom
children are sold or given away for a valuable
consideration. Oftentimes, it is only the
abductor or kidnapper who is prosecuted. Yet
the person to whom the kidnapped child is
given and who may have wittingly or
unwittingly given the motivation for the
abduction, goes scot-free, even as the
intention of this person is to keep and raise
the child as his own. By keeping the child,
under these circumstances, is he not guilty of
serious illegal detention?
People vs. Lim
• There is no kidnapping when the fact of
detention which is an essential element of the
crime charged, was not clearly established.
• There is no kidnapping in this case. The two
minors voluntarily entered the appellant’s
residence. The fact of detention which is an
essential element in the crime charged was
not clearly established. There was no showing
that there was actual confinement or
restriction of the person of the offended
party. There was no indication that Aida was
locked up, physically restrained of her liberty
or unable to communicate with anyone.
People vs. Padica
• Crime committed was murder, not kidnapping
for ransom with murder. Purpose of taking
the victim was to kill him. Where the taking
of the victim was incidental to the basic
purpose to kill, the crime is only murder, and
this is true even if, before the killing but for
the purposes thereof, the victim was taken
from one place to anther. Thus, where the
evident purpose of taking the victims was to
kill them, and from the acts of the accused it
cannot be inferred that the latter’s purpose
was actually to detain or deprive the victims
of their liberty, the subsequent killing of the
victims constitutes the crime of murder,
hence the crime of kidnapping does not exist
and cannot be considered as a component
felony to produce a complex crime of
kidnapping with murder. In Masilang case,
although the accused had planned to kidnap
the victim for ransom but they first killed him
and it was only later that they demanded and
obtained the money, such demand for ransom
did not convert the crime into kidnapping
since no detention or deprivation of liberty
was involved, hence he crime committed was
only murder.
People vs. Ramos
• Si Ninang kinidnap at hiningan ng pera
pambayad dahil asawa manganganak.
• The essence of the crime of kidnapping as
defined and penalized is actual deprivation of
the victim’s liberty coupled with an
indubitable proof of intent on the part of the
malefactor to effect such restraint on the
offended party’s liberty. The term “actual
deprivation of liberty” consists not only of
placing a person in an enclosure but also of
detaining a person or depriving him in any
manner of his liberty.
• For kidnapping to exist, it is not necessary
that the offended party be kept within an
enclosure to restrict her freedom of
locomotion. It is not enough that, as in the
instant case, she was in any manner deprived
Duman \ I-E \ CRIM I \ Prof. Gutierrez \ Page 13
of her liberty, unable to move—and get out—
as she pleased.
KIDNAPPING AND FAILURE TO RETURN A MINOR
People vs. Ty
• Kidnapping and failure to return a Minor. The
essential element of the crime is that the
offender is entrusted with the custody of the
minor but what is actually punishable is not
the kidnapping of the minor but rather the
deliberate failure or refusal of the custodian
of the minor to restore the latter to his
parents or guardians. –the essential element
herein is that the offender is entrusted with
the custody of the minor but what is actually
punishable is not the kidnapping of the minor,
as the title of the article seems to indicate,
but rather the deliberate failure or refusal of
the custodian of minor to restore the latter to
his parents or guardians. Said failure or
refusal, however, must not only be deliberate
but must also be persistent as to oblige the
parents or the guardians of the child to seek
the aid of the courts in order to obtain
custody. The key word therefore of this
element is deliberate.
RA 7610
ABANDONMENT OF ONE’S VICTIM
Lamera vs. CA
• Accused was charged with reckless
imprudence resulting in damage to property
with multiple physical injuries and
abandonment of one’s victim. He files against
double jeopardy.
• The articles 365 and 275 are two different
and distinct offenses. Quasi-offense under
365 are committed by means of culpa.
Crimes against Security are committed by
means of dolo.
• In 365, failure to lend help to one’s victim is
neither an offense by itself nor an element of
the offense therein penalized.
• The identity of offenses that must be shown
need not be absolute identity: the first and

second offenses may be regarded as the
same offense where the second offense
necessarily includes the first offense or is
necessarily included in such first offense or
where the second offense is an attempt to
commit the first or a frustration thereof.
• For the constitutional plea of double jeopardy
to be available, no all the technical elements
constituting the first offense need be present
in the technical definition of the second
offense.
GRAVE THREATS
People vs. Timbol
• The husband was asked by the accused if he
can be alone with the accused’s wife and
there he molested the wife.
• Acts of lasciviousness: pardon which was not
given by the offended party herself, but by
her husband and that the same was granted
by the latter after the filing of the complain
cannot extinguish the criminal resp of the
accused for even a pardon givben after the
presentation of the complaint will not operate
in favor of the accused and exonerate him.
• The aggravating circ of craft and dwelling are
present in the commission.
• The threats that were not made by the
accused to the offended party but to his wife
while said accused was abusing her, which
form part of the element of intimidation that
the accused employed to succeed in his lewd
designs, cannot be considered separate and
independent from the crime of abuse of
chastity to constitute another crime of
threats.
Reyes vs. People
• “Agustin, putang ina mo” case.
• 282 elements:
a. that the offender threatened another person
with the infliction upon his person of a wrong
b. that such wrong amounted to a crime
c. that the threat was not subject to a condition
• The demonstration led by petitioner against
the complainant in front of the main gate
with placards with threatening statements
with the deliberate purpose of creating in the
mind of the person threatened with the belief
that the threat would be carried into effect.
• Where the expression putang ina mo is not
considered slanderous—the is a common
expression in the dialect that is often
employed not really to slander but rather to
express anger or displeasure. It is seldom, if
ever, taken in its literal sense by the hearer,
that is a reflection on the virtue of a mother.
GRAVE COERCION
Timoner vs. People
• Mayor fenced public nuisance.
• Abatement of public nuisance without judicial
proceedings, municipal mayor not criminally
liable when he acted in good faith in
authorizing the fencing of a barbershop for
being a public nuisance bec it occupied a
portion of the sidewalk. Art 699 authorizes
the abatement of a public nuisance without
judicial proceedings.
• Grave coercion is committed when a person
who without authority of law, shall by means
of iolence, prevent another from doing
something not prohibited by law or compel to
do something against his will either it be right
or wrong.
• Elements:
a. that any person be prevented by another
from doing something not prohibited by law,
or compelled to do something against his will,
be it right or wrong.
b. That the prevention or compulsion be
effected by violence, either by material force
or such display of it as would produce
intimidation and control the will of the
offended party
c. That the person who restrained the will and
liberty of another had no right to do so, or, in
other words, that the restraint was not made
under authority of law or in the exercise of a
lawful right.
Lee vs. CA
• Check which was forged by the complainant.
She charged the bank manager of grave
coercion.
• There is nothing unlawful on the threat to
sue. Petitioner’s demand that the private resp
return the proceeds of the check
accompanied by a threat to file criminal
charges was not improper. There is nothing
unlawful on the threat to sue.
Duman \ I-E \ CRIM I \ Prof. Gutierrez \ Page 14
• The force which is claimed to have compelled
criminal conduct against the will of the actor
must be immediate and continuous and
threaten grave danger to his person during
allof the time the act is being committed.
That is, it must be a dangerous force
threatened “in praesenti”. It must be a force
threatening great bodily harm that remains
constant in controlling the will of the unwilling
participant while the act is being performed
and from which he cannot withdraw in safety.
UNJUST VEXATION
People vs. Reyes
• Accused fenced a land which they alleged
belong to them since the Church which stood
on the land they have donated was destroyed
(11 pm while pabasa was being held).
• The construction of a fence, even though
irritating and vexatious under the
circumstances to those present is not such an
act as can be designated as notiously
offensive to the faithful as normally such an
act would be a matter of complete
indifference to those not present, no matter
how religious a turn of mind they might be.
The accused here were just convicted of
unjust vexation.
People vs. Anonuevo
• The accused grabbed the breasts of the
complainant from behind while a religious
ceremony was being held inside the church.
• Unjust vexation if no lustful designs present.
Considering the religious atmosphere
prevailing at the time the accused kissed and
embraced the offended girl and the presence
of many people it would be error in the
absece of clear proof as to the motive, to
ascribe the conduct of the appellant to lustful
designs or purposes. The accused should be
declared guilty of unjust vexation, with the
aggravating circumstance of having
committed it in a place dedicated to religious
worship.
Crimes Against Property
ROBBERY
Napolis vs. CA

• Store vs. House case—robbery thru the store
to the house.
• That where robbery, though committed in a
inhabited house, is characterized by
intimidation, this factor supplies the
controlling qualification so that the law to
apply is article 294 and not art 299 of the
RPC. This is on the theory that robbery which
is characterized by violence or intimidation
against the person is evidently graver than
ordinary robbery committed by force upon
things, because where violence or
intimidation against the person is present
there is greater disturbance of the order of
society and the security of the indivual.
• Indeed, one who, by breaking a wall, enters,
with a deadly weapon, an inhabited house
and steals therefrom valuable effects, without
violence against or intimidation upon persons
is punishable under 299 RPC with reclusion
temporal. Pursuant to the above view,
adhered to in previous decisions, if, aside
from performing said acts, the thief lays hand
upon any person, without committing any of
the crimes or inflicting any of the injuries
mentioned in subparagraphs 1 to 4 of Art 294
of the same Code, the imposable penalty
under par 5 shall be much lighter. This defies
logic and reason accdg to the court.
• Violence or intimidation against the person is
evidently grabber than ordinary robbery
committed by force upon things. Art. 294
applies only where robbery with violence
against or intimidation of person takes place
without entering an inhabited house, under
the conditions set forth in ART 299 of the
RPC. Crime is a complex one under Art. 48.
Doctrines of prev cases were abandoned.
People vs. Biruar
• Accused pretended to be relatives and when
they were allowed to come up the house,
they robbed the house. They then burned a
house also in the same neighborhood after
they got the gun and some properties from
the previous house and then to another.
• Accused were charged with 3 separate crimes
of robbery in Band.
• Herein accused performed different acts with
distinct purposes which resulted in juridically
independent crimes. The burning of the
house of George Kalitas was not the means in
committing the robbery. The evidence shows
that the accused gained entry into the house
of Kalitas by breaking the door with an axe
and not but burning the same.
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE
People vs. Mangulabnan
• Case where the father hid himself inside the
ceiling.
• Crime of robbery with homicide when may
exist.—In order to determine the existence of
the crime of robbery with homicide, it sis
enough that a homicide would result by
reason or on the occasion of the robbery and
it is immaterial that the death would
supervene by mere accident provided that
the homicide be produced by reason or on
occasion of the robbery inasmuch as it only
the result obtained, without reference or
distinction as to the circumstances, causes,
modes or persons intervening in the
commission of the crime, that has to be taken
into consideration.
• There is conspiracy and all of the persons
who perpetuated the robbery are liable of the
crime of robbery with homicide.
People vs. Calixto
• Robbed the bank and one of the robbers was
accidentally hit and eventually died. No
suspect as to who caused the death.
• Members of a group of robbers can be held
criminally liable for robbery in band with
homicide where in course of robbery they
shot and killed one of their own group.
People vs. Pecato
• The relatives of the victim were the ones who
killed him and before they did so, they asked
him if he recognizes them.
• Actual Participation in the Homicide is not
necessary unless it clearly appeared that the
accused endeavored to prevent the homicide
—As long as the homicide resulted during or
because of, the robbery, even if the killing is
by mere accident, robbery with homicide is
committed; it is only the result obtained,
without reference or distinction as to the
circumstances, causes, modes, or persons
intervening in the commission of the crime
Duman \ I-E \ CRIM I \ Prof. Gutierrez \ Page 15
that has to be taken into consideration.
Further, whenever a homicide has been
committed as a consequence of or on the
occasion of a robbery, all those who took part
as principals in the commission of the crime
are also guilty as principals in the special
complex crime of robbery with homicide
although they did not actually take part in the
homicide unless it clearly appeared that they
endeavored to prevent the homicide.
People vs. Tapales
• Hinoldup yung mag-boyfriend sa taxi tapos
nirape yung babae at pinatay yung lalaki.
• Robbery with homicide-where the crime
charged is robbery with homicide and rape,
the legal definition of the crime is robbery
with homicide with rape considered as an
aggravating circumstance.
• The Court has consistently held that the legal
definition of the crime committed herein is
Robbery with Homicide, with Rape being
considered an aggravating circumstance. It is
the uniform jurisprudence of the Supreme
Court that where the crime charged is
robbery with homicide and rape, the legal
definition of the crime is robbery with
homicide punishable under par 1, Art 294 of
the RPC and the rape committed on the
occasion of that the crime is considered an
aggravating circumstance. Instead of
ignominy, therefore, it is the rape itself that
aggravates.
People vs. Quinones
• Robbed a car by putting sacks on the road
and committed multiple murder.
• Special complex crime-there is no crime of
robbery with multiple homicide under the RPC
the number of persons killed is immaterial
and does not increase the penalty under 294
of the said Code—The Court finds that the
accused were incorrectly sentenced by the
trial court. The reason is that there is no
crime robbery with multiple homicide under
the RPC. The charge should have been for
robbery with homicide only regardless of the
fact that three persons were killed in the
commission of the robbery. In this special
complex crime, the number of persons killed
is immaterial and does not increase the
penalty in Art 294.

• Reclusion perpetua even when multiple
killings were present. One penalty.
ROBBERY WITH RAPE
People vs. Patola
• Accused were drinking beer in front of the
store and when it was closing time already,
raped the 2 salesgirls.
• Robbery with rape with the use of a deadly
weapon, a complex crime. Penalty for robbery
with qualified rape under Art. 294(2) or 335.
There used to be a controversy as to whether
robbery with qualified rape should be
penalized under Art. 294 (2) or under 335
which imposes a penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death. That controversy was set
at rest where it was held that robbery with
qualified rape should be punished under Art.
294 (2). It should be stressed that in this
case the accused were not charged with
qualified rape alone, a crime against chastity,
but with robbery with rape, a crime against
property. The trial court applied in this case
Art. 335. It regarded article 294(2) as having
been amended by Art. 335. That is why it
imposed the death penalty.
People vs. Dinola
• Case where a 34 laborer raped a 17-year old
girl then robbed her watch after raping her.
• If the original design was to commit rape but
the accused after committing rape also
committed robbery bec the opportunity
presented itself, the criminal acts should be
viewed as two distinct offenses, The taking of
the watch by the accused was more of an
afterthought, even accidental. If the intention
of the accused was to commit robbery but
rape was also committed even before the
robbery, the crime of robbery with rape is
committed. However, if the original design
was to commit rape but the accused after
committing rape also committed robbery bec
the opportunity presented itself, the criminal
acts should be viewed as two distinct
offenses.
People vs. Moreno
• The house was robbed and the maids were
raped but the maids didn’t testify as witness.
They only executed affidavits.
• One who did not take part in rape but only in
robbery is guilty only of robbery. Dwelling,
nighttime and use of vehicle aggravating n
rape.
• Accused Juan Moreno, who took no part in
the rape is guilty of robbery only under 294
(5) of the RPC but as to the accused who
raped the maid guilty of the special complex
crime of robbery with rape under 294 (2) of
the RPC. But there are aggravating circ which
have to be considered such as dwelling,
nocturnity and the use of a motor vehicle.
People vs. Balacanao
• A house was robbed and the wife was raped
by the robbers. It was supposed to be the
young girl but she was spared.
• All the conspirators-participants are liable as
principals of the crime of robbery with rape.
• Every complaint or information should state
not only the qualifying but also the
aggravating circumstances.
ROBBERY WITH PHYSICAL INJURIES
People vs. Salvilla
• Robbery; from the moment the offender
gained possession of the thing, even if the
culprit had no opportunity to dispose of the
same, the unlawful taking is complete. It is
no defense either that appellant and his co-
accused had no opportunity to dispose of the
personal things taken. That fact does not
affect the nature of the crime. From the
moment the offender gained possession of
the thing, even if the culprit had no
opportunity to dispose of the same, the
unlawful taking is complete.
• The crime of serious illegal detention was
such a necessary means as it was selected by
appellant and his co-accused to facilitate and
carry out their evil design to stage a robbery.
Under Art 48, a complex crime arises “when
an offense is a necessary means for
committing the other”. The term “necessary
means” does not connote indispensable
means for if did then the offense as a
“necessary means” to commit another would
be an indispensable element of the latter and
Duman \ I-E \ CRIM I \ Prof. Gutierrez \ Page 16
would be an ingredient thereof. The phrase
“necessary means” merely signifies that one
crime is committed to facilitate and insure the
commission of the other.
ROBBERY IN BAND
People vs. Apduhan
• Robbery with homicide-interrelation among
art 294, 295, 296 of the RPC.
• 295 provies that when the offenses dexcribed
in subdivisions 3, 4, 5 of 295 are committed
by a band, the proper penalties must be
imposed in the maximum. The circumstances
of band is therefore qualifying ony in robbery
punished by sub 3, 4, 5 or 294.
Consequently, art 295 is inapplicable with
homicide, rape, intentional mutilation, and
lesions graves resulting in insanity, imbecility,
impotency or blindness. If the foregoing
classes of robbery which are described in 294
1 and 2 are perpetrated by a band, they
would not be punishable under 295 but then
cuadrilla would be a generic aggravating circ
under art. 14. There is no crime as robbery
with homicide under 294(1) but the element
of band, as stated above, would be
appreciated as ordinary aggravating circ.
• With regard to their use of unlicensed
firearm, in order for this to be appreciated as
special aggravating circ to justify the
imposition of the max period of the proper
penalty, it is a condition sine qua non that the
offense charged be robbery committed by a
band within the contemplation of Art. 295.
Since 295 does not apply to subdivisions 1
and 2 of 294 (the accused is charged under
294(1), then the special aggravating factor in
question which is solely applicable to robbery
in band under 295 cannot be considered in
fixing the penalty even when the crime was
committed by a band and the use of
unlicensed firearm.
ROBBERY BY THE USE OF FORCE UPON THINGS
People vs. Jaranilla
• Taking of six roosters.
• One essential requisite of robbery with force
upon things under 299 and 302 is that the
malefactor should enter the building or
dependency where the object to be taken is

found. Art 299 and 302 clearly contemplate
that the malefactor should enter the building.
If the culprit did not enter the building, there
would be no robbery with force upon things.
• Building-any structure not mentioned in 299
used for storage and safekeeping of personal
property.
• It is not an indispensable element of theft
that the thief carry, more or less far away,
the thing taken by him from its owner.
HIGHWAY ROBBERY
CARNAPPING
PD 532
RA 6539
People vs. Puno
People vs. Dela Cruz
• Conspiracy need not be established by direct
evidence of the acts charged, but may and
generally must be proved by a number of
indefinite acts, condition and circumstances
which vary according to the purpose to be
accomplished. The existence of conspiracy
may be inferred from acts tending to show a
community of design or purpose.
• Even if the sworn statements of appellants
Beloso and Salvador are declared
inadmissible for having been given without
the presence of counsel, their culpability is
borne out by evidence independent of the
same. Their liability was proven by the
physical evidence on record.
• Carnapping with homicide-carnapping defined
as the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor
vehicle belonging to another without the
latter’s consent, or by means of violence
against or intimidation of persons, or by
using force upon things. There is a graduation
of penalty for carnapping alone, carnapping
with intimidation of persons and force upon
things and carnapping with homicide.
Izon vs. People
• Vehicles which use streets with or without the
required license comes withing the protection
of the law. Highways are always public, free
for the use of every person. There is nothing
in the law that requires a license to use a
public highway to make the vehicle a “motor
vehicle” within the definition given the anti-
carnapping law. Ex. Test runs of vehicles
before being bought.
• Tricycle considered as motor vehicle. Any
vehicle which is motorized using the streets
which are public, not exclusively for private
use, comes within the concept of motor
vehicle. Tricycle is not included in the
exceptions and is deemed to be that kind of
motor vehicle defined.
• For kidnapping to exist, there must be
indubitable proof that the actual intent of the
malefactors was to deprive the offended party
of her luberty and not where such restraint of
her freedom of action was merly an incident
in the commission of another offense
primarirly intended by the offenders.
• Ransom is the money price or consideration
paid or demanded for redemption of a
captured person or persons, a payment that
releases from captivity vs. cash and checks
given at gunpoint voluntarily.
• PD 532 is not a modification of ART 267 of
the RPC on kidnapping and serious illegal
detention but of 306 and 307 on brigandage.
• The main objective of the Brigandage Law is
to prevent the formation of a band by more
than three armed persons for the purposes
indicated in 306. On the other hand, if
robbery is committed by a band, whose
members were not primarily organized for the
purpose of committing robbery or kidnapping
etc the crime would not be brigandage but
only robbery.
• The purpose of brigandage is, inter alia,
indiscriminate highway robbery. If the
purpose is only a particular robbery, the
crime is only robbery, or robbery in band if
there are at least four armed participants.
• PD 532 punishes as highway robbery or
brigandage only acts of robbery perpetrated
by outlaws indiscriminately against any
person or persons on Phil highways as
defined therein and not acts of robbery
Duman \ I-E \ CRIM I \ Prof. Gutierrez \ Page 17
committed against only a predetermined or
particular victim.
People vs. Pulusan
• A conviction for highway robbery requires
proof that he accused were organized for the
purpose of committing robbery
indiscriminately. As manifest in its preamble,
the object of the decree is to deter and
punish lawless elements who commit acts of
depredation upon persons or properties of
innocent and defenseless inhabitants who
travel from one place to another thereby
disturbing the peace and tranquility of the
nation and stunting the economic and social
progress of the people. A conviction for
highway robbery requires proof that the
accused were organized for the purpose of
committing robbery indiscriminately. There is
no such proof in this case. Neither proof of
indiscriminate robbery.
CATTLE RUSTLING
PD 533
Taer vs. CA
• Yung kalabaw na pinaalaga kay Taer.
• Mere approval of an act without cooperation
does not constitute conspiracy. Mere
knowledge, acquiescence to, or approval of
the act, without cooperation or agreement to
cooperate, is not enough to constitute one a
part to a conspiracy absent the intentional
participation in the transaction with a view to
the furtherance of the common design and
purpose.
• A person who took care of stolen carabaos, a
mere accessory. At most the facts establish
Taer’s knowledge of the crime. At yet without
having participated either as principal or as
an accomplice, for he did not participate in
the taking of the carabaos, he took part
subsequent to the commission of the act of
taking by profiting himself by its effects.
Ordonio vs. CA
• Case where the calf went to its mom.

• Castle rustling as defined in Sec 2(C) of PD
533 is taking away by any means, methods
or schemes, without the consent of the
owner/raiser, of any of the abovementioned
animals whether or not for profit or gain, or
whether committed with or without violence
against or intimidation of any person or force
upon things .It includes the killing of large
cattle, or taking its meat or hide without the
consent of the owner/raiser.
THEFT
People vs. Gulinao
• Theft was committed, not robbery with the
use of violence against or intimidation of
person; taking of ring of victim was merely
an afterthought and the force employed in
the killing has no bearing on the taking of the
ring.
• Intent to gain is presumed from the unlawful
taking of the car.
Santos vs. People
• Case where the car was brought to a repair
shop but it wasn’t repaired and wasn’t
returned.
• Theft distinguished from estafa; if the
accused was only entrusted with de facto
possession of the thing, his misappropriation
of the same constitutes theft. The principal
distinction bet the two crimes is that in theft
the thing is taken while in estafa the accused
receives the property and converts it to his
own use or benefit. There be theft even if the
accused has possesstion of the property. If he
was entrusted only with the material or
physical (natural) or de facto possession of
the thing, his misappropriation of the same
constitutes theft, but if he has the juridical
possession of the things, his conversion of
the same constitutes embezzlement or
estafa.
THEFT OF ELECTRICITY; ILLEGAL WATER, ELECTRIC
OR TELEPHONE CONNECTIONS
PD 401; RA 7832; RA 8041
Duman \ I-E \ CRIM I \ Prof. Gutierrez \ Page 18
ILLEGAL FISHING PD 705, sec. 68
RA 8550 sec. 86 et seq.
Hizon vs. CA
Mustang Lumber, Inc. vs. CA
• Search and seizure without search warrant of
• The foregoing disquisitions should not, in any
vessles and aircrafts for violations of customs
manner, be construed as an affirmance of the
laws have been the traditional exceptions to
respondent Judge’s conclusion that lumber is
the constitutional requirement of a search
excluded from the coverage of Sec 68 of PD
warrant. It is rooted on the recognition that a
705 as amended, and thus possession thereof
vessel and an aircraft, like motor vehicles,
without the legal documents is not a crime.
can be quickly moved out of the locality or
On the contrary, this Court rules that such
jurisdiction in which the search warrant must
possession is penalized in the said section bec
be sought and secured.
lumber is included in the term timber.
• The offense of illegal fishing is committed
• Illegal Logging; Revised Forestry Code of the
when a person catches, takes or gathers or
Phil; where a lumber-dealer’s license or
causes to be caught, taken or gathered fish,
permit has been suspended, he has
fishery or aquatic products in Phil waters with
absolutely no right to possess, sell, or
the use of explosives, electricity, obnoxious or
otherwise dispose of lumber and the
poisonous substances. The law creates a
Secretary or Environment and Natural
presumption that illegal fishing has been
Resources or his authorized representative
committed when:
has the authority to seize the lumber.
a. explosives, obnoxious or poisonous
substances or equipment or device for
FENCING
electric fishing are found in a fishing boat or
in the possiosion of a fisherman
PD 1612
b. when fist caught or killed with the use of
explosives, etc are found in a fishing boat.
There is a presumption that the operator or
the fishermen are engaged in illegal fishing
ESTAFA
under these circ.
A. THROUGH UNFAITHFULNESS OF ABUSE OF
QUALIFIED THEFT
CONFIDENCE
Empelis vs. IAC
Manahan vs. CA
• How qualified and simple theft of coconuts
• Elements of estafa:
committed: Art 310 states that the crime of
a. that personal property os received in trust, on
theft shall be punished by the next higher
commission, for administration or under any
degree if the property stolen consists of
other cic involving the duty to make delivery
coconut taken from the premises of a
of or to return the same, even though the
palantation. Stealing of coconuts when they
obligation is guaranteed by a bond
are still in the tree of deposited on the
b. that there is conversion or diversion of such
ground within the premises is qualified theft.
property by the person who has so recived it
When the coconuts are stolen in any other
or a denial on his part that he received it
place, it is simple theft.
c. that such conversion, diversion or denial is to
the injury of another
d. that there be a demand for the return of the
ILLEGAL LOGGING
property.
• Although a contract of lease is not fiduciary in
PD 330
nature, still the clause “any other obligation
involving the duty to make delivery of or

return” personal properry is borad enough to
include a “civil obligation”.
• Equally essential before the offense of estafa
under 315(b) of the RPC can be considered
committed, is that the refusal or failure to
deliver or return is, in turn, predicated on
misappropriation or conversion by the
accused of the subject of the obligation.
• But it was shown that accused did exert all
efforts to recover and retrieve the dump truck
from Gorospe. He was not convicted
criminally but only liable civilly.
Saddul vs. CA
• The words convert or misappropriate connote
an act of using or disposing of another’s
property as if it were one’s onw, or of
devoting it to a purpose or use different from
that agreed upon. To misappropriate to one’s
own use includes, not only conversion to
one’s personal advantage, but also every
attempt to dispose of the property of another
without right.
• Conversion is an unauthorized assumption
and exercise of the right of ownership over
goods or personal chattels belonging to
another, resulting in the alteration of their
condition or the exclusion of the owner’s
rights. It takes place when a person actually
appropriates the property of another to his
own benefit, use and enjoyment.
TRUST RECEIPTS
PD 115
Allied Banking Corp vs. Ordonez
• In trust receipts, there is an obligation to
repay the entruster. Their terms are to be
interpreted in accordance with the general
riles on contracts, the law being alert in all
cases to prevent fraud on the part of either
party to the transaction. The entrustee binds
himself to sell or otherwise dispose of the
entrusted goods with the obligation to turn
over to the entruster the proceeds if sold, or
return the goods if unsold or not otherwise
disposed of, in accordance with the terms and
conditions specified in the trust receipt. A
violation of this undertaking constitutes
estafa under sec. 13, PD 115.
Lee vs. Rodil
• Trust receipts Law; Violation of a trust receipt
agreement constitutes the crime of estafa.
• PD 115 was not applied in the Cuevo and Sia
cases bec the questioned acts were
committed before its effectivity.
B. THROUGH FALSE PRETENSES, FRAUDULENT
ACTS OR MEANS
Celino vs. CA
• Pinaniwalang may dwende at may
kayamanan.
• Art 315, 2(a)—Any person who shall defraud
another by any of the means mentioned
herinbelow shall be punished by: xxx2. By
means of any of the ff false pretenses of
fraudulent acts executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the
fraud: (a) By using a fictitious name, or
falsely pretending to possess power,
influence, qualifications, property, credit,
agency, business or imaginary trasactions; or
by means of other similar deceits.
Abejuela vs. People
• Estafa thru falsification of commercial
documents; Although petitioner was unaware
of the criminal workings in the mind of Balo,
he nevertheless unwittingly contributed to
their eventual consummation by recklessly
entrusting his passbook to Balo and by
signing the withdrawal slips—Banco Filipino
suffered damages. Although Abejuela was
unaware of the criminal workings in the mind
of Balo, he nevertheless unwittingly
contributed to their eventual consummation
by recklessly entrusting his passbook to Balo
and by signing the withdrawal slips.
Abuejuela failed to exercise prudence and
care.
Koh Tieck Heng vs. People
• The use of the spurious checks by itself fraud
or deceit, one of the two essential requisites
of the crime of estafa—basically the two
essential requisites of fraud or deceit and
Duman \ I-E \ CRIM I \ Prof. Gutierrez \ Page 19
damage or injury must be established by
sufficient and competent evidence in order
that the crime of estafa may be established.
Deceit is the false representation of a matter
of fact (whether by words or conduct, by
false or misleading allegations, or by
concealment of that which should have been
disclosed) which deceives or is intended to
deceive another so that he shall act upon it to
his legal injury.
• Although one of the essential elements of
estafa is damage or prejudice to the offended
party, in the absence of proof thereof the
offender would at least be guilty of attempted
estafa. Appellant commenced the commission
of the crime of estafa but he failed to perform
all the acts of execution of execution which
would produce the crime, not by reason of his
own spontaneous desistance but bec of his
apprehension by the authorities before he
could obtain the amount. Since only the
intent to cause damage and not the damage
itself has been shown, resp court correctly
convicted appellant of attempted estafa.
People vs. Ong
• Elements of estafa in general are:
(1) that the accused defrauded another
a. by abuse of confidence or
b. by means of deceit
(2) that damage of prejudice capable of pecuniary
estimation is caused to the offended party or third
person; In crime of estafa by postdating or
issuing a bad check, deceit and damage are
essential elements of the offense and have to be
established with satisfactory proof to warrant
conviction.
• RA 4885 has eliminated the requirement
under the old provision for the drawer to
inform the payee that he had no funds in the
bank of the funds deposited by him were not
sufficient to cover the amount of the check.
• In this case, the prosecution failed to prove
that accused-appellant had such knowledge
with respect to the subject checks that he
indorsed.
BOUNCING CHECKS
BP 22
Nierras vs. Dacuycuy
People vs. Grospe
 Duman \ I-E \ CRIM I \ Prof. Gutierrez \ Page 20
BP 22 Circular Pilapil vs. Ibay-Somera
Que vs. People
People vs. Nitafan
Lim Lao vs. CA Crimes Against the Civil Status of Person
Idos vs. CA
SIMULATION OF BIRTHS
OTHER DECEITS
People vs. Sangalang
Villaflor vs. CA
Veloso vs. Sandiganbayan BIGAMY

SWINDLING BY SYNDICATE People vs. Aragon

PD 1689 Crimes Against Honor

LIBEL

MALICIOUS MISCHIEF Malit vs. People

Mercado vs. CFI
Caballes vs. DAR Agbayani vs. Sayo
Newsweek vs. IAC
Lacsa vs. IAC
PD 1728 Soriano vs. IAC
Bulletin Publishing Corp vs. Noel
Santos vs. CA
Sazon vs. CA
Crimes Against Chastity Vasquez vs. CA

ACTS OF LASCIVIUOUSNESS
SLANDER
People vs. Famularcano SLANDER BY DEED
INCRIMINATING AN INNOCENT PERSON
CHILD PROSTITUTION WIRETAPPING

RA 7610, sec. 5 and 6 RA 4200

Quasi-Offenses
QUALIFIED SEDUCTION
CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE
People vs. Fontanilla
Babanto vs. Zosa People vs. Cano
Perez vs. CA Ibabao vs. People
Buerano vs. CA
ABDUCTION; FORCIBLE ABDUCTION WITH RAPE Gan vs. CA
Carillo vs. People
People vs. Sunpongco
People vs. Jose
People vs. Alburo
People vs. Godines

PROSECTION OF PRIVATE OFFENSES