CRIM II MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT

from Fiscal Carillo

ART 185 Machination in public auctions

Par 3
1. Manufacturer;
2. Producer; or
3. Processor

Acts punished:
1. The offender solicits as a consideration
from refraining from taking part;
2. The offender attempts to cause
bidders to stay away from the auction
Mere solicitation/attempt consummates the
crime
Intentionauctioned.

reduction

of

the

price

-of any merchandise or object of

commerce; or
4. Importer of any merchandise or object
of commerce from any foreign country
Either as:
a. Principal or agent;
b. Wholesaler;
c. Retailer
Who:
combine
conspire, or
agree in any manner

and

This protects the integrity of the public

auction that it is open to everybody.
ART 186 Monopolies and combinations
in restraint of trade. (walay pulos mani,
so himuon nto memoriza nlng ni para
sayon)
Acts punished:
Par 1
1.
2.
3.
4.

Enter into a contract

Enter into an agreement
Take part in any conspiracy
Take part in any combination

Offense affects:

In restraint of trade or commerce, or

Prevent by artificial means free
competition in market

Par 2
1. Monopolize any merchandise,
object of trade or commerce;
2. Combine
with
any
person
monopolize said merchandise
object;

1. Making transactions prejudicial to

lawful commerce, or
2. Increasing the market price of the
merchandise
or
any
at
the
manufacturer of which the said
merchandise is used.
Qualifying circumstance for all 3 acts:

-all acts must be:

with any person for the purpose of:

or
to
or

In order to alter the price thereof by;

a. Spreading false rumors
b. Making use of any artifice to
restrain free competition in the
market

food substance;
motor fuel or lubricants;
other article of prime necessity.

If
committed
association:

by

corporation

or

president;
directors;
managers

-who knowingly permitted or failed to

prevent the commission of the offense is/are
liable.

PART 2
ART 187 Importation and Disposition of
Falsely Marked Articles or Merchandise
Made of Gold, Silver and other precious
metals or alloys
Elements:
1. The offender imports, sells or dispose
of articles or merchandise made of
Gold, Silver or other precious metals
or alloys.
2. The merchandise or articles fails to
indicate actual fineness or quality.
3. The offender knows that the article or
merchandise fails to indicate such
fineness or quality.
What is punished here is that you do not
indicate the true quality. So those who deals
or sells these merchandise must indicate the
actual quality of the precious metal.
RA 8293 Intellectual Property Code

The three more common/relevant

criminal offenses under the IPC are:
o Infringement (Sec 155)
o Unfair competition (Sec 168);
and
o False designation/description or
Representation (Sec. 169).

Infringement.
Mark may refer to trademark (goods) or
Service mark (services).
Marks PURPOSE IS TO distinguish the goods
or services of one person from that of
another and to indicate the origin or
ownership.
Elements of infringement

1. Validity of plaintiffs mark;

2. Plaintiffs ownership of the mark;
3. Use of the mark or its colourable
imitation by the offender likely to
cause confusion.
a. FOR COLOURABLE IMITATION
TO BE PRESENT IT MUST
LIKELY
TO
CAUSE
CONFUSION.
IF YOU CAN ESTABLISH THAT A MARK
HAS BEEN REGISTERED IN THE IPO,
THEN IT ESTABLISHES THE FOLLWING
DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS:
Registration with the IPO
Certificate of
evidence of:

Registration

prima

facie

1. Validity of registration;
2. Ownership of mark;
3. Exclusive right to use mark.
Cannot be registered.
1. Generic,
2. Common descriptive names,
3. Genus of which a product is a species,
EX. FLOWERS, BREAD, LECHON
4. Commonly used description of a kind
of goods.
3rd element: Colorable Imitation
MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR.
This term has been defined as such a close
or ingenious imitation
as to be
calculated
to
deceive
ordinary
purchasers, or such resemblance of the
infringing mark to the original as to deceive
an
ordinary
purchaser
giving
such
attention as a purchaser usually gives,
and to cause him to purchase the one
supposing it to be the other. (EMERALD vs
CA)
IN THE SAME CASE A QUESTION WAS ASKED
IF CAN AN ORDINARY PURCHASER BE
DECIEVED INTO BUYING A PAIR OF

FANTASTIC MR. LEE JEANS SUPPOSING IT TO

BE LEE JEANS?
SC SAID NO. FILIPINOS ARE DISCRIMINATING
PURCHASERS. JEANS ARE NOT INEXPENSIVE.
BECAUSE OF THIS YOU GIVE IT A LOT OF
ATTENTION WHEN BUYING. FILIPINOS BUY
THEIR JEANS BY THE BRAND. WHEN YOU
SPEAK OF AN ORDINARY PURCHASER
ESPECIALLY IN THE CASE OF JEANS YOU
DONT TALK OF A TOTALLY UNAWARE BUYER.
YOU TALK OF A PERSON WHO IS WELL
INFORMED OF WHAT HE IS ABOUT TO BUY,
HOW
MUCH
IT
COSTS
AND
ITS
DISTINGUISHING FEATURES. THE WORDS
FANTASTIC MR. LEE ARE TOO IMMINENT
TO CONFUSE A PURCHASER OF SUCH
JEANS.
Unfair competition
Any person who has identified in the mind of
the public the goods he manufactures or
deals in, his business or service from those of
others, whether or not a registered mark
is employed, has property right in the
goodwill of the said goods, business or
service so identified. (SEC 168.1, IPC)
Elements of unfair competition
1. Confusing similarity in the general
appearance of the goods
2. Intent to deceive.
The essence of unfair competition is the
passing off of ones goods, business or
services for that of another who
established goodwill of said goods,
business or services.
- What is important here is that somebody
has generated something through his
goodwill. Unlike infringement that it needs to
be registered, goodwill doesnt need to be.
So you need to prove to court that goodwill
has been established by the plantiff of the
particular product.
Unfair competition has a broader coverage
because infirngement only refers to marks.

Here you pass of your goods so it is not

necessary you use the marks but anything to
pass off your goods as that of somebody who
has greated goodwill of the same goods.
You do not need to imitate or give it the
appearance the goods but what you need is
to decieve the public that your goods are the
same as the one who created the goodwill.
False designation
Any person who, in connection with any
goods or services or any container for
goods, uses in commerce, any word, term,
name symbol, or device, or any false
designation of origin, false or misleading
description of fact, or false or misleading
representation of fact.
likely to cause confusion, or deceive as to
the affiliation, connection or association of
such person with another person as to the
origin, sponsorship or approval of his or her
goods, services or commercial activities or:
in commercial advertising, or promotion,
misrepresents the nature, characteristics,
qualities, or geographic origin of his goods,
services or commercial activities.
PART 3
PD 1602 Gambling, acts punished:
1. Taking part (directly or indirectly) in
any
illegal
or
unauthorized
activities or games.
2. Illegal gambling includes activities that
depend upon skill where betting is
conducted.
a. Any person who shall permit
illegal gambling to be carried
on.
b. Maintainer or conductor.
3. Maintainer is the person who sets up
and furnishes the means with which to
carry on gambling game or scheme.
4. Conductor is the person who
manages or carries on the gambling
game or scheme.

a. Any person who knowingly,

without any lawful purpose,
possess lottery lists, papers
containing letters, numbers or
symbols pertaining to jueteng,
jai-alai, etc.
b. A barangay official who, with
knowledge of the existence of a
gambling house or place in his
jurisdiction fails to abate the
same
or
take
action
in
connection therewith.
5. Security guard/officer, watchman, etc.,
of
hotels,
villages,
buildings,
enclosures which have the reputation
of
a gambling place or where
gambling activities are being held.
*RA 9287 increased the penalties for
numbers games, eg jueteng, jai-alai.

Seen walking together at the botanical

gardens,
Looking for a house to rent they spent
a few hours in the house and came
out, and
Talking at the sidewalk

*only the cochero and one daughter saw the

accused Samniego at the lower level of the
house wearing only his drawers.
So are these enough to convict them of
grave scandal?
SC said no. of the 4 incidents there was
nothing scandalous. The element of publicity
is missing. Publicity requires the public to
scandalized. Here only two seen the accused,
it is not enough.

PD 449, Cock Fighting Law of 1974

Cockfighting allowed only in a licensed
cockpit during:

Sundays and legal holidays

Local fiestas (not more than 3 days)
Provincial, city, municipal, agricultural,
commercial or industrial fairs, carnival
or exposition upon resolution of local
leg upon approval of Chief of
Constabulary or rep.
To entertain foreign dignitaries or
tourists, balikbayans, fund-raising
campaigns for charitable purposes.

ART 200. Grave Scandal

Elements:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Ordinary performs an act;

Act is highly scandalous;
Act is not any other felony;
Public/public knowledge

SAMANIEGO (16 Phil 663), Publicity

FACTS: a married woman was seen
Evidence:

ART 201. Immoral Doctrines, Obscene

publications
and
exhibitions,
and
indecent shows.
Elements:
a. The materials, publication, picture or
literature are obscene; and
b. The offender sold, exhibited, published
or gave away such materials.
What do we mean by obscene?
PP vs KOTTINGER, GR NO 20569, Oct.
29, 1923
FACTS: accused was selling postcards
with naked women on the post cards.
Was it obscene?
SC said no. these are pictures of naked
women as they would appear in their
villages. They did not make any unsual
poses or exgerated sexually message in
the postcards. It is obscene because
what is obscene is

The
word
obscene
and
the
term
obscenity may be defined as meaning
something
offensive
to
chastity,
decency, or delicacy. indecency is an act
against good behaviour and a just delicacy.
deprave of corrupt those whose
minds are open to such immoral
influences and into whose hands a
publication or other 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.

pimps who habitually associate with

prostitutes;
d. One who loiters in inhabited or
uninhabited places w/o any lawful or
justifiable purpose; and
e. Prostitutes.
Vagrancy decriminalized.
RA
NO
10158
(April
decriminalized vagrancy.

2012)

All pending cases dismissed, all serving

sentence released.
Prostitutes
Elements:

FERNANDO vs CA, GR 159751, Dec 6,

2006 (READ TO UNDERSTAND MORE
WHAT IS DECENT or NOT)
Test of Obscenity
Latest guidelines:
a. Whether to the average person,
applying
contemporary
standards
would find the work, taken as a whole,
appeals to the prurient interest;
b. Whether
the
work
depicts
or
describes, in patently offensive way,
sexual conduct specifically defined by
the applicable state law; and
c. Whether the work, taken as a whole.
Lacks serious literary, artistic, political,
or scientific value.
ART 202. Vagrants and prostitutes. (has
been decriminialized)
Offenders:
a. One who neglects to apply himself to
some lawful calling, if physically able
to (w/o visible means of support);
b. One who loiters around public or semipublic bldgs. Or places tramping or
wandering around (w/o visible means
of support);
c. Idle or dissolute persons who lodges in
houses of ill-repute and ruffians or

1. Women
2. Engage in sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct,
3. Habitual kung panalagsa ra, pang
load, pang tuition - not prostitution
must be done habitually, and
4. For money or profit.
*RA 9208

ART 203 Public Officers

every public servant from the highest to
the lowest. (MANIEGO vs PP, 88 Phil 494)
Examples:
-swimming instructor at UP Los Banos PP vs
LARIN, Oct 7, 1998
Swimming instructor liable for malesting a
student who said no, im just a private life
guard at UP not public officer.
SC said no. you are receiving something from
UP it means you are a public officeras well as
a pervert.
-fiscal analyst for the city of Zamboanga PP
vs KULAIS, July 16, 1998

Malfeasance and Misfeasance

Misfeasance- improper performance of
some act which might lawfully be done.
Malfeasance- performance of some act
which ought not to be done.
ART 204. Knowingly rendering unjust
judgement.
Elements:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Judge;
Renders a judgement;
Judgement is unjust;
Judge knows.

Are we saying that a judge cannot make a

mistake?
-

no, a judge may make a mistake as

long as he does not know that he is
making a mistake and despite knowing
it is a wrong judgement he will insist in
promulgating that judgement.
Pero kung sayop lang jud sya, wa sya
kabalo sa balaod, I dont know why he
became a judge, he may be liable for
some administrative penalty but not
this article. Because again, there must
be criminal intent.

1. Judge;
2. He: a) knowingly renders unjust
interlocutory order or decree or b)
renders manifestly unjust interlocutory
order or decree through inexcusable
negligence or ignorance.
Interlocutory order
Issued by the court between commencement
and the end of a suit or action and which
decides some point or matter, but
which, however, is not a final decision of
the matter in issue.
does it leave something to be done in the
trial court with respect to the merits of the
case main issue?
Yes interlocutory order.
JUDGEMENT disposes an issue of a cases
INTERLOCUTORY ORDER an order that does
not dispose of the main issue of the case, a
preliminary injuction, a writ attachment and
other else.
- can be done in between the beginning and
end of case.
ART 207. Malicious delay
administration of justice.

in

the

Elements:
ART 205. Judgement rendered through
negligence.
Elements:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Judge;
Renders a judgement;
Judgement is manifestly unjust;
Due to inexcusable negligence
ignorance.

204 intentional, unjust

205 manifestly unjust, negligence
ART 206. Unjust interlocutory order.
Elements:

1.
2.
3.
4.

Judge;
There is a proceeding in his court;
Delays the administration of justice;
Malice; inflict damage on either party
to the case.

ART 208. Negligence and tolerance in

the prosecution of offenses.
or

Acts punished:
1. Negligence- not lack of foresight or
skill, neglects to file a case that should
be filed.
2. Tolerance- allowing an offense to be
committed without prosecuting the
same.
- usually prosecutor is charged in here.

ART 209. Betrayal of trust by

attorney or solicitor, revelation
secrets.

an
of

Acts punished:
1. Causing damage to a client by
malicious breach of professional duty
or
inexcusable
negligence
or
ignorance.
2. Revealing secrets learned by him in
his professional capacity (damage is
not necessary.)
3. Undertaking the defense of an
opposing party in the same case w/o
consent of the first client, when the
offender has undertaken the defense
of the first party or has received
confidential information from the said
first party.
PART 3
ART 210. Direct Bribery.
1. Agree to perform an act constituting a
crime,
in
connection
with
the
performance of his official duties, in
consideration of any offer, promise,
gift or present.
2. Accepting a gift, in consideration of
the execution of an act which does
not constitute a crime.
3. Agreeing to refrain or refraining
from doing something which was his
official duty to do in consideration of a
gift or promise of a gift.
Elements
1. Public officer (Art 203)
2. Accepts an offer or a promise or
receives
a
gift
or
present
(himself/another);
3. Offer, promise, gift, present is
received/accepted:
a. Commit some crime;
b. In consideration of some act not
a crime;
c. Refrain from doing his official
duty
4. Act is connected with his official duties

1st paragraph ..in consideration of any

offer promise, gift or present received
by such officer
It is not necessary that the offender recieves
a gift or present.
It is sufficient that the offender accepts an
offer of a gift or present.
If the public officer does not accept the
offer, only the person making the offer is
criminally liable (Art 212 Corruption of
Public Officer)
What if the public officer actually commits
the act that constitutes a crime? Lets say a
court stenographer agrees to commit
falsification okay ra atty alisodon nko ang
yes og no. The mere act of agreeing to
commit the crime constitute direct bribery.
So both falsification and direct bribery.
2nd paragraph ..in consideration of
the execution of an act which does not
constitute a crime,
The act does not constitute a crime
- a policeman accepting a
consideration for making an arrest.

gift

in

- a government employee processing

documents in consideration of a gift.
Gift must be accepted. If not all you end up
with is a public officer doing his duty.
if the gift was accepted.. if said act
shall not have been accomplished,
The public officer must accept the gift.
The implication is that an acceptance of an
offer or promise is not sufficient.
Mere agreement to execute the act is
not
sufficient.
Either
the
offender
accomplishes the act or at least commences
the same by overt acts.
So mere saying na o ako bahala ana
without accepting the gift or commencing

the act by overt acts then there is no bribery.

Must ACCEPT.
What if you just accept the gift and not do
any overt act yet? Yah gi dawat ang kwarta
but does not do anything. Unsa man?

Elements:
1. Public officer;
2. Accepts gifts;
3. Gifts were offered by reason of his
office.

Estafa- if really no intention to do the act

..accepts gifts

Indirect Bribery no intent to decieve but

wala lang jud gi buhat. Nearest would be

The offender must accept a gift.

rd

3
paragraph ..refrain from doing
something which it was his official duty
to do,
If the failure to perform the official duty shall
also constitute a crime, the offender shall be
liable under paragraph 1.
Example:
A prosecutor who shall not prosecute a case
in consideration of a gift or promise of a gift.
(Art 208)
So why was in TAD-Y vs PP, why was he
acquitted?
You have the building official and city
engineer. They were acquiitted because
apparently because the document to be
issued was not supposedly to be issued
by another office and not their office.
Naka lusot.
Must relate to the official functions of
the public officer.
however, where the act is entirely
outside of the official functions of the
officer to whom the money is offered,
the offense is not bribery. (TAD-Y vs PP,
GR NO 148862, August 11, 2005)

In this case, they were planning to entrap anf

officer however the officer was not taking tha
bait.
there must be a clear intention on the part
of the public officer to take the gift so offered
and consider the same as his own property
from then on, such as putting away the gift
for safekeeping or pocketing the same.
(FORMILLEZA vs SANDIGANBAYAN, 159 SCRA
1)
ART 211-A Qualified Bribery
Elements:
1. Public officer entrusted with law
enforcement;
2. Refrains from arresting/prosecuting an
offender who has committed a crime
punishable by reclusion perpetua
and/or death;
3. In consideration of any promise, gift or
reward.
ART 212 Corruption of public official
Elements:
1. Offer/ promise/ gives gifts to present
to a public officer;
2. Offer/promise is made or gift/present
is given under circumstances that
would make the public officer liable for
direct/indirect bribery.
- if public officer does not accept the gift.
If accepted. Bribery on the public officer
and corruption on the part of the private
party.

ART 211 Indirect Bribery

ART 213 Frauds against the

treasury and similar offenses.

public

A public officer who in his official capacity

with regard to furnishing supplies, the
making of contracts, or adjustment or
settlement of accounts relating to public
property or funds shall enter into an
agreement with any interested party or
speculator or make use of any other scheme
to defraud the government.
-entering an
government.

agreement

to

defraud

the

3. That he commits any of the frauds or

deceits enumerated in Articles 315 to
318.
ART 215 Prohibited Transactions
The officer must be an appointive public
officer.
The transaction involving exchange or
speculation must take place within the
territory subject to the offenders jurisdiction.
The offender becomes interested therein
during his incumbency.

A public officer entrusted with the collection

of taxes, licenses, fees and other imposts,
shall:

ART 216 Possession of

interest by a public officer.

-demand payment of sums different from or

larger than those authorized by law;

The article does not distinguish between

elective, appointive or whether the public
officer is such by provision of law.

-voluntarily fail to issue a receipt, as provided

by law, for any sum collected by him
officially;

The felony consists in becoming interested in

any contract or business in which it was his
official duty to intervene.

-collecting or receiving by payment or

otherwise, things or objects of a nature
different from that provided by law.

The article also punishes private individuals

like experts, arbitrators, private accountants,
guardians and executors as long as it was
their duty to intervene in the contract or
business that he takes interest in. even
though they are not public officers.

Par 1. in his official capacity..

defraud the government;

to

The offender must take advantage of his

public office and must act in his official
capacity.

prohibited

There must be intent to defraud the

government.

What is punished here possible conflict of

interest. Public official ka then you intervene
because of your official duties and yet you
are interested, and tend to give the
interpretation most favorable to you.

ART 214 Other Frauds

ART 217 Malversation.

Additional penalties in case a public officer

who takes advantage of his official position
violates any of the felonies under ART 315
(Estafa), 316 (Other forms of swindling), 317
(Swindling a minor), and 318 (Other Delicts).

The acts punished are:

Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer;
2. That he takes advantage of his official
position.

1. Appropriating;
2. Taking or misappropriating;
3. Consenting, or thru abandonment
or negligence, permitting other
persons totake public funds or
property;
4. o/w guilty of misappropriation or
Malversation.

Penalty for Malversation:

Penalty for Malversation is the same
whether committed with malice or
through negligence.
Elements:
1. public officer;
2. custody
or
control
of
funds/property by reason of his
public office by reason of public
office;
3. offender is accountable for the
funds/property;
4. offender commits any of the four
acts previously enumerated.
Custody or control of funds
It is the nature of the duties and not the
title thereof that is controlling.
if he is an employee of, or in some way
connected with the govt and that, in the
course of his employment, he receives
money or prop belonging to the govt for
which he is bound to account. (US vs
VELASQUEZ, 32 Phil 157)
Qualified Charge
He had no authority of his own volition to
withdraw funds from the safe upon any
pretext whatsoever. The funds were placed in
the safe and could only be taken from it by
his superior officer or by his order.
Defendants possession of the key and the
combination of the safe gave him control
over the contents (US vs F. WICKER SHAM,
GR No 6781, 1911 Nov 6, 1911)
Since he was not fully in control of the funds
that were taken from the safe he could not
be liable for malversation but may be liable
for either theft or estafa but not
malversation.
When you do not have full control of the
money and you took it then it may be theft.
Accountable officer

The vital fact is not so much the manner in

which appellant could lawfully perform his
duties in relation to said funds as the fact
that he received money belonging to
the Govt for which he was bound to
account (VELASQUEZ)
As long as money was handed to you and
you had to account for it. And control comes
hand in hand with account.
Private individuals are also liable
ART 222 The provision of this chapter shall
apply to private individuals who in any
capacity whatsoever, have charge of
public funds, revenues, or property
even if such property belongs to a
private individual.
Examples:
-property in custodia legis
-property seized by law enforcement agents
Presumption of personal use.
The failure of a public officer to have duly
forthcoming any public funds or property
with which he is chargeable, upon demand
by any duly authorized officer, shall be
prima facie evidence that he has put
such missing funds or property to
personal uses. (last paragraph, ART 217)
PP vs JOSE TING LAN UY, JR, Nov 17,
2005, GR No 157399
Even on the putative assumption that
evidence against petitioner yielded a case of
Malversation by negligence but the
information
was
for
intentional
Malversation, under the circumstances
of this case his conviction under the
first mode of misappropriation would
still be in order. Malversation is
committed either intentionally or by
negligence. The dolo or the culpa present in
the offense is only a modality in the
perpetration of the felony. Even if the mode

charged differs from mode proved, the same

offense of Malversation is involved and
conviction thereof is proper.

4. offender applies the same to a public

use other than for which it was
appropriated.

Naay caso na gi pangita-an sya ug sinsiyo,

he was able to produce the change from his
pocket. Ingun SC that is not malversation
because he was able to account for it.

In malversation the officer uses the funds for

personal purposes. Here its not, its still for
public purpose but for a different purpose for
which it was supposed to be used for.

But in another case where he had to go out

of the room, borrow some money form some
friends turn It over to the person demanding
to account, is considered to have failed to
account because he had to get out of the
office and borrow money from other people.

Ex. Funds for a road were used instead to

build a road. Intention does not matter.
Bahalag for a good cause.

PART 4

Acts punished:

ART 218 Failure to render accounts

In this felony, the offender who is required
to render an account to the COA or
auditor fails to do so.
This felony may be committed by a public
officer:
-still in service;
-separated from service by resignation;
or
-separated from service for any other
cause
ART 219 Failure of a responsible officer
to render account before leaving the
country
The felony is the act of unlawfully leaving
the country or an attempt thereof
without securing a certificate from COA.
ART 220 Illegal use of public funds or
property. (TECHNICAL MALVERSATION)
Elements:
1. public officer;
2. public
funds/property
under
his
administration;
3. funds/property has been appropriated
by law or ordinance;

ART 221 Failure to make delivery of

public funds or property

1. Failure to make payment. Ex dka

musweldo sa employees kay laban ka
sa suspended governor.
2. Refusing to make delivery.
INFIDELITY IN DEALING
CUSTODY OF PRISONERS.

with

THE

ART 223 Conniving with or consenting

to evasion
Elements:
1.
2.
3.
4.
-

Public officer;
Custody/charge of a prisoner;
Prisoner escapes;
Connivance
must have custody or charge like
warden or jail guard for a specific
prisoner when goes to court.
Must be intentional

ART 224 Evasion thru negligence

Elements:
1. Public officer;
2. Charged with conveyance or custody
of a prisoner;
3. Escapes through negligence.
- version of 223 but with negligence.
WERE A JAILGUARD ALLOWED A PRISONER
TO GO TO THE RESTROOM BUT INSPECTED

THE
RESTROOM
FIRST
BEFORE
THE
PRISONER WENT IN. THEN HE STAYED
OUTSIDE WHILE THE PRISONER DID HIS
BUSINESS BUT EVENTUALLY ESCAPED.
SC SAID THAT IS NOT NEGLIGENCE.
COMPARED TO GUARD GUARDING AT THE
FRONT YARD TALKING TO SOMEBODY ELSE
WHILE SMOKING. KANA KLARO NAJUD NA
NEGLIGENCE.
Negligence
it is only that positive carelessness that is
short of deliberate non-performance of his
duties as guard that is the gravamen of the
crime of infidelity.
Liability of escaping prisoner
Convict - evasion of service of sentence ART
157.
Detention prisoner no liability
WILL THE GUARD STILL BE LIABLE IF THE
PRISONER IS A DETENTION PRISONER UNDER
224?

3. Documents/papers
entrusted
by
reason of office;
4. Damage to a 3rd party or public
interest.
Removal, concealment or destruction.
If the act is removing, there must be an
illicit purpose, which, however, need not be
accomplished.
If the act is by concealing or destroying,
the same does not require proof of an
illicit purpose. here presumption is
that you have intention and you need to
rebut this presumption.
ART 227 Officer breaking seal. pag ka
way hinumdan
Elements:
1. Public officer;
2. Charged
with
custody
of
papers/property;
3. Sealed with proper authority;
4. Breaks the seals or permits them to be
broken.

YES.

Breaking seal.

ART 225 Escape of prisoner under the

custody of a person not a public officer.

The offender is charged with the sealed

paper or property.

Elements:

The envelope or parcel need not be

opened, what is required is that the seal
is broken by the offender or he permits
another to break the said seal.

1. Private person;
2. Conveyance of a prisoner is confided
to him;
3. Escape;
4. Consent/negligence

ART 226 Removal, Concealment

Destruction of Documents.

or
ART 228 Opening of closed documents.

Elements:
1. Public officer;
2. Abstracts, destroys,
documents or papers;

No damage is required.

Elements:
or

conceals,

1. Public officer;

2. Closed papers, documents or objects

are entrusted to his custody;
3. Opens/permits them to be opened;
4. No authority.
What if the document was not intrusted to
him. Yang gi kawat nyah iyang gi abri.
Masuod sya ani na article?
YES
ART 229 Revelation of secrets by an
officer.
Acts punishable:
1. Revealing any secrets known by public
officer by reason of official capacity;
2. Delivering wrongful papers or copies
of papers of which he may have
charge and which should not be
published.

The offender receives an order from his

superior for execution.
The offender suspends its execution and
the
superior
suspension.

officer

disapproves

the

Nagbalik2x ni sya pero of course kinsa mu

daog ang superior jud.
The felony consists
superior despite the
suspension.

in disobeying
disapproval of

the
the

ART 233 Refusal of assistance.

Offender is a public officer.
Competent authority demands that he lends
his cooperation in the administration of
justice or other public service.
Offender maliciously fails to do so.

ART 230 Public officer revealing secrets

of private individual.

Serious damage to a third party or

public interest is qualifying.

Elements:
1. Public officer;
2. Secrets of a private individual by
reason of his office
3. Reveals secrets without authority or
justifiable reason.
ART 231 Open disobedience
The offender is a judicial or executive officer.
You will notice walay legislative. I dont know
why. Probably because they made the law.
Nganu apil2x man nto ato kaugalingon na
kita man ga himo.
The offender, without legal justification,
openly refuses to execute a judgement,
decision or order issued by a superior
authority.
ART 232 Disobedience to a superior
officer, when said order was suspended
by inferior officer.
The offender is a public officer.

ART 234 Refusal to discharge elective

office.
Offender is elected by popular election.
The felony is committed when the offender,
without legal motive, refuses to:
a. Be sworn in; or
b. Discharge the duties of his office.
ART 235 Maltreatment of prisoners
Offender is a public officer who has under his
charge a prisoner.
Maltreatment consists in:
1. Overdoing the correction or handling
of prisoners:
a. Punishments not authorized
b. Authorized punishments in a
humiliating manner
2. Extort
a
confession
or
obtain
information.

ART 236 Anticipation of duties of a

public office.
Offender
is
entitled
to
hold
public
office/employment
by
election
or
appointment.
The offender assumes the performance of
duties without taking his oath of office
or give the bond required by law.
ART 237 Prolonging
duties and powers.

performance

of

The public officers period to hold public

office has expired as provided by law,
regulation or special provision.
The felony consists in the public officer
continuing to exercise his duties and powers
of such office despite the expiration of the
period.
So how about this issue about our suspended
governor, is she liable under this article?
No because her term has not expired.
ART 238
position.

Abandonment

of

office

or

The public officer formally resigns from his

position.

No, because the consitution allows it.

ART 240
functions

Usurpation

of

executive

The offender is a judge who:

a. Assumes powers pertaining to the
executive; or
b. Obstructs the executive in the lawful
exercise of their powers.
ART
241
functions.

Usurpation

of

judicial

The offender is a member of the executive

branch who:
a. Assumes judicial powers; or
b. Obstructs the execution of any order
or decision rendered by an judge w/in
his jurisdiction.
ART
242
Disobeying
disqualification

request

for

The offense is the disobedience of a public

officer who has been lawfully refrained,
due to questions of jurisdiction, from
continuing with proceedings in his office.

Without his resignation being accepted, the

public officer abandon his office to the
detriment of public service.

Ex. Quoaranto proceedings questioning

qualification of a particular person.

ART 239
powers.

ART 243
executive
authority

Usurpation

of

legislative

The offender is an executive or judicial

officer.
The offender:
a. Makes general rules or regulations
beyond scope of his authority; or
b. Attempts to repeal a law; or
c. Suspends the execution thereof.
How about the SC in their rules of court, are
they liable under this article?

Orders
officers

or
to

requests by
any
judicial

The offender is a member of the executive

branch.
He issues an order or suggestion addressed
to any judicial authority which order or
suggestion relates to any case or business
w/in the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of
justice.
- judicial independence
ART 244 Unlawful appointments.

The offender appoints or nominates another

to a public office knowing that the appointee
or person nominated lacks the qualifications
at the time of the appointment or
nomination.
Appointment of non-eligibles must not
exceed three months (Rev Adm Code)

a. Other
ascendants
or
descendants,
not
the
father/mother or child of the
offender
who
must
be
legitimate.
OR
b. Spouse,
who
must
be
legitimate of the offender
Di pwede nang live-in
Relationship by blood.

ART 245 Abuses against chastity na

sa-ag na article
Offenders:
1. Any public officer before whom
matters for decision are pending or
with respect to which he is required to
submit a report to, or consult with a
superior officer.
2. A warden or public officer charged
with care and custody of prisoners or
persons under arrest.

What distinguishes parricide from other

felonies involving destruction of life is the
element of relationship by blood. Even in the
case of legal adoption, the killing of an
adopted child is not parricide as the
relationship is not by blood.
Knowledge of such relationship
offender is not required.

by

the

How about an adopted child?

FMC says that adopted child for all intesive
purposes what? Adopted child angay daugdaugon. Aw. Di diay legitimate diay.

Abuses against chastity

Reyes book is not updated may not have

considered the FMC.

The felony consists in soliciting or making

immoral or indecent advances to a
woman.

In keeping with the times, killing an adopted

child should be considered as parricide.

It can also be done to the wife, daughter,

sister or relative within the same degree of
affinity of the person in custody. (Mother is
not included) nganu man wala sila
kadungog ug MILF?!! man diay?? Thats
the law.
LAST
ART 246 Parricide
In this felony, the person killed must be:
a. Father
]\
b. Mother
] > whether
legitimate or illegitimate
c. Child
]/
d. Or:

IN A CASE WHERE A WIFE AND A LOVER

CONSPIRING TO KILL THE HUSBAND BY
PLACING A BOMB IN HIS CAR THE WIFE WAS
CONVICTED OF PARRICIDE while the LOVER
MURDER. Why? Because....
Art 62, par 3 RPC Book I.
circumstances that arise from the private
relations with the offended party serve to
aggravate or mitigate the liability of those as
to whom such circumstances are attendant.
ART 247 Death or physical injuries
under exceptional circumstances.
Preliminary requisites:

a. Legally married person with respect to

his/her spouse.
b. Parents with respect to daughters
a. Legitimate or illegitimate.
b. Under 18 years of age, and
c. Living with them
Common requisites.
The married person or parent surprises the
spouse/daughter in the act of sexual
intercourse;
The spouse/daughter and their paramour
or seducer are killed or serious physical
injuries are inflicted upon them by the
married person or parent.
Why Not a felony, no penalty.? Bec
The act is a justified burst of passion.
In book 1, where a husband caught his wife
and the lover in their house and then he
attacked the lover and the lover defended
himself,
the lover was able to kill the
husband and then interposed self defense.
SC said no aggression was lawful. In fact if he
would have killed you or the wife, it would
have been a justified burst of passion.
- must be caught in the act or inflicts the
injury or kills in the act or immediately there
after. As long as it can be established that
they had sexual intercourse right then and
there before they were caught.
Destierro is a measure to protect the
spouse/parent from possible retaliation from
the relatives of the deceased or injured.
in
the
thereafter,

act

or

immediately

The killing/serious physical injuries must be

committed while the wife/daughter is in the
act of sexual intercourse or immediately
thereafter (right after the sexual intercourse)
Where there is no clear showing that
sexual intercourse has occurred, the article
is not applicable. BITUANAN (man and wife

were seen sleeping on the same bed),

GONZALES (Wife was rising up while a man
was buttoning his drawers) in these cases it
cannot be.
It is not necessary that he see the carnal act.
It is enough that the circumstances
reasonably show thet the carnal act is being
committed or has just been committed.
It is therefore, necessary
intercourse is established.

that

sexual

Where sexual intercourse is not clearly

established or if only preparatory acts are
committed, Art 247 is not applicable. Also in
premeditated plans to avail of the
circumstance it cannot be justified. So it
must be strictly construed. Only during the
act or immediately after.
Highly unlikely
Farmer in the morning when he went
back to his house catches the wife and
the lover and the lover ran away. So the
husband warned the wife not to do it
again. In the afternoon husband found
them again in the toilet. Farmer found
his wife rise from the ground and the
lover buttoning his drawers. It is then
he attacked both of them.
SC did not believe him. said:
Neither ii it likely that a woman thirty years
of age, like Sixta Quilason, and twenty-fiveyear old Isabelo EVangelio, both of sound
judgment as is to be supposed, had dared to
have carnal intercourse near the toilet of the
offended partys house, a place which is
naturally frequented by some persons. (PP vs
GONZALES, 69 Phil 66)
-

it may be that it was only an

afterthought of gonzales of not killing
them in the morning.

PP vs abarca
The husband just came home from taking the
bar exam. Uli sya sa ila, want to go to

another town so went to the bus terminal

early. Only to find out that all the buses were
full. So balik sya ilang bahay. So naa man ni
puli sa iyang place sa bed. So pag lili nya sa
vents around the room. True enough his wife
and the lover was having sexual intercourse
but he made a noise wherein nakakit nuon
ang lover sa iya. Ma pa nasuko gi tiunan sya
ug pusil, dagan sya ngita sya sa iyang amigo
na sundalo huwam syag pusil when he went
to the place of the lover iyang gi rakrakan
naa na-apil lain.

girl was given a chocolate. The intent

was not to kill but to sexually arouse the
girlfriend. Nyah ang girlfriend inhan kaayo ug
chocolate gi kaon ang whole box namatay.
not murder but homicide because it was not
conciously adopted.

SC said as far as shooting the lover no

liabilty. But to the other people reckless
imprudence. Why? The act was lawful it was
a justified burst of passion.

SC said its not murder because there was no

evidence that it was intentionally done. All
the evidence will show that it was just a
prank taken to extreme but still a prank. Fire
and gasoline were not intentionally adopted
here in the crime.

ART 248 Murder

The unlawful killing of another which is not
parricide or infanticide, with the presence of
any of the six circumstances enumerated:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Treachery
Price
Inundation
Calamities
Evident premeditation
Cruelty

Par 3 vs Par 1,2, 4, 5 and 6

Par 3. by means of inundation, fire,
poison must be consciously adopted
Pars 1, 5 and 6. with
Par 2 in consideration
Par 4 on the occasion..
By means of fire
The rule in these decisions is that: there is a
need to establish intent to kill, by means of
fire, on the part of the offender to qualify the
killing to murder.
-PP vs GALURA, 16 CA Rep 70

-PP vs PUGNAY, GR No 74324, Nov 17, 1988.

By means of fire. Playing a simple
prank on a retarded child. Ang usa gi bubuan ug gasolina. Another accused put fire on
the soaked victim so victim burned.

In arson, where you burn a house not

knowing that there are persons inside that is
still arson not murder because there was no
intention. But if you burned the house
knowing the victim is inside. Then that is
murder. Depends upon the intent when we
talk about par. 2.
PP vs CAGOCO, GR No. 38511, October
6, 1933.
considering that there is no moral or legal
incompatibility between treachery and the
mitigating circumstance No. 3 of Art 9 of the
Penal Code, because the former depends
upon the manner of execution of the crime
and the latter upon the tendency of the will
towards a definite purpose,
here he punched the person because he
thought he was being cheated in cards.
Victim fell down and died as a reuslt of the
injuries. SC said. Yes you are liable for
treachery because you hit him from behind
in a sudden and treatcherous manner.
Killing a child of tender years.
..the killing of a child in tender age,
defenceless and unprotected, must always

be classified as murder. Even though the

deceased children had been awake they
could not have defended themselves or have
fled or escaped from the attack of their
assailants. (US vs ANTOBIO, GR No 10562,
August 3, 1915)
Intent to kill: so if you hit somebody with an
iron bar. That person does not die. Intent to
kill is important to distinguish or dertermine
the exact felony.
When intent to kill is present so it may be
attempted or frustrated murder/homicide.
If no intent it may be a case of physical
injuries.
But if the person dies, intent to kill is
conclusively presumed di nata mag hisgot
kung naa bay intent or wa. Kung namantay
intent to kill is conclusively presumed wana
malalis ana.
So like in cagoco, no intent to kill on his part
but he died so no need to argue if there was
intent to kill because death of the victime is
a conclusive presumption of intent to kill.
The most we can do is give the mitigating
circumstance of no intent to commit a grave
so wrong.
So if the victim dies pili-on ra ana kay
murder, homicide or reckless imprudence
resulting to homicide. Mao ra na ang la-lison
sa court dili na mahimo physical injuries
kung namatay na.
Treachery
The essence of treachery is a deliberate and
sudden attack that renders the victim unable
and unprepared to defend himself by reason
of the suddenness and severity of the attack.
(PP vs LOPEZ, GR No. 177302, April 16, 2009)
Must be consciously adopted so there would
not be any risk from the victim to defend
himself.
Killing was preceded by a fight.

There may still be treachery even if,

before the assault, the assailant and the
victim had an altercation and a fisticuffs and,
after the lapse of some time from the
said altercation, the assailant attacks
the
unsuspecting
victim
without
affording the latter any real chance to
defend himself. (PP vs LACADEN, GR No.
187682, Nov 25, 2009)
What if all qualifying circumstance gi gamit
nimu? I want an express ticket to hell, unsa
man mahitabo sa imo? Only one as a
qualifying and the rest as an aggravatign
circumastance.
Several qualifying circumstances.
the trial court ruled that the crime
committed was murder after finding that the
killings were attended by treachery, evident
premeditation, dwelling and price or reward.
Only one aggravating circumstance is
enough to qualify the killing to murder,
the rest constitute generic aggravating
circumstances. (PANA vs JUDGE BUYSER,
GR No 130144, May 24, 2001)
Taking advantage of superior strength.
To take advantage of superior strength is to
use force out of proportion to the means
available to the person attacked to defend
himself. In order to be appreciated, it must
be clearly shown that there was
deliberate intent on the part of the
malefactors to take advantage thereof.
(PP vs REGALRIO, GR No. 174483, Mar 31,
2009)
To appreciate the attendant circumstance of
abuse of superior strength, what should be
considered is whether the aggressors took
advantage of their combined strength in
order to consummate the offense. Mere
superiority in number is not enough to
constitute superior strength. There must be
clear proof that the assailants purposely
used excessive force out of proportion to the
defense available to the person attacked. (PP
vs AMODIA, GR No. 177356 Nov 20, 2008)-

here the offenders took turns in punching the

victim. SC said so if u took turns then its
homicide because they did not use of their
numerical superiority.

Qualifying
proved.

circumstances

must

be

It is an ancient but revered doctrine that

qualifying and aggravating circumstances
before being taken into consideration, for the
purpose of increasing the penalty to be
imposed, must be proved with equal
certainty as those which establish the
commission of the criminal offense. (PP
vs ABDULAH, GR No. 182518, Jan 20, 2009)

infanticide. (VILLAMOR vs PP, GR No.

182156, Nov 25, 2009)
Intent to kill
Intent to kill specific intent which the
prosecution must prove by direct or
circumstantial evidence,
General criminal intent presumed from the
commission of a felony by dolo.
Intent to kill is conclusively presumed when
the victim dies.
What if victim does not
Establishing intent to kill.

die

how

- victim was found near garbage dumpster,

there was evidence that her hands were tied
behind her back. Murder ang gi kiha. There
was evidence though that she was killed in
such a position. SC said then that is not
enough to prove treachery in crime with just
circumstancial evidence.

..the means used by the malefactors,

the nature, location and number of
wounds sustained by the victim, the
conduct of the malefactors before, the time,
or immediately after the killing of the victim,
the circumstances under which the crime
was committed and the motives of the
accused. (RIVERA vs PP, GR No. 166326, Jan
25, 2006)

Sec 8 and 9, Rule 110, RROC

Inconsistent with negligence.

Sec. 8 Designation of the offense ..specify

its qualifying and aggravating circumstances.

No such felony as Reckless imprudence

resulting in attempted homicide. Only
reckless imprudence resulting in physical
injuries.

Sec. 9 Cause of the accusation ..the

qualifying and aggravating circumstances
must be stated in ordinary and concise
language
Must be specifically
information.

mentioned

in

the

ART 249 Homicide.

The elements of homicide are as follows:
1. A person was killed;
2. The accused killed him without any
justifying circumstance;
3. The accused had the intention to kill,
which is presumed; and
4. The killing was not attended by any of
the
qualifying
circumstances
of
murder, or by that of parricide or

If there is intent (dolo) it follows that there

can be no culpa.
ART
250
Penalty
for
frustrated
parricide, murder, or homicide.
Courts may impose a penalty two
degrees lower in cases of frustrated
parricide, murder or homicide and a
penalty three degrees lower on cases of
an attempted felony.
50:37
ART 251. Death caused in a tumultuous
affray.

Several individuals involved that do not

constitute organized groups.
They fight or quarrel in a confused and
tumultuous manner.
Someone is killed in the fight and the one
responsible cannot be ascertained.
Offender
1. One who inflicted serious physical
injuries on the victim, or
2. One who used violence on the
victim.
- injuries must not have caused
the death because if it is then you
are liable instead for murder or
homicide.
The victim need not be a participant in
the fight.
ART 252 Physical injuries inflicted in a
tumultuous affray.
The victim must be a participant in the fight.
The offender is the one who used violence
upon the person of the victim.
Slight physical injuries are not included.
ART 253 Giving assistance to suicide.
The person commititng suicide is not
liable. No felony of suicide.
The scenarios are:
1. A person assists another to commit
suicide
and
the
suicide
is
consummated (prision mayor);
2. A person assists another to commit
suicide and the suicide is not
consummated (arresto mayor medmax);
3. A person assist another to commit
suicide by doing the killing himself
and the suicide is consummated
(reclusion temporal);
4. A person assist another to commit
suicide by doing the killing himself

and
the
suicide
is
not
consummated (one or two degrees
lower than reclusion temporal,)
ART 254 Discharge of firearms.
Elements:
1. The offender discharges a firearm
against or at another person; must
aim at the victim but
2. That the offender has no intention
to kill that person. Intent is to
intimidate.
who shall shoot at another with any
firearm..
It is not necessary that the firearm was
pointed at the victim at the actual time of
discharge. It is sufficient that the firearm was
pointed at the victim prior to the actual
discharge.
There must be no intent to kill. The
purpose is to intimidate or frighten the
victim.
You
must
discharge.
Recent
jurisprudence states that before the
discharge it may not be pointed at a
person it is sufficient that the discharge
was for the purpose of intimidating or
frightening the victim.
ART 255. Infanticide
Elements:
1. A child is killed;
2. The child is less than 3
(72hours) of age;
3. The offender killed the child.

days

Infanticide
When the mother or grandparents of the
victim commits the crime to conceal the
mothers dishonour Mitigating.
If the child is born dead or could not sustain
independent
life
outside
the
womb,
infanticide is not committed.

ART 256 Intentional Abortion

Abortion is the killing of a fetus in the womb
or its expulsion from the womb causing its
death.
2 ways of committing intentional abortion.
1. Using violence upon the pregnant
woman;
2. Without
using
violence
(drugs/beverages)
a. With consent of the pregnant
woman,
b. Without
consent
of
the
pregnant woman.
Elements of intentional abortion
1. Pregnant woman;
2. Violence
exerted
or
drugs
or
beverages
are
administered,
or
offender acts upon such pregnant
woman;
3. The fetus dies as a result;
4. Intentional.
ART 257 Unintentional Abortion
Elements:
1. Pregnant woman;
2. Violence is used without intending an
abortion;
3. The violence is intentional;
4. Fetus dies as a result of the violence.
Violence is intentional but the abortion
is unintentional.
Knowledge of pregnancy (BASAHA NING
DUHA KA CASO)
JEFFREY - the offender need not know that
the woman was pregnant.
CARNASO accused must have known of the
pregnancy.
Chocking the pregnant wife attempted
parricide with unintentional abortion (without
intention to abort the child)

ART 258 Abortion practiced by

woman herself or by her parents.

the

The woman who consents to the abortion is

liable under this article. The penalty is
mitigated if the purpose is to conceal her
dishonour.
The parents of the pregnant woman with her
consent for the purpose of concealing her
dishonour are also liable.
ART 259 Abortion practiced by a
physician or midwife and dispensing
abortives.
Applicable only in intentional abortion.
Physician or midwife who causes the
abortion and takes advantage of scientific
knowledge or skill is imposed the maximum
penalty.
ART 260 Duel
It must refer to a formal or regular combat
previously concerted between two parties in
the presence of 2 or more seconds of lawful
age on each side, who make selection of
arms and fix all the other conditions of the
fight.
Persons liable.
1. Person who killed his adversary
(Reclusion temporal)
2. Person who inflicted physical injuries
on his adversary (According to the
nature of the injury)
3. Combatants where no physical injuries
are inflicted (Arresto Mayor)
ART 261 Challenging to a duel human
jud oh. With plenty of time to spare.
Maayo jud ko na maestro oi.
Acts punished:
1. Challenging to a duel;
2. Inciting another to give or accept a
challenge to a duel;

3. Scoffing or decrying another publicly

for having to refused to accept a
challenge to fight a duel.