CRIMINAL LAW 2 NOTES ATTY. VILLA-IGNACIO\'S LECTURES

-1-

1

CRIMINAL LAW 2 NOTES ATTY. VILLA-IGNACIO’S LECTURES (These are unedited notes that are in no way comprehensive, so please use them with caution)

Article 246 – Parricide • When there is a mistake in the identity of the victim in which case Art. 49 will be applied, which is the penalty prescribed upon the principals when the crime committed is different from that intended • When the spouse or daughter under 18 years of age and living with her parents is killed under exceptional circumstances covered under Art. 247 • When the offender killed any of his relatives mentioned in the definition of the crime of parricide through negligence or reckless imprudence under Art. 365 • Is the killing of a step-father, adopted child or father parricide? NO • If the child is less than 3 days old the crime is not parricide but infanticide • If the spouse the one killed, the accused must be married to him or her, otherwise the killing is homicide or murder • The private relation of the offender with the victim shall aggravate or mitigate the crime as against the accused to whom they are attendant Article 247 - Death or Physical Injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances • The article will not apply to the Chavit case • Accused must be legally married and will not apply to common-law relationship • Does not define a crime but provides for a singular mitigating circumstance for the crimes of parricide, homicide and serious physical injuries committed under exceptional circumstances • If only slight or less serious physical injuries were committed --> Art. 247 operates as an absolutory cause to exculpate the accused from criminal liability • People v. Quedan (Sept. 2, 2002) --> by invoking Art. 247, the offender waives his right to the constitutional presumption of innocence and bears the burden of proving the following the elements of Art. 247 • People v. Abarca - though quite a length of time, about an hour, had passed between the time the accused-appellant discovered his wife having sexual intercourse with the victim and the time the latter was actually shot, the shooting must be understood to be the continuations entitled to the benefit of Art. 247 Article 248 – Murder • Killing of any person not parricide or infanticide, attendant with the enumerated circumstances • All the qualifying circumstances enumerated are also aggravating circumstances except outraging or scoffing at the victim's person or corpse • Treachery will absorb --> abuse of superior strength and in aid of armed men • In consideration of a prize, reward or promise --> two offenders --> principal by inducement, principal by direct participation • When is the killer not liable for murder qualified by premeditation even if he premeditated prior to the commission of the crime? o When the person killed is different from the intended victim o When the offender is liable for parricide o When the victim is a child less than 3 days old --> infanticide o When the killing of the victim is by means of poison. Because evident premeditation is absorbed in killing through the use of poison

KIT ENRIQUEZ

-2-

•

2

Is there a crime of frustrated homicide through reckless imprudence? o No. In homicide there is intent to kill or malice, because frustrated homicide presupposes intent to kill or malice whereas reckless imprudence is voluntary but without malice or intent to kill

Article 249 - Death Caused in Tumultuous Affair • People v. Olimbada (September 2002) --> one that takes place between several persons who engage in a tumultuous manner where a person is injured or killed Article 253 - Giving Assistance to Suicide • Committing suicide is not a crime, but the one who assisted the other is criminally liable, if to the extent that he did the killing the person assisting is liable for homicide • Mercy killing or euthanasia not a defense • Giving suggestions as to manner --> positive and direct cooperation amounting to giving assistance to suicide • Mere passive attitude does not constitute to Art. 253 Article 155 v. Article 254 v. Attempted or frustrated homicide • Article 155 - merely discharges firearm within a town or public place which produces alarm or danger with no intent to kill • Article 254 - discharges firearm against or on a certain person without intent to kill but with the intention to frighten the offended party • Attempted or frustrated - with intent to kill the offended party Infanticide • If the infant is less than 3 days of age --> crime is infanticide • Penalty --> parricide if committed by parents of other legitimate ascendants; murder if committed by any third person • If the child was born dead but the offender is unaware of such fact and he tried to kill the child he will be liable for the impossible crime of infanticide • Art. 255 provides for a special mitigating circumstance when the purpose for committing the crime by the mother and maternal grandparents was for the purpose of concealing the dishonor of the mother • Treachery is inherent Art. 256 to 258 Intentional Abortion • Is there a crime of abortion through imprudence? o Yes. Abortion through imprudence may be committed as for instance a driver of an automobile through reckless imprudence bumped a pregnant woman who suffered an abortion --> abortion through reckless imprudence, cannot be intentional abortion not intended, not unintentional abortion because the victim was not intentionally exerted the violence • Is there an impossible crime of abortion? o Yes. If the woman is not pregnant but the offender believes that she is pregnant because of her bulging abdomen and he used violence to cause an abortion this is an impossible crime where the act performed would have been abortion which is a crime against persons where it not for the inherent impossibility of committing it. • Abortion may be committed by a third person (256), woman and her parents (258), physician (259)

KIT ENRIQUEZ

-3-

• •

•

•

3

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

Article 260 – Duel • Duel not a merely an agreement to fight but • Penalty for death in a duel: same as that for homicide, but if the duel takes place the crime of challenging to a duel in Art. 261 is already present Mutilation • R.A. 7610 --> victim is a minor, mutilation and serious physical injuries inflicted shall be punished by reclusion perpetua • Mutilation --> intentionally depriving victim of reproductive organs, rendering it useless; but if act is unintentional offender is liable for serious physical injuries resulting in impotence under Art. 263 par. 1 • Intentionally chopping off a part of the victim's body is also mutilation • Cruelty inherent in mutilation, if the victim dies then it is murder qualified by cruelty • Wounding, assaulting or administering injurious substance without intent to kill • Severity of injuries and offender's liability except for mutilation is determined by duration of victim's incapacity • Blindness in Art. 263 (1) --> total blindness and not only a loss of an eye or partial loss of vision in both eyes • Total loss of hearing Art. 263 (2) --> if auditory defect only in one ear, punishable under Art. 263 (3) • Take note of periods for incapacity

KIT ENRIQUEZ

-4-

•

4

Art. 263 (3) --> must be exposed to view and cannot be healed by nature

Article 264 • It is committed by knowingly administering injurious substance or beverages but there is no intent to kill, otherwise it is frustrated murder with a qualifying circumstance of use of poison • Slapping another without impaling incapacity or medication is slight physical injuries but if the purpose or result is to humiliate the victim the offense is slander by deed under art. 356 Chapter 3: R.A. 8385 --> Anti-Rape Act • Date of enactment and effectivity • New law expanded definition of rape • Rape classified into two: sexual intercourse, sexual assault (new, broaden the concept of rape) • Sexual assault --> may be committed by any person (through the use of the penis or any object) • Husband can be held liable for rape as expressly implied in par. 2 of Art. 266-C --> must have the right of consortium, legal separation --> no right of consortium • R.A. 7610 vs. Sexual intercourse and lascivious conduct and rape involving minors o People v. Jalosjos (Nov. 16, 2001) --> R.A. 7610 in fact provides that if the child is below 12 years old, the accused must be prosecuted under Art. 266-A of the RPC, conversely if the child is above 12 but below 18, then the accused must be prosecuted under R.A. 7610 for the socalled child abuse offense. o August 20, 2008 - Consensual Sexual Intercourse with a minor (People v. Court of Appeals, G.R. 171863) • The offender was then 22 years old, when he had carnal knowledge of a 14 year old girl. The information or the charge sheet alleges the rape of a minor victim. The offender was charged with violation of Sec. 5, R.A. 7610 (why? Because it is a consensual sexual intercourse - hardly within the ambit of rape in the RPC) • The offender was convicted, but on appeal was acquitted, holding that even if respondent was charged under Sec. 5 of R.A. 7610, the same would have been acquitted as the element under Sec. 5 of the R.A. 7610 was not alleged in the information • Malto v. People: contrary ruling • Absence the allegation in the charge sheet of coercion under R.A. 7610, respondent would have to be acquitted. o The SC in Ortega v. People (G.R. No 151085, JUSTICE NACHURA) • 14 year old accused raped 8 year old (1998) In 1999 the lower court convicted him. The CA affirmed the decision. While on appeal in the SC, the juvenile justice and welfare and system act was promulgated. Age of criminal liability raised to 18. Does the new law apply to the accused?
YES. Even with the specific provision of the applicability and effectivity of the new law, the accused is entitled to the beneficial effects of the law. Civil Damages liable; Moral Damages - liable • If accused convicted of political crime of rebellion and escapes (liable for Art. 156), but subsequently the state declared amnesty. Is the accused still liable for evasion of sentence? o Art. 59 - extinction of criminal liability --> amnesty one of the causes of total extinction of criminal liability o The amnesty however only pertains to the rebellion and not to evasion of service of sentence, the court therefore won't be deprived of jurisdiction; unless the amnesty includes the forgiveness of all other offenses arising from the act of rebellion

KIT ENRIQUEZ

-5-

•

•

• • • •

• •

5

In Bigamy, the parties cannot on their own declare the prior or previous marriage as void ab initio or voidable --> must be made through a judicial declaration of nullity. Hence, even if prior marriage is void, if without judicial declaration, still liable for bigamy. o However, in one case the court ruled that if the marriage was only signed and was never solemnized before a solemnizing officer, there is no marriage and no liability for bigamy Penalties for RAPE: o Art. 266-B Aggravating Circumstances added, presence of any one if duly alleged and proved will warrant the single indivisible penalty of death in any offense committed under Art. 266-A (par. 1) not under par. 2 o Penalty when victim is demented --> reclusion perpetua (crime is simple rape without knowledge of affliction) o When offender knew of the mental disability or emotional disorder of the victim --> death Effect of pardon under 266-C Pardon of the legal husband For sweetheart defense to be sustained, the accused must prove and establish that the victim and accused were lovers and the victim consented to the alleged sexual relations What are the rules with respect to paragraph 1 Art. 266-A? o In People v. Dalisay (408 SCRA 357) --> the court reiterated the well settled rule that full penetration is not required to consummate carnal knowledge, proof of entrance and slight penetration is sufficient; slightest and manifest touching of the labia and the penis; nor is it material that the man did not ejaculate or no traces of spermatozoa were found o People v. Ogag --> force and intimidation must be sufficient, not result in death or physical injuries • If victim's father, no resistance or sufficient resistance is required (People v. Gerardo)\ Rape results in victim's insanity --> reclusion perpetua to death Special complex crimes limited to: attempted or consummated rape with homicide (reclusion perpetua to death) o Rape with homicide is a special complex crime --> penalty is death o Rape is attempted and homicide is committed --> reclusion perpetua o Rape is committed, homicide is not consummated --> not a special complex crime o Rape is committed, homicide is not --> not a special complex crime o Attempted or frustrated homicide not a necessary means to commit rape, not a complex or compound crime

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

KIT ENRIQUEZ

-6-

6

People v. Ramos (Oct. 12, 1998) --> accused kidnapped female victim for ransom and killed her (special complex crime --> kidnapping with ransom --> sentenced to death) o Illegal detention of wife by husband? Is it possible? • YES. If such restrain is unjustified and unlawful, in the means adapted as his spousal rights does not extend to illegal restraint of those who are mentally sound and physically fit In Art. 270 --> Kidnapping and failure to return a minor --> its textual substance is limited only to failure to return a minor by the person entrusted with his custody; but prior to its amendment there used to be paragraphs in Art. 270, the second paragraph pertaining to kidnapping. Art. 272 --> term kidnapped used, 387 SCRA 342 --> court held that what was actually being punished is not the kidnapping of the minor but rather the deliberate failure of the custodian to restore the minor to his parents of his guardians and that the word deliberate as used in Art. 270 must imply more than mere negligence, premeditated, head strong, foolishly daring, intentionally or maliciously wrong Art. 271 --> inducing minor to leave his home --> must be committed with criminal intent --> engage in dangerous things, accompany a beggar or vagrant --> offense is exploitation of minor Art. 272 --> enslavement --> if purpose of enslaving first paragraph should govern if for profit or prostitution the second paragraph will apply Art. 274 --> the victim debtor is required to work as a servant or worker in a farm as farm laborer, if the victim is forced to work in other capacities but for the same purpose the creditor will be liable for coercion Art. 275 --> abandonment of person in danger and abandonment of his own victim --> shall fail to render assistance to a person whom he shall find in an uninhabited place, wounded or dying --> if person dies, without person rendering assistance will he be liable under Art. 275? Art. 275 refers to a deliberate abandonment of a person found in an uninhabited place --> liable for homicide pursuant to Art. 4 par. 1 (person committing a felony although the wrongful act done was different from that which was not intended) --> graver offense Sec. 10(e) R.A. 7610 amended penalties under Art. 248-249, 262, 337, 339, 340 and 341 Art. 280 - Qualified trespass to dwelling Art. 281 - Other forms of trespass o SC in a recent case ruled that the respondent in entering the dwelling of another to close the overflowing faucet is not trespass to dwelling even if there is another faucet that can be closed --> when he entered the dwelling there is no malice or criminal intent, it was done to protect his unit from possible damage Violation of domicile by public officer v. Trespass to dwelling o Violation of domicile committed by three different ways (enters, searches papers, refuses to leave) o Trespass committed on ly in one way, entry into the dwelling against the express or implied prohibition of the occupant • Door ajar/unlocked occupant asleep • Door tied with a string • Late night, entry made through opening not intended for that purpose, occupants sleeping o Expressly prohibited by the master of the house, servant girl allows boyfriend to enter --> YES, both will be liable for trespass to dwelling (indispensable cooperation) o If entrance effected by violence --> used by offender at any time (before, during or immediately after) --> there is trespass even if the door was open at the time, occupant not in position to prevent entry •

•

•

• • •

•

• • •

•

KIT ENRIQUEZ

-7-

o

7

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

Threats and Coercion • If the act threatened is a crime it will always be grave threats under 282 • If subject to a condition par. 1, if not par. 2 • Threat made in the heat of anger, and the offender did not persist --> light threats • Error: shall orally threat another with some harm not constituting a crime --> word NOT should be deleted (People v. Untalan) --> always a light threat • The bond referred to shall only be required in grave threats and light threats and merely conditioned upon the accused • No bond in threats under Art. 285 and other light threats • Threats v. Coercion o Not immediately consummated --> grave threats o Correspondingly achieved --> grave coercion o Harm in the future --> threats o Harm is immediate and impending in a present confrontation --> threats o Directed towards the victim's honor, property, person or victim's family --> threats o On the person of the victim --> coercion • Grave coercion o Preventing another by means of violence, threats, intimidation from something not prohibited by law o Compelling another • Unjust vexation --> any other coercion, no crime of attempted or frustrated unjust vexation, as being a light felony not being a crime against person or property, only punishable when consummated • 288 and 289 o Superseded or impliedly repealed by the labor code and other related labor laws o Any acts of violence or compulsion mentioned therein are punishable under the RPC In 290 regardless of whether or not contents are revealed the accused is liable, but the penalty • depends on whether or not he makes that revelation • Parents, guardians in custody of minor are excluded • Spouses are also excluded because of the theoretic identity of their interests • Revealing secrets by abuse of office by managers, officers or servants o If required by law --> no liability o Damage is not necessary • Other prohibited acts of revelation by a lawyer who reveals his clients secrets and revelation of secrets of a private individual by a public officer o Prejudice is an element of the crime Robbery • Robbery with violence or intimidation and robbery by use of force upon things • Robbery and theft have three similar elements: o Intent to gain or animus lucrandi o Unlawful taking/transportation • Robbery: violence or intimidation of persons or force upon things • Theft: stealth or strategy

KIT ENRIQUEZ

-8-

8

Personal property as subject People v. Reyes (March 26, 2003; 399 SCRA 538) o Principle that in robbery intent to gain is presumed form the unlawful taking of personal property belonging to another and that the person divested of personal property need not be the owner thereof o A defense and claim of ownership in good faith by the offender even if the claim is untenable destroys the element of animus lucrandi or intent to gain conversely where the claim of ownership is patently a mere ploy or was made in bad faith, animus lucrandi exists o Mere intent to gain is sufficient even if no actual gain resulted, as with temporary disturbance of property rights is generally sufficient in crime against property Unlawful taking sufficient if object was taken and held by offender in a manner to dispose of it as intended, even if possession is merely transitory or temporary Subject matter being any personal property the rule is that as long as it does not belong to the accused, it is immaterial if said offender stole it from the owner, a mere possessor or even from a thief of the property The test for purposes of the RPC to declare the property as personalty in crimes of robbery in theft is whether or not the object is susceptible of appropriation or transportation or transfer from one place to another without altering its nature or presence Mode of commission: o Violence against or intimidation of persons o Use of force upon things The moment there is violence or intimidation the unlawful taking is robbery which should be present form the commencement of the felony In robbery through force upon things it will be robbery is force described under Art. 299 What is the rule when robbery is committed with violence or intimidation or force upon things is likewise employed (two modes present in one instance of robbery) o Crime categorized under the first mode If an owner shall forcibly take the personalty from its lawful possessor what crime is committed? o The crime would be estafa since the owner cannot commit robbery of his own property or theft even if he uses violence or intimidation Large cattle: Anti-cattle rustling law o G.R. 140932, Feb. 28, 2001 Art. 294 (Penalties of robbery with violence, etc.) o Apply only when robbery takes place without entering an inhabited house, under the circumstances under 299 o Punished as a single crime and has become known as special complex crimes, in Art. 294 the robbery and homicide must be consummated o Homicide used in its generic sense and includes any kind of killing whether parricide or murder or where several persons are killed (name: robbery with homicide) o Relationship if it was parricide, cruelty or treachery if it was murder will only become an aggravating circumstances and not murder o Rules • People v. Mangulubnan: committed when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide should have been committed, one of the accused fired gun at the ceiling without idea that person hiding therein. Homicide produced on the occasion of the robbery was by reason or as a result of the robbery in as much as it is only the result without reference or distinction as to the circumstances, poses or modes of persons intervening in the crime to be taken into consideration o

•

• •

•

•

• • •

•

• •

KIT ENRIQUEZ

-9-

9

Must have intention to take personalty belonging to another with intent to gain If after commission of robbery, the intention of the offender must either to defend the possession, do away with the witness, make way for escape • Person killed --> any person, that would cover one or more of the robbers themselves or innocent bystanders or responding police officers Robbery with rape o Rape must be consummated for the special complex crime under Art. 294 and 297 to apply o In People v. Cariaga: robbery with attempted rape not under Art. 48 as complex crime or 294 as they are distinct crimes o Offender before committing rape must have intention to take personal property belonging another with intent to gain and the robbery is accompanied by rape o Homicide and rape committed --> crime is robbery with homicide with rape as an aggravating circumstance o Multiple homicide or rape in the course of or by reason of robbery, these additional homicide or rape not appreciated as an aggravating circumstance despite a resultant anomalous situation as when robbery with rape is on equal footing as robbery with multiple rape • Enumeration for aggravating circumstances is exclusive • People v. Sultan (April 27, 200) --> it can neither increase the penalty nor be prosecuted separately, they are to be disregarded as if such crimes were not committed and the victims did not exist (penalty the same, maximum penalty, not further aggravate liability)
Anomalous situation --> described as in so far as the court is concerned additional homicide not committed victims never existed Robbery with mutilation or serious physical injuries o On occasion of robbery o Must be those described in Art. 263 o Becoming insane, impotent or blind, use of speech, power to hear, smell or lost an eye, foot, arm or leg or use of such member or has become incapacited for work which he was before engaged Robbery unnecessary violence or intimidaiton o Inflicted physical injuries in par. 3 and 4 of Art. 263 o Injuries inflicted on person not responsible for the commission of the robbery Simple robbery (intimidation only) o Injuries not contemplated in par. 1 to 4 only involve simple or slight physical injuries, absorbed in robbery Attempted or frustrated robbery with homicide is also a special complex crime with only one penalty Unless the killing deserves a penalty higher than reclusion perpetua in its maximum possible if killing is parricide, murder or infanticide (reclusion perpetua to death) o Physical injuries without intent to kill and victim did not die, injuries absorbed in attempted or frustrated robbery committed o Serious physical injuries not fall under Art. 284 nor under Art. 297, Art. 48 then should apply, single act constitute two or more grave or less grave felonies, offense necessary means to commit the other (penalty for most serious crime) Art. 298 --> violence against or intimidation of persons o Can be committed by any person Use of force upon things o Robbery in an uninhabited place • •

•

•

•

•

• •

• •

KIT ENRIQUEZ

- 10 -

10

Robbery in an inhabited place Use of force must have been for the purpose of entry or to enable the offender to enter the building o Term force refers to both physical and constructive force • Physical: breaking of any wall • Constructive: Through an opening not intended as ingress or egress, fictitious name, picklocks, public officer Art. 299 any armed persons but only for the purpose of determining penalty if used to intimidate (Art. 294 or 297) Ships or vessels; distinguish from piracy Robbery Genuine keys stolen from owner also considered as false keys o Possession of false keys no penalty or punishment unless together with picklocks and similar tools o o

• • • •

Theft • Laurel v. Abrogar (Feb. 27, 2006) -- intangible properties are proper subjects of theft because they may be taken, carried away or appropriated • They should not be equated with service provided to the public, property but not subject of theft • The taking personal property of another with intent to gain but without violence o Offender does not always take the thing from another, he may have received the thing from another, but if he acquires only the material possession of the things and appropriates it is liable for theft and not for estafa Estafa or Swindling • Two basic and indispensable elements: o Abuse of confidence or deceit as the means of committing the crime o Damage or intent to cause damage capable of pecuniary estimation as basis of penalty • Estafa by abuse of confidence • Estafa by means of deceit • Person injured need not be the owner of the goods (People v. Salazar) • Reimbursement or restitution of the sums swindled does not extinguish criminal liability • Estafa has features similar to that of theft o US v. Vera: flawed, if offender received by offender, appropriation may still be considered theft o Juridical possession of object transferred in estafa --> theft only physical possession is transferred o When is there juridical possession? • When would there only be civil liability? • Diaz v. People (August 26, 2008) --> the private complainant gave accused the amount of P200k in trust to be lent to other people but there is also an agreement that the same must be returned to the complainant at any time upon demand. Failure to account upon demand is already estafa • If material possession, juridical possession and ownership are also transferred default in return --> give rise only to a civil liability (take away ownership: criminal responsibility of liability) • Money paid by students: not estafa, only civil liability • There must be a formal demand o Exception: (People v. Villegas)

KIT ENRIQUEZ

- 11 -

11

When the offender's obligation subject to a period Accused cannot be located despite due diligence Motor Vehicle, personal use, leased to another: crime is estafa (in juridical possession of the vehicle), but if it is a passenger jeep rented out and later sold by the accused, qualified theft (reversed People v. Bonifacio in People v. Isaac) --> public utility vehicle cannot be rented out for private purposes, contract void --> only material possession and not juridical --> misappropriation or conversion not estafa but qualified theft Rules constituted by partners in a partnership o If a property was contributed for a specific partnership purpose and the accused partner converted the same for his own benefit: estafa o Contributed for general partnership purpose, no estafa without prior liquidation of partnership assets Rules of acts of sales commission agent o Such retention or deduction has been authorized no criminal liability o Detention for the protection against a possible civil controversy --> no estafa --. Pending mutual accounting between the parties; principal failed to pay agents accrued commission of larger amount o Retention not authorized nor for protection of civil dispute there is liability for estafa By taking undue advantage of signature in blank and by writing any document above such signature in blank o If paper with signature in blank delivered but not filled up in accordance with instruction: Crime is estafa but may constitute as falsification too, falsification is absorbed o If not delivered: crime is falsification, cannot be estafa (Art. 171 par. 3) as there is no abuse of confidence o If signature secured by fraud (estafa by inducement through deceit to sign a document) o Par. 1 C different from Art. 316 (person executing any fictitious or simulated contract, in the latter case person who executed the fictitious contract is himself the one who signed the same) By false pre-tense or deceit (par. 2 and 3 or Art. 315) o Where the accused obtained money from the offended party on a promise that he would work for the approval of certain application but did not succeed--> contract of service o But is the accused had no intention to perform services --> estafa (People v. Wilson Yi) o Accused commits crime of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code, his act of causing damage under the false pre-tense that he has been licensed to engage in recruitment and placement activities for which he was paid by the victim will make him liable for estafa --> may be convicted for both illegal recruitment (malum prohibitum) and estafa (malum in se) Post-dating a check or Issuance of check in favor of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank or has insufficient funds (par. 2 d) o Also known as estafa through bouncing checks • Distinguished from B.P. 22 which is malum prohibitum v. Malum inse) • Elements of deceit and damage in estafa not required in violation of BP 22 • BP 22 classified as crime against public interest; estafa classified as crime against property • In BP 22 the drawer is liable even if the check is issued in payment of a pre-existing obligation which is not the rule in the case of estafa
The issuance by the offender of the check must be prior to or simultaneously with the transaction, otherwise if the check is issued in payment for pre-existing legal obligation no estafa is committed • •

•

•

•

•

•

•

KIT ENRIQUEZ

- 12 -

12

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


•

• • • •

Other kinds of Swindling -Art. 361 • No. 1 o Disposal of real property --> property actually exists but does not belong to offender; if it does not exist it will be estafa (falsely pretending to possess property) o Mere intent to cause damage is not sufficient --> there must be actual damage • No. 2 o People v. Escueta --> misrepresented that property is free from encumbrance o If duly recorded in the Resgistry of Deeds, constructive notice --> not applicable to estafa by means of deceit (Aug. 28, 1985 case) Art. 317 - Swindling a Minor • Age of the minor discussed in Reyes has already been settled by the Family Code setting the age of majority to 18 years of age Art. 318 - Other deceits • Any kind of deceit resorted to by the offender to prejudice the victim • Catch all provision in the Code

KIT ENRIQUEZ

- 13 -

•

13

Examples: o A offered to serve as a domestic servant but left after he received advance wages o Showing one lot to an interested buyer but thereafter sold him a different lot o In interpreting dreams for profit if the fortune teller would also deceive the victim saying he had supernatural powers it will be estafa under par. 2A (pretending to possess power)

Arson • Art. 320 restored by PD 1744, later amended RA 7659 • Sec. 6 PD 1613 --> prima facie evidence of arson • If by reason or on occasion of arson death occurs the crime of homicide is absorbed • Attempted Arson • Frustrated Arson • Consummated Arson • A person attempting to burn collected some rocks, soaked in gasoline and placed them in the building, when he was about to light a match he was chased by a person -- attempted; if rags are lit --> frustrated; and if a building is burned • People v. Malugan (1704470, Sept. 20, 2006) --> where both burning and death occurred o Main objective is burning of the building and death occurs --> crime is arson, homicide absorbed o Main objective to kill and fire is resorted to accomplish --> murder only o Main objective is to kill, and offender kills victim, fire resorted to, to cover up killing --> two crimes: homicide or murder and arson Malicious Mischief • Cannot be committed through reckless imprudence • There is simple malicious mischief and qualified or special malicious mischief where offender shall in addition be liable for other consequences of his criminal act • If damaged property also appropriated --> crime is theft; after having damaged the property of another shall remove or make use of the same --> punishable under Art. 308 Crimes against chastity/private crimes • Crimes which cannot be prosecuted de officio because of the requirement that the prosecution thereof should be by a sworn written complaint by the offended party --> procedural requirement -> condition sine qua non --> jurisdictional) • People v. Morigo (may be used also in the crime of concubinage) • There are two crimes against chastity which can be prosecuted de officio: o Corruption of Minors o White Slave Trade o State can proceed with the prosecution regardless of whether a sworn written complaint has been executed by the victim • Crime cannot be prosecuted de officio (not a crime against chastity) o Violation of Art. 360 (last paragraph) --> libel by imputation of a crime such as adultery or concubinage and other offenses enumerated under the provision o GR: libel can be prosecuted de officio (the last paragraph an exception) • Adultery is committed by a married woman who should have sexual intercourse with a man not her husband, the man knowing her to be married o People v. Zapata --> each sexual intercourse constitute a crime of adultery should be rationalized as adulterous acts on different occasions

KIT ENRIQUEZ

- 14 -

14

Consent and Pardon of adulterous acts • The present doctrinal rule is that consent applies to future acts while pardon refers to past acts • Importance of distinction
The importance of the distinction lies in the fact that consent is valid and will exculpate liability even if granted only to the offending spouse but pardon to absolve must be granted to both offenders o Last paragraph: special extenuating or mitigating circumstance (People v. Alberto --> wife was given two degrees lower and another degree lower because it was proved that she acted in the honest belief and in good faith that her husband was dead --> VI: cannot satisfy the doctrine, wife acted in a mistake of fact; the court should have acquitted her instead as there was no criminal intent) o Even if marriage subsequently declared void or voidable --> prosecution will prosper o Can there be a separate crime of adultery and bigamy? o Can there be adultery and concubinage (Del Prado v. Dela Fuente) o Concubinage in three ways: • Mistress in conjugal dwelling • Having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances with a woman other than the wife • Co-habiting o Married man brought to the conjugal dwelling a girl and introduced the same to his wife as a relative who would be staying in the house while looking for a work. Without wife's knowledge man and girl would have carnal knowledge. Would Art. 334 or concubinage in the first mode apply to that situation? • Will not apply, not introduced as a concubine but as a relative • The law requires that the girl be brought it to the conjugal dwelling in that status, as a mistress o Under the second mode, proof of actual sexual intercourse is not required so long as it can be resonably concurred that such occurred o Co-habiting in another place, requires both accused actually live together as husband and wife o A married man, would every now and then, would go to an apartment to have liaison with his girlfriend • Under the third mode cohabiting in any other place requires that both accused actually live together as husband and wife, occasional visit or transient visit does not amount to co-habitation (habituality only required in the first and third modes of commission of the crimes) Acts of lasciviousness o Lewd design --> always consummated o Offense is committed against either sex in Art. 336 except in Art. 339 In Art. 337 the penalty for the commission or corruption of minors, white slave trade has been raised one degree if victim is under 12 years of age Simple seduction --> deceit Qualified --> abuse of authority; physical virginity as it is understood in medical science is not required, what is required is only legal virginity --> the idea of abduction of virtuous woman or good reputation o Abuse of authority by person in public authority --> guardian, teacher, person entrusted with the victim, priest, relationship of brother, not by adoption o

•

• • •

KIT ENRIQUEZ

- 15 -

• •

15

Promise of marriage is principal inducement for seduction --> but if fraudulent machination to seduce girl would that not constitute as Rape? VI: YES Corruption of Minors and white slave trade o CM --> minors must be used, either sex, must not necessarily for profit, single act, WST --> minority may not be involved, females, for profit, generally committed habitually o White Slave Trade may be with or without the consent of the woman --> while slavery for the purpose of immoral traffic is committed against her will

Abduction • Art. 342 - forcible abduction • Art. 343 - consented abduction • There must be lewd designs, for some appreciable period of time (permanence not necessary) • After intercourse of the victim is not required in abduction • Lewd design is sufficient to make the offender liable Prosecution of Adultery etc • Last paragraph, epitaph --> rape is still there, but since the crime of rape has been transported from private crimes to crimes against persons the same should be deemed deleted from the text of Art. 344 • Concubinage and adultery can be prosecuted only by the offended spouse --> even if incapacitated • In complaint filed by offended spouse, even if minor is valid (under the old law --> when minor can still marry) • Subsequent marriage between the offended party and the accused shall delete the liability and the penalty together with the co-principals and accomplices except in adultery and concubinage or marriage invalid, in bad faith, to escape criminal liability or responsibility Simulation of birth etc. • Purpose: to effect or attain the civil status of another • Simulation of birth --> to prove that she is not sterile • But to extort money --> estafa • Girlfriend says that she is pregnant without taking the child of another, and asks for money from the boyfriend (without money) --> other deceits (Art. 318) --> if man actually believed the girl, if not there may be estafa (read commentaries) Bigamy • There are three kinds of illegal marriage provided for in Chapter 2 of Illegal marriages: o Bigamy - Art. 349 o Marriage contrary to marriage law o Premature marriage • Bigamy --> essential first marriage valid, second marriage valid had it not been for the existence of the first marriage o Conflicting decisions were laid to rest by the family code (Aug. 3, 1988) adopted doctrines in Vda. De consanguera • While the second marriage should be presumed null and void ab initio there was still a need for a judicial declaration nullity of second marriage • Art. 14 --> absolute nullity for previous marriage may be invoked only by final judgment declaring previous marriage void

KIT ENRIQUEZ

- 16 -

16

August 2008 (Morigo decision) -- > if the alleged marriage consisted only of signing the marriage contract --> parties did not go through the solemnization, there is no first marriage to speak of The rules in adultery and bigamy are different o Adultery may be committed even if marriage is void o Bigamy cannot be committed when first marriage is void o In this particular situation a problem can be crafted: If a man and a woman gets married to respective spouses, contract marriage with each other and have sexual relations thereafter. What will their liability be? • Woman --> Adultery and bigamy, if first marriage null and void not liable for bigamy and only adultery • Man --> Bigamy and adultery if he knew the status of the woman as married as well, if without knowledge bigamy only
Knowledge of the marriage of the woman is essential for concubinage, if his first marriage is null and void ab initio and he did not know the woman is married --> the man has no liability May a married man be liable for bigamy and concubinage? o If he marries and subsequently cohabits with the second wife (US v. Diaz, reiterated in US v. Cabrera, People v. Schnekenburger) Prescriptive period for bigamy: does not commence from the commission thereof but from the time of its discovery by the complainant spouse. But if subsequent marriage was solemnized in a church and registered --> there is present constructive notice --> shouldn't prescriptive period begin to run on the date of registry of the subsequent marriage? The rule on constructive notice is not applicable, while it may be considered that the bigamous marriage was celebrated publicly and registered the said rule cannot apply, bigamous marriage entered into in secrecy to the offended spouse and in a place where offender known as not a marriage person While in Art. 350, marriage against provisions of law --> full knowledge that legal requirements not complied with Art. 351 premature marriage o Premature marriage --> widow contracted marriage within period of 301 days within the death of the first spouse --> obsolete (to avoid issue of doubtful paternity) o Supposing girl contracts 2nd marriage and has the child tested for DNA and the child is that of the deceased spouse, would the woman be liable for contracting premature marriage? o When is the period set aside? o If without marriage license --> also liable under Art. 350 and 351 o People v. Masinsin --> purpose of Art. 351 to avoid cases of doubtful paternity, woman not liable if she has already delivered, conclusive proof that she is not pregnant by the previous spouse because he was permanently sterile; distinguished from impotency •

•

•

•

• •

Art. 353 -> Libel • Complainant as to the last phrase --> blacken memory of one who is dead --> heirs or the estate can take action against one who cause dishonor to memory of person dead • Oral defamation v. Slander v. Libel --> means of commission • Two types of qualified privileged communication • In 355 libel by means of writing or similar means --> take note that television programs have not been included in the enumeration of how libel could be committed o If made through TV program --> People v. Casten --> court ruled that libel can also be committed in television programs or broadcasts although the same has not been included in

KIT ENRIQUEZ

- 17 -

• • • •

• •

•

•

• •

17

the enumeration of the means of committing the crime of libel --> not mentioned because not yet in existence but included as any "similar means" (Villa-Ignacio: what of the rule on constructing the law in favor of the accused?) --> follow jurisprudence Libel should be distinguished from slander under Art. 358 Oral defamation -- which would be simple or great slander Prescriptive period of slander --> grave, oral defamation and slander by deed (6 months); simple slander (2 months or 60 days) The word PUTA --> not an imputation of prostitution o The court in the case of Reyes --> Merely an expression of disgust or displeasure and not by itself an oral defamation o But what if with dirty finger --> if merely to annoy or irritate --> unjust vexation, if to embarrass and humiliate, put victim in dishonour --> slander Art. 359 --> intent to humiliate offended party, if intent not duly proven --> may be matreatment by deed (Art. 266) Offender took hold of the teacher's hair and started shaking the school teacher's head --> what crime was committed? o Depend on the intent --> act of hitting the teacher to dishonor the teacher --> slander o If to hurt --> physical injury o Art. 148 (direct assault) --> if committed in the performance of her duty, or by reason of performance of duty --> would constitute direct assault (after amendment of RPC on who are persons in authority) Art. 360 -- last paragraph o Sworn written complaint is required, whether imputation committed orally or in writing o What if the imputation would involve the crime of rape, can that be prosecuted by the State even without a sworn written statement? • YES --> crime no longer a crime against chastity not a private crime anymore, reclassified as a crime against person, state notwithstanding absence of sworn written statement can prosecute (Villa-Ignacio: exercise in futility --> no witness to be presented) Is 363 or incriminating innocent persons equivalent to malicious prosecution? o What is malicious prosecution? Should it be under Art. 363 or 364? • Not in the RPC, a civil law concept --> closest in the RPC is perjury or false testimony in a judicial proceeding In Strebel --> no crime of malicious prosecution as the same is a civil concept in Art. 2208 par. 3 Feb. 28, 1962 case

Criminal Negligence • Rule in designation of the offense involving criminal negligence and resulting in physical injuries or homicide or damage to property? o Which is being punished? The resulting offense of the manner of commission of the offense? • Should be reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, simple negligence causing damages to property • Is abandonment a commission or an ommission? o An act of commission --> shall abandon --> committing a felony o If abandonment of one's own victim --> an ommission Nevermind Title 15

KIT ENRIQUEZ

- 18 -

18

SOME PROBLEMS ASKED IN CLASS: Article 246 - Parricide 1. A an illegitimate son of B killed the legitimate son of B. Is he guilty of parricide? No because in the case of ascendants such as grandparents, their relationship with the killer must be legitimate. The same is true with the other descendants (grandchildren or great grandchildren) 2.

A had been married to B in China before he came to the Philippines, here A married X. In a quarrel A killed X. Is A liable for parricide? No. The marriage of A with X being bigamous, his relationship with X is illegitimate. To constitute parricide the person killed must be a legitimate spouse of the offender. A will be liable for homicide instead

3.

A is married to B, A planned to kill B. A hired C a stranger to kill B with a pistol furnished by D, the brother of A. C the hired killer shot to death B. What crime was committed by A, C and D. A is liable for parricde C for murder D for Article 247

1. A surprised his wife and her paramour. But the paramour was able to run away, the husband chased the paramour. Unable to catch up with the paramour the husband returned to the wife who he found at the stairs of the house. The husband killed the wife. May the husband be given the benefit of Art. 247? Yes. In the act of sexual intercourse or immediately thereafter --> interpreted differently 2. Where the husband kills a woman in flagrante meaning in the act of sexual intercourse with another man, in the mistaken belief that she was his wife. May the husband be given the benefit of Art. 247? No. But the husband will be excused from liability because of mistake of fact, provided all the requisites or elements for claiming so are present 3. A killed B because the latter provoked the former during an earthquake and eruption of a volcano. Is A liable for murder? No. There is no showing that the accused took advantage of the eruption of the volcano and earthquake and more importantly he was provoked. The fact that he killed the victim during an earthquake is not the determining circumstance but the provocation 4. A killed B in an uninhabited place and at night time purposely sought by A to facilitate the commission of the crime. Is A liable for murder? No because uninhabited place and night time are not qualifying circumstances in murder. Other Articles 1. A without intent to kill fired his gun at B, but only slight physical injuries were committed

KIT ENRIQUEZ

- 19 -

19

Illegal discharge of firearm and slight physical injuries. No intent to kill. Although the two crimes were the result of one single act, a slight physical injuries cannot form a complex crime with illegal discharge of firearm 2. A suffered abortion by natural cause. Fetus in human form, above 6 months. While the fetus was still alive, it was buried by the servant as instructed by the mother. Would the mother and the servant be liable criminally? No because the fetus in view of its age which is only 6 months did not have its own life independent of that of the mother. A fetus under these conditions had necessarily to succumb a few moments after its expulsion from the maternal womb. The crime of infanticide not committed, in this crime the infant must be able to subsist outside the maternal womb and less than 3 days old. No abortion because the expulsion was through natural cause --> no intent to commit abortion 3. A, a stranger poisoned a pregnant woman to kill her. As a consequence, she died and the fetus in her womb also died. What crime was committed? Murder, because A killed the woman by means of poison. Poison is a qualifying circumstance of murder. It cannot be a complex crime of murder with intentional abortion because the abortion was not intended. The crime cannot also be complexed with unintentional abortion because there was no violence used. 4. May an owner of a house commit trespass to dwelling in his own house? YES. Lessor-lessee relationship 5. Accused without intent to kill, entered the dwelling. Owner raises alarm of intrusion and is killed. What is the liability of the person entering the dwelling? Separate charges of trespass to dwelling and homicide 6. If with intent to kill --> Homicide aggravated by dwelling

KIT ENRIQUEZ