Anda di halaman 1dari 32

TITLE ELEVEN

CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY


Crimes against chastity
1. Adultery (Art. 333);
2. Concubinage (Art. 334);
3. Acts of lasciviousness (Art. 336);
4. Qualified seduction (Art. 337);
5. Simple seduction (Art. 338);
6. Acts of lasciviousness with the consent of the offended party (Art. 339);
7. Corruption of minors (Art. 340);
8. White slave trade (Art. 341);
9. Forcible abduction (Art. 342);
10. Consented abduction (Art. 343).

* The crimes of adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness are the so-called private crimes.
They cannot be prosecuted except upon the complaint initiated by the offended party . The law regards the privacy of the
offended party here as more important than the disturbance to the order of society. For the law gives the offended party
the preference whether to sue or not to sue. But the moment the offended party has initiated the criminal complaint, the
public prosecutor will take over and continue with prosecution of the offender. That is why under Article 344, if the
offended party pardons the offender, that pardon will only be valid if it comes before the prosecution starts. The moment
the prosecution starts, the crime has already become public and it is beyond the offended party to pardon the offender.

Article 333
ADULTERY

ELEMENTS:
1. That the woman is married (even if marriage subsequently declared void)

2. That she has sexual intercourse with a man not her husband.

3. That as regards the man with whom she has sexual intercourses, he must know her
to be married.

Notes:

* There are two reasons why adultery is made punishable by law. Primarily, it is a violation
of the marital vow and secondarily, it paves the way to the introduction of a spurious child into
the family.

* Adultery is a crime not only of the married woman but also of the man who had intercourse with a married woman
knowing her to be married. Even if the man proves later on that he does not know the woman to be married, at the
beginning, he must still be included in the complaint or information. This is so because whether he knows the woman to
be married or not is a matter of defense and its up to him to ventilate that in formal investigations or a formal trial.

* If after preliminary investigation, the public prosecutor is convinced that the man did not know that the woman is married,
then he could simply file the case against the woman.

* The acquittal of the woman does not necessarily result in the acquittal of her co-accused.
In order to constitute adultery, there must be a joint physical act. Joint criminal intent is not necessary. Although the
criminal intent may exist in the mind of one of the parties to the physical act, there may be no such intent in the mind of
the other party. One may be guilty of the criminal intent, the other innocent, and yet the joint physical act necessary to
constitute the adultery may be complete. So, if the man had no knowledge that the woman was married, he would be
innocent insofar as the crime of adultery is concerned but the woman would still be guilty; the former would have to be
acquitted and the latter found guilty, although they were tried together.

* A husband committing concubinage may be required to support his wife committing adultery under the rule in pari
delicto.

* For adultery to exist, there must be a marriage although it be subsequently annulled. There is no adultery, if the
marriage is void from the beginning.
* Adultery is an instantaneous crime which is consummated and completed at the moment of the carnal union. Each
sexual intercourse constitutes a crime of adultery. Adultery is not a continuing crime unlike concubinage.

Illustration:

Madamme X is a married woman residing in Pasay City. He met a man, Y, at Roxas Boulevard. She agreed to go with to
Baguio City, supposedly to come back the next day. When they were in Bulacan, they stayed in a motel, having sexual
intercourse there. After that, they proceeded again and stopped at Dagupan City, where they went to a motel and had
sexual intercourse.

* There are two counts of adultery committed in this instance: one adultery in Bulacan, and another adultery in Dagupan
City. Even if it involves the same man, each intercourse is a separate crime of adultery.

* Mitigated if wife was abandoned without justification by the offended spouse (man is entitled to this
mitigating circumstance)

* Abandonment without justification is not exempting but only a mitigating circumstance. One
who invokes abandonment in the crime of adultery hypothetically admits criminal liability for the
crime charged. (U. S. vs. Serrano, et al., 28 Phil. 230)

* While abandonment is peculiar only to the accused who is related to the offended party and
must be considered only as to her or him as provided under Article 62, paragraph 3, nonetheless,
judicially speaking, in the crime of adultery, there is only one act committed and consequently
both accused are entitled to this mitigating circumstance. (People vs. Avelino, 40 O.G. Supp.
11, 194)

Attempted: caught disrobing a lover

* There is no frustrated adultery because of the nature of the offense.

* In the case of People vs. Pontio Guinucud, et al., (58 Phil. 621), a private agreement was
entered into between the husband and wife for them to separate from bed and board and for
each of them to go for his and her own separate way. Thereafter, the wife Rosario Tagayum lived
with her co-accused Pontio Guinucud in a nearby barangay. Their love affair ultimately embroiled
the spouses conservative and reputable families in a human drama exposed in legal battles and
whispers of unwanted gossips. In dismissing the complaint, the Court ruled that while a private
agreement between the husband and wife was null and void, the same was admissible proof of
the express consent given by the condescending husband to the prodigal wife, a license for her
to commit adultery. Such agreement bars the husband from instituting a criminal complaint for
adultery.

* After filing the complaint for adultery and while the case is pending trial and resolution by the
trial court, the offended spouse must not have sexual intercourse with the adulterous wife since
an act of intercourse subsequent to the adulterous conduct is considered as implied pardon .
(People vs. Muguerza, et al., 13 C.A. Rep. 1079)

* It is seldom the case that adultery is established by direct evidence. The legal tenet has been
and still is circumstancial and corroborative evidence as will lead the guarded discretion of a
reasonable and just man to the conclusion that the criminal act of adultery has been committed
will bring about conviction for the crime. (U. S. vs. Feliciano, 36 Phil. 753)

Article 334
CONCUBINAGE

ELEMENTS:
1. That the man must be married.
2. That he committed any of the following acts:

a. Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling.

b. Having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances with a woman


who is not his wife.

c. Cohabiting with her in any other place.

3. That as regards the woman she must know him to be married.

Note: Scandal consists in any reprehensible word/deed that offends public conscience, redounds to the
detriment of the feelings of honest persons and gives occasions to the neighbors spiritual damage and ruin

* With respect to concubinage the same principle applies: only the offended spouse can bring the prosecution. This is a
crime committed by the married man, the husband. Similarly, it includes the woman who had a relationship with the
married man.

* It has been asked why the penalty for adultery is higher than concubinage when both crimes are infidelities to the marital
vows. The reason given for this is that when the wife commits adultery, there is a probability that she will bring a stranger
into the family. If the husband commits concubinage, this probability does not arise because the mother of the child will
always carry the child with her. So even if the husband brings with him the child, it is clearly known that the child is a
stranger. Not in the case of a married woman who may bring a child to the family under the guise of a legitimate child.
This is the reason why in the former crime the penalty is higher than the latter.

* Unlike adultery, concubinage is a continuing crime.

* If the charges consist in keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, there is no need for proof
of sexual intercourse. The conjugal dwelling is the house of the spouse even if the wife happens
to be temporarily absent therefrom. The woman however must be brought into the conjugal
house by the accused husband as a concubine to fall under this article. Thus, if the co-accused
was voluntarily taken and sheltered by the spouses in their house and treated as an adopted
child being a relative of the complaining wife, her illicit relations with the accused husband does
not make her a mistress. (People vs. Hilao, et al., (C.A.) 52 O.G. 904).

* It is only when a married man has sexual intercourse with a woman elsewhere that scandalous
circumstances becomes an element of crime.

* For the existence of the crime of concubinage by having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances,
the latter must be imprudent and wanton as to offend modesty and sense of morality and decency.

* When spies are employed to chronicle the activities of the accused and the evidence presented
to prove scandalous circumstances are those taken by the detectives, it is obvious that the
sexual intercourse done by the offenders was not under scandalous circumstances. (U.S. vs.
Campos-Rueda, 35 Phil. 51)

* Causal sexual intercourse with a woman in a hotel is not concubinage. Likewise, keeping of a
mistress in a townhouse procured and furnished by a married man who does not live or sleep
with her in said townhouse does not constitute concubinage since there is no cohabitation.

* The rule is that, if a married mans conduct with a woman who is not his wife was not confined
to occasional or transient interview for carnal intercourse but is carried n in the manner of
husband and wife and for some period of time, then such association is sufficient to constitute
cohabitation. (People vs. Zuniga, CA 57 O.G. 2497)

* If the evidence of the prosecution consists of a marriage contract between the offender and the
offended party, and the additional fact of the birth certificate of a child showing the accused to
be the father of the child with the alleged cocubine, the same will not be sufficient to convict the
accused of concubinage since the law clearly states that the act must be one of those provided
by law.
Article 335. Rape

This has been repealed by Republic Act No. 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997. See Article 266-A.

Article 336
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS

ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness.

2. That it is done under any of the following circumstances:

a. by using force or intimidation, or

b. when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or

c. when the offended party is under 12 years of age.

3. That the offended party is another person of either sex.

Note that there are two kinds of acts of lasciviousness under the Revised Penal Code: (1) under Article 336, and (2)
under Article 339.

1. Article 336. Acts of Lasciviousness

Under this article, the offended party may be a man or a woman. The crime committed, when the act performed
with lewd design was perpetrated under circumstances which would have brought about the crime of rape if
sexual intercourse was effected, is acts of lasciviousness under this article. This means that the offended party is
either

(1) under 12 years of age; or

(2) being over 12 years of age, the lascivious acts were committed on him or her through violence or
intimidation, or while the offender party was deprived of reason, or otherwise unconscious.

2. Article 339. Acts of Lasciviousness with the Consent of the Offended Party:

Under this article, the victim is limited only to a woman. The circumstances under which the lascivious acts were
committed must be that of qualified seduction or simple seduction, that is, the offender took advantage of his
position of ascendancy over the offender woman either because he is a person in authority, a domestic, a
househelp, a priest, a teacher or a guardian, or there was a deceitful promise of marriage which never would
really be fulfilled.

* Always remember that there can be no frustration of acts of lasciviousness, rape or adultery because no matter how far
the offender may have gone towards the realization of his purpose, if his participation amounts to performing all the acts of
execution, the felony is necessarily produced as a consequence thereof.

* Intent to rape is not a necessary element of the crime of acts of lasciviousness. Otherwise, there would be no crime of
attempted rape.

* In the crime of acts of lasciviousness, the intention of the wrongdoer is not very material. The
motive that impelled the accused to commit the offense is of no importance because the
essence of lewdness is in the act itself.

* What constitutes lewd or lascivious conduct must be determined from the circumstances of
each case. The demarcation line is not always easy to determine but in order to sustain a
conviction for acts of lasciviousness, it is essential that the acts complained of be prompted by
lust or lewd designs and the victim did not consent to nor encouraged the act.
* To be guilty of this crime however, the acts of lasciviousness must be committed under any of the circumstances that
had there been sexual intercourse, the crime would have been Rape. Where circumstances however are such, indicating a
clear intention to lie with the offended party, the crime committed as Attempted Rape.

* This crime (Art. 336) can be committed by either sex unlike in Acts of Lasciviousness with
Consent under Article 339. Thus, a lesbian who toyed with the private part of an eleven-year-old
girl who enjoyed it since she was given $50 dollars before the act, is guilty of Act of
Lasciviousness under this Article as the victim is below twelve year old; and had sexual
intercourse been possible and done, the act would have been Rape.

SEDUCTION

Article 337
QUALIFIED SEDUCTION OF A VIRGIN

Two classes of qualified seduction:

1. Seduction of a virgin over 12 and under 18 years of age by certain persons, such as a person in
authority, priest, teachers etc and

2. Seduction of a sister by her brother or descendant by her ascendant, regardless of her age or
reputation (incestuous seduction)

Elements:
1. That the offended party is a virgin, (presumed if she unmarried and of good
reputation.)

2. That she must be over 12 and under 18 years of age.

3. That the offender has sexual intercourse with her.

4. That there is abuse of authority, confidence or relationship on the part of the


offender ( person entrusted with education or custody of victim; person in public authority,
priest; servant)

Persons liable:

1. Those who abuse their authority:


a. persons in public authority
b. guardian
c. teacher
d. person who, in any capacity, is entrusted with the education or custody of the woman seduced

2. Those who abused the confidence reposed in them:


a. priest
b. house servant
c. domestic

3. Those who abused their relationship:


a. brother who seduced his sister
b. ascendant who seduced his descendant

* This crime also involves sexual intercourse. The offended woman must be over 12 but below 18 years.

* The distinction between qualified seduction and simple seduction lies in the fact, among others, that the woman is a
virgin in qualified seduction, while in simple seduction, it is not necessary that the woman be a virgin. It is enough that
she is of good repute.

* For purposes of qualified seduction, virginity does not mean physical virginity. It means that the offended party has not
had any experience before.

* The virginity referred to here, is not to be understood in so material a sense as to exclude the
idea of abduction of a virtuous woman of a good reputation. Thus, when the accused claims he
had prior intercourse with the complainant, the latter is still to be considered a virgin (U.S. vs.
Casten, 34 Phil. 808). But if it was established that the girl had a carnal relations with other
men, there can be no crime of Seduction as she is not a virgin.

* Although in qualified seduction, the age of the offended woman is considered, if the offended party is a descendant or a
sister of the offender no matter how old she is or whether she is a prostitute the crime of qualified seduction is
committed.

Illustration:

If a person goes to a sauna parlor and finds there a descendant and despite that, had sexual intercourse with her,
regardless of her reputation or age, the crime of qualified seduction is committed.

* In the case of a teacher, it is not necessary that the offended woman be his student. It is enough that she is enrolled in
the same school.

* Deceit is not necessary in qualified seduction. Qualified seduction is committed even though no deceit intervened or
even when such carnal knowledge was voluntary on the part of the virgin. This is because in such a case, the law takes
for granted the existence of the deceit as an integral element of the crime and punishes it with greater severity than it
does the simple seduction, taking into account the abuse of confidence on the part of the agent. Abuse of confidence
here implies fraud.

* The fact that the offended party gave her consent to the sexual intercourse is not a defense.
Lack of consent on the part of the complainant is not an element of the crime.

* The term domestic refers to a person usually living under the same roof with the offended
party. It includes all those persons residing with the family and who are members of the same
household, regardless of the fact that their residence may only be temporary or that they may be
paying for their board and lodging.

* A domestic should not be confused with a house servant. A domestic is not necessarily a house
servant.

* Where the offended party is below 12 years of age, regardless of whether the victim is a sister
or a descendant of the offender, the crime committed is rape.

* If the offended party is married and over 12 years of age, the crime committed will be adultery.

* An essential element of a qualified seduction is virginity (doncella). It is a condition existing in a


woman who has had no sexual intercourse with any man. It does not refer to the condition of the
hymen as being intact.

* One who is charged with qualified seduction can be convicted of rape. But one who is charged
with rape cannot be convicted of qualified seduction under the same information. (People vs.
Ramirez, 69 SCRA 144)

* Even if the woman has already lost her virginity because of rape, in the eyes of the law, she
remains a virtuous woman even if physically she is no longer a virgin.

Article 338
SIMPLE SEDUCTION

ELEMENTS:
1. That the offended party is over 12 and under 18 years of age.

2. That she must be of good reputation, single or widow.

3. That the offender has sexual intercourse with her.

4. That it is committed by means of deceit.


* Deceit generally takes the form of unfulfilled promise to marry. The promise of marriage must
serve as the inducement. The woman must yield on account of the promise of marriage or other
forms of inducement. (People vs. Hernandez, 29 Phil. 109)

* Where the accused failed to have sex with this sweetheart over twelve (12) but below eighteen
(18) years old because the latter refused as they were not yet married, and the accused
procured the performance of a fictitious marriage ceremony because of which the girlfriend
yielded, he is guilty of Simple Seduction. (U.S. vs. Hernandez, 29 Phil. 109). Here, there was
deceit employed. This act may now be considered Rape under R.A. 8353, Sec. 2 par. 6.

* A promise of material things in exchange for the womans surrender of her virtue does not
constitute deceit.

* If a woman under 18 years of age but over 12 agrees to a sexual intercourse with a man who
promised her precious jewelries but the man reneges on his promise, there is no seduction that
the woman is of loose morals. (Luis B. Reyes)

Promise of marriage must precede sexual intercourse.


> A promise of marriage made by the accused after sexual intercourse had taken place, or after
the woman had yielded her body to the man by mutual consent will not render the man liable for
simple seduction.

* The offended woman must be under 18 but not less than 12 years old; otherwise, the crime is statutory rape.

* Unlike in qualified seduction, virginity is not essential in this crime. What is required is that the woman be unmarried
and of good reputation. Simple seduction is not synonymous with loss of virginity. If the woman is married, the crime will
be adultery.

Article 339
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS WITH THE CONSENT OF THE OFFENDED PARTY

ELEMENTS:

1. that the offender commits acts of lasciviousness or lewdness.

2. That the acts are committed upon a woman who is virgin or single or widow of
good reputation, under 18 years of age but over 12 years, or a sister or
descendant regardless of her reputation or age.

3. that the offender accomplishes the acts by abuse of authority, confidence,


relationship, or deceit.

* When the acts of lasciviousness is committed with the use of force or intimidation or when the
offended party is under 12 years of age, the object of the crime can either be a woman or a man.

* Where the acts of the offender were limited to acts of lewdness or lasciviousness, and no carnal
knowledge was had; but had there been sexual intercourse, the offense would have been
Seduction, he is guilty of Acts of Lasciviousness under this article.

* The crime of acts of lasciviousness under Article 339 is one that is done with the consent of the
offended party who is always a woman. The lewd acts committed against her is with her consent
only because the offender took advantage of his authority, or there was abuse of confidence, or
the employment of deceit, or the offender is related to the victim.

* In the commission of the acts of lasciviousness either by force or intimidation, or with the
consent of the offended party, there must be no sexual intercourse, or the acts performed are
short of sexual intercourse. In the first situation, the crime would either be qualified seduction or
simple seduction if the offender succeeds in having sexual intercourse with the victim. In these
two cases, there is consent but the same is procured by the offender through the employment of
deceit, abuse of confidence, abuse of authority or because of the existence of blood relationship.

Article 340
CORRUPTION OF MINORS

Act punishable:

By promoting or facilitating the prostitution or corruption of persons underage to satisfy the lust of
another

* It is not required that the offender be the guardian or custodian of the minor.

* It is not necessary that the minor be prostituted or corrupted as the law merely punishes the act of promoting or
facilitating the prostitution or corruption of said minor and that he acted in order to satisfy the lust of another.

* A single act of promoting or facilitating the corruption or prostitution of a minor is sufficient to


constitute violation of this article.

* What the law punishes is the act of pimp (bugaw) who facilitates the corruption of a minor. It is
not the unchaste act of the minor which is being punished. So, a mere proposal to promote or
facilitate the prostitution or corruption of a minor is sufficient to consummate the crime.

* Young minor should enjoy a good reputation. Apparently, a prostitute above 12 and under 18
years of age cannot be the victim in the crime of corruption of minors.

Article 341
WHITE SLAVE TRADE

Acts penalized:

1. Engaging in the business of prostitution

2. Profiting by prostitution

3. Enlisting the service of women for the purpose of prostitution

* The person liable under Article 341 is the one who maintains or engages in the trade of
prostitution. A white slave is a woman held unwillingly for purposes of commercial prostitution.
A white slaver on the other hand is one engaged in white slave traffic, procurer of white slaves
or prostitutes.

* The most common way of committing this crime would be through the maintenance of a bar or
saloon where women engage in prostitution. For each intercourse, the women pay the maintainer
or owner of a certain amount in this case, the maintainer of owner of the bar or saloon is liable
for white slave trade. (People vs. Go Lo, 56 O.G. 4056)

ABDUCTION

Article 342
FORCIBLE ABDUCTION

ELEMENTS:
1. That the person abducted is any woman, regardless of her age, civil status, or
reputation.
2. That the abduction is against her will.

3. That the abduction is with lewd designs.

Note: Sexual intercourse is NOT necessary

Crimes against chastity where age and reputation of victim are immaterial: rape, acts of lasciviousness,
qualified seduction of sister/descendant, forcible abduction

Forcible abduction defined.


> It is the taking away of any woman against her will, from her house or the place where she
may be, for the purpose of carrying her to another place with intent to marry or corrupt her.

* A woman is carried against her will or brought from one place to another against her will with lewd design.

* Unlike in Rape and Seduction, in the crime of Abduction, whether Forcible or Consented, there
is no sexual intercourse. The acts are limited to taking away from a place the victim, but the
same must be with lewd designs, that is, with unchaste design manifested by kissing and
touching the victims private parts.

* If the element of lewd design is present, the carrying of the woman would qualify as abduction; otherwise, it would
amount to kidnapping. If the woman was only brought to a certain place in order to break her will and make her agree to
marry the offender, the crime is only grave coercion because the criminal intent of the offender is to force his will upon the
woman and not really to restrain the woman of her liberty.

* Where lewd design was not proved or shown, and the victim was deprived of her liberty, the
crime is Kidnapping with Serious Illegal Detention under this Article 267, RPC.

* The element of lewd designs, which is essential to the crime of abduction through violence
refers to the intention to abuse the abducted woman. If such intention is lacking or does not
exist, the crime may be illegal detention. It is necessary to establish the unchaste design or
purpose of the offender. But it is sufficient that the intent to seduce the girl is present. The evil
purpose of the offender may be established or inferred from the overt acts of the accused.

* If the offended woman is under 12 years old, even if she consented to the abduction, the crime is forcible abduction and
not consented abduction.

* Where the offended woman is below the age of consent, even though she had gone with the offender through some
deceitful promises revealed upon her to go with him and they live together as husband and wife without the benefit of
marriage, the ruling is that forcible abduction is committed by the mere carrying of the woman as long as that intent is
already shown. In other words, where the man cannot possibly give the woman the benefit of an honorable life, all that
man promised are just machinations of a lewd design and, therefore, the carrying of the woman is characterized with
lewd design and would bring about the crime of abduction and not kidnapping. This is also true if the woman is deprived
of reason and if the woman is mentally retardate. Forcible abduction is committed and not consented abduction.

* Lewd designs may be demonstrated by the lascivious acts performed by the offender on her. Since this crime does not
involve sexual intercourse, if the victim is subjected to this, then a crime of rape is further committed and a complex crime
of forcible abduction with rape is committed.

* Lewd design does not include sexual intercourse. So, if sexual intercourse is committed against
the offended party after her forcible abduction, the offender commits another crime separate and
distinct from forcible abduction. In this case, the accused should be charged with forcible
abduction with rape. (People vs. Jose, et al., 37 SCRA 450)

* If the accused carried or took away the victim by means of force and with lewd design and
thereafter raped her, the crime is Forcible Abduction with Rape, the former being a necessary
means to commit the latter. The subsequent two (2) other sexual intercourse committed against
the will of the complainant would be treated as independent separate crimes of Rape. (People
vs. Bacalso, 210 SCRA 206).
* If the main object of the offender is to rape the victim, and the forcible abduction was resorted
to by the accused in order to facilitate the commission of the rape, then the crime committed is
only rape. (People vs. Toledo, 83 Phil. 777)

* Where the victim was taken from one place to another, solely for the purpose of killing him and
not detaining him for any legal length of time, the crime committed is murder. (People vs. Ong,
62 SCRA 174)

* True intention of the offender should be ascertained. If the detention is only incidental, the
same should be considered as absorbed. Otherwise, it should be treated as a separate offense.
When such a situation arises, we should consider the application of Article 48 on complex crimes.

* The taking away of the woman may be accomplished by means of deceit at the beginning and then by means of
violence and intimidation later.

* The virginity of the complaining witness is not a determining factor in forcible abduction.

* In order to demonstrate the presence of the lewd design, illicit criminal relations with the person abducted need not be
shown. The intent to seduce a girl is sufficient.

* If there is a separation in fact, the taking by the husband of his wife against her will constitutes grave coercion.

Distinction between forcible abduction and illegal detention:

When a woman is kidnapped with lewd or unchaste designs, the crime committed is forcible abduction.
When the kidnapping is without lewd designs, the crime committed is illegal detention.

> But where the offended party was forcibly taken to the house of the defendant to coerce her to marry him, it was held
that only grave coercion was committed and not illegal detention.

* Forcible abduction must be distinguished from the crime of kidnapping. When the violent taking
of a woman is motivated by lewd design, the crime committed is forcible abduction. But if the
motive of the offender is to deprive the woman of her liberty, the crime committed is kidnapping.
Abduction is a crime against chastity while kidnapping is a crime against personal liberty.

Article 343
CONSENTED ABDUCTION

ELEMENTS:
1. That the offended party must be a virgin.

2. That she must be over 12 and under 18 years of age.

3. That the taking away of the offended party must be with her consent, after
solicitation or cajolery from the offender.

4. That the taking away of the offended party must be with lewd designs.

VIRGINITY may be presumed from the fact that the offended party is unmarried and has been
leading moral life. Virginity or maidenhood should not be understood in such a matter of fact as
to completely exclude a woman who has had previous sexual intercourse. If the previous sexual
intercourse was the result of the crime of rape, the intercourse committed with her against he
will and over her violent objection should not render her unchaste and a woman of bad
reputation.

* If the virgin in under 12 years old, the crime committed is forcible abduction because of the
theory that a child below 12 years of age has no will of her own.

* The purpose of the law on consented abduction is to punish the offender for causing disgrace
and scandal to the family of the offended party. The law does not punish the offender for the
wrong done to the woman since in the eyes of the law, she consented to her seduction.
* The deceit which is termed by the law as solicitation or cajolery maybe in the form of honeyed
promises of marriage.

* In consented Abduction, it is not necessary that the young victim, (a virgin over twelve and under eighteen) be
personally taken from her parents home by the accused; it is sufficient that he was instrumental in her leaving the house.
He must however use solicitation, cajolery or deceit, or honeyed promises of marriage to induce the girl to escape from
her home.

* In consented abduction, the taking away of the virgin must be with lewd design. Actual sexual
intercourse with the woman is not necessary. However, if the same is established, then it will be
considered as a strong evidence to prove lewd design.

* Where several persons participated in the forcible abduction and these persons also raped the offended woman, the
original ruling in the case of People v. Jose is that there would be one count of forcible abduction with rape and then each
of them will answer for his own rape and the rape of the others minus the first rape which was complexed with the forcible
abduction. This ruling is no longer the prevailing rule. The view adopted in cases of similar nature is to the effect that
where more than one person has effected the forcible abduction with rape, all the rapes are just the consummation of the
lewd design which characterizes the forcible abduction and, therefore, there should only be one forcible abduction with
rape.

Article 344
PROSECUTION OF ADULTERY, CONCUBINAGE, SEDUCTION, ABDUCTION RAPE AND ACTS OF
LASCIVIOUSNESS

1. Adultery and concubinage must be prosecuted upon complaint signed by the


offended spouse

2. Seduction, abduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness must be prosecuted upon


complaint signed by:

a. offended party
b. by her parents
c. grandparents
d. guardians in the order in which they are named above

* The crimes of adultery and concubinage must be prosecuted upon a complaint signed by the
offended spouse. In the complaint, the offended party must include both guilty parties if they are
both alive.

* Distinguished between a private crime and a public crime. In the case of a private crime, the
same cannot be prosecuted de oficio, meaning it cannot be initiated by any person except the
offended party. These are the crimes against chastity such as seduction, adultery, concubinage
and acts of lasciviousness. These are crimes which are initiated with the filing of an information.
A public crime is one which can be prosecuted de officio, meaning it can be prosecuted by any
person interested to prosecute the same. The accusation is usually initiated with the filling of an
information.

* The law requires that the complaint must be initiated by the said persons in order that they are
named or enumerated in the article. If this legal requirement is not observed, the case should be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.

* If the offended party is of age and is in complete possession of her mental faculties, she alone
can file the complaint (People vs. Mandia, 60 Phil. 372)

* If the offended party cannot sign the complaint because of her tender age, the parents can do
it for her. The same can be done either by the father or the mother. (U.S. vs. Gariboso, 25 Phil 171 )
* The word guardian as mentioned in the law refers to the guardian appointed by the court.
(People vs. Formento, et al., 60 Phil. 434)
What is the meaning of shall have consented which bars the institution of criminal
action for adultery or concubinage?
The term consent has reference to the tie prior to the commission of the crime. In other words,
the offended party gives his or her consent to the future infidelity of the offending spouse.

> And so, while consent refers to the offense prior to its commission, pardon refers to the offense
after its commission. (People vs. Schnekenburger, et al., 73 Phil. 413)

Note: Marriage of the offender with the offended party extinguishes the criminal action or remit the penalty
already imposed upon him. This applies as well to the accomplices, accessories-after-the-fact. But marriages
must be in good faith. This rule does not apply in case of multiple rape

* In the crimes involving rape, abduction, seduction, and acts of lasciviousness, the marriage by the offender with the
offended woman generally extinguishes criminal liability, not only of the principal but also of the accomplice and
accessory. However, the mere fact of marriage is not enough because it is already decided that if the offender marries the
offended woman without any intention to perform the duties of a husband as shown by the fact that after the marriage, he
already left her, the marriage would appear as having been contracted only to avoid the punishment. Even with that
marriage, the offended woman could still prosecute the offender and that marriage will not have the effect of extinguishing
the criminal liability.

* Pardon by the offended woman of the offender is not a manner of extinguishing criminal liability but only a bar to the
prosecution of the offender. Therefore, that pardon must come before the prosecution is commenced. When the
prosecution is already commenced or initiated, pardon by the offended woman will no longer be effective because pardon
may preclude prosecution but not prevent the same.

* Pardon in crimes against chastity, is a bar to prosecution. But it must come before the
institution of the criminal action. (See the cases of People vs. Villorente, 210 SCRA 647;
People vs. Avila, 192 SCRA 635) To be effective, it must include both accused.

How about pardon declared by the offended party during the trial of the case? Such a
declaration is not a ground for the dismissal of the case. Pardon is a matter of defense which the
accused must plead and prove during the trial. (People vs. Riotes, C.A., 49 O.G.3403).

* All these private crimes except rape cannot be prosecuted de officio. If any slander or written defamation is made
out of any of these crimes, the complaint of the offended party is still necessary before such case for libel or oral
defamation may proceed. It will not prosper because the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over these crimes unless there
is a complaint from the offended party. The paramount decision of whether he or she wanted the crime committed on him
or her to be made public is his or hers alone, because the indignity or dishonor brought about by these crimes affects
more the offended party than social order. The offended party may prefer to suffer the outrage in silence rather than to
vindicate his honor in public.

Article 345
CIVIL LIABILITY OF PERSONS GUILTY OF RAPE, SEDUCTION OR ABDUCTION

1. To idemnify the offended women

2. To acknowledge the offspring, unless the law should prevent him from doing so

3. In every case to support the offspring

* The civil liability of the adulterer and the concubine is limited to indemnity for damages caused
to the offended spouse. The law does not mention the adulteress in the crime of adultery such
that only the adulterer shall be held civilly liable.

* There is likewise no mention of the offender in the crime of acts of lasciviousness, as being held
liable for civil damages under Article 345, the law only mentioned the crimes of rape, seduction
and abduction.
* Under Article 2219 of the Civil Code, moral damages may be recovered in seduction, abduction,
rape or other lascivious acts. The crimes of adultery and concubinage are also included.
* In the crimes of rape, abduction and seduction, if the offended woman had given birth to the child, among the liabilities of
the offender is to support the child. This obligation to support the child may be true even if there are several offenders. As
to whether all of them will acknowledge the child, that is a different question because the obligation to support here is not
founded on civil law but is the result of a criminal act or a form of punishment.

* It has been held that where the woman was the victim of the said crime could not possibly conceive anymore, the trial
court should not provide in its sentence that the accused, in case a child is born, should support the child. This should
only be proper when there is a probability that the offended woman could give birth to an offspring.

Article 346
LIABILITY OF ASCENDANTS, OTHER PERSONS ENTRUSTED WITH CUSTODY OF OFFENDED PARTY
WHO BY ABUSE OF AUTHORITY OR CONFIDENCE SHALL COOPERATE AS ACCOMPLIES

TITLE TWELVE
CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVIL STATUS OF PERSONS

Crimes against the civil status of persons


1. Simulation of births, substitution of one child for another and concealment or abandonment of a
legitimate child (art. 347);
2. Usurpation of civil status (Art. 348);
3. Bigamy (Art. 349);
4. Marriage contracted against provisions of law (Art. 350);
5. Premature marriages (Art. 351);
6. Performance of illegal marriage ceremony (Art. 352).

Article 347
SIMULATION OF BIRTHS, SUBSTITUTION OF ONE CHILD FOR ANOTHER, AND CONCEALMENT OR
ABANDONMENT OF A LEGITIMATE CHILD

Acts Punished:

1. Simulation of births

2. Substitution of one child for another

3. Concealing or abandoning any legitimate child with the intent to cause such child to lose its civil
status

Requisites:
1. The child must be legitimate

2. The offender conceals or abandons such child

3. The offender has the intent to cause the child to lose its civil status

Elements of Simulation of Birth


1. Child is baptized or registered in the Registry of birth as hers

2. Child loses its real status and acquiires a new one

3. Actors purpose was to cause the loss of any trace as to the childs true filiation

Simulation of birth takes place when a woman pretends to be pregnant when in fact she is not
and on the day of the supposed delivery, she takes the child of another and declares the child to
be her own. This is done by entering in the birth certificate of the child that the offender is the
alleged mother of the child when in fact the child belongs to another.
Illustration:

People who have no child and who buy and adopt the child without going through legal adoption.
If the child is being kidnapped and they knew that the kidnappers are not the real parents of their child, then simulation of
birth is committed. If the parents are parties to the simulation by making it appear in the birth certificate that the parents
who bought the child are the real parents, the crime is not falsification on the part of the parents and the real parents but
simulation of birth.

Questions & Answers

1. A woman who has given birth to a child abandons the child in a certain place to free herself of the
obligation and duty of rearing and caring for the child. What crime is committed by the woman?

The crime committed is abandoning a minor under Article 276.

2. Suppose that the purpose of the woman is abandoning the child is to preserve the inheritance of her child
by a former marriage, what then is the crime committed?

The crime would fall under the second paragraph of Article 347. The purpose of the woman is to cause the child
to lose its civil status so that it may not be able to share in the inheritance.

3. Suppose a child, one day after his birth, was taken to and left in the midst of a lonely forest, and he was
found by a hunter who took him home. What crime was committed by the person who left it in the forest?

It is attempted infanticide, as the act of the offender is an attempt against the life of the child. See US v. Capillo,
et al., 30 Phil. 349.

Article 348
USURPATION OF CIVIL STATUS

Committed by a person who represents himself as another and assumes the filiation
or rights pertaining to such person

Notes:

* There must be criminal intent to enjoy the civil rights of another by the offender knowing he is not entitled
thereto

* The term "civil status" includes one's public station, or the rights, duties, capacities and incapacities which determine a
person to a given class. It seems that the term "civil status" includes one's profession.

* Committed by asuming the filiation, or the parental or conjugal rights of another

* Usurpation is committed by assuming the filiation or parental (when maternal, paternal or


conjugal) claim of another. To be liable for usurpation of civil status, the offender must have the
intent to enjoy the rights arising from the civil status of another.

Circumstances qualifying the offense: penalty is heavier when the purpose of the impersonation is to
defraud the offended party or his heirs

Article 349
BIGAMY

ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender has been legally married.
2. That the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is
absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the civil
code.

3. That he contracts a second or subsequent marriage.

4. That the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for
validity.

Notes:

* The crime does not fall within the category of private crimes that can be prosecuted only at the instance of
the offended party PUBLIC CRIME

For the crime of bigamy to prosper the first marriage must be valid. If the first marriage is
void from the beginning, such nullity of the marriage is not a defense in a charge of bigamy.
Consequently, when raised as a defense, the accused should be convicted since until and
unless annulled, the bond of matrimony remains or is maintained.

Need for judicial declaration of nullity

The second marriage must have all the essential requisites for validity were it not for the existence of the first
marriage.

* A simulated marriage is not marriage at all and can be used as a defense for bigamy

* Good faith is a defense in bigamy.

* One who, although not yet married before, knowingly consents to be married to one who is already married is guilty of
bigamy knowing that the latters marriage is still valid and subsisting.

* In the crime of bigamy, the second spouse is not necessarily liable. The language of Article 349
indicates the crime of bigamy is committed by one person who contracts a subsequent marriage
while the former marriage is valid and subsisting. If the second wife knew of the previous
marriage of the accused, she will be liable for the crime of bigamy but only as an accomplice.

* There must be a summary proceeding to declare the absent spouse presumptively dead for purposes of
remarriage

* Failure to exercise due diligence to ascertain the whereabouts of the 1 st wife is bigamy through reckless
imprudence

* A judicial declaration of the nullity of a marriage void ab initio is now required

* The language of the law is clear when it declared before the former marriage has been legally
dissolved. The Supreme Court said the even if the accused, as plaintiff in the civil case prevails,
and his first marriage is annulled, such pronouncement has no retroactive effect as to exculpate
him in the bigamy case. Parties to a marriage should not be permitted to judge its nullity, for
only competent courts have such authority. (Landicho vs. Relova, 22 SCRA 731, 735)

* The civil case for annulment of the first marriage does not pose a prejudicial question as to
warrant the suspension of the trial and proceeding in the criminal case for bigamy. (Roco, et al.,
Cinco, et al., 68 O.G.2952)

* One convicted for bigamy may be prosecuted for concubinage as both are distinct offenses

* One convicted of bigamy may also be prosecuted for concubinage as both are distinct offenses. The first is an offense
against civil status, which may be prosecuted at the instance of the state; the second is an offense against chastity, and
may be prosecuted only at the instance of the offended party. The test is not whether the defendant has already been
tried for the same act, but whether he has been put in jeopardy for the same offense.
* One who vouches that there is no legal impediment knowing that one of the parties is already married is an
accomplice

Distinction between bigamy and illegal marriage:

Bigamy is a form of illegal marriage. The offender must have a valid and subsisting marriage. Despite the fact that the
marriage is still subsisting, he contracts a subsequent marriage.

Illegal marriage includes also such other marriages which are performed without complying with the requirements of law,
or such premature marriages, or such marriage which was solemnized by one who is not authorized to solemnize the
same.

Article 350
MARRIAGE CONTRACTED AGAINST PROVISIONS OF LAWS

ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender contracted marriage.

2. That he knew at the time that

a. the requirement of the law were not complied with, or

b. The marriage was in disregard of a legal impediment.

Note: Circumstance qualifying the offense: if either of the contracting parties obtains the consent of the
other by means of violence, intimidation or fraud

The requirements of the law for a valid marriage are:

1. The legal capacity of the contracting parties;

2. Their consent freely given;

3. Authority of the person performing the marriage; and

4. Marriage license, except in marriage under exceptional circumstances.

* The law further provides that for accused to be liable under this article, he should not be guilty
of bigamy because otherwise, the crime punished under Article 350 is deemed absorbed in the
bigamy.

Marriages contracted against the provisions of laws

1. The marriage does not constitute bigamy.

2. The marriage is contracted knowing that the requirements of the law have not been complied with or in disregard of
legal impediments.

3. One where the consent of the other was obtained by means of violence, intimidation or fraud.

4. If the second marriage is void because the accused knowingly contracted it without complying with legal requirements
as the marriage license, although he was previously married.

5. Marriage solemnized by a minister or priest who does not have the required authority to solemnize marriages.
Article 351
PREMATURE MARRIAGE

Acts punished:

1. A widow who within 301 days from death of husband, got married or before her delivery, if she was
pregnant at the time of his death

2. A woman whose marriage having been dissolved or annulled, married before her delivery or within
301 days after the legal separation

* The Supreme Court has already taken into account the reason why such marriage within 301 days is made criminal, that
is, because of the probability that there might be a confusion regarding the paternity of the child who would be born. If this
reason does not exist because the former husband is impotent, or was shown to be sterile such that the woman has had
no child with him, that belief of the woman that after all there could be no confusion even if she would marry within 301
days may be taken as evidence of good faith and that would negate criminal intent.

* Article 84 of the Civil Code provides that no marriage license shall be issued to a widow until
after 300 days following the death of her husband, unless in the meantime she has given birth to
a child.

Article 352
PERFORMANCE OF ILLEGAL MARRIAGE CEREMONY

Act punished:

performance of any illegal marriage ceremony by a priest or minister of any religious denomination or
sect or by civil authorities

TITLE THIRTEEN
CRIMES AGAINST HONOR

Crimes against honor


1. Libel by means of writings or similar means (Art. 355);
2. Threatening to publish and offer to prevent such publication for a compensation (Art. 356);
3. Prohibited publication of acts referred to in the course of official proceedings (Art. 357);
4. Slander (Art. 358);
5. Slander by deed (Art. 359);
6. Incriminating innocent person (Art. 363);
7. Intriguing against honor (Art. 364).

Article 353
LIBEL

ELEMENTS:
1. That there must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or
imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstances.

2. That the imputation must be made publicly.

3. That it must be malicious.


4. That the imputation must be directed at a natural or juridical person, or one who is
dead.

5. That the imputation must tend to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of the
person defamed.

Notes:

LIBEL is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or a vice or defect, real or imaginary or any act,
commission, condition, status or circumstances tending to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of a
natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead

Character of the words used to make it defamatory.

Words calculated to induce suspicion are more effective in destroying reputation than false
charges directly made. Ironical and metaphorical language is a favored vehicle for slander. A
charge is sufficient if the words are calculated to induce the hearer to suppose and understand
that the person against whom they are uttered is guilty of certain offenses, or are sufficient to
impeach his honesty, virtue or reputation, or to hold him up to public ridicule. (U.S. vs.
OConnell, 37 Phil. 767)

Malice has been defined as a term used to indicate the fact that the defamer is prompted by
personal ill or spite and speaks not in response to duty but merely to injure the reputation of the
person defamed.

Kinds of Malice.

Malice in law This is assumed and is inferred from the defamatory character of an imputation.
The presumption of malice attaches to the defamatory statement especially if it appears to be
insulting per se. The law presumes that the defamer made the imputation without good
intention or justifiable motive.

Malice in fact This refers to malice as a fact. The presence and existence of personal ill-will or
spite may still appear even if the statement is not defamatory. So, where the defamatory acts
may be presumed from the publication of the defamatory acts imputed refer to the private
life of the individual, malice may be presumed from the publication of the defamatory
statement because no one has a right to invade anothers privacy.

Distinction between malice in fact and malice in law

Malice in fact is the malice which the law presumes from every statement whose tenor is defamatory. It does not need
proof. The mere fact that the utterance or statement is defamatory negates a legal presumption of malice.

In the crime of libel, which includes oral defamation, there is no need for the prosecution to present evidence of malice . It
is enough that the alleged defamatory or libelous statement be presented to the court verbatim. It is the court which will
prove whether it is defamatory or not. If the tenor of the utterance or statement is defamatory, the legal presumption of
malice arises even without proof.

Malice in fact becomes necessary only if the malice in law has been rebutted. Otherwise, there is no need to adduce
evidence of malice in fact. So, while malice in law does not require evidence, malice in fact requires evidence.

Malice in law can be negated by evidence that, in fact, the alleged libelous or defamatory utterance was made with good
motives and justifiable ends or by the fact that the utterance was privileged in character.

In law, however, the privileged character of a defamatory statement may be absolute or qualified.

When the privileged character is said to be absolute, the statement will not be actionable whether criminal or civil because
that means the law does not allow prosecution on an action based thereon.

Illustration:
As regards the statements made by Congressmen while they are deliberating or discussing in Congress, when the
privileged character is qualified, proof of malice in fact will be admitted to take the place of malice in law. When the
defamatory statement or utterance is qualifiedly privileged, the malice in law is negated . The utterance or statement
would not be actionable because malice in law does not exist. Therefore, for the complainant to prosecute the accused
for libel, oral defamation or slander, he has to prove that the accused was actuated with malice (malice in fact) in making
the statement.

* Malice is presumed to exist in injurious publications

* Where the imputation is based upon matters of public interest, the presumption of malice does
not arise from the mere publication of the defamatory statement. A matter of public interest is
common property. Malice in fact comes into play when the statement made is not defamatory
per se, as when the offender resorts to underserved praises or satirical method of impeaching
the virtue, honesty and reputation of the offended party. It can also appear in the form of
innuendos.

* This discussion leads to the conclusion that the determination of libelous meaning is left to the
good judgment of the court after considering all the circumstances which lead to the utterance or
publication of the defamatory statement. The question is not what the writer of an alleged libel
means but what the words used by him mean. The meaning given by the writer or the words
used by him is immaterial. The question is not what the writer meant but what he conveyed to
those who heard or read him (People vs. Encarnacion, 204 SCRA 1)

How to overcome the presumption of malice.

The presumption of malice is rebutted by showing :

1. that the accused published the defamatory imputation with good intention;

2. that there is justifiable motive for making it;

3. that the communication made is privileged; and

4. accused must prove the truth of the defamatory imputation in those cases wherein truth is a
defense.

PUBLICATION is the communication of the defamatory matter to some third person/s

Publication is the communication of the defamatory matter to a third person or persons. So, the
delivery of a defamatory writing to a typesetter is sufficient publication. Writing a letter to
another person other than the person defamed is sufficient publication. (See Sazon vs. Court
of Appeals, 255 SCRA 692)

> The crime is libel if the defamation is in writing or printed media.

> The crime is slander or oral defamation if it is not printed.

* Person libeled must be identified. But the publication need not refer by name to the libeled party. If not named
it must be shown that the description of the person referred to in the defamatory publication was sufficiently
clear so that at least a 3rd person would have identified the plaintiff.

* When a libel is addressed to several persons, unless they are identified in the same libel, even if there are several
persons offended by the libelous utterance or statement, there will only be one count of libel.

* If the offended parties in the libel were distinctly identified, even though the libel was committed at one and the same
time, there will be as many libels as there are persons dishonored.

Illustration:

If a person uttered that All the Marcoses are thieves," there will only be one libel because these particular Marcoses
regarded as thieves are not specifically identified.
If the offender said, All the Marcoses the father, mother and daughter are thieves. There will be three counts of libel
because each person libeled is distinctly dishonored.

* If you do not know the particular persons libeled, you cannot consider one libel as giving rise to several counts of libel .
In order that one defamatory utterance or imputation may be considered as having dishonored more than one person,
those persons dishonored must be identified. Otherwise, there will only be one count of libel.

* Note that in libel, the person defamed need not be expressly identified. It is enough that he could possibly be identified
because innuendos may also be a basis for prosecution for libel. As a matter of fact, even a compliment which is
undeserved, has been held to be libelous.
* To presume publication there must be a reasonable probability that the alleged a libelous matter was thereby
exposed to be read or seen by 3rd persons.

Republication of defamatory article is punishable.

One is liable for publication of defamatory words against another although he is only repeating
what he heard and names the source of his information. A person who repeats a slander or
libelous publication heard or read from another is presumed to indorse it. (People vs.
Salumbides and Reanzares, C.A., 55 O.G. 2638)

Criterion to determine whether statements are defamatory

1) words are calculated to induce the hearers to suppose and understand that the person against who they
are uttered were guilty of certain offenses, or are sufficient to impeach their honesty, virtue or reputation,
or to hold the person up to public ridicule(US v OConnel)

2 )construed not only as to the expression used but also with respect to the whole scope and apparent
object of the writer.(P v Encarnacion)

* The test of libelous meanings is not the analysis of a sentence into component phrases with the
meticulous care of the grammarian or stylist, but the import conveyed by the entirety of the
language to the ordinary reader. (Lacsa vs. FAC, et al., 161 SCRA 427).

* In libel cases, the question is not what the offender means but what the words used by him mean. ( Sazon vs. CA, 255
SCRA 692)

Praises undeserved are slander in disguise.

Where the comments are worded in praise of the plaintiff, like describing him with qualities which
plaintiff does not deserve because of his social, political and economic status in the community
which is too well known to all concerned, are which intended are intended to ridicule rather than
praise him, the publication is deemed libelous (Jimenez vs. Reyes, 27 SCRA 52)

* Even if what was imputed is true, the crime of libel is committed unless one acted with good motives or justifiable end.
Poof of truth of a defamatory imputation is not even admissible in evidence, unless what was imputed pertains to an act
which constitutes a crime and when the person to whom the imputation was made is a public officer and the imputation
pertains to the performance of official duty. Other than these, the imputation is not admissible.

When proof of truth is admissible

1. When the act or omission imputed constitutes a crime regardless of whether the offended party is a private
individual or a public officer;

2. When the offended party is a government employee, even if the act or omission imputed does not constitute a
crime, provided if its related to the discharged of his official duties.

Requisites of defense in defamation

1. If it appears that the matter charged as libelous is true;

2. It was published with good motives;

3. It was for justifiable ends.


If a crime is a private crime, it cannot be prosecuted de officio. A complaint from the offended party is necessary.

Libel Perjury
-false accusation need not be made under oath -false accusation is made under oath

Newsweek v IAC
Newsweek portrayed the island province of Negros Occidental as a place dominated by big landowners.
Plaintiffs are associations of sugarcane planters. HELD: Dismissed. To maintain a libel suit, the specific victim
must be identifiable. Defamatory remarks directed at a group of persons are not actionable unless the
statements are all-embracing or sufficiently specific for victim to be identifiable. An action for libel allegedly
directed against a group of sugar planters cannot be done by resort to filing a class suit as each victim has his
specific reputation to protect. In this case, each of the plaintiffs has a separate and distinct reputation in the
community.

Rule regarding Public Officers:

Defamatory remarks and comments on the conduct or acts of public officers which are
related to the discharge of their official duties will not constitute libel if the accused proves the
truth of the imputation. But any attack upon the private character of the public officers on
matters which are not related to the discharge of their official functions may constitute Libel.

* Where malice cannot be inferred from false defamatory statements, the ruling appears to be
the true only if the offended party is a government employee, with respect to facts related to the
discharge of his official duties. With his jurisprudence, it should now be emphasized that actual
malice is now required to be proven. It is enough to rely on presumed malice in libel cases
involving a public official or public figure.

* Malice is now understood to mean publication with knowledge of falsehood or reckless


disregard of the statements veracity. The burden of proof has not only been shifted to the
plaintiff in libel, but proof has not only been shifted to the plaintiff in libel, but proof of malice
must now be clear and convincing.

Case Doctrines:

* The fact that a communication is privileged is not a proper ground for the dismissal of a
complaint for libel. In the first place, it is a matter of defense. Secondly, the fact that a
communication is privileged does not mean that it is not actionable. The privileged character
simply does away with the presumption of malice which the prosecution has to prove in such a
case. (Lu Chu Sing, et al., vs. Lu Tiong Gui, 76 Phil. 669)

* Libel in answer to another libel is not a defense. (Pellicena vs. Gonzales, 6 Phil. 50)

* If the defamatory imputation is in the nature of self-defense under Article 11 of the Revised
Penal Code such that the publication was done in good faith, without malice and just adequate
enough to protect his good name, the statement may be considered privileged. (People vs.
Baja, 40 O.G. 206; People vs. Mendoza, C.A. 74 O.G. 5607)

* The fair and true report of official proceedings refer to proceedings in the three branches of
government, to wit: judicial, legislative and executive. The publisher is limited only to the
narration of what had taken place even if the report contains defamatory and injurious matter
affecting another person, libel is not committed for as long as what is contained is a fair and true
report of the proceedings.

* Under Article 354, the publisher becomes liable when he makes comments or remarks upon the
private character of person, which are not relevant or related to the judicial, legislative or
executive proceedings.
* Under our libel law, defamatory remarks against government employees with respect to facts
related to the discharge of their official duties will not constitute libel, if defendant is able to
prove the truth of the imputations. But any attack on the private character of the officer on
matters which are not related to the discharge of his official functions may constitute libel since
under our laws, the right of the press to criticize public officers does not authorize defamation.
(U.S. vs. Bustos, supra; Sazon vs. Court of Appeals, supra).

Article354
REQUIREMENT OF PUBLICITY

Kinds of privileged communication

a. ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED not actionable even if the actor has acted in bad faith

b. QUALIFIEDLY PRIVILEGED those which although containing defamatory imputations could not
be actionable unless made with malice or bad faith

* When the defamatory imputation comes under the criteria of an absolute privileged
communication, the presumption of malice under Article 354 has no application.

* The presumption of malice, however, comes into play when the defamatory statement is a
conditional or qualified privileged communication. To overcome this presumption of malice in law,
the defamer must prove during the proceeding that the defamatory imputation was committed
because of a legal, moral or social duty.

* Privileged communication as categorized in this discussion is a matter of defense. It is not a


ground for a motion to quash after the arraignment of the accused. (See Mercado vs. CFI of
Rizal, 116 SCRA 93). If after the prosecution has presented its evidence, it becomes evident
that the defamatory statement was made by the accused because of a legal, moral or social
duty, then the accused can file a demurrer to evidence, as in the meantime, there is absence of
malice in law which is presumed in all defamatory imputations.

GENERAL RULE: Every defamatory imputation is presumed malicious even if it be true, if no good intention
and justifiable motive for making it is shown

EXCEPTION:
a. private communication in performance of legal, moral or social duty

Requisites
1. that the person who made the communication had a legal, moral or social duty to make
the communication or at least he had an interest to be upheld

2. that the communication is addressed to an officer or a board, or superior, having some


interest or duty on the matter

3. that the statements in the communication are made in good faith without malice in fact

b. fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments and remarks

Requisites
1. that the publication of a report of an official proceeding is a fair and true report of a
judicial, legislative, or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of a
statement, report, or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by a
public officer

2. that it is made in good faith

3. that it is made without any comments or remarks


Doctrine of fair comment

A fair comment on matters of public interest is included and is covered by the mantle of
privileged communication which constitutes a valid defense against libel and slander. If the
comment is an expression of opinion based on established facts, then it is immaterial that the
opinion happens to be mistaken, as long as it might be reasonably inferred from the facts.
Further explaining the right to comment on a public issue, the Court said, If a matter is a subject
of public or general interest, it cannot become less so merely because a private individual is
involved. The public primary interest is in the event; the public focus is on the conduct of the
participants and not on their prior anonymity or notoriety. ( Borjal vs. CA, 301 SCRA 1 )

Santos v CA
HELD: No malice, he simply furnished the readers with the info that a complaint has been filed against the
brokerage firm and reproduced the pleading verbatim with no embellishments.

Article 355
LIBEL BY MEANS OF WRITING OR SIMILAR MEANS

A libel may be committed by means of

1. Writing;

2. Printing;

3. Lithography;

4. Engraving;

5. Radio;

6. Photograph;

7. Painting;

8. Theatrical exhibition;

9. Cinematographic exhibition; or

10. Any similar means.

* In the enumeration above, television is not included, probably because at the time the Revised
Penal Code was conceived, television had not yet been invented. However, the law provides, or
any similar means which easily qualifies television is such species or category. (People vs.
Casten, C.A., G.R. No. 07924-CR promulgated December 13, 1974)

Article 356
THREATENING TO PUBLISH LIBEL AND OFFER TO PREVENT SUCH PUBLICATION FOR A
COMPENSATION

Acts punished

1. Threatening another to publish a libel concerning him, or his parents, spouse, child, or other members of his
family;

2. Offering to prevent the publication of such libel for compensation or money consideration.

* It involves the unlawful extortion of money by appealing to the fear of the victim, through
threats of accusation or exposure. It contemplates of two offenses: a threat to establish a libel
and an offer to prevent such publication. The gravamen of the crime is the intent to extort
money or other things of value.

Blackmail In its metaphorical sense, blackmail may be defined as any unlawful extortion of money by threats of
accusation or exposure. Two words are expressive of the crime hush money. (US v. Eguia, et al., 38 Phil. 857)
Blackmail is possible in (1) light threats under Article 283; and (2) threatening to publish, or offering to prevent the
publication of, a libel for compensation, under Article 356.

Article 357
PROHIBITED PUBLICATION OF ACTS REFERRED TO IN THE COURSE OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a reporter, editor or manager of a newspaper, daily or
magazine.

2. That he publishes facts connected with the private life of another.

3. That such facts are offensive to the honor, virtue and reputation of said person.

Note:

* Even though made in connection with or under the pretext that it is necessary in the narration of any judicial
or administrative proceedings wherein such facts have been mentioned.

* With its provisions, Article 357 has come to be known as the Gag Law. It prohibits
reporters, editors or managers of newspapers from publishing articles containing facts connected
with the private life of an individual; facts which are offensive to the honor, virtue and reputation
of persons. But these must refer to facts which are intimately related to the offended partys
family and home. Occasionally, it involves conjugal troubles and quarrels because of infidelity,
adultery or crimes involving chastity.

Lacsa v IAC
Lacsa found that Marquez was not a proprietary member of PCA thus not qualified to be president. He wrote to
the BOD and to Marquez. He caused to publish the second letter. HELD: Letter is not privileged
communication. To be classified as such it must be free from malice. Granting that the letter was privileged
communication, written out of a duty of an officer towards the members, such character was lost when it was
published.

* Under Republic Act No. 1477, amending Rep. Act. No. 58, the publisher, editor, columnist or
duly accredited reporter of any newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation cannot
be compelled to reveal the source of any news report information appearing in the said
publication which was related to him in confidence unless the court or a house or committee of
Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the State.

Article 358
ORAL DEFAMATION / SLANDER

Two Kinds of Oral Defamation:

1. action of a serious and insulting nature (Grave slander)

2. light insult or defamation not serious in nature (simple slander)

Factors that determine gravity of the offense:

a) expressions used

b) personal relations of the accused and the offended party


c) circumstances surrounding the case

Notes:

* The gravity of oral defamation depends not only on the expressions but also on the personal
relation of the accused with the offended party. Other circumstances like the presence of
important people when the crime was committed, the social standing and position of the
offended party are factors which may influence the gravity and defamatory imputation (Victorio
vs. Court of Appeals, 173 SCRA 645).

* Note that slander can be committed even if the defamatory remark was done in the absence of
the offended party. (People vs. Clarin, C.A., 37 O.G. 1106)

* Words uttered in the heat of anger constitute light oral defamation (P v Doronilla)

* If the utterances were made publicly and were heard by many people and the accused at the same time
levelled his finger at the complainant, oral defamation is committed (P v Salleque)

* The word puta does not impute that the complainant is prostitute. (People vs. Atienza,
G.R. No. L-19857, Oct. 26, 1968 ) It is a common expression of anger or displeasure. It is
seldom taken in its literal sense by the hearer. It is viewed more as a threat on the part of the
accused to manifest and emphasize a point. (Reyes vs. People, 27 SCRA 686)

Article 359
SLANDER BY DEED

ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender performs any act not included in any other crime against honor.

2. That such act is performed in the presence of other person or persons.

3. That such act casts dishonor, discredit or contempt upon the offended party.

Notes:

Slander by deed is a defamation committed by the offender against the complainant through
the performance of any act which casts dishonor, discredit or contempt upon another person.

* Slander by deed refers to performance of an act, not use of words.

Two kinds of slander by deed

1. Simple slander by deed; and

2. Grave slander by deed, that is, which is of a serious nature.

* Whether a certain slanderous act constitutes slander by deed of a serious nature or not, depends on the social standing
of the offended party, the circumstances under which the act was committed, the occasion, etc.

* The acts of slapping and boxing the woman, a teacher, in the presence of many people has put her to
dishonor, contempt and ridicule. (P v Costa)

* If the acts committed against the offended party caused her physical injury which did not
require medical attendance, then the crime would be maltreatment which is classified as slight
physical injuries.

P v Motita
> Accused held a mirror between the legs of complainant to reflect her private parts. The crowd laughed.
Guilty of slander by deed.

Distinctions:

a. Unjust Vexation-irritation or annoyance/anything that annoys or irritates without justification.

b. Slander by Deed-irritation or annoyance + attendant publicity and dishonor or contempt.

c. Acts of lasciviousness-irritation or annoyance + any of 3 circumstance provided in Art335 of RPC on


rape
i. use of force or intimidation
ii. deprivation of reason or rendering the offended unconscious
iii. offended party under 12 yrs of age+lewd designs

Article 360
PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR LIBEL

Who are liable:


a. person who publishes, exhibits or causes the publication or exhibition of any defamation in
writing or similar means(par.1)

b. author or editor of a book or pamphlet

c. editor or business manager of a daily newspaper magazine or serial publication(par.2)

d. owner of the printing plant which publishes a libelous article with his consent and all other
persons who in any way participate in or have connection with its publication (US v Ortiz)

* A defamatory statement by itself is not a crime. It is the undue publication of the defamatory
imputation which makes it a crime. It is therefore in this concept that proprietors and editors of
periodicals are also made responsible for the appearance of defamatory matters in any
newspaper under their management.

Venue of criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written defamation:
a. where the libelous article is printed and 1st published OR

b. where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense

* Libel cases are within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts. Inferior
courts have no jurisdiction to try written defamation. (People vs. Hechanova, 54 SCRA 101)

Where one of the offended parties is a public officer:

a. if his office is in the City of Manila


- RTC of Manila OR
- city/province where the article is printed and 1st published

b. Otherwise
- RTC of the city/province where he held office at the time of offense OR
- where the article is 1st published

Where one of the offended parties is a private individual:


- RTC of province/city where he actually resides at the time of the crime
- where article was printed or 1st published

* In order to prevent controversies as to the venue of criminal actions for written defamation, the
information or complaint must contain averments as to whether the offended party is a private or
public officer at the time of the commission of the offense and whenever possible, the place
where the written defamation was printed and first published. (Agbayani, et al., vs. Hon.
Sayo, et al., L-47880, April 30, 1979)

Note: Offended party must file complaint for defamation imputing a crime which cannot be prosecuted de oficio
(e.g. adultery, concubinage, rape, seduction, abduction, and acts of lasciviousness)

* Under the last paragraph of Article 360, only defamation consisting of the imputation of private
offenses such as adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness shall be
prosecuted by the offended party by filing a complaint. Outside of this enumeration by law, the
crime is considered a public crime which may be prosecuted de oficio.

Soriano v IAC
> The Philippines follows the multiple publication rule which means that every time the same written matter
is communicated, such communication is considered a distinct and separate publication of libel.

* Where the publication is libelous per se, actual damages need not be established. This is so
because libel, by its very nature, causes dishonor, disrepute and discredit and injury to the
reputation of the offended party. It is something inherent and natural in the crime of libel. (Lu
Chu Sing vs. Lu Tiong Gui, 76 Phil. 669)

Article 361
PROOF OF THE TRUTH

Admissible when:
a. the act or omission imputed constitutes a crime regardless of whether the offended party is a private
individual or a public officer

b. the offended party is a government employee, even if the act or omission imputed does not
constitute a crime provided it is related to the discharge of his official duties

Requisites for Acquittal:


a. it appears that the matter charged as libelous is TRUE (for situations 1 and 2 above)

b. it was published with good motives and for a justifiable end (for situation 1 only)

Notes: The proof of the truth of the accusation cannot be made to rest upon mere hearsay, rumors, or
suspicion. It must rest upon positive direct evidence, upon which a definite finding may be made by the court
(US v Sotto)

* Admission on the part of the accused that he committed a mistake will not serve to free him
from criminal liability. But it may serve to mitigate the penalty imposed on him or lessen his civil
liability. ( Phee vs. La Vanguardia, 45 Phil 211 )

Article 362
LIBELOUS REMARKS

Libelous remarks or comments on privileged matters (under Art. 354) if made with
malice in fact will not exempt the author and editor.

* This article is a limitation to the defense of privileged communication.

* The main thrust of the law is to punish libelous remarks or comments on matters which are
privileged, if made with malice in fact. So, a newspaper reporter who distorts facts connected
with official proceedings or who adds comments thereon as to cast aspersion on the character of
the parties involved, is guilty of libel even through the defamatory matter is published in
connection with a privileged communication. (Dorr vs. U. S., 11 Phil. 706)
INCRIMINATORY MACHINATIONS

Article363
INCRIMINATING INNOCENT PERSON

ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender performs an act.

2. That by such act he directly incriminates or imputes to an innocent person the


commission of a crime.

3. That such act does not constitute perjury.

Two Kinds:
a. making a statement which is
b i. defamatory or
ii. perjurious (if made under oath and is false)

b. planting evidence

Note: article is limited to planting evidence and the like

* This crime cannot be committed through verbal incriminatory statements. It is defined as an act and, therefore, to
commit this crime, more than a mere utterance is required.

* If the incriminating machination is made orally, the crime may be slander or oral defamation.

* If the incriminatory machination was made in writing and under oath, the crime may be perjury if there is a willful falsity
of the statements made.

* If the statement in writing is not under oath, the crime may be falsification if the crime is a material matter made in a
written statement which is required by law to have been rendered.

* As far as this crime is concerned, this has been interpreted to be possible only in the so-called planting of evidence.

* There is such a crime as incriminating an innocent person through unlawful arrest. (People vs.
Alagao, et al., G.R. No. L-20721, April 30, 1966)

Article 364
INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR

How committed:

-by any person who shall make any intrigue which has for its principal purpose to
blemish the honor or reputation of another person

Notes:

* The crime is committed by resorting to any form of scheme or plot designed to blemish the
reputation of a person. The offender does not employ written or spoken words, pictures or
caricatures to ridicule the victim. Rather, he uses some ingenious, crafty and secret ploy which
produces the same effect.

* Intriguing against honor is referred to as gossiping. The offender, without ascertaining the truth of a defamatory
utterance, repeats the same and pass it on to another, to the damage of the offended party. Who started the defamatory
news is unknown.
* Where the source of polluted information can be traced and pinpointed, and the accused
adopted as his own the information he obtained, and passed it to another in order to cause
dishonor to the complainants reputation, the act is Slander and not Intriguing Against Honor.
But where the source or the author of the derogatory information can not be determined and the
accused borrows the same, and without subscribing to the truth thereof, passes it to others, the
act is one of Intriguing Against Honor.
* Committed by saying to others an unattributable thing, if said to the person himself it is slander.

Distinction between intriguing against honor and slander:

When the source of the defamatory utterance is unknown and the offender simply repeats or passes the same, the crime
is intriguing against honor.

If the offender made the utterance, where the source of the defamatory nature of the utterance is known, and offender
makes a republication thereof, even though he repeats the libelous statement as coming from another, as long as the
source is identified, the crime committed by that offender is slander.

Distinction between intriguing against honor and incriminating an innocent person:

In intriguing against honor, the offender resorts to an intrigue for the purpose of blemishing the honor or reputation of
another person.

In incriminating an innocent person, the offender performs an act by which he directly incriminates or imputes to an
innocent person the commission of a crime.

RA4200 The Anti - Wire Tapping Act

Acts punished:

1) any person, not authorized by all the parties to any private communication or spoken word
a) taps any wire of cable OR

b) uses any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication
or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or walkie talkie or
tape recorder

2) any person, whether or not a participant in the above-mentioned acts:

a) knowingly possesses any tape record, wire record, disc record, or any other such record or copies
thereof of any communication or spoken word

b) replays the same for any other person

c)communicates the contents thereof, whether complete or partial, to any other person

Notes:

* Peace officer is exempt if acts done under lawful order of the court. You can only use the recording for the
case for which it was validly requested.

* Information obtained in violation of the Act is inadmissible in evidence in any hearing or investigation.

Gaanan v IAC
> An extension phone is not one of those prohibited under RA 4200. There must be either a physical
interruption through the wiretap or the deliberate installation of a device or arrangement in order to overhear,
intercept or record the spoken words. The extension phone was not installed for such purpose.
CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE

Article 365

ELEMENTS OF RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE:


1. That the offender does or fails to do an act.

2. That the doing of or the failure to do that act is voluntary.

3. That it be without malice.

4. That material damage results.

5. That there is inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the offender, taking into
consideration

a. his employment or occupation

b. degree of intelligence, physical condition, and

c. other circumstances regarding persons, time and place.

ELEMENTS OF SIMPLE IMPRUDENCE:


1. That there is lack of precaution on the part of the offender.

2. That the damage impending to be caused in not immediate or the danger is not
clearly manifest.

Quasi-offenses punished

1. Committing through reckless imprudence any act which, had it been intentional, would constitute a grave or less
grave felony or light felony;

2. Committing through simple imprudence or negligence an act which would otherwise constitute a grave or a less
serious felony;

3. Causing damage to the property of another through reckless imprudence or simple imprudence or negligence;

4. Causing through simple imprudence or negligence some wrong which, if done maliciously, would have constituted
a light felony.

Distinction between reckless imprudence and negligence:

The two are distinguished only as to whether the danger that would be impending is easily perceivable or not. If the
danger that may result from the criminal negligence is clearly perceivable, the imprudence is reckless. If it could hardly be
perceived, the criminal negligence would only be simple.

* There is no more issue on whether culpa is a crime in itself or only a mode of incurring criminal liability. It is practically
settled that criminal negligence is only a modality in incurring criminal liability. This is so because under Article 3, a felony
may result from dolo or culpa.

Notes:

Test for determining whether or not a person is negligent of doing of an act which
results in injury or damages to another person or his property.

Would a prudent man in the position of the person to whom negligence is attributed, foresee
harm to the person injured? If so, the law imposes on the doer, the duty to refrain from the
course of action, or to take precaution against such result. Failure to do so constitutes
negligence. Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by ignoring the admonition borne of this
provisions, is the constitutive fact of negligence. (Picart vs. Smith, 37 Phil. 809, 813)

Test of Negligence.

Did the defendant, in doing the alleged negligent act, use the reasonable care and caution which
an ordinary prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of
negligence.

The penalties under Article 365 has no application in the following cases:

1. When the penalty provided for the offense ifs equal or lower than that provided in pars.1 and
2 of Article 365. In this case, the penalty shall be that which is next lower in degree than that
which should be imposed, in the period which the court may deem proper to apply.

2. When by imprudence or negligence and with violation of the Automobile Law, the death of a
person is caused, the penalty is prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.

1) Art.64 on mitigating and aggravating circumstances not applicable.

2) Failure to lend on the spot assistance to victim of his negligence: penalty next higher in degree.

3) Abandoning usually punishable under Art 275, if charged under Art 365 is only qualifying and if not
alleged cannot even be an aggravating circumstance.

4) Contributory negligencenot a defense, only mitigating

* The defense of contributory negligence does not apply in criminal cases committed through
reckless imprudence. It is against public policy to invoke the negligence of another to escape
criminal liability. (People vs. Quiones, C.A., 44 O.G. 1520)

* The above-mentioned doctrine should be reconciled with the doctrine of concurrent


proximate cause of two negligent drivers.

* In the case of People vs. Desalis, et al., C.A., 57 O.G. 8689, the two accused were drivers of two
speeding vehicles which overtook vehicles ahead of them and even encroached on the others
lane without taking due precaution as required by the circumstances. The court found the
concurrent or successive negligent act or omission of the two drivers as the direct and proximate
cause of the injury caused to the offended party. The court could not determine in what
proportion each driver contributed to the injury. Both were declared guilty for the injury suffered
by the third person.

* When negligence does not result in any injury to persons or damage to property, then no crime
is committed. Negligence becomes punishable when it results in the commission of a crime.
(Lantok, Jr. vs. Hon. Gorgonio, L-37396, April 30, 1979, 75 O.G. 7763)

Last clear chance doctrine-


> The contributory negligence of the injured party will not defeat the action if it be shown that the accused
might, by the exercise of reasonable care and prudence, have avoided the consequences of the negligence of
the injured party

Emergency rule-
> An automobile driver, who, by the negligence of another, is suddenly placed in an emergency and compelled
to act instantly to avoid a collision or injury is not guilty of negligence if he makes a choice which a person of
ordinary prudence placed in such a position might make even though he did not make the wisest choice.

Doctrine of Pre-emption
> It is a rule in collision cases which the driver of a motor vehicle to make a full stop when
crossing a thru-street. Any accident therefore which takes place in said corner gives to rise to the
presumption of negligence on the part driver of the motor vehicle running thru-street has already
reached the middle part of the intersection. In such a case, the other driver who has the right of
way has the duty to stop his motor vehicle in order to avoid a collision. (People vs. Taradji, 3 C.A. Rep.
[25] 460)
P v Cano
> Negligence is a quasi-offense. What is punished is not the effect of the negligence but the recklessness of
the accused.

P v Carillo
> 13 yr old girl dies 3 days after surgery due to an overdose of Nubain which triggered a heart attack that
caused brain damage. HELD: Guilty of simple negligence resulting to homicide. Carillo was the
anesthesiologist, he and his co-accused failed to monitor and provide close patient care, to inform the parents
of the childs true condition, to prove that they exercised necessary and appropriate degree of care and
diligence to prevent the condition.

Buearano v CA
> Conviction of the accused in the charge of slight and less serious physical injuries through reckless
imprudence constitutes double jeopardy to the charge of the crime of damage to property through reckless
imprudence.

* Since this is the mode of incurring criminal liability, if there is only one carelessness, even if there are several results,
the accused may only be prosecuted under one count for the criminal negligence. So there would only be one information
to be filed, even if the negligence may bring about resulting injuries which are slight.

* Do not separate the accusation from the slight physical injuries from the other material result of the negligence.

* If the criminal negligence resulted, for example, in homicide, serious physical injuries and slight physical injuries, do not
join only the homicide and serious physical injuries in one information for the slight physical injuries. You are not
complexing slight when you join it in the same information. It is just that you are not splitting the criminal negligence
because the real basis of the criminal liability is the negligence.

* If you split the criminal negligence, that is where double jeopardy would arise.

* Accused is not criminally liable for the death or injuries caused by his negligence to trespassers
whose presence in the premises he was not aware of. In the case of People vs. Cuadra, C.A., 53 O.G.
7265, accused was a truck driver. Unknown to him, several persons boarded his truck and while
driving along a slippery road which has a declinations of 25 degrees, the left front wheel of the
truck fell into a ditch. In his effort to return the truck to the center of the road, the truck turned
turtle, throwing off two of the passengers who boarded the truck without his knowledge. As a
consequence, one of them died. Cuadra was acquitted of the crime of reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide and physical injuries.

* Overtaking of another vehicle is a normal occurrence in driving. But when the overtaking is
done from right, it shows recklessness and disregard of traffic laws and regulations. It is likewise
so when the overtaking is done while another vehicle is approaching from the opposite direction.
This is a violation of Section 59(b) of the Motor Vehicle Law (People vs. Songalla, C.A., 67 O.G. 8330)

* Driving within the speed limit is not a guaranty of due care. Speed limits impose the maximum
speed which should not be exceeded. The degree of care required of a motorist is not governed
by speed limits but by the circumstances and conditions obtaining in the place at the particular
time. So, if the maximum speed limit is 80 kilometers per hour and the vehicle driven at 30
kilometers per hour, but because of the very slow pace of the vehicle, an accident occurs, the
observation of the speed limit will not be acceptable evidence of due care. (people vs. Caluza, C.A.,
58 O.G. 8060)

Force majeure in relation to negligence.


> Force majeure has reference to an event which cannot be foreseen or which being foreseen, is
inevitable. It implies an extraordinary circumstance independent of the will of the actor or
perpetrator. In negligence, the immediate personal harm or damage to property is perceivable
and can be prevented by the exercise of reasonable care. As the event is foreseeable, the failure
of the actor to use reasonable care to prevent harm or damage constitutes reckless imprudence
or simple negligence. (People vs. Eleazar )

Anda mungkin juga menyukai