Article 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies and light felonies.

- Grave felonies are those to which the law

attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with
Art. 25 of this Code.

Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period are
correctional, in accordance with the above-mentioned Article.

Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which a penalty of arrest menor or a fine not
exceeding Forty thousand pesos (P40,000) or both is provided.

 GRAVE FELONIES
o capital punishment OR
o penalties which in ANY of their periods are afflictive
 “Any” – when the penalty prescribed for the offense is composed of 2 or more
distinct or divisible penalties, the higher or highest of the penalties must be an
afflictive penalty
 Afflictive penalties
 Reclusion perpetua
 Reclusion temporal
 Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification
 Perpetual or temporary special disqualification
 Prision mayor
 Afflictive fine: exceeds P1.2M

 LESS GRAVE FELONIES

o the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period are correctional
 when the penalty prescribed for the offense is composed of 2 or more distinct or
divisible penalties, the higher or highest of the penalties must be a correctional
penalty
 Correctional penalties
 Prision correccional
 Arresto mayor
 Suspension
 Destierro
 Correctional fine: does not exceed P1.2M, more than P40K

 LIGHT FELONIES
o a penalty of arrest menor or a fine not exceeding P40K or both is provided
o Light penalties:
 Arresto Menor
 Public censure
o Light fine: P40K
 NOTE: under Art. 26, the amount for fine as a light penalty is “less than P40K,”
while under Art. 9, it is “not exceeding P40K.” Reyes opines that Art. 9 prevails as
it classifies felonies according to their gravity, while Art. 26 classifies the fine
according to the amount
 RAPE (Art. 266-A to D / RA8353)
Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty
Article 266-A. Rape: When And How Committed. - Rape is committed: shall be prision mayor to reclusion temporal.
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances: When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be
a) Through force, threat, or intimidation; reclusion temporal.
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even shall be reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua.
though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.
2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall When by reason or on the occasion ofthe rape, homicide is committed, the penalty shall be reclusion
commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal perpetua.
orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.
Reclusion temporal shall be imposed if the rape is committed with any of the ten aggravating/ qualifying
Article 266-B. Penalty. - Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion circumstances mentioned in this article.
perpetua.
Article 266-C. Effect of Pardon. - The subsequent valid marriage between the offended party shall
Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty extinguish the criminal action or the penalty imposed.
shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
In case it is the legal husband who is the offender, the subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the offended
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall become party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty: Provided, That the crime shall not be extinguished
reclusion perpetua to death. or the penalty shall not be abated if the marriage is void ab initio.

When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty Article 266-D. Presumptions. - Any physical overt act manifesting resistance against the act of rape in any
shall be reclusion perpetua to death. degree from the offended party, or where the offended party is so situated as to render her/him incapable
of giving valid consent, may be accepted as evidence in the prosecution of the acts punished under Article
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death. 266-A."

The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following
aggravating/qualifying circumstances: How is rape committed?
1. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, Art. 266-A, Par. 1: [Reclusion Perpetua]
step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the 1. By a man who
common-law spouse of the parent of the victim; 2. has carnal knowledge of a woman
2. When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities or any law 3. under any of the ff. circumstances
enforcement or penal institution; a. Through force, threat or intimidation
3. When the rape is committed in full view of the spouse, parent, any of the children or other b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious
relatives within the third civil degree of consanguinity; c. By means of fraudulent machinations or grave abuse of authority
4. When the victim is a religious engaged in legitimate religious vocation or calling and is d. When the offended party is under 12 years of age or is demented, even though none of the
personally known to be such by the offender before or at the time of the commission of the circumstances mentioned above be present
crime;
5. When the victim is a child below seven (7) years old; Art. 266-A, Par. 2: [Reclusion Temporal]
6. When the offender knows that he is afflicted with the Human Immuno-Deficiency Virus 1. By any person who,
(HIV)/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or any other sexually transmissible disease 2. under any of the circumstances mentioned in par. 1 hereof,
and the virus or disease is transmitted to the victim; a. Through force, threat or intimidation
7. When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or para-military units b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious
thereof or the Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency or penal institution, c. By means of fraudulent machinations or grave abuse of authority
when the offender took advantage of his position to facilitate the commission of the crime; d. When the offended party is under 12 years of age or is demented, even though none of the
8. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent physical circumstances mentioned above be present
mutilation or disability; 3. shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting
9. When the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended party at the time of the commission a. his penis into another person’s mouth, or anal orifice or
of the crime; and b. any instrument or object, in to the genital or anal orifice of another person
10. When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap
of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime. When is Rape punished by Death?
1. When by reason or on occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed.
Rape under paragraph 2 of the next preceding article shall be punished by prision mayor.
2. When the victim is under 18 years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, PRIVATE CRIME – Complaint must be filed by May be prosecuted even if the woman does
relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common law spouse of the the woman or her parents, grandparents or not file a complaint
parent of the victim guardian if the woman was a minor or
3. When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities or any law enforcement or incapacitated
penal institutions Marriage of the victim with one of the Marriage extinguishes the penal action only
4. When the rape is committed in full view of the spouse, parent, or any of the children or other relatives offenders benefits not only the principal but as to the principal (the person who married
within the third civil degree of consanguinity also the accomplices and accessories the victim)
5. When the victim is a religious engaged in legitimate religious vocation or calling and is personally known Marital rape NOT recognized Marital rape recognized
to be such be the offender before at the time of the commission of the crime
6. When the victim is a child below 7 years old Acts of Lasciviousness v. Attempted Rape
7. when the offender knows that he is afflicted with HIV/AIDS or any other sexually transmissible disease ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS ATTEMPTED RAPE
and the virus or disease is transmitted to the victim Means of committing the crime are the same
8. when committed by any member of the AFP or paramilitary units thereof or the PNP or any law The offended party in both crimes is a person of either sex
enforcement agency or penal institution, when the offender took advantage of his position to facilitate The performance of acts of lascivious character is common to both crimes
the commission of the crime
Acts performed do not indicate that the Acts performed clearly indicate that the
9. when by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation
accused was to lie with the offended party accused‘s purpose was to lie with the
or disability
offended woman
10. when the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended party at the time of the commission of the
Lascivious acts are themselves the final Lascivious acts are preparatory to the
crime
objective sought by the offender commission of rape
11. when the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical disability of the
offended party at the time of the commission of the crime

What is the EFFECT OF PARDON?

• the subsequent valid marriage between the offender and the offended party shall extinguish the
criminal action or the penalty imposed
• In case it is the legal husband who is the offender, the subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the
offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty: Provided, That the crime shall not be
extinguished or the penalty shall not be abated if the marriage is void ab initio

Presumptions
 Evidence which may be accepted in the prosecution of rape:
o Any physical overt act manifesting resistance against the act of rape in any degree from the
offended party.
o Where the offended party is so situated as to render him/her incapable of giving consent.

Esguerra notes:
 Force employed against the victim of the rape need not be of such character as could be resisted.
o It is enough that the force used is sufficient to consummate the purpose of copulating with
the offended woman.
o When the offender in rape has an ascendancy or influence over the girl, it is not necessary
that she put up a determined resistance.
 There is no crime of frustrated rape. (People v. Orita)
 Character of the offended woman is immaterial in rape.
 When several persons conspired to rape a single victim, each shall be liable for the rape committed
personally by him, as well as those committed by the others.
 Rape with homicide is now a special complex crime, punishable by death (first type) or reclusion
perpetua (second type).

Old v. New Rape Law

OLD RAPE LAW NEW RAPE LAW
Crime against chastity Crime against persons
May be committed by a man against a Under the second type, sexual assault may be
woman ONLY committed by ANY PERSON
 KIDNAPPING  Special Complex Crime of Kidnapping with murder
o when the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention, the maximum penalty
Article 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. - Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain (death) shall be imposed.
another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to  Where the victim is taken from one place to another solely for the purpose of killing him, the crime
death: committed is murder.

1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than five days.
2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority. Article 270. Kidnapping and failure to return a minor. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed
3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained; upon any person who, being entrusted with the custody of a minor person, shall deliberately fail to restore
or if threats to kill him shall have been made. the latter to his parents or guardians.
4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, female or a public officer.

The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting  Elements:
ransom from the victim or any other person, even if none of the circumstances above-mentioned were 1. Offender is entrusted with the custody of a minor person (whether over or under seven
present in the commission of the offense. years but less than 21 years of age);
2. He deliberately fails to restore the said minor to his parents or guardians.
 What is punished is the deliberate failure of the custodian of the minor to restore the latter to his
 Elements: parents or guardians.
1. Offender is a private individual;  When the crime is committed by the father or mother of the minor, the penalty is arresto mayor or a
 If the offender is a public officer, the crime is arbitrary detention. fine or both.
 The public officer must have a duty under the law to detain a person  Art. 270 v. 267
to be liable for arbitrary detention. If he has no such duty, and he 270 267
detains a person, he is liable under this article. Offender is entrusted with the custody of The offender is not entrusted with the
ILLEGAL DETENTION ARBITRARY DETENTION the minor custody of the minor
Committed by a private Committed by a public officer
individual, who unlawfully or employee, who detains a
deprives a person of his liberty person without legal ground
Crime against personal liberty Crime against the fundamental
laws of the state
2. He kidnaps or detains another, or in any other manner deprives the latter of his liberty;
 Essential element + 4 circumstances (unless for extortion)
 Not necessary that the victim be placed in an enclosure, as long as he is deprived,
in any manner, of his liberty.
3. The act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and
 Detention is illegal when not ordered by competent authority or not permitted
by law.
4. In the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present:
a. The kidnapping lasts for more than 3 days;
b. It is committed by simulating public authority;
c. Any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained
or threats to kill him are made; or
d. The person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a public officer.
 The essential element of kidnapping is the deprivation of the offended party‘s liberty under any of the
four instances enumerated.
o BUT when the kidnapping was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom, it is NOT
necessary that one or any of circumstances enumerated be present.
 When the kidnapping is done for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim
or any other person, actual demand for ransom is not necessary, as long as it can
be proven that the kidnapping was done for the purpose of extorting ransom.
 Maximum penalty imposed if:
o If the purpose of detention is to extort ransom
o When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention
o When the victim is raped
o When the victim is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts.
 ESTAFA 1st. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period, if the amount of fraud is
over Four million four hundred thousand pesos (P4,400,000) but does not exceed Eight
Article 315. Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned million eight hundred thousand pesos (P8,800,000). If the amount exceeds the latter,
hereinbelow shall be punished by: the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua.

1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the 2nd. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its minimum and medium periods, if the
amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such amount exceeds the amount of the fraud is over Two million four hundred thousand pesos (P2,400.000) but
latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year does not exceed Four million four hundred thousand pesos (P4,400,000).
for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years.
In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed under the provisions of 3rd. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period, if the amount of the fraud is
this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be. over One million two hundred thousand pesos (P 1,200,000) but does not exceed Two
million four hundred thousand pesos (P2,400,000).
2nd. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount of the fraud is
over 6,000 pesos but does not exceed 12,000 pesos; 4th. The penalty of prision mayor in its medium period, if such amount is over Forty
thousand pesos (P40,000) but does not exceed One million two hundred thousand
3rd. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period if such pesos (P1,200,000).
amount is over 200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos; and
5th. By prision mayor in its minimum period, if such amount does not exceed Forty
4th. By arresto mayor in its maximum period, if such amount does not exceed 200 pesos, provided that in thousand pesos (P40.000).
the four cases mentioned, the fraud be committed by any of the following means:
Through any of the following fraudulent means:
1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely: a) By inducing another, by means of deceit, to sign any document.
a. By altering the substance, quantity, or quality or anything of value which the offender b) By resorting to some fraudulent, practice to insure success in a gambling
shall deliver by virtue of an obligation to do so, even though such obligation be based game.
on an immoral or illegal consideration. c) By removing, concealing or destroying, in whole or in part, any court record,
b. By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods, or any office files, document or any other papers/'
other personal property received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for
administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or
to return the same, even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by  Elements of Swindling / Estafa in general
a bond; or by denying having received such money, goods, or other property.
c. By taking undue advantage of the signature of the offended party in blank, and by 1. That the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence OR by means of deceit, which can
writing any document above such signature in blank, to the prejudice of the offended be committed in 3 ways:
party or of any third person.
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or a. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:  Elements:
a. By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, 1. That the offender has an onerous obligation to deliver
qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by something of value
means of other similar deceits. 2. That he alters its substance, quantity or quality
b. By altering the quality, fineness or weight of anything pertaining to his art or business. 3. That damage or prejudice is cause to another
c. By pretending to have bribed any Government employee, without prejudice to the  Deceit is NOT an essential element of estafa with abuse of confidence
action for calumny which the offended party may deem proper to bring against the  If the thing delivered had not yet been fully paid or just partially paid, NO
offender. In this case, the offender shall be punished by the maximum period of the ESTAFA even if there was alteration
penalty.  Ratio: there was no damage to talk about
d. By postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender  When there is no agreement as to the quality of the thing to be delivered,
had no funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover delivery of a thing unacceptable to the complainant is NOT estafa.
the amount of the check. The failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the amount  Even though such obligation be based on an immoral or illegal
necessary to cover his check within three (3) days from receipt of notice from the bank consideration. Estafa may arise even if the thing to be delivered is not
and/or the payee or holder that said check has been dishonored for lack or subject of lawful commerce (ex. opium)
insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense
or fraudulent act.  Sub-type of estafa with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence under Art.
315 (1) (b):
Any person who shall defraud another by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts  Elements
as defined in paragraph 2(d) hereof shall be punished by: 1) That money, goods, or other personal property be
received by the offender in
a) trust (Trust Receipts Law)
 b) on commission Both are continuing offenses
c) for administration The funds or property are The funds or property are
d) under any obligation involving duty to always private always private
return the very same thing Involves public funds or Involves public funds or
2) There is property property
a) misappropriation or conversion of such The offender is a private The offender is a private
property by the offender OR individual or a public officer individual or a public officer
b) denial of such receipt who is not accountable for who is not accountable for
3) There is prejudice to another public funds or property public funds or property
4) Demand was made by the offended to the offender  Private individual allegedly in conspiracy with public officer in a
 Art 314 par 1 (b) is the ONLY kind of estafa where demand is prosecution of the latter for malversation, may still be held liable
necessary. for Estafa even if the public officer was acquitted.
 Although it is not required by law, it is necessary  Misappropriation of firearms received by a policeman is Estafa,
because failure to account upon demand, is if it is not involved in the commission of a crime. It is
circumstantial evidence of misappropriation. malversation, if it is involved in the commission of a crime.
 “Even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed
by a bond”  Sub-type of estafa with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence under Art.
 a security executed by the agent to answer for 315 (1) (c):
damages etc. does not relieve him from criminal  Elements:
liability, for this undertaking refers only to his civil 1) That the paper with the signature of the offended
liability. party be in blank;
 "involving the duty to return the same" includes: 2) That the offended party should have delivered it to
 quasi-contracts and the offender;
 contract of bailment: deposit, lease, commodatum, 3) That above the signature, a document is written by
pledge offender without authority to do so;
 but NOT contract of loan! Loan of money 4) That the document so written creates a liability of, or
is mutuum. Ownership was transferred. causes damage to the offended party or any third
 Contract of sale (ownership is transferred person.
at the time of delivery):  The paper with the signature in blank MUST BE DELIVERED by
1. if thing sold not delivered and the offended party to the offender (otherwise, crime is
advance payment not falsification of instrument)
returned, only CIVIL LIABILITY
2. if buyer did not pay the price b. By means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts
to owner, only CIVIL LIABILITY  Elements:
also 1. That money, goods or other personal property be received by
 JURIDICAL POSSESSION: means a possession which gives the the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or
transferee a right over the thing which the transferee may set under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery
up even against the owner. of or to return the same
2. That there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or
 Estafa with abuse of confidence v. Theft property by the offender, or denial on his part of such receipt
ESTAFA WITH ABUSE OF THEFT 3. That such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the
CONFIDENCE prejudice of another
Offender acquires the Offender acquires only 4. That there is demand made by the offended party to the
juridical possession of the material possession of the offender
property property  The essence of estafa under this kind is the appropriation or the conversion
Offender receives the thing Offender takes the thing of money or property received to the prejudice of the owner.
from the offended party from the offended party  To misappropriate for one’s own use includes not only
 Additional test: In theft, upon delivery of the thing to the conversion to one’s personal advantage, but also attempt to
offender, the owner expects an immediate return of the thing to dispose of the property of another without right.
him
c. Through fraudulent means
 Estafa with abuse of confidence v. Malversation  Elements:
EWAOC MALVERSATIION 1. That the paper with the signature of the offended party be in
The offenders are entrusted with funds or property blank
 2. That the offended party should have been delivered it to the
offender
3. That above signature of the offended party a document is
written by the offender without authority to do so
4. That the document so written creates a liability of or causes
damage to the offended party or any third person

2. That damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or
third person

 Elements of estafa by means of deceit

1. That there must be false pretense, fraudulent act of fraudulent means
2. That such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed
prior to or simultaneously with the commission of fraud
3. That the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent
means, that is, he was induced to part with is money or property because of the false
pretense, fraudulent act, fraudulent means
4. As a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage

 There is NO ESTAFA THROUGH NEGLIGENCE

BOUNCING CHECKS

 Elements of violation of BP 22 (bouncing checks law)

1. the making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value
2. the knowledge of the maker, drawer or issuer that at the time of the issue he does not a
sufficient funds with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its
presentment
3. The subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit
or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the
bank to stop payment.
 Intent of the accused is immaterial
o The gravamen of the offense under BP 22 is the act of making or issuing worthless check or
a check that is dishonored upon presentment for payment.
o What the law punishes is the issuance of a bouncing check and not the purpose for which
the check was used, nor the terms and conditions of its issuance.
 ART. 6 CASES  FACTS: Presentacion Jumawan, her father and two brothers conspired to kill Presentacion‘s husband
Rodolfo in a store near the public market. The fiscal filed an information for murder against the four
RAPE accused and they were subsequently convicted for such crime.
 HELD: Since Presentacion‘s relationship to the victim is not alleged in the information, she can be
People v. Campuhan convicted of murder only. Relationship can be appreciated as generic aggravating circumstance only.
 FACTS: Campuhan had his pants down and was on top of the 4-year old child when the child‘s mother
arrived. A medical examination showed that there were no signs of genital injury and that the victim‘s People v. Siao
hymen was intact.  FACTS:
 HELD: o Estrella worked as a housemaid of Rene Siao‘s family. One day, Rene ordered Reylan, their
o For rape to be consummated, a slight brush or scrape of the penis on the external layer of houseboy, to bring Estrella to a room.
the vagina (mons pubis) will not suffice. o While holding a gun, Rene forced Reylan to have sex with Estrella (oral sex, missionary
o There must be sufficient and convincing proof that the penis indeed touched the labias or position, and in the manner dogs perform sexual intercourse).
slid into the female organ, and NOT merely stroked the external surface thereof.  HELD:
o AT LEAST THE LABIA MAJORA MUST BE ENTERED FOR RAPE TO BE CONSUMMATED. o The accused was held guilty of rape with the use of a deadly weapon, which is punishable by
reclusion perpetua to death.
People v. Orita o But the trial court overlooked and did not take into account the aggravating circumstance of
 FACTS: ignominy and sentenced accused to the single indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua.
o At around 1:30 in the morning, as Cristina was going inside her boarding house, Orita poked o It has been held that where the accused in committing the rape used not only the missionary
a balisong at her and forced her to go in one of the rooms to have sex. position, the AC of ignominy attended the commission thereof.
o Orita was not able to fully penetrate Crisitina as she kept moving every time he thrusted.
Cristina was able to escape. Ricalde v. People
o After undergoing a medical examination, it was declared that her hymen was still intact.  FACTS
There were no lacerations and her vaginal canal was still tight.
 HELD: Rape was consummated. There is no crime of frustrated rape.
o In the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has carnal knowledge of his victim he
actually attains his purpose and, from that moment also all the essential elements of the  HELD
offense have been accomplished. Any penetration of the female organ by the male organ is
sufficient.
o Entry of the labia or lips of the female organ, without rupture of the hymen or laceration of
the vagina is sufficient to warrant conviction.
o Necessarily, rape is attempted if there is no penetration of the female organ

People v. Bonaagua
 FACTS

 HELD

People v. Jalosjos
 FACTS

 HELD

People v. Jumawan
 ART. 6 CASES o However, considering other circumstances, it does reveal that accused-appellant had less
than noble intentions with the victim.
KIDNAPPING  Firstly, the child was led to believe that accused-appellant wanted to see the
dentist. It is not clear, however, that there really was a Dr. Medina employed by
People v. Dela Cruz the school as dentist. Not even the guidance counselor who testified for the
 FACTS: defense made any specific mention of the doctor.
o Cecilia Caparos, a neighbor of Whiazel Soriano (victim – Gr. 1 pupil from Aurora Quezon  Secondly, if accused-appellant wanted to see the dentist, why was she on her
School in Malate), testified that on Sept 27, 1994, at around 11:30 o’ clock in the morning, way out? If it is true she had already gone to the clinic and found no one there
she was waiting for her 2 children inside the compound of the school when she saw Whiazel and that she then decided to leave, what else was she doing with the child?
held on the hand and being led away by the accused.  Thirdly, accused-appellant did not simply ask for directions; she wanted the
o Knowing that Whiazel was enrolled in the afternoon class, she went after them and asked victim to accompany her. That seems suspicious enough. And of all people, why
the accused where she was going with Whiazel. The accused answered that she asked ask a seven-year old?
Whiazel to bring her to Rowena Soriano, the child’s mother. Cecilia then turned to Whiazel  Fortunately, the further progress and completion of accused-appellants felonious
and asked her why she was with accused-appellant. Whiazel answered that the accused design was thwarted by the timely intervention of Cecilia Caparos, the victims
requested her to look for the latter’s child. neighbor.
o Cecilia grew suspicious because of the inconsistent answers, Whiazels terrified look, and the o The Court thus holds that the felony committed by accused-appellant in the case at bar is
scratches on the child’s face. She told accused-appellant that she will bring accused- not kidnapping and serious illegal detention of a minor in the consummated stage, but rather
appellant to a teacher because she did not trust accused-appellant. Accused-appellant was in its attempted stage.
surprised and reasoned out, but just the same agreed to go to a teacher.
o The victim, Whiazel Soriano testified that she voluntarily went with accused-appellant after People v. Enriquez
being asked for help in looking for the school dentist. Whiazel also mentioned that accused-  FACTS
appellant asked for her assistance in looking for the accused’s child in a place far away from
school. She was neither threatened nor hurt in any way by the accused. She was not led out
of the school; in fact they never got out of the school compound. When Cecilia Caparos saw
them, Whiazel told the accused that she wanted to go. The Accused refused, and held
Whiazels hand. Whiazel did not try to escape. She did not cry until they went to a teacher.  HELD
o Eufemia Magpantay (guidance teacher) testified that the accused, Whiazel, her teacher Mrs.
Rioganes, and Cecilia Caparos went to her office. Asked what she was doing with Whiazel,
the accused said she wanted the child’s help in looking for the school dentist. Accused-
appellant reiterated this before the assistant principal to whom they all later went. This
witness testified that the school allows patients who are not connected with the school to
consult at the clinic. People v. Roxas
o The accused testified that when she got to the school, she asked a guard where the clinic  FACTS
was. The guard gave her directions and told her to pass through the same gate on her way
out. When she got to the clinic, no one was there so she left. On her way out, Whiazel walked
with her at arm’s length. She did not hold the child; she did not look at the child; they did
not talk; not even smiles were exchanged. Before she could get out of the school, Cecilia
Caparos called her; hurled invectives at her, and accused her of kidnapping Whiazel.  HELD
o RTC: Convicted the accused of kidnapping and serious illegal detention of a minor
 HELD: Attempted kidnapping – NOT consummated
o The felony committed is kidnapping and serious illegal detention of a minor in the attempted
stage only.
 The attempted phase of a felony is defined as when the offender commences the
commission of a felony, directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts People v. Santiano
of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or  FACTS
accident other than his own spontaneous desistance (Article 6, Revised Penal
Code).
 The overt act must be an external one which has direct connection with the
felony, it being necessary to prove that said beginning of execution, if carried to
its complete termination following its natural course without being frustrated by  HELD
external obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of the offender, will logically
and necessarily ripen to a concrete offense
o Accused already commenced her criminal scheme by taking hold of Whiazel by the hand and
leading her out of the school premises. These facts do not sufficiently establish that
kidnapping had been consummated.
People v. Treztiza
 FACTS

 HELD

People v. Ty
 FACTS

 HELD
 ART. 6 CASES

ESTAFA
 HELD
Aigle v. People
 FACTS

Ramos-Andan v. People
 HELD  FACTS

 HELD
Benabaye v. People
 FACTS

Recuerdo v. People
 HELD  FACTS: Recuerdo issued several checks to Floro. She did not pay the amounts due from the closed
accounts. In her defense, the accused claims good faith in issuing the checks.
 Held:
o Estafa is committed by dolo (with malice). For one to be criminally liable for estafa under
RPC Art 315 (2)(d), malice and specific intent to defraud are required.
o General criminal intent is an element of all crimes but malice is properly applied only to
Buaya v. Polo deliberate acts done on purpose and with design. Evil intent must unite with an unlawful act
 FACTS for there to be a felony. A deliberate and unlawful act gives rise to a presumption of malice
by intent. On the other hand, specific intent is a definite and actual purpose to accomplish
some particular thing.
o The general criminal intent is presumed from the criminal act and in the absence of any
general intent is relied upon as a defense, such absence must be proved by the accused.
 HELD  Generally, a specific intent is not presumed. Its existence, as a matter of fact,
must be proved by the State just as any other essential element.
 This may be shown, however, by the nature of the act, the circumstances under
which it was committed, the means employed and the motive of the accused
o There can be no estafa if the accused acted in good faith because good faith negates malice
and deceit.
Chua-Burce v. CA  Good faith is an intangible and abstract quality with no technical meaning or
 FACTS: statutory definition, and it encompasses, among other things, an honest belief,
o Chua-Burce was a bank teller. A client deposited 4 million in a bank account. Eventually, the the absence of malice and the absence of design to defraud or to seek an
bank found out that P150, 000 was missing from the deposit. unconscionable advantage.
o RTC convicted the defendant of Estafa.  An individual‘s personal good faith is a concept of his own mind, therefore, may
 HELD: not conclusively be determined by his protestations alone. It implies honesty of
o The bank teller did not have juridical possession of the missing amount. She had no intention and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the
independent right to retain possession or assert her rights against her principal. holder upon inquiry.
o If she were an agent of the bank, she could have committed estafa. However, since no  The essence of good faith lies in an honest belief in the validity of one‘s right,
juridical possession was present, she committed theft. ignorance of a superior claim, and absence of intention to overreach another.
o In this case, the accused had the intention to evade the payment by claiming that the checks
Ocampo-Paule v. CA were not issued as payment for the jewelries issued to her. Therefore, there was intent to
 FACTS defraud the victim.
Salazar v. People
 FACTS

 HELD

Veloso v. People
 FACTS

 HELD
 ART. 11 CASES  HELD:
o The court took into consideration the fact that the 2 deceased were accompanied with three
SELF-DEFENSE laborers and that the were using tools which could be lethal weapons such as nail and
hammer, bolo, etc. and that the jeep the deceased used contained a gun leaning near the
People v. Antonio steering wheel. There was aggression on the part of the victims not on the person of the
 FACTS accused but on his property rights when Fleischer angrily ordered the continuance of the
fencing.
o The third element of self-defense is also present because there was no sufficient provocation
on the part of Narvaez since he was sleeping when the deceased where fencing.
o However, the second element was lacking. Shooting the victims from the window of his
 HELD house is disproportionate to the physical aggression by the victims. Thus, there is incomplete
self-defense and the accused is entitled to a penalty lower by one or two degrees.
 DISSENT:
o Defense of property is not of such importance as the right to life and defense of property
can only be invoked when it is coupled with some form of attack on the person of one
entrusted with said property. In this case before us, there is no evidence that an attack was
People v. Boholst-Caballero attempted. The utterance, ―no, gaddemit, proceed, go ahead,‖ is not unlawful aggression
 FACTS: which entitles him neither to a plea of self-defense nor to a mitigating circumstance of
o Boholst (wife) and Caballero (husband) are married to each other. But since their marriage incomplete self-defense.
was an unhappy one, they separated. One evening, the wife went caroling with her friends
and she was seen by her husband standing in a corner of the yard of Barabad. He accused People v. Samson
her of prostituting and threatened to kill her as he held her by the hair, slapped her face until  FACTS
her nose bled. He, then, choked her and at the same time continuously saying that he will
kill her. The wife then pulled out the knife of her husband tucked inside the belt line and
stabbed him. When she was released, she ran home. The wife is claiming self-defense.
 HELD:
o The wife who being strangled and choked by a furious aggressor had no other recourse but  HELD
to get hold of any weapon within her reach to save herself. The claim that it was not proper
for the wife to be standing in the middle of the night outside a yard giving the impression
that she is prostituting herself, is not sufficient provocation. All that the accused did was to
provoke an imaginary commission of a wrong in the mind of her husband which is not a
sufficient provocation under the law of self-defense.
Soplente v. People
People v. CA and Tangan  FACTS
 FACTS

 HELD
 HELD

People v. Narvaez DEFENSE OF STRANGERS

 FACTS:
o Narvaez was taking his rest inside his house when he heard that the wall of his house was People v. Toring
being chiseled. He saw that Fleischer and Rubia, together with their laborers, were fencing  FACTS
the land of the father of the deceased Fleischer. If the fencing would go on, Narvaez would
be prevented from getting into his house and the bodega of his rice mill so he asked the
group to stop but they refused. The accused got mad so he got his shotgun and shot
Fleischer. Rubia ran towards the jeep and knowing there is a gun on the jeep, the accused
fired at Rubia as well. Narvaez claimed he acted in defense of his person and rights.  HELD
  HELD

STATE OF NECESSITY
Pomoy v. People
Ty v. People  FACTS:
 FACTS: o Police sergeant Pomoy, went near the door of the jail where Balboa was detained for
o Ty's mother Chua Lao So Un was confined at the Manila Doctors' Hospital from October 1990 robbery and directed the latter to come out, purportedly for tactical interrogation at the
until June 1992. Being the patient's daughter, Ty signed the "Acknowledgment of investigation room. At that time, petitioner had a gun, a .45 caliber pistol, tucked in a holster
Responsibility for Payment" in the Contract of Admission. Ty's sister, Judy Chua, was also which was hanging by the side of his belt. The gun was fully embedded in its holster, with
confined at the same hospital. The total hospital bills of the two patients amounted to only the handle of the gun protruding from the holster. Balboa tried to remove Pomoy‘s gun
P1,075,592.95. Ty executed a promissory note wherein she assumed payment of the and the two grappled for possession of the gun. Thereafter, 2 gunshots were heard. When
obligation in installments. To assure payment of the obligation, she drew 7 postdated checks the source of the shots was verified, petitioner was seen still holding a .45 caliber pistol,
against Metrobank payable to the hospital which were all dishonored by the drawee bank facing Balboa, who was lying in a pool of blood. Pomoy invoked the defense of accident for
and returned unpaid to the hospital due to insufficiency of funds. For her defense, Ty claimed his defense.
that she issued the checks because of ―an uncontrollable fear of a greater injury.‖ She  Held: Pomoy is acquitted.
averred that she was forced to issue the checks to obtain release for her mother who was o At the time of the incident, petitioner was a member — specifically, one of the investigators
being inhumanely and harshly treated by the hospital. She alleged that her mother has — of the Philippine National Police (PNP) stationed at the Iloilo Provincial Mobile Force
contemplated suicide if she would not be discharged from the hospital. Ty was found guilty Company. Thus, he was in the lawful performance of his duties as investigating officer that,
by the lower courts of 7 counts of violation of BP22. under the instructions of his superior, he fetched the victim from the latter's cell for a routine
 HELD: interrogation.
o The court sustained the findings of the lower courts. The evil sought to be avoided is merely o The participation of petitioner, if any, in the victim's death was limited only to acts
expected or anticipated. If the evil sought to be avoided is merely expected or anticipated committed in the course of the lawful performance of his duties as an enforcer of the law.
or may happen in the future, the defense of an uncontrollable fear of a greater injury‖ is not The removal of the gun from its holster, the release of the safety lock, and the firing of the
applicable. Ty could have taken advantage of an available option to avoid committing a two successive shots — all of which led to the death of the victim — were sufficiently
crime. By her own admission, she had the choice to give jewelry or other forms of security demonstrated to have been consequences of circumstances beyond the control of
instead of postdated checks to secure her obligation. petitioner. At the very least, these factual circumstances create serious doubt on Pomoy‘s
o Moreover, for the defense of state of necessity to be availing, the greater injury feared culpability.
should not have been brought about by the negligence or imprudence, more so, the willful
inaction of the actor. In this case, the issuance of the bounced checks was brought about by Yapyuco v. Sandiganbayan
Ty's own failure to pay her mother's hospital bills.  Facts:
o A jeepney containing several people who attended a fiesta was fired at by 6 men who were
PNP officers and barangay officials. One of the passengers was killed and others were
FULFILLMENT OF DUTY severely wounded. The accused officers claim that the vehicle refused to stop at a
checkpoint and they only were acting in the fulfillment of duties.
Angcaco v. People  HELD:
 FACTS o Lawlessness is to be dealt with according to the law. Only absolute necessity justifies the use
of force, and it is incumbent on herein petitioners to prove such necessity. We find, however,
that petitioners failed in that respect. Although the employment of powerful firearms does
not necessarily connote unnecessary force, petitioners in this case do not seem to have been
confronted with the rational necessity to open fire at the moving jeepney occupied by the
 HELD victims.
o The Sandiganbayan declared that the shootout which caused injuries to Villanueva and
which brought the eventual death of Licup has been committed by petitioners herein
willfully under the guise of maintaining peace and order; that the acts performed by them
preparatory to the shooting, which ensured the execution of their evil plan without risk to
themselves, demonstrate a clear intent to kill the occupants of the subject vehicle; that the
Baxinela v. People fact they had by collective action deliberately and consciously intended to inflict harm and
 FACTS injury and had voluntarily performed those acts negates their defense of lawful performance
of official duty.
 OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER

Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan
 FACTS:
o Pres. Marcos instructed Tabuena over the phone to pay directly to the Office of the President
in cash what MIAA owes the Phil. National Construction Corporation (PNCC) which later was
reiterated in writing. The Marcos‘ memo indicated the amount of P55m for partial payment
of the obligation to PNCC as mentioned in Ongpin‘s memo. In obedience to Marcos‘
instruction, the accused withdrew the amount by means of 3 separate issuances of
manager‘s check and encashment in 3 separate dates as well. The money withdrawn were
placed in peerless boxes and duffle bags and delivered to the private secretary of Marcos
also in 3 separate days. According to the accused, the disbursement was not in the normal
procedure since it is paid in cold cash, there were no vouchers supporting it and no receipt
from PNCC.
o Tabuena and Peralta were convicted by the Sandiganbayan of malversation as defined in Art.
217, RPC for misappropriating funds of Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) worth
P55M.
 HELD: The accused are acquitted.
o The accused is entitled to the justifying circumstance of obedience to an order issued by a
superior for some lawful purpose. Sandiganbayan claimed that are Marcos‘ memo was
unlawful because it orders disbursement of P55M when the Ongpin memo reveals that the
liability is only 34.5M. Granting this to be true, it will not affect Tabuena‘s good faith as to
make him criminally liable. Thus, even if the order is illegal if it is patently legal and the
subordinate is not aware of its illegality, the subordinate is not liable, for then there would
only be a mistake of fact committed in good faith.