Violation Of Domicile

Violation of Domicile

ART. 128.

1. That the offender is a public officer or employee;
2. That he is not authorized by judicial order to enter the dwelling and/or to make a search therein for papers or other effects; and
3. That he commits any of the following acts:
a. entering any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof;
b. searching papers or other effects found therein without the previous consent of such owner;
c. refusing to leave the premises, after having surreptitiously entered said dwelling and after having been required to leave the same.

1. nighttime
2. papers or effects not constituting evidence of a crime are not returned immediately


The judicial order is the search warrant.

If the offender who enters the dwelling against the will of the owner thereof is a private individual, the crime committed is trespass to dwelling (Art 280).

When a public officer searched a person “outside his dwelling” without a search warrant and such person is not legally arrested for an offense, the crime committed by the public officer is either:
- grave coercion if violence or intimidation is used (Art 286), or
- unjust vexation if there is no violence or intimidation (Art. 287)

Public officer without a search warrant cannot lawfully enter the dwelling against the will of the owner, even if he knew that someone in that dwelling is in unlawful possession of opium.

Under RULE 113 OF THE REVISED RULES OF COURT a public officer, who breaks into the premise, incurs no liability WHEN a person to be arrested enters said premise and closes it thereafter.
- The public officer should have first given notice of an arrest.

According to People vs. Doria (1999) and People vs. Elamparo (2000), the following are the accepted exceptions to the warrant requirement:
  - Search incidental to an arrest;
  -   Search of moving vehicles;
  -  Evidence in plain view;
  -  Customs searches; AND
  -  Consented warrantless search.

  Stop and frisk is no longer included.

“Against the will” means that the offender ignored the prohibition of the owner which may be express or implied as when the door is closed even though not locked (Boado, Comprehensive Reviewer in Criminal Law)


ART. 127.

1. That the offender is a public officer or employee;
2. That he expels any person from the Philippines, or compels a person to change
   his residence; and
3. That the offender is not authorized to do so by law.

1. by expelling a person from the Philippines; or
2. by compelling a person to change his residence


Acts punishable:

The crime of expulsion absorbs that of grave coercion. If done by a private
person, act will amount to grave coercion.

Crime does not include expulsion of undesirable aliens, destierro, or when
sent to prison.

If a Filipino who, after voluntarily leaving the country, is illegally refused
re-entry is considered a victim of being forced to change his address.

Threat to national security is not a valid ground to expel or to compel one to
change his address.

The Chief Executive has the power to deport undesirable aliens.


Villavicencio v. Lukban (1919)
  The city mayor of Manila committed the crime of expulsion when he ordered
  certain prostitutes to be transferred to Davao WITHOUT observing due processes
  since they have not been charged with any crime.

Marcos v. Manglapus (1989)
  The request or demand of the Marcoses to be allowed to return to the Philippines
  cannot be considered in light solely of the constitutional provisions
  guaranteeing liberty of abode and the right to travel which are neither
  absolute nor inflexible.
    - Considering the unusual circumstances and the attendant national security
      issues, the matter can be appropriately addressed by the residual powers
      of the president which are implicit in and correlative to the paramount duty
      residing in that office to safeguard and protect general welfare.

Delaying Release


1. That the offender is a public officer or employee;
2. That there is a judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner
   or detention prisoner, or that there is a proceeding upon a petition for
   the liberation of such person; and
3. That the offender without good reason delays:
     a. the service of the notice of such order to the prisoner, or
     b. the performance of such judicial or executive order for the release
        of the prisoner, or
     c. the proceedings upon a petition for the release of such person.


Wardens and jailers are the persons most likely to violate this provision.

RA 7438

ra 7438
RA 7438

RA 7438
An Act Defining Certain Rights of Person Arrested, Detained or Under 
Custodial Investigation as Well as the Duties of the Arresting, Detaining 
and Investigating  Officers, and Providing Penalties for Violations

Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained, or Under Custodial Investigation;  
Duties of Public Officers

Be informed, in a language known to and understood by him, of his rights to
remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel

Be assisted by counsel at all times
   Preferably of his own choice
     - If the person arrested, detained, or under custodial investigation cannot afford
       the services of counsel, the investigating officer must provide him with one.
     - Counsel shall at all times be allowed to confer privately with the person

Be visited by or have conferences with:
   Any member of his immediate family, which INCLUDES –
    - spouse,
    - fiancee,
    - parent or child,
    - brother or sister,
    - grandparent or grandchild,
    - uncle or aunt,
    - nephew or niece, AND
    - guardian or ward
  Any medical doctor OR priest OR religious minister
    - Chosen by him, or by any member of his immediate family, or by his counsel
  Any national non-governmental organization duly accredited by the Commission
  on Human Rights or the Office of the President.

The custodial investigation report shall be reduced to writing by the
investigating officer.
    - Its contents shall be read and adequately explained by the counsel to the
      person arrested or detained BEFORE he signs or puts his thumb mark thereto.
    - Otherwise, such investigation report shall be null and void and of
      no effect whatsoever.

Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or under custodial
investigation shall be in writing.
    - It shall be signed by the person in the presence of his counsel.
    - In the absence of counsel AND upon a valid waiver, in the presence of any of
      the following:
         - Parents;
         - Elder brothers and sisters;
         - Spouse;
         - Municipal mayor,
         - municipal judge, district school supervisor; OR
         - Priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by the person

    - Otherwise, such extra judicial confession shall be inadmissible as
      evidence in any proceeding.

Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the provisions of Article
125 of the Revised Penal Code, or under custodial investigation, shall be in
writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel.

Top Ten Medical Technologist School in the Philippines

top ten medical technology
Medical Technologist

Top Ten Medical Technology School
September 2014

1. Saint Louis University - Baguio City
     Total Number of Examinees - 171
     Total Number Passed - 171
     Total Number Failed - 0
     Passing Percentage - 100%

    University of the Immaculate Conception - Davao
     Total Number of Examinees - 63
     Total Number Passed - 63
     Total Number Failed - 0
     Passing Percentage - 100%

    Lyceum of the Philippines University - Batangas
     Total Number of Examinees - 58
     Total Number Passed - 58
     Total Number Failed - 0
     Passing Percentage - 100%

2. Silliman University 
     Total Number of Examinees - 101
     Total Number Passed - 100
     Total Number Failed - 1
     Passing Percentage - 99.01%

3. Velez College
     Total Number of Examinees - 181
     Total Number Passed - 179
     Total Number Failed - 2
     Passing Percentage - 98.90%

4. Cagayan State University - Caritan
     Total Number of Examinees - 68
     Total Number Passed - 67
     Total Number Failed - 1
     Passing Percentage - 98.53%

5. FEU-Nicanor Reyes Medical Foundation
     Total Number of Examinees - 64
     Total Number Passed - 63
     Total Number Failed - 1
     Passing Percentage - 98.44%

     Total Number of Examinees - 244
     Total Number Passed - 236
     Total Number Failed - 8
     Passing Percentage - 96.72%

7. University of San Agustin
     Total Number of Examinees - 88
     Total Number Passed - 85
     Total Number Failed - 3
     Passing Percentage - 96.59%

8. University of Negros Occidental-Recoletos
     Total Number of Examinees - 76
     Total Number Passed - 73
     Total Number Failed - 3
     Passing Percentage - 96.05%

9. San Pedro College - Davao City
     Total Number of Examinees - 245
     Total Number Passed - 234
     Total Number Failed - 11
     Passing Percentage - 95.51%

10.University of Santo Tomas
     Total Number of Examinees - 224
     Total Number Passed - 209
     Total Number Failed - 15
     Passing Percentage - 93.30%

It is logical to consider the above mentioned schools as the best review school
for Medical Technology Board Examination.

Delay In The Delivery Of Detained Persons To The Proper Judicial Authorities

Delay in the Delivery of Detained Persons

ART. 125.

1. That the offender is a public officer or employee;
2. That he has detained a person for some legal ground; and
3. That he fails to deliver such person to the proper judicial authority within:
     a. 12 hours, detained for crimes punishable by light penalties, or equivalent;
     b. 18 hours, for crimes punishable by correctional penalties, or their equivalent; or
     c. 36 hours, for crimes/offenses punishable by capital punishment or afflictive penalties, or their equivalent.


The felony means delay in filing the necessary information or charging of person detained in court which may be waived if a preliminary investigation is asked for. This does not contemplate actual physical delivery.

The filing of the information in court beyond the specified periods does not cure illegality of detention. Neither does it affect the legality of the confinement under process issued by the court.

To prevent committing this felony, officers usually ask accused to execute a waiver of Art. 125 which should be under oath and with assistance of counsel. Such waiver is not violative of the constitutional right of the accused.

Contemplates arrest by virtue of some legal ground or valid warrantless arrest.

If arrested by virtue of arrest warrant, person may be detained until case is decided.

   - Light offense – 5 days.
   - Serious and less serious offenses – 7 to 10 days.
   - If offender is a private person, the crime is illegal detention.

This is applicable ONLY WHEN the arrest is without a warrant.

At the beginning, the detention is legal since it is in the pursuance of a lawful arrest.
Detention becomes arbitrary when the - applicable period lapses without the arresting officer filing a formal charge with the proper court.

The periods stated are counted only when the prosecutor’s office is ready to receive the complaint or information. - Nighttime is NOT included in the period.


Sayo v. Chief of Police (1948)
“Deliver” means the filing of correct information with the proper court (or constructive delivery --- turning over the person arrested to the jurisdiction of the court).
- Purpose is to determine whether the offense is bailable or not.

People v. Tan (1998)
The elements of custodial investigation are:
- The suspect is deprived of liberty in any significant manner;
- The interrogation is initiated by law enforcement authorities;
- The interrogation is inculpatory in character.

Sanchez v. Demetriou (1993)
Where the invitation comes from a powerful group composed predominantly of ranking military officers and the designated interrogation site is a military camp, the same can be easily taken, NOT as a strictly voluntary invitation.
- It is an authoritative command that one can only defy at his peril.

delay in the delivery of detained person

Violation of Neutrality

ART. 119.

1. That there is war in which the Philippines is not involved;
2. That there is a regulation issued by competent authority for the purpose of
   enforcing neutrality; and
3. That the offender violates such regulation.


This crime is committed only in time of war.

Neutrality of the Philippines that was violated.

There has to be a regulation issued by competent authority for enforcement of
neutrality – offender violated it.

Being a public officer or employee has higher penalty.

Top Mechanical Engineering Schools In The Philippines - March 2014

mechanical engineering school
Mechanical Engineering School

Top Mechanical Engineering Schools
March 2014

The Following Mechanical Engineering Schools Are The Best
Based On Their performance In The March 2014 Board Examination.

1. Batangas State University - Batangas City

      Overall Passing Percentage - 98.85%
      Number of Examinees - 87
      Number of those who passed - 86
      Number of those who failed - 1

2. De La Salle University - Manila

      Overall Passing Percentage - 92.16%
      Number of Examinees - 51
      Number of those who passed - 47
      Number of those who failed - 4

                MICHAEL JOSEPH LUMYEB CERDA - 3rd Place
                FERNAN JADE RAMIREZ BAUTISTA - 4th Pace

3. University of the Philippines - Diliman

      Overall Passing Percentage - 92%
      Number of Examinees - 25
      Number of those who passed - 23
      Number of those who failed - 2

                CARLO RAY RIVERA SELABAO - 2nd Place

4. Mindanao State University - Gen. Santos City

      Overall Passing Percentage - 88.46%
      Number of Examinees - 26
      Number of those who passed - 23
      Number of those who failed - 3

                 YVES TAPING BARTOLATA  - 6th Place

5. Bicol University - Legazpi

      Overall Passing Percentage - 88.24%
      Number of Examinees - 17
      Number of those who passed - 15
      Number of those who failed - 2

6. Technological University of the Philippines - Manila

      Overall Passing Percentage - 83.33%
      Number of Examinees - 12
      Number of those who passed - 10
      Number of those who failed - 2

                JAN LEXVER COMETA TIANGCO - 10th Place

7. Adamson University 

      Overall Passing Percentage - 80.65%
      Number of Examinees - 31
      Number of those who passed - 25
      Number of those who failed - 6

8. Saint Louis University - Baguio City

      Overall Passing Percentage - 79.49%
      Number of Examinees - 39
      Number of those who passed - 31
      Number of those who failed - 8

9. University of San Carlos

      Overall Passing Percentage - 78.57%
      Number of Examinees - 14
      Number of those who passed - 11
      Number of those who failed - 3

10.University of Mindanao - Davao City

      Overall Passing Percentage - 73.91%
      Number of Examinees - 23
      Number of those who passed - 17
      Number of those who failed - 6

Note: Some Mechanical Engineering School obtained
          a passing percentage of 100%. This is due
          to the fact that they have just fielded 3 or
          less candidate.

Note: The Following Mechanical Engineering Schools
          are impressive despite having fielded less
          than 10 examinees.

      1. University of Southeastern Philippines - Bislig

            Overall Passing Percentage - 100%
            Number of Examinees - 7
            Number of those who passed - 7
            Number of those who failed - 0  

      2. Silliman University

            Overall Passing Percentage - 100%
            Number of Examinees - 6
      3. Xavier University

            Overall Passing Percentage - 100%
            Number of Examinees - 6
      4. Ateneo De Davao University
            Overall Passing Percentage - 100%
            Number of Examinees - 4

      5. Bataan Heroes Memorial College

            Overall Passing Percentage - 100%
            Number of Examinees - 4

      6. Leyte Institute of Technology - Ormoc Campus

            Overall Passing Percentage - 88.89%
            Number of Examinees - 9
            Number of those who passed - 8
            Number of those who failed - 1

      7. Central Mindanao University

            Overall Passing Percentage - 85.71%
            Number of Examinees - 7
            Number of those who passed - 6
            Number of those who failed - 1
      8. Central Philippine University

            Overall Passing Percentage - 83.33%
            Number of Examinees - 6
            Number of those who passed - 5
            Number of those who failed - 1

Note: First Timer Examinees of the Following
          School Obtained a 100% Passing Percentage
          a. Silliman University
          b. Central Philippine university
          c. Central Mindanao University


RA NO. 6235

Anti-Hijacking Law

1. By compelling a change in the course or destination of an aircraft of Philippine
   registry, or seizing or usurping the control thereof while it is in flight;
2. By compelling an aircraft of foreign registry to land in Philippine territory or
   seizing or usurping the control thereof while it is in the said territory; and
3. By shipping, loading, or carrying in any passenger aircraft operating as a public utility
   w/in the Philippines, any explosive, flammable, corrosive or poisonous substance or material.

IN FLIGHT – From the moment all exterior doors are closed following embarkation until the same
doors are again opened for disembarkation.


Where the aircraft is of Philippine registry, the offense must be committed while in
flight. Hence, the act must take place after all exterior doors are closed following

Where the aircraft is of foreign registry, offense need not take place while in

1. Firing upon the pilot, member of the crew or passenger of the aircraft;
2. Exploding or attempting to explode any bomb or explosive to destroy the aircraft; or
3. The crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, serious physical injuries, or rape.


For “firing upon” to qualify the offense, offender must have actually fired
weapon. Mere attempt is not enough.

For “firing upon” to qualify the offense, offender need not succeed in hitting
pilot, crew member or passenger.

Anti hi-jacking is another kind of piracy which is committed in an aircraft. In
other countries, this crime is known as aircraft piracy.

Four situations governed by anti hi- jacking law:

(1)usurping or seizing control of an aircraft of Philippine registry while it
   is in flight, compelling the pilots thereof to change the course or
   destination of the aircraft;

(2)usurping or seizing control of an aircraft of foreign registry while within
   Philippine territory, compelling the pilots thereof to land in any part
   of Philippine territory;

(3)carrying or loading on board an aircraft operating as a public utility
   passenger aircraft in the Philippines, any flammable, corrosive, explosive,
   or poisonous substance; and

(4)loading, shipping, or transporting on board a cargo aircraft operating as a
   public utility in the Philippines, any flammable, corrosive, explosive, or
   poisonous substance if this was done not in accordance with the rules and
   regulations set and promulgated by the Air Transportation Office on this matter.

The important thing is that before the anti hi-jacking law can apply, the aircraft must be in flight. If not in flight, whatever crimes committed shall be governed by the Revised Penal Code.

Top Chemical Engineering Schools in the Philippines


Top Chemical Engineering School in the Philippines 
April 2014 Licensure Examination

The Best Chemical Engineering School in the Philippines is
determined by its performance in the licensure examination
administered by the PRC which has the power to monitor
the performance of  schools in licensure examinations
and publish the results thereof in a newspaper of national circulation.

Based on their overall passing percentage, The Following are the best
performing chemical engineering school in the Philippines for the
April 2014 board exam. for chemical engineer.

1. University of San Carlos

      Overall Passing Percentage - 100%
      Total Number of Examinees - 13
      Number of examinees who passed - 13
      Number of examinees who failed - 0

            Leslie Villamor Adolfo - 2nd Place

2. University of the Philippines - Diliman

      Overall Passing Percentage - 100%
      Total Number of Examinees - 6
      Number of examinees who passed - 6
      Number of examinees who failed - 0

3. De La Salle University - Manila

      Overall Passing Percentage - 90.48%
      Total Number of Examinees - 21
      Number of examinees who passed - 19
      Number of examinees who failed - 2

               Justinn  Donn Sales Mulingtapang - 1st Place
               Kevin Ignatius Poloyapoy Tan Kim Kiat - 4th Place

4. University of the Philippines - Los Banos

      Overall Passing Percentage - 75%
      Total Number of Examinees - 32
      Number of examinees who passed - 24
      Number of examinees who failed - 8

              Rick Allan Rabara  Chua - 3rd Place

5. Saint Louis University - Baguio City

      Overall Passing Percentage - 64.29%
      Total Number of Examinees - 42
      Number of examinees who passed - 27
      Number of examinees who failed - 15

Note: Although Cagayan State University Has a 100% passing percentage,
          3 out of 3, these examinees are repeaters.

          Saint Michaels College lone examinee also passed.

          The rest has a passing percentage below 64%

          Not included are those schools with less than 5 examinees

Reference Source: PRC - The Philippine government agency which has
                  the power To monitor the performance of schools in licensure
                  examinations and publish the results thereof in a newspaper
                  of national circulation


Interruption Of Religious Worship

ART. 132.

1. That the officer is a public officer or employee;
2. That religious ceremonies or manifestations of any religion are about to
   take place or are going on; and
3. That the offender prevents or disturbs the same.


Qualifying circumstances:
1. violence; or
2. threats.

Reading of Bible and then attacking certain churches in a public plaza is not a
ceremony or manifestation of religion, but only a meeting of a religious sect.
But if done in a private home, it’s a religious service.

Religious Worship includes people in the act of performing religious rites for
a religious ceremony or a manifestation of religion.
   Examples: Mass, baptism, marriage

X, a private person, boxed a priest while the priest was giving homily and
maligning a relative of X. Is X liable? X may be liable under Art 133
(Offending religious feelings) because X is a private person.

Qualified if committed by violence or threat.

CMT Target Criminology Review Center

cmt target criminology review center
Criminology Review Center

 CMT Target Criminology Review Center is an
 independent criminology  review center not
 endorsing any particular school of criminology.

It was founded in Cebu City on May 2005.

CMT Target is co-founded by Atty. Artemio Jay Torredes.
He is a graduate of University of San Carlos where he obtained his Criminology
and Law degree. For those who do not know him, he is a criminology board
examination topnotcher. When he took the board exam in 2002, he landed first place.
He is also the review director of CMT Target Criminology Review Center.
He is also at the same time the Dean of the Criminal Justice Department of the
University of San Carlos.

CMT Target Review Center, in its entire existence, has produced more than
18 examinees that landed from top 1 to top 10.

CMT Target Review Center offers not only Criminology Board Exam Review
but also Napolcom Exam Review designed for those non criminology graduate
who wants to join the Philippine National Police.

Although a Licensed Criminologist is exempted from taking the NAPOLCOM
exam, some criminology graduate prefers to take this exam instead because the
subject coverage is far less extensive than the Criminology Licensure Examination.

Target Review Center offers their review services in various parts of the country.
For those interested to know if one exist in their province or city, you may call
them personally on the no. listed below or visit them personally for those who
live in or near Cebu City.

     LOCATION - 2nd Floor, Melgo Bldg., Sanciangko st., Pahina Central, 
                              Cebu City (6000)
     TEL. NO. - (032) 515-0400/ 09434939672

The Cost of Review as posted in their facebook page is listed below.
1. Criminology Review and Napolcom Review - 9000 pesos
2. Criminology Review Only                             - 8000 pesos
3. Napolcom Review Only                                 - 2000 pesos

Based on their past performances in the Criminology Licensure Examination,
CMT Target Criminology Review Center is a good place to have your review.

Qualified Piracy

Qualified Piracy

ART. 123.

1. Seizure of the vessel by boarding or firing upon the same;
2. Abandonment of victims without means of saving themselves; or
3. Piracy was accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries, or rape.


If any of the circumstances in Article 123 is present, piracy is qualified.

Parricide/infanticide should be included (according to Judge Pimentel).

There is a conflict between this provision and the provision on rape.
Ex: If rape is committed on someone below 7 yrs. old – penalty is death under the new rape law. But if rape committed on someone below 7 during the time of piracy – reclusion perpetua to death.

The murder/rape/homicide/physical injuries must have been committed on the passengers or on the complement of the vessel.

Piracy is a crime not against any particular state but against all mankind. It may be punished in the competent tribunal of any country where the offender may be found or into which he may be carried.

QUALIFIED PIRACY –  a SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME punishable by reclusión perpetua to death, regardless of the number of victims.

Murder, rape, homicide, physical injuries are mere circumstances qualifying piracy and cannot be punished as separate crimes, nor can they be complexed with piracy.

Although in Article 123 merely refers to qualified piracy, there is also the crime of qualified mutiny. Mutiny is qualified under the following circumstances:
(1)When the offenders abandoned the victims without means of saving themselves; or
(2)When the mutiny is accompanied by rape, murder, homicide, or physical injuries.

Note that the first circumstance which qualifies piracy does not apply to mutiny.

Example of Qualified Piracy (2006 Bar Exam)

While the S.S. Nagoya Maru was negotiating the sea route from Hongkong towards Manila, and while still 300 miles from Aparri, Cagayan, its engines malfunctioned. The Captain ordered the ship to stop for emergency repairs lasting for almost 15 hours. Due to exhaustion, the officers and crew fell asleep. While the ship was anchored, a motorboat manned by renegade Ybanags from Claveria, Cagayan, passed by and took advantage of the situation. They cut the ship's engines and took away several heavy crates of electrical equipment and loaded them in their motorboat. Then they left hurriedly towards Aparri. At daybreak, the crew found that a robbery took place. They radioed the Appari Port Authorities resulting in the apprehension of the culprits.

What crime was committed? Explain.

Piracy in the high seas was committed by the renegade Ybanags. The culprits who are neither members of the complement not passengers of the ship, seized part of the equipment of the vessel while it was three hundred miles away from Aparri, Cagayan.(Art.122, RPC)

Supposing that while the robbery was taking place, the culprits stabbed a member of the crew while sleeping. What crime was committed? Explain.

The crime committed is qualified piracy, because it was accompanied by physical injuries/homicide. The culprits stabbed a member of the crew while sleeping.(Art.123, RPC)

Top Ten Criminology School April 2014 Licensure Examination

criminology school
Criminology School

For The Complete List of those who passed
the Criminology Board Examination for
April 2013, Just Click the Picture.

Criminology School With 50 or More Examinees 

1. University of the Cordilleras - 99.09%
     Total Number of Examinees - 110
     Total Number Passed            - 109
     Total Number Failed              - 1

       Francis Pang-ay Fagkang - 4th Place
       Katrina Natividad Reyes   - 6th Place
       Jayson Guiked Langgacao  - 7th Place
       April Tsuan Dogwe Matchok - 9th Place

2. University of Baguio - 93.26%
     Total Number of Examinees - 89
     Total Number Passed            - 83
     Total Number Failed              - 6

       Clementina Miller Tomeg - 5th Place
       Morrison Dumpayan Imingan - 10th Place
3. Lipa City Colleges - 90.91%
     Total Number of Examinees - 66
     Total Number Passed            - 60
     Total Number Failed              - 6

4. Cagayan De Oro College - 76.58%
     Total Number of Examinees - 158
     Total Number Passed            - 121
     Total Number Failed             -  37

       Cherrielyn Galendez Dahan - 8th Place

5. University of Manila - 70.91%
     Total Number of Examinees - 55
     Total Number Passed            - 39
     Total Number Failed              - 16

6. Cordillera Career development College - 67.92%
     Total Number of Examinees - 106
     Total Number Passed            -  72
     Total Number Failed              -  34

7. Araullo University - 64.49%
     Total Number of examinees - 214
     Total Number Passed           - 138
     Total Number Failed             -  76

8. Taguig City University - 60.71%
     Total Number of Examinees - 56
     Total Number Passed            - 34
     Total Number failed               - 22

9. Mountain Province State Polytechnic College (Bontoc) - 60.18%
     Total Number of Examinees - 113
     Total Number Passed            -  68
     Total Number failed               -  45

10.University of Mindanao (Davao City) - 57.78%
     Total Number of Examinees - 180
     Total Number Passed            - 104
     Total Number Failed              -  76

PD 532


VESSEL – any vessel or watercraft used for
         (a) transport of passengers and cargo or
         (b) for fishing.

1. Knowingly aids or protects pirates;
2. Acquires or receives property taken by such pirates, or in any manner derives any benefit;
3. Directly or indirectly abets the commission of piracy.


Was issued in August 1974, punishing piracy, but not mutiny, in Philippine territorial waters.

Thus came about two kinds of piracy:
(1) that which is punished under the Revised Penal Code if committed in the high seas; and
(2) that which is punished under Presidential Decree No. 532 if committed in
    Philippine territorial waters.

Under PD 532, piracy may be committed even by a passenger or member of the
complement of the vessel.

well as mutiny, whether committed in the high seas or in Philippine territorial waters, and the penalty has been increased to reclusion perpetua from reclusion temporal.

There is still the crime of abetting piracy in Philippine waters under Presidential Decree No. 532.

Piracy cannot co-exist with the crime of robbery. Robbery, therefore, cannot be committed on
board a vessel. But if the taking is without violence or intimidation on persons of force upon things, the crime of piracy cannot be committed, but only theft.

PIRACY is is a crime against humanity (hostes humanes generis)

Piracy In General And Mutiny On The High Seas

ART. 122.

1. By attacking or seizing a vessel on the high seas or in the Philippine waters (PD 532);
2. By seizing the whole or part of the cargo of said vessels, its equipment or personal
   belongings of its complement or passengers, the offenders being strangers to the

PIRACY – it is robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas, without lawful
authority and done with animo furandi and in the spirit and intention of
universal hostility.

MUTINY – the unlawful resistance to a superior, or the raising of commotions
and disturbances on board a ship against the authority of its commander.

1. A vessel is on the high seas or Philippine waters;
2. Offenders – not members of its complement nor passengers of the vessel; and
3. That the offenders –
    a. attack or seize vessel (if committed by crew or passengers, the crime is not
       piracy but robbery in the high seas), or
    b. seize whole or part of vessel’s cargo, equipment or personal belongings
       of its complement or passengers.


High seas - any waters on the sea coast which are without the boundaries of the low
water mark although such waters may be in the jurisdictional limits of a foreign
government; parts of the sea that are not included in the exclusive economic zone, in
the territorial seas, or in the internal waters of a state, or in the archipelagic
waters of an archipelagic state (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea).

Philippine waters – all bodies of water, such as but not limited to seas, gulfs,
bays, around, between and connecting each of the islands of the Philippine Archipelago, irrespective of its depth, breath, length or dimension, and all waters belonging to the Philippines by historic or legal title, including territorial sea, the sea-
bed, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas over which the Philippines has
sovereignty and jurisdiction. (Sec. 2, P.D. No. 532)

Now, Art. 122, as amended by R.A. 7659 Piracy and Mutiny in Philippine waters is

Before R. A. 7659 amended Art 122, piracy and mutiny only on the high seas was
punishable. However, the commission of the acts described in Arts. 122 and 123 in
Philippine waters was under P.D. No. 532.

Piracy in high seas – jurisdiction of any court where offenders are found or arrested.

Piracy in internal waters – jurisdiction of Philippine courts.

For purposes of the Anti-Fencing Law, piracy is part of robbery and theft.

piracy and mutiny on the high seas

Correspondence With Hostile Country

ART. 120.

1. There’s a war in and Philippines is involved;
2. That the offender makes correspondence with an enemy country or territory
   occupied by enemy troops;
3. That the correspondence is either –
     a. prohibited by the government, or
     b. carried on in ciphers or conventional signs, or
     c. containing notice or information which might be useful to the enemy.

1. Notice or information might be useful to the enemy.
2. Offender intended to aid the enemy.


 Circumstances qualifying the offense:
     1. notice or information might be useful to the enemy
     2. offender intended to aid the enemy

A hostile country exists only during hostilities or after the declaration of war.

Correspondence to enemy country is correspondence to officials of enemy
country even if said official is related to the offender.

It is not correspondence with private individual in enemy country.

If ciphers were used, no need for prohibition of the government.

If ciphers were not used, there is a need for prohibition of the government.

It is immaterial if correspondence contains innocent matters. If prohibited,
correspondence is punishable.

Inciting To War Or Giving Motives For Reprisal

ART. 118.

1. Offender performs unlawful or unauthorized acts;
2. Such acts provoke or give occasion for a war involving or liable
   to involve the Philippines or expose Filipino citizens to
   reprisals on their persons or property;


Crime committed in time of  peace.

Intent of the offender is immaterial.

In inciting to war, the offender is any person. If the offender is a
public officer, the penalty is higher.

Reprisals are not limited to military action, it could be economic
reprisals, or denial of entry into their country.

Example: X burns Chinese flag. If China bans the entry of Filipinos
into China, that is reprisal.


ART. 117.

ESPIONAGE – is the offense of gathering, transmitting, or losing
information respecting the national defense with intent or reason
to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of
the Republic of the Philippines or the advantage of a foreign nation.

1. By entering, without authority, a warship, fort, or military or
    naval establishment or reservation to obtain any information, plan or
    other data of confidential nature relative to the defense of the

   1. That the offender enters a warship, fort, naval or military
       establishment or reservation;
   2. That he has no authority therefore; and
   3. That his purpose is to obtain information, plans, photographs or
       other data of a confidential nature relative to the defense of the

2. By disclosing to the representative of a foreign nation the contents
    of the articles, data or information referred to in the preceding
    paragraph, which he had in his possession by reason of the public
    office he holds.

   1. That the offender is a public officer;
   2. That he has in his possession the articles, data or information referred
       to in the first mode of committing espionage, by reason of the public
       office he holds; and
   3. That he discloses their contents to a representative of a foreign nation.

1. First mode:
   a. Filipino
   b. alien residing
2. Second mode:
   a. Offender is a public officer.


Being a public officer is a requirement in the second paragraph

It is aggravating in the first.

Espionage is the offense of gathering, transmitting, or losing information
respecting the national defense with the intent or reason to believe that
the information is to be used to the injury of the Philippines or
the advantage of any foreign nation. It is not conditioned on citizenship.

Wiretapping is not espionage if the purpose is not connected with the defense.

In the first mode of committing the felony, it is not necessary that the offender
succeeds in obtaining the information.


Misprision of Treason

Misprision of Treason

ART. 116.

1. Offender owes allegiance to the government
2. Not a foreigner
3. Has knowledge of any conspiracy (to commit treason) against the government
4. He conceals or does not disclose the same to the authorities in w/c he resides.


Offender is punished as an accessory to the crime of treason.

But is actually principal to this crime.

Crime doesn't apply if crime of treason is already committed and it is not reported.

It is a crime of omission.

RPC mentions 4 individuals (i.e. governor, provincial fiscal, mayor or city fiscal), but what if you report to some other high-ranking government. official?
Ex: PNP Director? Judge Pimentel says any government. official of the DILG is OK..

Misprision of treason is a crime that may be committed only by citizens of the Philippines.

The essence of the crime is that there are persons who conspire to commit treason and the offender knew this and failed to make the necessary report to the government within the earliest possible time.

What is required is to report it as soon as possible.

The criminal liability arises if the treasonous activity was still at the conspiratorial stage.

Any person in authority having the equivalent jurisdiction (of a mayor, fiscal or governor), like a provincial commander, will already negate criminal liability.

Blood relationship is always subservient to national security. Article 20 does not apply here.

Under the Revised Penal Code, there is no crime of misprision of rebellion.

Flight To Enemy's Country

ART. 121.

1. There’s a war and Philippines is involved;
2. Offender owes allegiance to the government;
3. Offender attempts to flee or go to enemy country; and
4. Going to enemy country is prohibited by competent authority.

1. Filipino citizen
2. Alien residing in the Philippines


Mere attempt consummates the crime.

There must be a prohibition. If there is none, even if one went to enemy country,
there is no crime.

An alien resident may be held guilty for this crime because an alien owes
allegiance to the Philippine government albeit temporary.

Conspiracy and Proposal To Commit Treason

ART. 115.

1. In time of war;
2. Two or more persons come to an agreement to -
    a. levy war against the government, or
    b. adhere to the enemies and to give them aid or comfort
3. They decide to commit it.

1. In time of war
2. A person who has decided to levy war against the government,
   or to adhere to the enemies and to give them aid or comfort
3. Proposes its execution to some other person/s.


As a general rule, conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony is
not punishable (ART.8). Art 115 is an exception as it specifically
penalizes conspiracy and proposal to commit treason.

Mere agreement and decision to commit treason is punishable.

Two-witness rule – not applicable since this is a crime separate
from treason.

Mere proposal even without acceptance is punishable, too. If the
other accepts, it is already conspiracy.

If actual acts of treason are committed after the conspiracy or
proposal, the crime committed will be treason, and the conspiracy
or proposal is considered as a means in the commission thereof.

Criminology Schools Garnering 100% Passing Percentage In The October 2013 Examination

criminology board exam result

     a. Passed - 11
     b. First Timer - 11
     c. Repeaters - 0
     a. Passed - 20
     b. First Timer - 20
     c. Repeaters - 0

     a. Passed - 1
     b. First Timer - 1
     c. Repeaters - 0

     a. Passed - 1
     b. First Timer - 0
     c. Repeaters - 1

     a. Passed - 4
     b. First Timer - 4
     c. Repeaters - 0

     a. Passed - 1
     b. First Timer - 1
     c. Repeaters - 0

     a. Passed - 15
     b. First Timer - 15
     c. Repeaters - 0

     a. Passed - 39
     b. First Timer - 39
     c. Repeaters - 0

     a. Passed - 6
     b. First Timer - 6
     c. Repeaters - 0

     a. Passed - 27
     b. First Timer - 27
     c. Repeaters - 0

     a. Passed - 7
     b. First Timer - 6
     c. repeaters - 1

     a. Passed - 2
     b. First Timer - 2
     c. repeaters - 0

     a. Passed - 1
     b. First Timer - 0
     c. Repeaters - 1

     a. Passed - 1
     b. First Timer - 0
     c. Repeaters - 1

     a. Passed - 3
     b. First Timer - 3
     c. Repeaters - 0

     a. Passed - 1
     b. First Timer - 1
     c. Repeaters - 0

     a. Passed - 1
     b. First Timer - 1
     c. Repeaters - 0

     a. Passed - 1
     b. First Timer - 1
     c. Repeaters - 0

     a. Passed - 3
     b. First Timer - 3
     c. Repeaters - 0

Although the above mentioned schools have 100% passing percentage, You may observe that 4 of them have repeaters and 15 are all first timer.

You may also observe that 8 of the above mentioned schools have only one 

Having a 100% passing percentage is not the sole basis of judging the quality of instructions in a school. The above mentioned data is for information purposes only which may aid the prospective criminology student in choosing the right criminology school for him/her.

Based on the data above, the following schools seems very good.
1. Eastern Luzon Colleges -   39 passed
2. Holy Angel University -    27 passed
3. Cavite State University -  20 passed
4. Eastern Luzon Colleges -   15 passed
5. Cagayan State University - 11 passed

Related Post:

Arbitrary Detention

ART. 124

1. That the offender is a public officer or employee (whose official duties
   include the authority to make an arrest and detain persons);
2. That he detains a person; and
3. That it was without legal grounds.


Arbitrary detention is the deprivation by a public officer of the liberty
of a person w/o any legal ground.

Though the elements specify that the offender be a public officer or employee,
private individuals who conspire with public officers can be liable as principals.

Legal grounds for the detention of any person:
   a. commission of a crime
   b. violent insanity or other ailment requiring compulsory confinement of
      the patient in a hospital

Grounds for warrant-less arrest:
   a. Crime is about to be, is being, or has been committed;
   b. Arresting officer must have personal knowledge that the person probably
      committed the crime; or
   c. Person to be arrested is an escaped prisoner.

1. By detaining a person without legal ground
2. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities
3. Delaying release

A public officer is deemed such when he is acting within the bounds of his
official authority or function.
     A police officer who employs force in excess of what is necessary is
     acting outside the bounds of his duties and is considered acting in his
     private capacity.

In a case decided by the Supreme Court a Barangay Chairman who
unlawfully detains another was held to be guilty of the crime of arbitrary
     This is because he is a person in authority vested with jurisdiction
     to maintain peace and order within his barangay (Milo v. Salanga,1987).

There must be an actual restraint of liberty of the offended party.
     The crime committed is only grave or light threat if the offended party
     may still go to the place where he wants to go, even though there
     have been warnings.

If the offender falsely imputes a crime against a person to be able to arrest
him and appear not determined to file a charge against him, the crime is arbitrary
detention through unlawful arrest (Boado, Comprehensive Reviewer in Criminal Law).

Rolito Go v. CA is an example of arbitrary detention (Judge Pimentel)

Ramos v. Enrile:
Rebels later on retire. Once you have committed rebellion and have not
been punished or amnestied, the rebels continue to engage in rebellion,
unless the rebels renounce their affiliation. Arrest can be made
without a warrant because rebellion is a continuing crime.

                     Arbitrary Detention          Illegal Detention               Unlawful Arrest
1. Offender  Public officer who has      Private person or              Any person.
                    authority to make arrest    Public officer who is
                    detain persons.                  acting in a private
                                                              capacity or beyond the
                                                              cope of his official

2. Criminal  Deny the offended           Deny the offended party    Accuse the offended
   Intent       party of his liberty            of his liberty                       party of a crime he
                                                                                                       did not commit, deliver
                                                                                                       him to the proper
                                                                                                       authority and file the
                                                                                                       necessary charges to
                                                                                                      incriminate him.

Related: Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus

Cockfighting Law Of 1974

Presidential Decree No. 449

Holding of Cockfights – Cockfighting shall be allowed only in
licensed cockpits on
1. Sundays
2. Legal Holidays, except: December 30, June 12, November 30,
   Holy Thursday, Good Friday, Election or Referendum Day and
   during Registration Days for such election or referendum
3. During local fiestas for not more than 3 days
4. Provincial, city or municipal agriculture, commercial or industrial
   fair, carnival or exposition for a similar period of three days
   upon resolution, subject to approval of Chief of Constabulary or
   his authorized representative—not allowed within month of local
   fiesta of for more than two occasions a year in same city or

Cockfighting for Entertainment of Tourists or for Charitable Purposes:
Chief of Constabulary or his authorized representative may also allow
the holding of cockfighting for:
1. Entertainment of foreign dignitaries
2. Tourists
3. Balikbayan
4. For support of national fund-raising campaigns for charitable
   purposes as may be authorized by the Office of the President,
   upon resolution of a provincial board, city or municipal council

- In licensed cockpits or in playgrounds or parks
- Extended for only one time, for a period not exceeding 3 days,
  within a year to a province, city or municipality


Permitting gambling of any kind in cockpit is punished under the
same Decree (Owner, manager or lessee of cockpit that permits
gambling shall be criminally liable)

Spectators in cockfight are not liable unless he participates as bettor

Gambling in all its forms, unless allowed by law, is generally
prohibited. The prohibition does not mean that the Government cannot
regulate it in the exercise of police power.

There are particular days where Cockfighting and Horse Racing are
allowed. Betting in Horse Races is allowed during periods
provided by law but betting in cockfights is prohibited at all times.

Sports Contests: Betting, Game-fixing, Point- Shaving,
Game Machinations prohibited

Only allows one cockpit per municipality, unless the population
exceeds 100,000 in which case two cockpits may be established;

Cockfights can only be held in licensed cockpits on Sundays
and legal holidays and local fiestas for not more than three days;

Also allowed during provincial, municipal, city, industrial, agricultural
fairs, carnivals, or exposition not more than three days;

Cockfighting not allowed on December 30, June 12, November 30, Holy
Thursday, Good Friday, Election or Referendum Day, and registration
days for referendums and elections;

Only municipal and city mayors are allowed to issue licenses for such.

This decree does not punish a person attending as a spectator in a
cockfight. To be liable, he must participate as a bettor.

Mendicancy Law of 1978

mendicancy law
Mendicancy Law

Mendicancy Law of 1978

PD 1563 

Persons liable:
1. Mendicant – Those with no visible and legal means of support, or lawful employment and physically able to work but neglects to apply himself to lawful calling and instead uses begging as means of living (higher penalty if convicted 2 or more times)
2. Any person who abets mendicancy by giving alms on public roads, sidewalks, parks and bridges except if given through organized agencies operating under rules and regulations of Ministry of Public Information

NOTE: Giving alms through organized agencies operating under the rules and regulations of the Ministry of Public Information is not a violation of the Mendicancy Law.

Under R.A. 9344 persons below eighteen (18) years of age shall be exempt from prosecution
for the crime of vagrancy and prostitution under Section 202 of the Revised Penal Code, of
mendicancy under Presidential Decree No. 1563, and sniffing of rugby under Presidential
Decree No. 1619, such prosecution being inconsistent with the United Nations Convention
of the Rights of the Child:

Those enumerated in section 4, who are not considered mendicants are the following:
1. Any infant or child 8 years old and below who is found begging or is being utilized  by a  mendicant for purposes of begging
2. Any minor over 9 years of age and under 15 found begging or is being utilized for purposes of begging, and who acted with or without discernment
3. Any person who is found begging and who is physically or mentally incapable of gainful occupation

Who are punishable?

1. A mendicant shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine not exceeding P500.00 or by imprisonment for a period not exceeding 2 years or both at the discretion of the court.
2. A habitual mendicant (one who has been convicted of mendicancy under this law 2 or more times) shall be punished by a fine not exceeding P1000.00 or by imprisonment  for a period not exceeding years, or both at the discretion of the court.

Who Are Public Officers

Who Are Public Officers?

ART. 203

To be a public officer, one must be -
1. Taking part in the performance of public functions in the Government, or performing
    public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank or class, in
   the government or any of its branches; and
2. That his authority to take part in the performance of public functions or to perform
    public duties must be -
     a. by direct provision of the law, or
     b. by popular election, or
     c. by appointment by competent authority.


Public officers include every public servant from the lowest to the highest rank provided
that they exercise public functions.

A government laborer is not a public officer. However, temporary performance by a
laborer of public functions makes him a public officer.

Officers and employees of government owned and controlled corporations but not those
of a sequestered corporations.

Doing of an act which a public officer should not have done
1. Direct bribery
2. Indirect bribery

Improper doing of an act which a person might lawfully do
1. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment
2. Rendering judgment through negligence
3. Rendering unjust interlocutory order
4. Malicious delay in the administration of justice

Failure of an agent to perform his undertaking for the principal
1. dereliction of duty in prosecution of offenses
2. betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor – revelation of secrets


What is Treason ?

ART 114

1. Offender is a Filipino citizen or an alien resident
2. There’s a war in and Philippines is involved; and
3. Offender either –
a. Levies war against the government; or
b. Adheres to enemies, giving aid or comfort

1. Filipino – permanent allegiance; can commit treason anywhere
2. Alien Residing – temporary allegiance; commit treason only while residing in Philippines


Treason committed in a foreign country may be prosecuted in the Philippines. (Art.2, RPC)

Treason by an alien must be committed in the Philippines. (EO 44).

Treason – breach of allegiance to the government by a person who owes allegiance to it.

Allegiance – obligation of fidelity and obedience which individuals owe to the government under which they live or to their sovereign, in return for protection they receive.

Treason is a war crime - punished by state as a measure of self-protection.

Committed in times of war (not peace) when
- there is actual hostilities
- no need for a declaration of war.

Mere acceptance of public office and discharge of official duties under the enemy do not constitute per se the felony of treason. But when the position is policy-determining, the acceptance of public office and the discharge of official duties constitute treason.

1. Levying war against government - requires:
a. Actual assembling of men
b. Purpose of executing a treasonable design, by force
2. Adheres to enemies – following must concur together:
a. Actual adherence
b. Give aid or comfort


Levying war - must be with intent to overthrow the government as such, not merely to repeal a particular statute or to resist a particular officer.

Requirements of levying war
1. Actual assembling of men;
2. To execute a treasonable design by force;
3. Intent is to deliver the country in whole or in part to the enemy; and
4. Collaboration with foreign enemy or some foreign sovereign

Not necessary that those attempting to overthrow the government by force of arms should have the apparent power to succeed in their design, in whole or in part.

Adherence – intellectually or emotionally favors the enemy and harbors sympathies or convictions disloyal to his country’s policy or interest.

Aid or Comfort – act w/c strengthens or tends to strengthen the enemy of the government in the conduct of war against the government, or an act w/c weakens or tends to weaken the power of the government or the country to resist or to attack the enemies of the gov’t or country

1. Treason
a. Testimony of at least 2 witnesses to the same overt act
b. Judicial confession of accused
2. Adherence
a. One witness
b. Nature of act itself
c. Circumstances surrounding act


To convict: testimonies must relate to the same overt act – not two similar acts.

If act is separable – each witness can testify to parts of it; but the act, as a whole, must be identifiable as an overt act.

Confession must be in open court.

Reason for 2-witness rule
special nature of the crime requires that the accused be afforded a special protection not required in other cases so as to avoid a miscarriage of justice. Extreme seriousness of the crime, for which death is one of the penalties provided by law, and the fact that the crime is committed in abnormal times, when small differences may in mortal enmity wipe out all scruples in sacrificing the truth.

General Notes:

Inherent circumstances - they do not aggravate the crime.
- Evident premeditation are needed to see this picture.
- superior strength
- treachery

Treason is a continuing crime. Even after the war, offender can still be prosecuted.

No treason through negligence since it must be intentional.

No complex crime of treason with murder – murder is the overt act of aid or comfort and is therefore inseparable from treason itself.

- Duress or uncontrollable fear
- Obedience to de facto government

- Suspended allegiance
- Joining the enemy army thus becoming a citizen of the enemy

Death or Physical Injuries Under Exceptional Circumstances


1. A legally married person or parent surprises his spouse or daughter (the
   latter must be under 18 and living with them) in the act of committing sexual
   intercourse with another person;
2. He/she kills any or both of them or inflicts upon any or both of them any serious
   physical injury in the act or immediately thereafter; and
3. He has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his wife or daughter,
   or that he has not consented to the infidelity of the other spouse.


This article does not define or penalize a felony, the penalty is destierro.

Penalty of destierro for killer spouse is meant to protect him
from acts of reprisal by relatives of dead spouse.

It is not necessary that the parent be legitimate for the application of this article.

This article applies only when the daughter is single.

Surprise means to come upon suddenly or unexpectedly.

Article does not apply: If the surprising took place before any
actual sexual intercourse could be done or after the actual sexual
intercourse was finished.

Art. 247 is applicable even when the accused did not see his spouse in the act sexual
intercourse with another person. It is enough that circumstances reasonably show that the
carnal act is being committed or has been committed.

Sexual intercourse does not include preparatory acts.

Requisites must be established by evidence of the defense.

“living with parent” is understood to be in their own dwelling because of the
embarrassment and humiliation done to the parent and parental abode

“Immediately thereafter” means that the discovery, escape, pursuit and the killing
must all form parts of one continuous act.

immediately thereafter – may be an hour after proximate result of outrage
overwhelming accused after chancing upon spouse in basest act of infidelity.

The killing must be the direct by-product of the rage of the accused.

No criminal liability is incurred when less serious or slight physical injuries are inflicted.
Moreover, in case third persons caught in the crossfire suffer physical injuries, the accused
is not liable for physical injuries. The principle that one is liable for the consequences of his
felonious act is not applicable, because his act under Art.247 does not amount to a
       If done in a motel, article does not apply.

No criminal liability when less serious or slight physical injuries
are inflicted.

People v. Puedan
Evidence of the victim’s promiscuity is inconsequential to the
killing. The offender must prove that he actually surprised his wife and [her
paramour] in flagrante delicto, and that he killed the man during or
immediately thereafter.

People v. Abarca
The killing must be the direct result of the outrage suffered by the
cuckolded husband. Although about one hour had passed between the
time the accused discovered his wife having sexual intercourse with the
victim and the time the latter was actually killed, it was held that Article
247 was applicable, as the shooting was a continuation of the pursuit of
the victim by the accused. Inflicting death under exceptional
circumstances is not murder. Two other persons suffered physical
injuries as they were caught in the crossfire when the accused shot the
victim. A complex crime of double frustrated murder was not committed
as the accused did not have the intent to kill the two victims.
Here, the accused did not commit murder when he fired at the paramour of his wife.
No aberratio ictus because he was acting lawfully.


Art. 134 - A

1. Offender is a person or persons belonging to the military, or police or holding
   any public office or employment,
2. Committed by means of swift attack, accompanied by violence, intimidation,
   threat, strategy or stealth;
3. Directed against:
   a. duly constituted authorities of the Philippines
   b. any military camp or installation
   c. communication networks, public utilities or other facilities needed for
      the exercise and continued possession of power
4. For the purpose of seizing or diminishing state power.

1. Any person who leads or in any manner directs or commands others to undertake
   coup d’etat (leaders);
2. Any person in the government service who participates or executes directions or
   commands of others in undertaking coup d’etat (participants from government);
3. Any person not in the government service who participates, or in any manner,
   supports, finances, abets, or aids in undertaking a coup d’etat
   (participants not from government); and
4. Any person who in fact directed the others, spoke for them, signed receipts
   and other documents issued in their name, or performed similar acts, on
   behalf of the rebels (deemed leader if leader is unknown)


Essence of the crime: Swift attack against the government, its military
camps an installations, etc.

It may be committed singly or collectively.

Requires as a principal offender a member of the AFP, PNP, or a public
officer with or without civilian support.

Objective: To destabilize, immobilize, or paralyze the existing government by
taking over such facilities essential to the continued exercise of governmental

Committed through force, violation, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth.

Mere silence or omission is not punishable.

If under the command of unknown  leaders, any person who spoke for,
signed receipts and other documents  issued in their name on behalf of the
rebels shall be deemed a leader.

Not a defense: The accused did not take the oath of allegiance to, or that they
never recognized the government.

Question: What is a political crime?

Answer: Those directly aimed against the political order; includes common crimes
committed to achieve a political purpose. Decisive factor: Intent.

coup d' etat
coup d' etat

Criminal Negligence; Imprudence and Negligence



1. By committing through reckless imprudence any act which, had it been intentional, would
   constitute a grave or less grave felony or light felony;
2. By committing through simple imprudence or negligence an act w/c would otherwise
   constitute a grave or a less serious felony;
3. By causing damage to the property of another through reckless imprudence or
   simple imprudence or negligence; or
2. By causing through simple imprudence or negligence some wrong w/c, if done
   maliciously, would have constitutes a light felony.

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; and
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.

1. That there is lack of precaution on the part of the offender; and
2. That the damage impending to be caused is not immediate or the danger is not clearly manifest.

Art. 64 on mitigating and aggravating circumstances is not applicable in quasi-offenses.

Qualifying circumstance in quasi-offenses: The offender’s failure to lend on-the-spot assistance
to the victim of his negligence.

Abandoning one’s victim is usually punishable under Art. 275. But if it is charged under Art.
365, it is only a qualifying circumstance, and if not alleged, it cannot even be an aggravating

Imprudence or Negligence is not a crime in itself, but simply a way of committing a crime.

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.

Criminal negligence is only a modality in incurring criminal liability. THEREFORE, even if there are several results arising from ONLY ONE CARELESSNESS, the accused may only be prosecuted under one count for the criminal negligence. Otherwise, double jeopardy would arise.

Technical term “Reckless Imprudence resulting in Homicide”; what is punished is not the act itself but the mental attitude or condition behind the act.

Negligence is a quasi-offense. What is punished is not the effect of the negligence
but the recklessness of the accused.

Test of Negligence: Would a prudent man foresee harm as a reasonable consequence of the course about to be pursued? Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by ignoring of admonition born of this provision.

Reckless Imprudence v. Force Majeure: Force Majeure is an event that cannot be foreseen, or which being foreseen is inevitable; implies an extraordinary circumstance independent of will of actor; in reckless imprudence damage or injury may be preventable by exercise of reasonable care and threatened upon conduct about to be pursued by the actor.

Contributory negligence of offended party is not a defense but only mitigates criminal liability.

Last Clear Chance Rule – 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: A person confronted with emergency may be left with no time for thought, must make speedy decision based on impulse or instinct, and cannot be held liable for same conduct as one who had opportunity to reflect; applicable only when situation that arises is sudden and unexpected, and is such as to deprive him of all opportunity for deliberation Ex. 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.

Emergency Rule (as a defense): one who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and is required to act without time to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is NOT guilty of negligence, if he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been a better method UNLESS the emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his own negligence.

Violation of a rule or regulation or law is proof of negligence.

Reyes v. Sis. of Mercy Hospital (2000)
  Elements  involved in medical negligence cases:
    1. Duty
    2. Breach
    3. Injury
    4. Proximate causation

Garcia-Rueda v. Pascasio (1997)
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, which is a form of negligence, consists in the failure of a physician or surgeon to apply to his practice of medicine that degree of care and skill which is ordinarily employed by the profession generally, under similar conditions, and in like surrounding circumstances.

Carillo v. People (1994)
The gravamen of SIMPLE NEGLIGENCE is the failure to exercise the diligence necessitated or called for by the situation which was NOT immediately life- destructive BUT which culminated, as in the present case, in the death of a human being 3 days later.

criminal imprudence and negligence
negligence and imprudence