JSUPT MASHUR S SALA

Regional Chief of Directorial Staff

BJMPRO-IX
Criminal law - is Art. 246. Parricide. — Any
that branch or person who shall kill his
father, mother, or child,
division of law
whether legitimate or
which illegitimate, or any of his
 defines crimes, ascendants, or
 treats of their descendants, or his
nature, and spouse, shall be guilty of
parricide and shall be
 provides for their punished by the penalty
punishment. of reclusion perpetua to
death.
Crime – an act or omission in violation of a
public law forbidding or commanding it. It is a
generic term that embraces any violation of the
RPC, special penal laws, and municipal or city
ordinances. It is classified as:
▪ Felony – Act or omission violative of the RPC
▪ Offense – Act or omission violative of special
laws (any law other than the RPC).
▪ Infractions/Misdemeanor – Act or omission
violative Municipal/City Ordinances.
 GENERALITY – criminal law is binding on all persons who live or
sojourn in the Philippine territory.
Exception:
▪ Treaties or Treaty Stipulations;
❖ Bases Agreement
▪ Law on Preferential Application (R.A. No. 75);
❖ Applicable in favor of diplomatic representatives and their
domestic servants
▪ Principles of Public International Laws.
❖ 1. Sovereign and other Chief of States.
❖ 2. Ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, ministers
residents, and charges d’affaires
 TERRITORIALITY – criminal laws undertake to punish crimes
committed within the Philippine territory.
Exceptions:
Art. 2. Application of its provisions. — xxx the provisions of this
Code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago,
xxx, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who:

1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine SHIP OR AIRSHIP;

Requisites:
a. The crime must be committed on board a private or merchant
ship;
b. The ship or airship must be registered in the Philippines under
Philippine Laws; and
c. The crime must be committed while the registered Philippine ship
is on international waters.
2. Should FORGE OR COUNTERFEIT ANY COIN OR CURRENCY
NOTE of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities
issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;

3. Should be liable for acts connected with the INTRODUCTION

into these islands of the obligations and securities mentioned
in the presiding number;

4. While being PUBLIC OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES, should commit

an offense in the exercise of their functions; or

5. Should commit any of the crimes against NATIONAL

SECURITY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS, defined in Title One of
Book Two of this Code.
 PROSPECTIVITY – criminal laws cannot make an act punishable
in a manner in which it was not punishable when committed.
(no retroactive effect)

General Rule: Criminal law cannot punish an act that was not
punishable at the time of its commission.

Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege – There is no crime when

there is no law punishes it.

Exception: whenever the new law is favorable to the accused it

should be given retroactive effect. Except if the accused is
habitual delinquent.
1. Classical Theory – Man is essentially a moral creature
with an absolute free will to choose between good and
evil and therefore more stress is placed upon the result
of the felonious act than upon the criminal himself. The
purpose of penalty is retribution.
2. Positivist Theory – Man is subdued occasionally by a
strange and morbid phenomenon which conditions him
to do wrong in spite of or contrary to his volition. The
purpose of penalty is reformation.
3. Eclectic or Mixed Philosophy -This combines both positivist
and classical thinking.
Crimes that are economic and social and nature should be dealt
with in a positivist manner; thus, the law is more
compassionate.
Heinous crimes should be dealt with in a classical manner; thus,
capital punishment.
4. Utilitarian Theory or Protective Theory -The primary purpose
of the punishment under criminal law is the protection of society
from actual and potential wrongdoers. The courts, therefore, in
exacting retribution for the wronged society, should direct the
punishment to potential or actual wrongdoers, since criminal law
is directed against acts and omissions which the society does
not approve.
Art. 3. Definitions. — ACTS and OMISSIONS punishable
by law are felonies (delitos).
Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit
(dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa).

DECEIT
There is when the act is performed with DELIBERATE
INTENT and

there FAULT when the wrongful act results from

is
IMPRUDENCE, NEGLIGENCE, LACK OF FORESIGHT,
OR LACK OF SKILL.
Felonies – are acts or omissions punishable by RPC.

Elements of Felonies:
1. There must be an act or omission.
2. The act or omission must be punishable by the
RPC.
3. That the act is performed or the omission incurred
by means of dolo or culpa.
Intentional felonies/DOLO Culpable felonies/CULPA

 The act or omission is  The act or omission is

malicious. NOT malicious.
 The act is performed  The injury cause by the
with DELIBERATE offender to another
INTENT. The offender person is
in, performing the act UNINTENTIONAL, it
or in incurring the being simply the
omission, has the incident of another act
intention to cause the performed without
injury to another malice.
 FREEDOM – voluntariness on the part of the person to commit an act
or omission. When a person acts without freedom, he is no longer a
human being but a tool.
 INTELLIGENCE – it is the capacity to know and understand the
consequences of one’s act. Without this power, necessary to
determine the morality of human acts, no crime can exist.
 INTENT – is a mental state, the existence of which is shown by the
overt acts of the person. Intent is presumed and presumption arises
from the proof of the commission of an unlawful act.

ALL the 3 requisites of voluntariness in intentional felony

must be present, because a voluntary act is free,
intelligent and intentional act.
 While ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance
therewith (ignorantia legis non excusat), ignorance or mistake
of fact relieves the accused from criminal liability (ignorantia
facti excusat).
 Mistake of fact is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the
person who caused injury to another. He is not, however,
criminally liable, because he did not act with criminal intent.
 An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of
criminal intent which arises from the commission of felonious
act.
 US vs Ah Chong; March 19, 1910.
 Facts: Ah Chong was a cook at Fort Mc Kinley. He was afraid of bad
elements. One evening before going to bed, he locked himself in
his room by placing a chair against the door. After having gone to
bed he was awakened by someone trying to open the door. He sat
up in bed and called out twice, "Who is there?" He heard no answer
and was convinced by the noise at the door that it was being
pushed open by someone bent upon forcing his way into the room.
Fearing that the intruder was a robber or a thief, leaped to his feet
and called out, “if you enter the room, I will kill you." At that
moment he was struck just above the knee by the edge of the chair
which had been placed against the door and believing he was
being attacked he seized a kitchen knife and struck out wildly at
the intruder who, afterwards turned out to be his roommate,
Pascual.
 Decision: Ah Chong must be acquitted because of mistake of fact.
Had the fact been as Ah Chong believe them to be, he would have
been justified in killing the intruder under Art. 11 (self defense).
 People vs Oanis; July 27, 1943
 Facts: Chief of Police Oanis and his co-accused Corporal Galanta
where under instruction to arrest one Balagtas, a notorious
criminal and escaped convict, and if overpowered to get him dead
or alive. Proceeding to the suspected house, they went into a room
and on seeing a man sleeping with his back towards the door,
simultaneously fired at him with his revolver, without first making
any reasonable inquiry as to his identity. The victim turned out to
be an innocent man, Tecson, not the wanted criminal.
 Decision: Both accused are guilty of Murder. Even if it were true
that the victim was the notorious criminal, the accused would not
be justified in killing him while the latter was sleeping. In
apprehending even the most notorious criminal, the law does not
permit the captor to kill him. It is only when the fugitive from
justice is determined to fight the officers of the law who are trying
to capture him that killing him would be justified.
 FREEDOM
 INTELLIGENCE
 NEGLIGENCE, IMPRUDENCE, or LACK of FORESIGHT or SKILL.
Negligence – indicates a deficiency in perception; failure to pay proper
attention and to use diligence in foreseeing the injury or damage
impending to be caused; usually involve lack of foresight.
Imprudence – indicates a deficiency in action; failure to take the
necessary precaution to avoid injury to person or damage to property;
usually involve lack of skill.

In felonies committed by means of culpa, the mind of the accused is

not criminal. However, his act is wrongful, because the injury or
damage caused to the injured party results from imprudence,
negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill of the accused.
Art. 4. Criminal liability. — Criminal liability shall be
incurred:

1.By any person

 COMMITTING A FELONY (delito)
 although the wrongful act done be different from that
which he intended.
 One who commits an intentional felony is responsible for all
the consequences which may NATURALLY and LOGICALLY
result therefrom, whether foreseen or intended or not.
 Any person who creates in another’s mind an immediate
sense of danger, which causes the latter to do something
resulting in the latter’s injuries, is liable for the resulting
injuries.
 Wrong done must be direct, natural and logical consequence
of felonious act.
 The felony committed must be proximate cause of the
resulting injury.
 When a person has not committed a felony, he is not
criminally liable for the result which is not intended.
A person committing a felony is still criminally liable
even if –
 1. there is a mistake in the identity of the victim –
error in personae.
 Example: In a case, accused went out of the house with the
intention of assaulting Dunca, but in the darkness of the
evening, defendant mistook Mapudul(accused father) for Dunca
and inflicted upon him a mortal wound with a bolo. In this case,
the accused is criminally liable for the death of Mapudul.
crime intended – homicide
crime committed – Parricide
A person committing a felony is still criminally liable
even if –
 2. there is mistake in the blow – aberratio ictus.
 Example: Where the accused, having discharged his
firearm at Juana Buralo but because of lack of
precision, hit and seriously wounded Perfecta Buralo,
it was held that the accused was liable for the injury
caused to the latter.
crime intended – homicide
crime committed – homicide
A person committing a felony is still criminally liable
even if –
 3. the injury result is greater than that intended –
praeter intentionem.
 Example: Where, the accused, without intent to kill, struck the
victim with his fist on the back part of the head from behind,
causing the victim to fall down with his head hitting the asphalt
pavement and resulting in the fracture of his head, it was held
that the accused was liable for the death of the victim, although
he had no intent to kill said victim.
crime intended – physical injury
crime committed - homicide
Art. 4. Criminal liability. — Criminal liability shall be incurred:
2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense
against persons or property, were it not for the
❖ inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or
❖ an account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual
means.
(Impossible crime)

Requisites of impossible crime:

1. That the act performed would be an offense against person or
property.
2. That the act was done with evil intent.
3. That its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or that the
means employed is inadequate or ineffectual.
4. That the act performed should not constitute a violation of
another provision of RPC.
Inherent impossibility of its accomplishment:

Example:
PDL A had a grudge against PDL B. One night, PDL A went to
the bed bank of PDL B while everybody was sleeping and slice
PDL B’s throat. Unknown to PDL A, PDL B already died in his
sleep an hour ago because of heart attack.

Example:
JO1 A stole the wallet of JO1 B while they were riding the
BTV, when he came back home, JO1 A looked at the wallet
and discovered it was his own wallet which he lost two days
ago.
Employment of inadequate means:

Example:
JO1 A wanted to poison SJO4 B, his team leader for being so
strict. During mirienda, JO1 A mixed a small quantity of arsenic
into the food of SJO4 B thinking it was sufficient. SJO4 B did not
die because the arsenic was not sufficient.

Example:
JO1 A wanted to poison SUPT B, his Warden for being so
annoying. During break time, JO1 A mixed arsenic into the food
of SUPT B enough to kill an ordinary person. Unknown to JO1 A,
SUPT B has developed a strong resistance to poison. SUPT B did
not die.
Employment of ineffectual means.

Example:
A had a grudge against B. Armed with his father’s gun, A
followed B one night and aim his gun at the back of B. When he
pulled the trigger, the gun did not fire because there were no
bullet inside.

Example
A is the enemy of B. when B saw A going home from work, he
approached A, drew out his gun and pointed it at A. When he
pulled the trigger the gun did not fire because the bullet in the
chamber was already old.
Example:
Q:A who wanted to kill B, looked for him. When A saw B, he found
out that B was already dead. To satisfy his grudge, A stabbed B in
his breast three times with a knife. Is this an impossible?
A: No, because A knew B was already dead when he stabbed the
lifeless body. There was no evil intent of the part of A, because he
knew he could not cause any injury to B. Even subjectively, he was
not a criminal.

Q: Why did the law punish the commission of impossible crime?

A: Art. 59. the court, having in mind the social danger and the
degree of criminality shown by the offender, shall impose upon
him the penalty of arresto mayor (1m&1d – 6m imprisonment).
Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. —
Consummated felonies as well as those which are frustrated and
attempted, are punishable.

A felony is CONSUMMATED when all the elements necessary for its

execution and accomplishment are present;

and it is FRUSTRATED when the offender performs all the acts of

execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but
which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes
independent of the will of the perpetrator.

There is an ATTEMPT when the offender commences the commission

of a felony directly or over acts, and does not perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause
or accident other than this own spontaneous desistance.
Example:
If A, with intent to kill, fires his gun at B, the discharge of the
gun is only an overt act. If the slug fired from the gun misses B
– grave threat.
Or the wound inflected on B is not mortal, the last act necessary
to produce the crime of homicide is not yet performed by A –
attempted homicide.
But if the wound inflicted is mortal, that is sufficient to cause
death, A performs the last act. If B survives because of timely
medical assistance – frustrated homicide.
If B dies – consummated homicide.
Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. — Conspiracy
and proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the cases in
which the law specially provides a penalty therefor.

A CONSPIRACY exists when two or more persons come to an

agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to
commit it.

There is PROPOSAL when the person who has decided to commit

a felony proposes its execution to some other person or persons.
General rule: Conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony is
not punishable because it is only a preparatory acts and the
law regard them as innocent or at least permissible.

Exception: they are punishable only in cases in which the law

specially provided a penalty:
❖ 1. Art. 115. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason;
❖ 2. Art. 136. Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d'etat, rebellion
or insurrection.
❖ 3. Art. 141. Conspiracy to commit sedition.
 JustifyingCircumstances
 Exempting Circumstances
 Mitigating Circumstances
 Aggravating Circumstances
 Alternating Circumstances
Art. 11. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES. — The following do NOT
incur any criminal liability:

Justifying circumstances –are those where the act of the person

are said to be in accordance with the law,
so that such person is deemed not to have transgressed the law
and is free from both criminal and civil liability, except in para 4
or state of necessity.
 In raising justifying circumstance as a defense, the
accused must first admit the act that he is being
charged with because he cannot deny that act and
then claim in his defense that he committed the act
but only did so under justifying circumstances.
 Justifying circumstances are matters of defense and
it is incumbent upon the accused, in order to avoid
criminal liability to prove the justifying
circumstance claim by him by clear and convincing
evidence.
Anyone who acts in DEFENSE OF HIS PERSON OR RIGHTS,
provided that the following circumstances concur;

First. Unlawful aggression.

Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it.
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
person defending himself.
First. Unlawful aggression.

 For justifying circumstance of self-defense, the presence of

unlawful aggression is condition sine qua non. There can no self-
defense, complete or incomplete, unless the victim has committed
an unlawful aggression against the person defending himself.
 Unlawful aggression is equivalent to assault or at least threatened
assault of an imminent or immediate kind. There is unlawful
aggression when the peril to one’s life, limb or right is either actual
or imminent. There must be an actual physical force or actual use of
weapon.
 Actual – the danger must present, that is actually in existence.
 Imminent – that the danger is on the point of happening. It is not
required that the attack already begins, for it may be too late.
 Actual – the danger must present, that is actually in existence.
Example: While A and B were cutting trees, they had a heated
argument. A suddenly slash B with bolo thereby wounding B’s right
shoulder. A was about to deliver another blow but B was able to
retrieve his bolo and hacked A’s stomach. A fell down and died a few
moments later.

 Imminent – that the danger is on the point of happening. It is not

required that the attack already begins, for it may be too late.
Example: A and B were enemies and in numerous occasions, B
threatened A that he will kill him when their path will cross. One
night while A was coming back home, he saw B heading towards
him. B had a gun and he pointed the gun at him. A who was also
armed with a gun, swiftly drew out his pistol and shot B.
 There must be actual physical force or actual use of
weapon.
 Mere belief of an impending attack is not sufficient.
Neither is an intimidating or threatening attitude.
 Retaliation is not self-defense.
 Nature, character, location, and extent of wound
must be taken into consideration.
 When the aggressor flees, unlawful aggression no
longer exist.
 No unlawful aggression when there is an agreement
to fight.
 Defense of property can be invoked as a justifying
circumstance only when it is coupled with an attack on the
person of one entrusted with said property.
 An attempt to rape a woman constitute an aggression
sufficient to put her in a state of legitimate defense inasmuch
as a woman’s honor cannot but be esteemed as a right as
precious, if not more than her very existence.
 US vs Doman, Oct. 25, 1927
 Where the accused is where he has right to
be, the law does not require a person to
retreat when his assailant is rapidly advancing
upon him with deadly weapon.
 Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel
it.

Requisites:
(1)There be a necessity of the course of action taken by the person making a
defense,
Example: someone attacked you with a knife but you were carrying a firearm
and you shot him.
Example: someone attacked you with a knife but you blocked it, and the
assailant run away. You chased him and killed him.

(2) There be a necessity of the means used.

Example: someone attacked you with a knife but you were carrying a firearm
and you shot him.
Example: someone shouted at you and slapped you in the face. Feeling
angry, you shot him in the head.

Both must be reasonable.

Test of reasonableness:
Whether or not the means employed is reasonable, will depend
upon the nature and quality of the weapon used by the
aggressor, his physical condition, character, size and other
circumstances, and those of the person depending himself, and
also the place and occasion of the assault.
 (U.S. vs Mojica, 42 Phil 784)
The peace officer, in the performance of his duty, represents the law
which he must uphold. While the law on self-defense allows a private
individual to prevent or repel the aggression , the duty of a peace
officer requires him to overcome his opponent.
Thus, the fact that a policeman, who was armed with a revolver and a
club, might have used his club instead, does not alter the principle
since a policeman’s club is not very effective weapon as against a
drawn knife and a police officer is not required to afford a person
attacking him, the opportunity for a fair and equal struggle.

(People vs Caina, 14 CAR 93)

As a police officer in the lawful performance of his official duty, he
must stand his ground and cannot, like private individual, take refuge
and flight. His duty requires him to overcome his opponent.
 Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself.
Provocation – action or speech held to likely to prompt physical
retaliation.
Sufficient provocation – provocation must be proportionate to the act
of aggression and adequate to stir the aggressor to its commission.

 When the person depending himself from the attack by another

gave sufficient provocation to the latter, the former is also to be
blamed for having given cause for aggression.
 Hence to entitled to the benefits of justifying circumstance of self-
defense, the one defending himself must not have given cause of
aggression by his unjust conduct or by inciting or provoking the
assailant.
RA 9262, SEC 26. Battered Woman Syndrome as a Defense. –
Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering
from battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and
civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements
for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised
Penal Code.

A battered woman has been defined as a woman “who is

repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological
behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do something he
wants her to do without concern for her rights. Battered women
include wives or women in any form of intimate relationship with
men.
2. Any one who acts in defense of the person or rights of his SPOUSE,
ASCENDANTS, DESCENDANTS, OR LEGITIMATE, NATURAL OR
ADOPTED BROTHERS OR SISTERS, OR HIS RELATIVES BY AFFINITY IN
THE SAME DEGREES AND THOSE CONSANGUINITY WITHIN THE
FOURTH CIVIL DEGREE, provided that the first and second requisites
prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, and the
further requisite, in case the provocation was given by the person
attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.

 First. Unlawful aggression.

 Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
repel it.
 Third. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked,
that the one making defense had no part therein.
 The relatives of the accused for purpose of defense of relative
under Article 11 (2) of the RPC are his
 spouse,
 ascendants,
 descendants, or
 legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or of
 his relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and
 those
 by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree.
 Relative by affinity within the same degree includes the
ascendant, descendant, brother or sister of the spouse of the
accused.
 Third. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked,
that the one making defense had no part therein.

Example:
 There is still a legitimate defense of relatives even if the relative
being defended has given the provocation, provided that the one
defending the relative has no part in the provocation.
3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a
STRANGER, provided that the first and second requisites
mentioned in the first circumstance of this Art. are present and
that the person defending be not induced by revenge,
resentment, or other evil motive.

 First. Unlawful aggression.

 Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent
or repel it.
 Third. The person defending be not induced by revenge,
resentment, or other evil motive.
 Third. The person defending be not induced by revenge,
resentment, or other evil motive.

 The law requires that the defense of a stranger be actuated by

a disinterested or generous motive.
 Hence, even if the person has standing grudge against the
assailant, if he enters upon the defense of stranger out of
generous motive to save the stranger from serious bodily
harm or possible death, the third requisites of defense of
stranger still exist.
4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not
act which causes damage to another, provided that the following
requisites are present;

 First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;

 Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to
avoid it;
 Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means
of preventing it.
5. Any person who acts IN THE FULFILLMENT OF A DUTY OR IN
THE LAWFUL EXERCISE OF A RIGHT OR OFFICE.
Requisites:
1. That the accused acted in the performance of duty or in the
lawful exercise of a right or office; and
2. That the injury caused or the offense committed be the
necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or
lawful exercise of such rights or office.
People vs Felipe Delima (46 Phil 738)
 Facts: Napilon escaped from jail where he was serving
sentence. Some days afterwards the policeman Delima, who
was looking for him(Napilon), found him in the house of
Alegria armed with a pointed piece of bamboo in the shape of
lance, and demanded his surrender. The fugitive answered with
the stroke of his lance. The policeman dodge it, and to
imposed his authority fired his revolver but the bullet did not
hit him(Napilon). The criminal ran away without parting with
his weapon. The police officer went after him and fired his
revolver, this time hitting and killing him.
 Question: Is Delima liable for the death of Napilon?
 Decision: The killing was done on the performance of duty.
The deceased was under the obligation to surrender, and had
no right, after evading the service of his sentence, to commit
assault and disobedience with a weapon in his hand, which
compelled the policeman to resort to such an extreme means,
which, although it proved to be fatal, was justified by the
circumtances.
 People vs Bisa (C.A. 51 OG 4091)
If detained prisoner under the custody of the accused(police
officer) detailed to guard him, by means of force and violence,
was able to leave the cell and actually attempted to escape,
notwithstanding the warnings given by the accused(police officer)
not to do so, and was shot by the accused(police officer), the
latter is entitled to acquittal.
 Valcorza v. People, (30 SCRA 148-150)
In this case, four members of the police force went after him as soon as
the detention prisoner had escaped. When the escaping detainee saw
one of the policemen, he lunged at the latter, hitting him with a stone
on the right cheek, as a consequence of which he fell down, and while
in that position on the ground, he was again struck with a stone by the
escaping detainee; thereafter, the latter ran away pursued by the
policemen and his companions; in the course of the pursuit, the
policemen fired a warning shot into the air, and as the escaping
detainee paid no heed to this, the policemen fired into the air four
times more and kept on pursuing him; as the latter was apparently
widening the distance between them, and fearing that he might finally
be able elude from the arrest, the policemen fired directly at him while
he was in the act of jumping again into another part of the creek, the
shot having hit him on the back.
 People v. Lagata (83 Phil. 159)
 Facts: When the guard called his order to assemble, one of the prisoners was
missing. So, he ordered the others to look for him. The other prisoners
scampered. The guard fired at two of the prisoners, wounding one (Abria) and
killing the other (Tipace). His reason was to prevent the attempt of the prisoners
to escape.
 Decision: As regards the shooting of Abria and Tipace, [the Court] [is] convinced
that the facts were narrated by the witnesses for the prosecution. Abria was shot
when he was only three meters away from the guard and the defense has not
even shown that Abria attempted to escape. Tipace was also shot when he was
about four or five meters away from the guard. The latter’s allegation that Tipace
was running, – conveying the idea that said prisoner was in the act of escaping, –
appears to be inconsistent with his own testimony to the effect that Tipace was
running sidewise, with his face looking towards him (the guard), and with the
undisputed fact that Tipace was hit near one axilla, the bullet coming out from
the opposite shoulder. If Tipace’s purpose was to escape, the natural thing for
him to do would have been to give his back to the guard.
 It is clear that the guard had absolutely no reason to fire at Tipace. The guard
could have fired at him in self-defense or if absolutely necessary to avoid his
escape.
 People v. Oanis, (G.R. No. L-47722, July 27, 1943,
Although an officer in making a lawful arrest is justified in using
such force as is reasonably necessary to secure and detain the
offender, overcome his resistance, prevent his escape, recapture
him if he escapes, and protect himself from bodily harm, yet he
is never justified in using unnecessary force or in treating him
with wanton violence, or in resorting to dangerous means when
arrest could be effected otherwise.
Q: When is shooting an escapee be considered justified?

A: People vs Delima (46 Phil 738) in rel to Valcorza vs People

and People vs Bisa (30 SCRA 148-150)
1. The accused (JO) must not be negligent;
2. The accused (JO) must issue a warning;
3. The escapee must be widening the distance; and
4. The shot must hit the back of the escapee.
6. Any person who acts IN OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED BY A
SUPERIOR FOR SOME LAWFUL PURPOSE.
Requisites:
1. That an order has been issued by a superior;
2. That such order must be for some lawful purpose;
3. That the means used by the subordinate to carry out said
order is lawful.
Exempting circumstances – are those grounds for exemption
from punishment because there is wanting in the agent of the
crime any of the conditions which make the act voluntarily or
negligent.

1. An IMBECILE OR AN INSANE person, unless the latter has acted

during a lucid interval.
2. A person under FIFTEEN years of age.
3. A person over FIFTEEN years of age and under EIGHTEEN,
UNLESS HE HAS ACTED WITH DISCERNMENT.
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care,
causes an injury by mere ACCIDENT without fault or intention of
causing it.
Elements:
1. A person is performing a lawful act;
2. With due care;
3. He causes an injury to another by mere accident;
4. Without fault or intention of causing it.
5. Any person who act under the COMPULSION OF IRRESISTIBLE
FORCE.
Elements:
1. That the compulsion is by means of physical force;
2. That the physical force must be irresistible;
3. That the physical force must come from a third person;
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an
UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR of an equal or greater injury.
Elements:
1. That the treat which causes the fear is of an evil greater than or
at least equal to, that which he is required to commit;
2. That it promised an evil of such gravity and imminence that the
ordinary man would succumbed to it.
7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when
prevented by some LAWFUL INSUPERABLE CAUSE.
Elements:
1. That an act is required by law to be done;
2. That a person fails to perform such act;
3. That his failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or
insuperable cause.
Art. 13. Mitigating circumstances. — The following are mitigating
circumstances;

Mitigating circumstances – are those which, if present in the

commission of the crime, do not entirely free the actor from
criminal liability, but serve only to REDUCE the penalty.

1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the

requisites necessary to justify or to exempt from criminal liability
in the respective cases are not attendant.
2. That the offender is under eighteen year of age or over seventy
years.
3. That the offender had no intention to commit so
grave a wrong as that committed.
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of
the offended party immediately preceded the act.
5. That the act was committed in the immediate
vindication of a grave offense to the one committing
the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, or relatives
by affinity within the same degrees.
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful
as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation.
7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to
a person in authority or his agents, or that he had
voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the
presentation of the evidence for the prosecution;
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise
suffering some physical defect which thus restricts his
means of action, defense, or communications with his
fellow beings.
9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the
exercise of the will-power of the offender without however
depriving him of the consciousness of his acts.
10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar
nature and analogous to those above mentioned.
Art. 14. Aggravating circumstances. — The following are aggravating
circumstances:

Aggravating circumstances – are those which, if attendant in the

commission of the crime, serve to INCREASE the penalty without,
however, exceeding the maximum of the penalty provided by law for
the crime.

1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position.

2. That the crime be committed in contempt or with insult to the public
authorities.
3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the respect
due the offended party on account of his rank, age, or sex, or that is be
committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not
given provocation.
4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious
ungratefulness.
5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief
Executive or in his presence, or where public authorities are
engaged in the discharge of their duties, or in a place dedicated
to religious worship.
6. That the crime be committed in the night time, or in an
uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever such circumstances
may facilitate the commission of the offense.
Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted
together in the commission of an offense, it shall be deemed to
have been committed by a band.
7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a
conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other calamity
or misfortune.
8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or
persons who insure or afford impunity.
9. That the accused is a recidivist.
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall
have been previously convicted by final judgment of another
crime embraced in the same title of this Code.
10. That the offender has been previously punished by an offense
to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or
more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.
11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price,
reward, or promise.
12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire,
poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel or international damage
thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any other
artifice involving great waste and ruin.
13. That the act be committed with evidence premeditation.
14. That the craft, fraud or disguise be employed.
15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be
employed to weaken the defense.
16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes
against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the
execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its
execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which
the offended party might make.
17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about
which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act.
18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry.
There is an unlawful entry when an entrance of a crime a wall,
roof, floor, door, or window be broken.
19. That as a means to commission a crime a wall, roof floor,
door, or window be broken.
20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under
fifteen years of age or by means of motor vehicles, motorized
watercraft, airships, or other similar means. (As amended by RA
5438).
21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be
deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for
its commissions.
Art. 15. Their concept. — Alternative circumstances are those which
must be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating
according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other
conditions attending its commission. They are the relationship,
intoxication and the degree of instruction and education of the
offender.
The alternative circumstance of RELATIONSHIP shall be taken into
consideration when the offended party is the spouse, ascendant,
descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or
relative by affinity in the same degrees of the offender.
The INTOXICATION of the offender shall be taken into consideration as
a mitigating circumstances when the offender has committed a felony
in a state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to
the plan to commit said felony but when the intoxication is habitual or
intentional, it shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance
Art. 16. Who are criminally liable. — The following are criminally
liable for grave and less grave felonies:

1. Principals.
2. Accomplices.
3. Accessories.
Art. 17. Principals. — The following are considered principals:

1. Principals by DIRECT PARTICIPATION - Those who take a direct

part in the execution of the act;
2. Principals by INDUCEMENT - Those who directly force or
induce others to commit it;
3. Principals by INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION - Those who
cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act
without which it would not have been accomplished.
Art. 18. Accomplices. — Accomplices are those
persons who, not being included in Art. 17, cooperate
in the execution of the offense by previous or
simultaneous acts.
Art. 19. Accessories. — Accessories are those who, having
knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without having
participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part
subsequent to its commission in any of the following manners:
1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by
the effects of the crime.
2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the
effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery.
3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the
principals of the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of
his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty
of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the
Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some other
crime.
 Art. 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability. —
The penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed
upon those who are such with respect to their spouses,
ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted
brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same
degrees, with the single exception of accessories falling within
the provisions of paragraph 1 of the next preceding article.
 Penalties Time included in the penalty in Time included in its Time included in its Time included in its
minimum period medium period maximum
its entirety

Reclusion From 12 years and 1 From 12 years and 1 From 14 years, 8 From 17 years, 4
day to 14 years and months and 1 day to months and 1 day
temporal day to 20 years. 8 months. 17 years and 4 to 20 years.
months.

Prision mayor From 6 years and 1 day From 6 years and From 8 years and From 10 years
1 day to 8 years. 1 day to 10 years. and 1 day to 12
to 12 years.
years.
Prision From 6 months and 1 From 6 months and From 2 years, 4 From 4 years, 2
1 day to 2 years and months and 1 day to months and 1 day
correccional day to 6 years. 4 months. 4 years and 2 to 6 years.
months.

Arresto mayor From 1 month and 1 From 1 to 2 months. From 2 months and From 4 months and
1 day to 4 months. 1 day to 6 months.
day to 6 months.

Arresto menor From 1 to 30 days. From 1 to 10 From 11 to 20 From 21 to 30

days. days. days.
 Art. 70. Successive service of sentence. — When the culprit has
to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve them
simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so permit
otherwise, the following rules shall be observed:
 In the imposition of the penalties, the order of their respective
severity shall be followed so that they may be executed
successively or as nearly as may be possible, xxx.
 Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next preceding, the
maximum duration of the convict's sentence shall not be more
than three-fold the length of time corresponding to the most
severe of the penalties imposed upon him. No other penalty to
which he may be liable shall be inflicted after the sum total of
those imposed equals the same maximum period.
 Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years.
Illustration:
1. A is convicted for 100 counts of Estafa with a penalty of 2
months for each count. Applying the 3-fold rule, A should serve
only for 6 months (2months x 3) and not 200 months.
2. A is convicted for four (4) different crimes with the ff penalty:
1st - 2 years
2nd - 3 years
3rd – 2 years
4th – 3 years
TOTAL – 10 years
However applying the 3-fold rule we will multiply the most severe
penalty by three (3) (3yrs x 3 = 9yrs), A should served only for 9
years and not 10 years.
1. A is convicted for four (4) different crimes with the ff penalty:
1st - 2 years
2nd - 3 years
3rd – 2 years
4th – 4 years
TOTAL – 11 years
If we apply the 3-fold rule (4yrs x 3 = 12yrs). In this instance we
should not apply the 3-fold rule because the totality rule is more
favorable to the accused. A should served only for 11 years and
not 12 years.
Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. — Criminal
liability is totally extinguished:
1. By the DEATH of the convict, as to the personal penalties and
as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only
when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment.
2. By SERVICE OF THE SENTENCE;
3. By AMNESTY, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all
its effects;
4. By ABSOLUTE PARDON;
5. By PRESCRIPTION OF THE CRIME;
6. By PRESCRIPTION OF THE PENALTY;
7. By the MARRIAGE of the offended woman, as provided in Article
344 of this Code.
❑ Crimes punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or reclusion
temporal shall prescribe in twenty years.
❑ Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties shall prescribe
in fifteen years.
❑ Those punishable by a correctional penalty shall prescribe in
ten years;
❑ with the exception of those punishable by arresto mayor,
which shall prescribe in five years.
❑ The crime of libel or other similar offenses shall prescribe in
one year. The crime of oral defamation and slander by deed
shall prescribe in six months. Light offenses prescribe in two
 The period of prescription shall commence to run from the day
on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the
authorities, or their agents, and shall be interrupted by the filing
of the complaint or information, and shall commence to run
again when such proceedings terminate without the accused
being convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for
any reason not imputable to him.
 The term of prescription shall not run when the offender is
absent from the Philippine Archipelago.
The penalties imposed by final sentence prescribe as follows:
 1. Death and reclusion perpetua, in twenty years;
 2. Other afflictive penalties, in fifteen years;
 3. Correctional penalties, in ten years;
 4. with the exception of the penalty of arresto mayor, which
prescribes in five years;
 5. Light penalties, in one year.
 The period of prescription of penalties shall commence to run
from the date when the culprit should evade the service of his
sentence, and it shall be interrupted if the defendant should
give himself up, be captured, should go to some foreign
country with which this Government has no extradition treaty,
or should commit another crime before the expiration of the
period of prescription.
Art. 124. Arbitrary detention. — Any public officer or employee who,
WITHOUT LEGAL GROUNDS, detains a person, shall suffer;
1. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its minimum period, if the detention has not
exceeded three days;
2. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods, if the detention has continued more than three but not
more than fifteen days;
3. The penalty of prision mayor, if the detention has continued for
more than fifteen days but not more than six months; and
4. That of reclusion temporal, if the detention shall have exceeded
six months.
The commission of a crime, or violent insanity or any other ailment
requiring the compulsory confinement of the patient in a hospital,
shall be considered legal grounds for the detention of any person.
Art. 125. Delay in the delivery of detained persons
to the proper judicial authorities. — The penalties
provided in the next preceding article shall be
imposed upon the public officer or employee who
shall detain any person for some legal ground and
shall FAIL TO DELIVER SUCH PERSON TO THE
PROPER JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES WITHIN THE PERIOD
of;
▪ twelve (12) hours, for crimes or offenses
punishable by light penalties, or their equivalent;
▪ eighteen (18) hours, for crimes or offenses
punishable by correctional penalties, or their
equivalent and
▪ thirty-six (36) hours, for crimes, or offenses
punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or
their equivalent.
Art. 126. Delaying release. — The penalties
provided for in Article 124 shall be imposed
upon any public officer or employee who
▪ delays for the period of time specified therein
the performance of any judicial or executive
order for the release of a prisoner or
detention prisoner, or
▪ unduly delays the service of the notice of
such order to said prisoner or the
proceedings upon any petition for the
liberation of such person.
Art. 132. Interruption of religious worship. — The
penalty of prision correccional in its minimum
period shall be imposed upon any public officer or
employee who shall PREVENT OR DISTURB THE
CEREMONIES OR MANIFESTATIONS OF ANY
RELIGION.

Art. 133. Offending the religious feelings. — The

penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prision correccional in its minimum period shall be
imposed upon anyone who, in a place devoted to
religious worship or during the celebration of any
religious ceremony shall PERFORM ACTS
NOTORIOUSLY OFFENSIVE TO THE FEELINGS OF THE
FAITHFUL.
Art. 155. Alarms and scandals. — The penalty
of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding P200
pesos shall be imposed upon:
 1. Any person who within any town or public
place, shall DISCHARGE ANY FIREARM, rocket,
firecracker, or other explosives calculated TO
CAUSE ALARM OR DANGER;
Art. 156. Delivery of prisoners from jails. — The
penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period
of prision correccional in its minimum period
shall be imposed upon any person who shall
REMOVE FROM ANY JAIL OR PENAL
ESTABLISHMENT ANY PERSON CONFINED
THEREIN OR SHALL HELP THE ESCAPE OF SUCH
PERSON, by means of violence, intimidation, or
bribery.
If the escape of the prisoner shall TAKE PLACE
OUTSIDE OF SAID ESTABLISHMENTS by taking
the guards by surprise, the same penalties shall
be imposed in their minimum period.
Art. 157. Evasion of service of sentence. — The
penalty of prision correccional in its medium
and maximum periods shall be imposed upon
any convict who shall EVADE SERVICE OF HIS
SENTENCE BY ESCAPING DURING THE TERM OF
HIS IMPRISONMENT BY REASON OF FINAL
JUDGMENT.
Art. 160. Commission of another crime during
service of penalty imposed for another offense;
Penalty. — Besides the provisions of Rule 5 of
Article 62, any person who shall COMMIT A
FELONY AFTER HAVING BEEN CONVICTED BY
FINAL JUDGMENT, before beginning to serve
such sentence, or while serving the same, shall
be punished by the maximum period of the
penalty prescribed by law for the new felony.
Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic
minister. — The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000
pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who,
taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by
committing any of the following acts:
1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric;
2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or
proceeding when they did not in fact so participate;
3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding
statements other than those in fact made by them;
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
5. Altering true dates;
6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which
changes its meaning;
7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of
an original document when no such original exists, or including in such a
copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original;
or
8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a
protocol, registry, or official book.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any ecclesiastical minister who
shall commit any of the offenses enumerated in the preceding paragraphs
of this article, with respect to any record or document of such character that
its falsification may affect the civil status of persons.
Art. 174. False medical certificates, false certificates of
merits or service, etc. — The penalties of arresto mayor
in its maximum period to prision correccional in its
minimum period and a fine not to exceed P1,000 pesos
shall be imposed upon:
1. Any physician or surgeon who, in connection, with
the practice of his profession, shall issue a false
certificate; and
2. Any public officer who shall ISSUE A FALSE
CERTIFICATE OF MERIT OF SERVICE, GOOD CONDUCT
OR SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES.

Art. 175. Using false certificates. — The penalty of

arresto menor shall be imposed upon any one who shall
KNOWINGLY USE ANY OF THE FALSE CERTIFICATES
mentioned in the next preceding article.
Art. 177. Usurpation of authority or official functions. — Any person who
shall KNOWINGLY AND FALSELY REPRESENT HIMSELF TO BE AN OFFICER,
agent or representative of any department or agency of the Philippine
Government or of any foreign government, or who, under pretense of
official position, shall perform any act pertaining to any person in authority
or public officer of the Philippine Government or any foreign government, or
any agency thereof, without being lawfully entitled to do so, shall suffer the
penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.

Art. 178. Using fictitious name and concealing true name. — The penalty of
arresto mayor and a fine not to exceed 500 pesos shall be imposed upon
any person who shall PUBLICLY USE A FICTITIOUS NAME FOR THE PURPOSE
OF CONCEALING A CRIME, EVADING THE EXECUTION OF A JUDGMENT OR
CAUSING DAMAGE.
Any person who CONCEALS HIS TRUE NAME AND OTHER PERSONAL
CIRCUMSTANCES shall be punished by arresto menor or a fine not to exceed
200 pesos.

Art. 179. Illegal use of uniforms or insignia. — The penalty of arresto mayor
shall be imposed upon any person who shall PUBLICLY AND IMPROPERLY
MAKE USE OF INSIGNIA, UNIFORMS OR DRESS PERTAINING TO AN OFFICE
NOT HELD BY SUCH PERSON or to a class of persons of which he is not a
member.
Art. 210. Direct bribery. — Any public officer who shall AGREE TO
PERFORM AN ACT CONSTITUTING A CRIME, IN CONNECTION WITH
THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS OFFICIAL DUTIES, IN CONSIDERATION
OF ANY OFFER, PROMISE, GIFT OR PRESENT received by such officer,
personally or through the mediation of another, shall suffer the
penalty of prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods and a
fine [of not less than the value of the gift and] not less than three
times the value of the gift in addition to the penalty corresponding
to the crime agreed upon, if the same shall have been committed.
If the gift was accepted by the officer in consideration of the
EXECUTION OF AN ACT WHICH DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CRIME,
and the officer executed said act, he shall suffer the same penalty
provided in the preceding paragraph; and if said act shall not have
been accomplished, the officer shall suffer the penalties of prision
correccional, in its medium period and a fine of not less than twice
the value of such gift.
If the object for which the gift was received or promised was to
make the public officer REFRAIN FROM DOING SOMETHING WHICH IT
WAS HIS OFFICIAL DUTY TO DO, he shall suffer the penalties of
prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine [of not less
than the value of the gift and] not less than three times the value of
such gift.
Art. 211. Indirect bribery. — The penalties of
prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods, and public censure shall be imposed upon
any public officer who shall ACCEPT GIFTS OFFERED
TO HIM BY REASON OF HIS OFFICE. (As amended by
Batas Pambansa Blg. 872, June 10, 1985).

Art. 212. Corruption of public officials. — The same

penalties imposed upon the officer corrupted,
except those of disqualification and suspension,
shall be imposed upon ANY PERSON WHO SHALL
HAVE MADE THE OFFERS OR PROMISES OR GIVEN
THE GIFTS OR PRESENTS AS DESCRIBED IN THE
PRECEDING ARTICLES.
Art. 217. Malversation of public funds or
property; Presumption of malversation. — Any
public officer who, by reason of the duties of
his office, is accountable for public funds or
property, shall APPROPRIATE the same or shall
take or MISAPPROPRIATE or shall consent,
THROUGH ABANDONMENT OR NEGLIGENCE,
shall permit any other person to take such
public funds, or property, wholly or partially, or
shall otherwise be guilty of the
misappropriation or malversation of such funds
or property.
Art. 218. Failure of accountable officer to render
accounts. — Any public officer, whether in the
service or separated therefrom by resignation or
any other cause, who is REQUIRED BY LAW OR
REGULATION TO RENDER ACCOUNT to the Insular
Auditor, or to a provincial auditor and who FAILS
TO DO SO for a period of two months after such
accounts should be rendered, shall be punished by
prision correccional in its minimum period, or by a
fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both.
Art. 219. Failure of a responsible public officer to
render accounts before leaving the country. — Any
public officer who UNLAWFULLY LEAVES OR
ATTEMPTS TO LEAVE THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS
WITHOUT SECURING A CERTIFICATE FROM THE
INSULAR AUDITOR SHOWING THAT HIS ACCOUNTS
HAVE BEEN FINALLY SETTLED, shall be punished by
arresto mayor, or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000
pesos or both.
Art. 223. Conniving with or consenting to evasion.
— Any public officer who shall CONSENT TO THE
ESCAPE OF A PRISONER IN HIS CUSTODY OR
CHARGE, shall be punished:
1. By prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods and temporary special
disqualification in its maximum period to perpetual
special disqualification, if the fugitive shall have
been sentenced by final judgment to any penalty.
2. By prision correccional in its minimum period
and temporary special disqualification, in case the
fugitive shall not have been finally convicted but
only held as a detention prisoner for any crime or
violation of law or municipal ordinance.
Art. 224. Evasion through negligence. — If the
evasion of the prisoner shall have taken place
through the NEGLIGENCE OF THE OFFICER
CHARGED WITH THE CONVEYANCE OR CUSTODY OF
THE ESCAPING PRISONER, said officer shall suffer
the penalties of arresto mayor in its maximum
period to prision correccional in its minimum
period and temporary special disqualification.

Art. 225. Escape of prisoner under the custody of a

person not a public officer. — ANY PRIVATE PERSON
TO WHOM THE CONVEYANCE OR CUSTODY OR A
PRISONER OR PERSON UNDER ARREST SHALL HAVE
BEEN CONFIDED, who shall commit any of the
offenses mentioned in the two preceding articles,
shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than
that prescribed for the public officer.
Art. 226. Removal, concealment or destruction of
documents. — Any public officer who shall
REMOVE, DESTROY OR CONCEAL DOCUMENTS OR
PAPERS OFFICIALLY ENTRUSTED TO HIM, shall
suffer:
1. The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not
exceeding 1,000 pesos, whenever serious damage
shall have been caused thereby to a third party or
to the public interest.
2. The penalty of prision correccional in its
minimum and medium period and a fine not
exceeding 1,000 pesos, whenever the damage to a
third party or to the public interest shall not have
been serious.
In either case, the additional penalty of temporary
special disqualification in its maximum period to
perpetual disqualification shall be imposed.
Art. 235. Maltreatment of prisoners. — The penalty of
arresto mayor in its medium period to prision
correccional in its minimum period, in addition to his
liability for the physical injuries or damage caused, shall
be imposed upon
▪ any public officer or employee
▪ who shall overdo himself in the correction or
handling of a prisoner or detention prisoner under
his charge,
▪ by the imposition of punishment not authorized by
the regulations, or
▪ by inflicting such punishment in a cruel and
humiliating manner.
If the purpose of the maltreatment is to extort a
confession, or to obtain some information from the
prisoner, the offender shall be punished by prision
correccional in its minimum period, temporary special
disqualification and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos, in
addition to his liability for the physical injuries or
damage caused.
Art. 238. Abandonment of office or position. —
Any public officer who, BEFORE THE
ACCEPTANCE OF HIS RESIGNATION, SHALL
ABANDON HIS OFFICE TO THE DETRIMENT OF
THE PUBLIC SERVICE shall suffer the penalty of
arresto mayor.

Art. 244. Unlawful appointments. — Any public

officer who shall KNOWINGLY NOMINATE OR
APPOINT TO ANY PUBLIC OFFICE ANY PERSON
LACKING THE LEGAL QUALIFICATIONS
THEREFOR, shall suffer the penalty of arresto
mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
Art. 245. Abuses against chastity; Penalties. — The penalties
of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods
and temporary special disqualification shall be imposed:
1. Upon any public officer who shall SOLICIT OR MAKE
IMMORAL OR INDECENT ADVANCES TO A WOMAN
INTERESTED IN MATTERS PENDING BEFORE SUCH OFFICER FOR
DECISION, or with respect to which he is required to submit a
report to or consult with a superior officer;
2. Any warden or other public officer directly charged with
the care and custody of prisoners or persons under arrest
who shall SOLICIT OR MAKE IMMORAL OR INDECENT
ADVANCES TO A WOMAN UNDER HIS CUSTODY.
If the person solicited be the wife, daughter, sister of relative
within the same degree by affinity of any person in the
custody of such warden or officer, the penalties shall be
prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and
temporary special disqualification.
Art. 269. Unlawful arrest. — The penalty of
arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500
pesos shall be imposed upon any person who,
in any case other than those authorized by law,
or without reasonable ground therefor, shall
ARREST OR DETAIN ANOTHER FOR THE
PURPOSE OF DELIVERING HIM TO THE PROPER
AUTHORITIES.
Art. 275. Abandonment of person in danger and
abandonment of one's own victim. — The penalty
of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon:
1. Any one who shall FAIL TO RENDER ASSISTANCE
TO ANY PERSON WHOM HE SHALL FIND IN AN
UNINHABITED PLACE WOUNDED OR IN DANGER OF
DYING, when he can render such assistance without
detriment to himself, unless such omission shall
constitute a more serious offense.
2. Anyone who shall FAIL TO HELP OR RENDER
ASSISTANCE TO ANOTHER WHOM HE HAS
ACCIDENTALLY WOUNDED OR INJURED.
3. Anyone who, having found an abandoned child
under seven years of age, shall fail to deliver said
child to the authorities or to his family, or shall fail
to take him to a safe place.
Art. 363. Incriminating innocent person. — Any
person who, by any act not constituting perjury,
shall DIRECTLY INCRIMINATE OR IMPUTE TO AN
INNOCENT PERSON THE COMMISSION OF A
CRIME, shall be punished by arresto menor.

Art. 364. Intriguing against honor. — The

penalty of arresto menor or fine not exceeding
200 pesos shall be imposed for ANY INTRIGUE
WHICH HAS FOR ITS PRINCIPAL PURPOSE TO
BLEMISH THE HONOR OR REPUTATION OF A
PERSON.