CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY

Crimes against chastity

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

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

Article 333
ADULTERY

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

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

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

Notes:

* There are two reasons why adultery is made punishable by law.

Primarily, it is a violation of the marital vow and secondarily, it paves the way
to the introduction of a spurious child into the family.

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

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

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

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

* For adultery to exist, there must be a marriage although it be subsequently annulled. There is
no adultery, if the marriage is void from the beginning.

* Adultery is an instantaneous crime which is consummated and completed at the moment of the
carnal union. Each sexual intercourse constitutes a crime of adultery. Adultery is not a
continuing crime unlike concubinage.

Illustration:

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

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

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

* Abandonment without justification is not exempting but only a mitigating

circumstance. One who invokes abandonment in the crime of adultery
hypothetically admits criminal liability for the crime charged. (U. S. vs. Serrano,
et al., 28 Phil. 230)

* While abandonment is peculiar only to the accused who is related to the

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

Attempted: caught disrobing a lover

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

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

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

* It is seldom the case that adultery is established by direct evidence. The

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

Article 334
CONCUBINAGE

ELEMENTS:
1. That the man must be married.

2. That he committed any of the following acts:

a. Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling.

b. Having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances with a woman who is

not his wife.

c. Cohabiting with her in any other place.

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

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

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

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

* Unlike adultery, concubinage is a continuing crime.

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

* It is only when a married man has sexual intercourse with a woman

elsewhere that “scandalous circumstances” becomes an element of crime.

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

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

* Causal sexual intercourse with a woman in a hotel is not concubinage.

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

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

* If the evidence of the prosecution consists of a marriage contract between

the offender and the offended party, and the additional fact of the birth
certificate of a child showing the accused to be the father of the child with
the alleged cocubine, the same will not be sufficient to convict the accused of
concubinage since the law clearly states that the act must be one of those
provided by law.

Article 335. Rape

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

Article 336
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS

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

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

a. by using force or intimidation, or

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

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

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

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

1. Article 336. Acts of Lasciviousness

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

(1) under 12 years of age; or

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

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

Under this article, the victim is limited only to a woman. The circumstances under which
the lascivious acts were committed must be that of qualified seduction or simple
seduction, that is, the offender took advantage of his position of ascendancy over the
offender woman either because he is a person in authority, a domestic, a househelp, a
priest, a teacher or a guardian, or there was a deceitful promise of marriage which never
would really be fulfilled.
* Always remember that there can be no frustration of acts of lasciviousness, rape or adultery
because no matter how far the offender may have gone towards the realization of his purpose, if
his participation amounts to performing all the acts of execution, the felony is necessarily
produced as a consequence thereof.

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

* In the crime of acts of lasciviousness, the intention of the wrongdoer is not

very material. The motive that impelled the accused to commit the offense is
of no importance because the essence of lewdness is in the act itself.

* What constitutes lewd or lascivious conduct must be determined from the

circumstances of each case. The demarcation line is not always easy to
determine but in order to sustain a conviction for acts of lasciviousness, it is
essential that the acts complained of be prompted by lust or lewd designs
and the victim did not consent to nor encouraged the act.

* To be guilty of this crime however, the acts of lasciviousness must be committed under any of
the circumstances that had there been sexual intercourse, the crime would have been Rape.
Where circumstances however are such, indicating a clear intention to lie with the offended party,
the crime committed as Attempted Rape.

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

SEDUCTION

Article 337
QUALIFIED SEDUCTION OF A VIRGIN

Two classes of qualified seduction:

1. Seduction of a virgin over 12 and under 18 years of age by certain

persons, such as a person in authority, priest, teachers etc and

2. Seduction of a sister by her brother or descendant by her

ascendant, regardless of her age or reputation (incestuous seduction)

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

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

3.That the offender has sexual intercourse with her.

 4. That there is abuse of authority, confidence or relationship on the part of the
offender ( person entrusted with education or custody of victim; person in public authority,
priest; servant)

Persons liable:

1. Those who abuse their authority:

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

2. Those who abused the confidence reposed in them:

a. priest
b. house servant
c. domestic

3. Those who abused their relationship:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Illustration:

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

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

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

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

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

necessarily a house servant.

* Where the offended party is below 12 years of age, regardless of whether

the victim is a sister or a descendant of the offender, the crime committed is
rape.

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

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

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

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

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

Article 338
SIMPLE SEDUCTION

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

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

3. That the offender has sexual intercourse with her.

4. That it is committed by means of deceit.

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

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

* A promise of material things in exchange for the woman’s surrender of her

virtue does not constitute deceit.

* If a woman under 18 years of age but over 12 agrees to a sexual

intercourse with a man who promised her precious jewelries but the man
reneges on his promise, there is no seduction that the woman is of loose
morals. (Luis B. Reyes)

Promise of marriage must precede sexual intercourse.

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

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

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

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

ELEMENTS:

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

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

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

* When the acts of lasciviousness is committed with the use of force or

intimidation or when the offended party is under 12 years of age, the object
of the crime can either be a woman or a man.
* Where the acts of the offender were limited to acts of lewdness or lasciviousness, and no carnal
knowledge was had; but had there been sexual intercourse, the offense would have been
Seduction, he is guilty of Acts of Lasciviousness under this article.

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

* In the commission of the acts of lasciviousness either by force or

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

Article 340
CORRUPTION OF MINORS

Act punishable:

By promoting or facilitating the prostitution or corruption of persons underage to

satisfy the lust of another

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

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

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

constitute violation of this article.

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

* Young minor should enjoy a good reputation. Apparently, a prostitute above

12 and under 18 years of age cannot be the victim in the crime of corruption
of minors.

Article 341
WHITE SLAVE TRADE
Acts penalized:

1. Engaging in the business of prostitution

2. Profiting by prostitution

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

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

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

ABDUCTION

Article 342
FORCIBLE ABDUCTION

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

2. That the abduction is against her will.

3. That the abduction is with lewd designs.

Note: Sexual intercourse is NOT necessary

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

Forcible abduction defined.

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

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

* Unlike in Rape and Seduction, in the crime of Abduction, whether Forcible or Consented, there
is no sexual intercourse. The acts are limited to taking away from a place the victim, but the
same must be with lewd designs, that is, with unchaste design manifested by kissing and touching
the victim’s private parts.
* If the element of lewd design is present, the carrying of the woman would qualify as abduction;
otherwise, it would amount to kidnapping. If the woman was only brought to a certain place in
order to break her will and make her agree to marry the offender, the crime is only grave coercion
because the criminal intent of the offender is to force his will upon the woman and not really to
restrain the woman of her liberty.

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

* The element of lewd designs, which is essential to the crime of abduction

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

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

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

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

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

* If the accused carried or took away the victim by means of force and with lewd design and
thereafter raped her, the crime is Forcible Abduction with Rape, the former being a necessary
means to commit the latter. The subsequent two (2) other sexual intercourse committed against
the will of the complainant would be treated as independent separate crimes of Rape. (People vs.
Bacalso, 210 SCRA 206).

* If the main object of the offender is to rape the victim, and the forcible
abduction was resorted to by the accused in order to facilitate the
commission of the rape, then the crime committed is only rape. (People vs.
Toledo, 83 Phil. 777)
* Where the victim was taken from one place to another, solely for the
purpose of killing him and not detaining him for any legal length of time, the
crime committed is murder. (People vs. Ong, 62 SCRA 174)

* True intention of the offender should be ascertained. If the detention is only

incidental, the same should be considered as absorbed. Otherwise, it should
be treated as a separate offense. When such a situation arises, we should
consider the application of Article 48 on complex crimes.

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

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

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

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

Distinction between forcible abduction and illegal detention:

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

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

* Forcible abduction must be distinguished from the crime of kidnapping.

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

Article 343
CONSENTED ABDUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

* The purpose of the law on consented abduction is to punish the offender for
causing disgrace and scandal to the family of the offended party. The law
does not punish the offender for the wrong done to the woman since in the
eyes of the law, she consented to her seduction.

* The deceit which is termed by the law as solicitation or cajolery maybe in

the form of honeyed promises of marriage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

signed by:

a. offended party
b. by her parents
c. grandparents
d. guardians in the order in which they are named above
* The crimes of adultery and concubinage must be prosecuted upon a
complaint signed by the offended spouse. In the complaint, the offended
party must include both guilty parties if they are both alive.

* Distinguished between a private crime and a public crime. In the case of a

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

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

* If the offended party is of age and is in complete possession of her mental

faculties, she alone can file the complaint (People vs. Mandia, 60 Phil. 372)

* If the offended party cannot sign the complaint because of her tender age,
the parents can do it for her. The same can be done either by the father or
the mother. (U.S. vs. Gariboso, 25 Phil 171 )
* The word guardian as mentioned in the law refers to the guardian
appointed by the court. (People vs. Formento, et al., 60 Phil. 434)

What is the meaning of “shall have consented” which bars the

institution of criminal action for adultery or concubinage?
The term “consent” has reference to the tie prior to the commission of the
crime. In other words, the offended party gives his or her consent to the
future infidelity of the offending spouse.

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

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

* In the crimes involving rape, abduction, seduction, and acts of lasciviousness, the marriage by
the offender with the offended woman generally extinguishes criminal liability, not only of the
principal but also of the accomplice and accessory. However, the mere fact of marriage is not
enough because it is already decided that if the offender marries the offended woman without any
intention to perform the duties of a husband as shown by the fact that after the marriage, he
already left her, the marriage would appear as having been contracted only to avoid the
punishment. Even with that marriage, the offended woman could still prosecute the offender and
that marriage will not have the effect of extinguishing the criminal liability.
* Pardon by the offended woman of the offender is not a manner of extinguishing criminal liability
but only a bar to the prosecution of the offender. Therefore, that pardon must come before the
prosecution is commenced. When the prosecution is already commenced or initiated, pardon by
the offended woman will no longer be effective because pardon may preclude prosecution but not
prevent the same.

* Pardon in crimes against chastity, is a bar to prosecution. But it must come

before the institution of the criminal action. (See the cases of People vs. Villorente,
210 SCRA 647; People vs. Avila, 192 SCRA 635) To be effective, it must include both
accused.

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

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

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

1. To idemnify the offended women

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

3. In every case to support the offspring

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

* There is likewise no mention of the offender in the crime of acts of

lasciviousness, as being held liable for civil damages under Article 345, the
law only mentioned the crimes of rape, seduction and abduction.
* Under Article 2219 of the Civil Code, moral damages may be recovered in
seduction, abduction, rape or other lascivious acts. The crimes of adultery
and concubinage are also included.

* In the crimes of rape, abduction and seduction, if the offended woman had given birth to the
child, among the liabilities of the offender is to support the child. This obligation to support the
 child may be true even if there are several offenders. As to whether all of them will acknowledge
the child, that is a different question because the obligation to support here is not founded on civil
law but is the result of a criminal act or a form of punishment.

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

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

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

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

Acts Punished:

1. Simulation of births

2. Substitution of one child for another

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

Requisites:
1. The child must be legitimate

2. The offender conceals or abandons such child

3. The offender has the intent to cause the child to lose its civil status
Elements of Simulation of Birth
1.Child is baptized or registered in the Registry of birth as hers

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

3.Actor’s purpose was to cause the loss of any trace as to the child’s true filiation

Simulation of birth takes place when a woman pretends to be pregnant

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

Illustration:

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

Questions & Answers

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

The crime committed is abandoning a minor under Article 276.

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

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

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

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

Article 348
USURPATION OF CIVIL STATUS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article 349
BIGAMY

ELEMENTS:
1.That the offender has been legally married.

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

3.That he contracts a second or subsequent marriage.

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

Notes:

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

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

• Need for judicial declaration of nullity

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

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

* Good faith is a defense in bigamy.

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

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

* There must be a summary proceeding to declare the absent spouse presumptively

dead for purposes of remarriage

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

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

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

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

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

* One convicted of bigamy may also be prosecuted for concubinage as both are distinct offenses.
The first is an offense against civil status, which may be prosecuted at the instance of the state;
the second is an offense against chastity, and may be prosecuted only at the instance of the
offended party. The test is not whether the defendant has already been tried for the same act,
but whether he has been put in jeopardy for the same offense.

* One who vouches that there is no legal impediment knowing that one of the parties is
already married is an accomplice

Distinction between bigamy and illegal marriage:

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

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

Article 350
MARRIAGE CONTRACTED AGAINST PROVISIONS OF LAWS

ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender contracted marriage.

2. That he knew at the time that

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

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

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

The requirements of the law for a valid marriage are:

1. The legal capacity of the contracting parties;

2. Their consent freely given;

3. Authority of the person performing the marriage; and

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

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

Marriages contracted against the provisions of laws

1. The marriage does not constitute bigamy.

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

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

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

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

Acts punished:

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

2. A woman whose marriage having been dissolved or annulled, married before

her delivery or within 301 days after the legal separation

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

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

Article 352
PERFORMANCE OF ILLEGAL MARRIAGE CEREMONY

Act punished:

performance of any illegal marriage ceremony by a priest or minister of any

religious denomination or sect or by civil authorities

TITLE THIRTEEN
CRIMES AGAINST HONOR
Crimes against honor
1. Libel by means of writings or similar means (Art. 355);
2. Threatening to publish and offer to prevent such publication for a compensation
(Art. 356);
3. Prohibited publication of acts referred to in the course of official proceedings (Art.
357);
4. Slander (Art. 358);
5. Slander by deed (Art. 359);
6. Incriminating innocent person (Art. 363);
7. Intriguing against honor (Art. 364).
Article 353
LIBEL

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

2. That the imputation must be made publicly.

3. That it must be malicious.

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

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

Notes:

LIBEL is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or a vice or defect, real or

imaginary or any act, commission, condition, status or circumstances tending to cause
the dishonor, discredit or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the
memory of one who is dead

Character of the words used to make it defamatory.

Words calculated to induce suspicion are more effective in destroying

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

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

Kinds of Malice.

Malice in law – This is assumed and is inferred from the defamatory

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

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

Distinction between malice in fact and malice in law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* Malice is presumed to exist in injurious publications

* Where the imputation is based upon matters of public interest, the

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

* This discussion leads to the conclusion that the determination of libelous

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

How to overcome the presumption of malice.

The presumption of malice is rebutted by showing :

1. that the accused published the defamatory imputation with good

intention;

2. that there is justifiable motive for making it;

3. that the communication made is privileged; and

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

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

Publication is the communication of the defamatory matter to a third person

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

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

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

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

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

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

Illustration:

If a person uttered that “All the Marcoses are thieves," there will only be one libel because these
particular Marcoses regarded as thieves are not specifically identified.

If the offender said, “All the Marcoses – the father, mother and daughter are thieves.” There will
be three counts of libel because each person libeled is distinctly dishonored.
* If you do not know the particular persons libeled, you cannot consider one libel as giving rise to
several counts of libel. In order that one defamatory utterance or imputation may be considered
as having dishonored more than one person, those persons dishonored must be identified.
Otherwise, there will only be one count of libel.

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

Republication of defamatory article is punishable.

One is liable for publication of defamatory words against another although he

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

Criterion to determine whether statements are defamatory

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

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

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

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

Praises undeserved are slander in disguise.

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

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

When proof of truth is admissible

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

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

Requisites of defense in defamation

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

2. It was published with good motives;

3. It was for justifiable ends.

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

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

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

Rule regarding Public Officers:

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

* Where malice cannot be inferred from false defamatory statements, the

ruling appears to be the true only if the offended party is a government
employee, with respect to facts related to the discharge of his official duties.
With his jurisprudence, it should now be emphasized that ‘actual malice” is
now required to be proven. It is enough to rely on presumed malice in libel
cases involving a public official or public figure.

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

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

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

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

* If the defamatory imputation is in the nature of self-defense under Article

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

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

* Under Article 354, the publisher becomes liable when he makes comments
or remarks upon the private character of person, which are not relevant or
related to the judicial, legislative or executive proceedings.

* Under our libel law, defamatory remarks against government employees

with respect to facts related to the discharge of their official duties will not
constitute libel, if defendant is able to prove the truth of the imputations. But
any attack on the private character of the officer on matters which are not
related to the discharge of his official functions may constitute libel since
under our laws, the right of the press to criticize public officers does not
authorize defamation. (U.S. vs. Bustos, supra; Sazon vs. Court of Appeals, supra).

Article354
REQUIREMENT OF PUBLICITY

Kinds of privileged communication

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

bad faith

b. QUALIFIEDLY PRIVILEGED – those which although containing defamatory

imputations could not be actionable unless made with malice or bad faith
* When the defamatory imputation comes under the criteria of an absolute
privileged communication, the presumption of malice under Article 354 has
no application.

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

* Privileged communication as categorized in this discussion is a matter of

defense. It is not a ground for a motion to quash after the arraignment of the
accused. (See Mercado vs. CFI of Rizal, 116 SCRA 93). If after the prosecution has
presented its evidence, it becomes evident that the defamatory statement
was made by the accused because of a legal, moral or social duty, then the
accused can file a demurrer to evidence, as in the meantime, there is
absence of malice in law which is presumed in all defamatory imputations.

GENERAL RULE: Every defamatory imputation is presumed malicious even if it be true,

if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown

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

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

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

superior, having some interest or duty on the matter

3. that the statements in the communication are made in good faith

without malice in fact

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

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

2. that it is made in good faith

3. that it is made without any comments or remarks

Doctrine of fair comment

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

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

Article 355
LIBEL BY MEANS OF WRITING OR SIMILAR MEANS
A libel may be committed by means of –

1. Writing;

2. Printing;

3. Lithography;

4. Engraving;

5. Radio;

6. Photograph;

7. Painting;

8. Theatrical exhibition;

9. Cinematographic exhibition; or

10. Any similar means.

* In the enumeration above, television is not included, probably because at

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

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

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

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

* It involves the unlawful extortion of money by appealing to the fear of the

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note:

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

* With its provisions, Article 357 has come to be known as the “Gag Law.”
It prohibits reporters, editors or managers of newspapers from publishing
articles containing facts connected with the private life of an individual; facts
which are offensive to the honor, virtue and reputation of persons. But these
must refer to facts which are intimately related to the offended party’s family
and home. Occasionally, it involves conjugal troubles and quarrels because of
infidelity, adultery or crimes involving chastity.
Lacsa v IAC
Lacsa found that Marquez was not a proprietary member of PCA thus not qualified to be
president. He wrote to the BOD and to Marquez. He caused to publish the second letter.
HELD: Letter is not privileged communication. To be classified as such it must be free
from malice. Granting that the letter was privileged communication, written out of a duty
of an officer towards the members, such character was lost when it was published.

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

Article 358
ORAL DEFAMATION / SLANDER

Two Kinds of Oral Defamation:

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

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

Factors that determine gravity of the offense:

a) expressions used

b) personal relations of the accused and the offended party

c) circumstances surrounding the case

Notes:

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

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

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

* If the utterances were made publicly and were heard by many people and the accused
at the same time levelled his finger at the complainant, oral defamation is committed (P v
Salleque)
* The word “puta ” does not impute that the complainant is prostitute.
(People vs. Atienza, G.R. No. L-19857, Oct. 26, 1968 ) It is a common expression
of anger or displeasure. It is seldom taken in its literal sense by the
hearer. It is viewed more as a threat on the part of the accused to
manifest and emphasize a point. (Reyes vs. People, 27 SCRA 686)

Article 359
SLANDER BY DEED

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

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

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

Notes:

Slander by deed is a defamation committed by the offender against the

complainant through the performance of any act which casts dishonor,
discredit or contempt upon another person.

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

Two kinds of slander by deed

1. Simple slander by deed; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

contempt.

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

Art335 of RPC on rape
i. use of force or intimidation
ii. deprivation of reason or rendering the offended unconscious
iii. offended party under 12 yrs of age+lewd designs

Article 360
PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR LIBEL

Who are liable:

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

b. author or editor of a book or pamphlet

c. editor or business manager of a daily newspaper magazine or serial

publication(par.2)

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

* A defamatory statement by itself is not a crime. It is the undue publication

of the defamatory imputation which makes it a crime. It is therefore in this
concept that proprietors and editors of periodicals are also made responsible
for the appearance of defamatory matters in any newspaper under their
management.

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

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

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

Where one of the offended parties is a public officer:

a. if his office is in the City of Manila

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

Where one of the offended parties is a private individual:

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

* In order to prevent controversies as to the venue of criminal actions for

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

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

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

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

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

Article 361
PROOF OF THE TRUTH

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

b. the offended party is a government employee, even if the act or omission

imputed does not constitute a crime provided it is related to the discharge of his
official duties

Requisites for Acquittal:

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

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

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

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

Article 362
LIBELOUS REMARKS

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

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

* The main thrust of the law is to punish libelous remarks or comments on

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

INCRIMINATORY MACHINATIONS

Article363
INCRIMINATING INNOCENT PERSON

ELEMENTS:
1.That the offender performs an act.
 2.That by such act he directly incriminates or imputes to an innocent person the
commission of a crime.

3.That such act does not constitute perjury.

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

b. planting evidence

Note: article is limited to planting evidence and the like

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

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

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

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

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

* There is such a crime as incriminating an innocent person through unlawful

arrest. (People vs. Alagao, et al., G.R. No. L-20721, April 30, 1966)

Article 364
INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR

How committed:

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

Notes:

* The crime is committed by resorting to any form of scheme or plot designed

to blemish the reputation of a person. The offender does not employ written
or spoken words, pictures or caricatures to ridicule the victim. Rather, he
uses some ingenious, crafty and secret ploy which produces the same effect.

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

Distinction between intriguing against honor and slander:

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

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

Distinction between intriguing against honor and incriminating an innocent person:

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

In incriminating an innocent person, the offender performs an act by which he directly

incriminates or imputes to an innocent person the commission of a crime.

RA4200 The Anti - Wire Tapping Act

Acts punished:

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

b) uses any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or

record such communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known
as a dictaphone or dictagraph or walkie talkie or tape recorder

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

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

b) replays the same for any other person

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

person

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

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

or investigation.

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