Article 351. Premature Marriage Title Xiii. Crimes Against Honor
Article 351. Premature Marriage Title Xiii. Crimes Against Honor
Premature Marriage
TITLE XIII. CRIMES AGAINST HONOR
Persons liable
Crimes against honor
1. A widow who is married within 301
days from the date of the death of 1. Libel by means of writings or similar
her husband, or before having means (Art. 355);
delivered if she is pregnant at the
time of his death; 2. Threatening to publish and offer to
prevent such publication for a
2. A woman who, her marriage having compensation (Art. 356);
been annulled or dissolved, married
before her delivery or before the 3. Prohibited publication of acts
expiration of the period of 301 days referred to in the course of official
after the date of the legal separation. proceedings (Art. 357);
Malice in law can be negated by evidence If a person uttered that “All the Marcoses
that, in fact, the alleged libelous or are thieves," there will only be one libel
defamatory utterance was made with good because these particular Marcoses
motives and justifiable ends or by the fact regarded as thieves are not specifically
that the utterance was privileged in identified.
character.
If the offender said, “All the Marcoses – the
In law, however, the privileged character of father, mother and daughter are thieves.”
a defamatory statement may be absolute or There will be three counts of libel because
qualified. each person libeled is distinctly dishonored.
When the privileged character is said to be If you do not know the particular persons
absolute, the statement will not be libeled, you cannot consider one libel as
actionable whether criminal or civil because giving rise to several counts of libel. In
order that one defamatory utterance or
imputation may be considered as having 1. If it appears that the matter charged
dishonored more than one person, those as libelous is true;
persons dishonored must be identified.
Otherwise, there will only be one count of 2. It was published with good motives;
libel.
3. It was for justifiable ends.
Note that in libel, the person defamed need
not be expressly identified. It is enough that
he could possibly be identified because If a crime is a private crime, it cannot be
“innuendos may also be a basis for prosecuted de officio. A complaint from the
prosecution for libel. As a matter of fact, offended party is necessary.
even a compliment which is undeserved,
has been held to be libelous.
(2) Grave slander, when it is of a People vs. Orcullo, 111 SCRA 609, No. L-
serious and insulting nature. 57103 January 30, 1982
Calling a married woman a
Cases: prostitute, meaning of.—Thus, to call a
married woman a prostitute is not merely to
Reyes vs. People, 27 SCRA 686, Nos. L- proclaim her an adulteress, a violator of her
21528 March 28, 1969 marital vows: it is to charge her of having
Where the expression “putang ina committed an offense against public morals,
mo“is not considered slanderous. The of moral degeneracy far exceeding that
words, “Agustin, putang ina mo” is a involved in the maintenance of adulterous
common ‘expression in the dialect that is relations.
often employed not really to slander but Imputation of a crime of prostitution
rather to express anger or displeasure. It is against a woman can be prosecuted de
seldom, if ever, taken in its literal sence by oficio.—Indeed, the words quoted in the
the hearer, that is, as a reflection on the information are indubitably an imputation of
virtue of a mother. In the instant case, it the crime of prostitution which can be
should be viewed as part of the threats prosecuted de oficio.
voiced by appellant against the complainant
evidently to make the same more emphatic. Article 359. Slander by Deed
Art. 361. Proof of the truth. — In every If the incriminatory machination was made
criminal prosecution for libel, the truth may in writing and under oath, the crime may be
be given in evidence to the court and if it perjury if there is a willful falsity of the
appears that the matter charged as libelous statements made.
is true, and, moreover, that it was published
with good motives and for justifiable ends, If the statement in writing is not under oath,
the defendants shall be acquitted. the crime may be falsification if the crime is
a material matter made in a written
Proof of the truth of an imputation of an act statement which is required by law to have
or omission not constituting a crime shall been rendered.
not be admitted, unless the imputation shall
As far as this crime is concerned, this has [1997]). Consequently, his findings are
been interpreted to be possible only in the subject to review by the Provincial
so-called planting of evidence. Prosecutor, whose findings in turn may, in
appropriate cases, be reviewed by the
Cases: Secretary of Justice.
People vs. Alagao, et al., 16 SCRA 879, Article 364. Intriguing against Honor
No. L-20721 April 30, 1966
For a criminal complaint or This crime is committed by any person
information to charge the commission of a who shall make any intrigue which has
complex crime, the allegations contained for its principal purpose to blemish the
therein do not necessarily have to charge a honor or reputation of another person.
complex crime as defined by law. It is
sufficient that the information contains
allegations which state that one offense was Intriguing against honor is referred to as
a necessary means to commit the other. gossiping. The offender, without
The information in question in the present ascertaining the truth of a defamatory
case contains allegations properly charging utterance, repeats the same and pass it on
the commission of the complex crime of in- to another, to the damage of the offended
criminatory machinations through unlawful party. Who started the defamatory news is
arrest, and the court a quo committed error unknown.
when it ordered its dismissal.
Distinction between intriguing against honor
Huggland vs. Lantin, 326 SCRA 620, A.M. and slander:
No. MTJ-98-1153 February 29, 2000
Respondent’s court, the Municipal When the source of the defamatory
Trial Court of San Felipe, Zambales, had utterance is unknown and the offender
only a preliminary jurisdiction over Criminal simply repeats or passes the same, the
Case No. 3886. After the preliminary crime is intriguing against honor.
investigation was conducted, and
respondent judge had recommended the If the offender made the utterance, where
filing of the corresponding information and the source of the defamatory nature of the
forwarded the record of the case to the utterance is known, and offender makes a
Provincial Prosecutor, the Court lost its republication thereof, even though he
preliminary jurisdiction over the case. The repeats the libelous statement as coming
case was finally brought within the exclusive from another, as long as the source is
original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial identified, the crime committed by that
Court of Iba, Zambales with the filing of the offender is slander.
information on 28 August 1995. Clearly
then, respondent Judge should have known Distinction between intriguing against honor
that he had absolutely no power or authority and incriminating an innocent person:
to cancel the hold departure order which he
issued in the course of the preliminary In intriguing against honor, the offender
investigation. In the first place, he never had resorts to an intrigue for the purpose of
that authority from the inception of the case. blemishing the honor or reputation of
In the conduct of the preliminary another person.
investigation a judge exercises a non-
judicial function, an exception to his general In incriminating an innocent person, the
duties. This is because a preliminary offender performs an act by which he
investigation is basically an executive directly incriminates or imputes to an
function (People v. Navarro, 270 SCRA 393 innocent person the commission of a crime.
the use of the qualifier “any.” Consequently,
Cases: as respondent Court of Appeals correctly
concluded, “even a (person) privy to a
Gaanan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, communication who records his private
145 SCRA 112, No. L-69809 October 16, conversation with another without the
1986 knowledge of the latter (will) qualify as a
Hence, the phrase “device or violator” under this provision of R.A. 4200.
arrangement” in Section 1 of RA No. 4200, Where the law makes no
although not exclusive to that enumerated distinctions, one does not distinguish.—The
therein, should be construed to comprehend unambiguity of the express words of the
instruments of the same or similar nature, provision, taken together with the above-
that is, instruments the use of which would quoted deliberations from the Congressional
be tantamount to tapping the main line of a Record, therefore plainly supports the view
telephone. It refers to instruments whose held by the respondent court that the
installation or presence cannot be provision seeks to penalize even those privy
presumed by the party or parties being to the private communications. Where the
overheard because, by their very nature, law makes no distinctions, one does not
they are not of common usage and their distinguish.
purpose is precisely for tapping, intercepting
or recording a telephone conversation. Betguen vs. Masangcay, 238 SCRA 475,
A person calling another by phone Adm. Case No. P-93-822 December 1,
may safely presume that the other may 1994
have an extension line and runs the risk of Article 364 of the Revised Penal
being heard by a 3rd party.—An extension Code defines “intriguing against honor” as
telephone is an instrument which is very any intrigue which has for its principal
common especially now when the extended purpose to blemish the honor and reputation
unit does not have to be connected by wire of a person. This felony undoubtedly falls
to the main telephone but can be moved under the coverage of crimes involving
from place to place within a radius of a moral turpitude, the latter term having been
kilometer or more. A person should safely defined as “an act of baseness, vileness,
presume that the party he is calling at the depravity in the private and social duties
other end of the line probably has an which a man owes his fellow man, or to
extension teiephone and he runs the risk of society in general, contrary to the accepted
a third party iistening as in the case of a and customary rule of right and duty
party line or a telephone unit which shares between man and man, or conduct contrary
its line with another. to justice, honesty, modesty and good
morals” (Tak Ng vs. Republic of the
Ramirez vs. Court of Appeals, 248 SCRA Philippines, 106 Phil. 727 [1959]).
590, G.R. No. 93833 September 28, 1995
Section 1 of R.A. 4200 clearly and TITLE XVI. CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE
unequivocally makes it illegal for any
person, not authorized by all the parties to
any private communication to secretly Article 365. Imprudence and Negligence
record such communication by means of a
tape recorder. The law makes no distinction Quasi-offenses punished
as to whether the party sought to be
penalized by the statute ought to be a party 1. Committing through reckless
other than or different from those involved in imprudence any act which, had it
the private communication. The statute’s been intentional, would constitute a
intent to penalize all persons unauthorized grave or less grave felony or light
to make such recording is underscored by felony;
If the criminal negligence resulted, for
2. Committing through simple example, in homicide, serious physical
imprudence or negligence an act injuries and slight physical injuries, do not
which would otherwise constitute a join only the homicide and serious physical
grave or a less serious felony; injuries in one information for the slight
physical injuries. You are not complexing
3. Causing damage to the property of slight when you join it in the same
another through reckless information. It is just that you are not
imprudence or simple imprudence or splitting the criminal negligence because
negligence; the real basis of the criminal liability is the
negligence.
4. Causing through simple imprudence
or negligence some wrong which, if If you split the criminal negligence, that is
done maliciously, would have where double jeopardy would arise.
constituted a light felony.
Cases:
Distinction between reckless imprudence Gaid vs. People, 584 SCRA 489, G.R.
and negligence: No. 171636 April 7, 2009
Negligence has been defined as the
The two are distinguished only as to failure to observe for the protection of the
whether the danger that would be interests of another person that degree of
impending is easily perceivable or not. If
care, precaution, and vigilance which the
the danger that may result from the criminal
circumstances justly demand, whereby such
negligence is clearly perceivable, the
other person suffers injury. The elements of
imprudence is reckless. If it could hardly be
perceived, the criminal negligence would simple negligence: are (1) that there is lack
only be simple. of precaution the part of the offender; and
(2) that the damage impending to be
There is no more issue on whether culpa is caused is not immediate or the danger is
a crime in itself or only a mode of incurring not clearly manifest. The standard test in
criminal liability. It is practically settled that determining whether a person is negligent
criminal negligence is only a modality in in doing an act whereby injury or damage
incurring criminal liability. This is so results to the person or property of another
because under Article 3, a felony may result is this: could a prudent man, in the position
from dolo or culpa. of the person to whom negligence is
attributed, foresee harm to the person
Since this is the mode of incurring criminal injured as a reasonable consequence of the
liability, if there is only one carelessness, course actually pursued? If so, the law
even if there are several results, the imposes a duty on the actor to refrain from
accused may only be prosecuted under one that course or to take precautions to guard
count for the criminal negligence. So there against its mischievous results, and the
would only be one information to be filed,
failure to do so constitutes negligence.
even if the negligence may bring about
Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by
resulting injuries which are slight.
the ignoring of the admonition born of this
Do not separate the accusation from the provision, is always necessary before
slight physical injuries from the other negligence can be held to exist.
material result of the negligence.
Reodica vs. Court of Appeals, 292
SCRA 87, G.R. No. 125066 July 8, 1998
Felonies are committed not only by day to 4 years) and maximum period (4
means of deceit (dolo), but likewise by years, 2 months and 1 day to 6 years).
means of fault (culpa). There is deceit when
the wrongful act is performed with Ivler vs. Modesto-San Pedro, 635
deliberate intent; and there is fault when SCRA 191, G.R. No. 172716 November
the wrongful act results from imprudence, 17, 2010
negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill. The confusion bedeviling the
As earlier stated, reckless imprudence question posed in this petition, to which the
resulting in slight physical injuries is MeTC succumbed, stems from persistent
punishable by public censure only. Article 9, but awkward attempts to harmonize
paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code conceptually incompatible substantive and
defines light felonies as infractions of law procedural rules in criminal law, namely,
carrying the penalty of arresto menor or a Article 365 defining and penalizing quasi-
fine not exceeding P200.00, or both. Since offenses and Article 48 on complexing of
public censure is classified under Article 25 crimes, both under the Revised Penal Code.
of the Code as a light penalty, and is Article 48 is a procedural device allowing
considered under the graduated scale single prosecution of multiple felonies falling
provided in Article 71 of the same Code as a under either of two categories: (1) when a
penalty lower than arresto menor, it follows single act constitutes two or more grave or
that the offense of reckless imprudence less grave felonies (thus excluding from its
resulting in slight physical injuries is a light operation light felonies); and (2) when an
felony. offense is a necessary means for
committing the other. The legislature
Dayap vs. Sendiong, 577 SCRA 134, crafted this procedural tool to benefit the
G.R. No. 177960 January 29, 2009 accused who, in lieu of serving multiple
The offense with which petitioner penalties, will only serve the maximum of
was charged is reckless imprudence the penalty for the most serious crime. In
resulting in homicide, less serious physical contrast, Article 365 is a substantive rule
injuries and damage to property, a complex penalizing not an act defined as a felony but
crime. Where a reckless, imprudent, or “the mental attitude x x x behind the act,
negligent act results in two or more grave the dangerous recklessness, lack of care or
or less grave felonies, a complex crime is foresight x x x,” a single mental attitude
committed. Article 48 of the Revised Penal regardless of the resulting consequences.
Code provides that when the single act Thus, Article 365 was crafted as one quasi-
constitutes two or more grave or less grave crime resulting in one or more
felonies, or when an offense is a necessary consequences.
means for committing the other, the penalty Court hold that prosecutions under
for the most serious crime shall be imposed, Article 365 should proceed from a single
the same to be applied in its maximum charge regardless of the number or severity
period. Since Article 48 speaks of felonies, it of the consequences. In imposing penalties,
is applicable to crimes through negligence in the judge will do no more than apply the
view of the definition of felonies in Article 3 penalties under Article 365 for each
as “acts or omissions punishable by law” consequence alleged and proven. In short,
committed either by means of deceit (dolo) there shall be no splitting of charges under
or fault (culpa). Thus, the penalty Article 365, and only one information shall
imposable upon petitioner, were he to be be filed in the same first level court.
found guilty, is prision correccional in its
medium period (2 years, 4 months and 1
People vs. Cano, 17 SCRA 237, No. L- jeopardy exists where the reckless act
19660 May 24, 1966 resulted into homicide and physical injuries,
The information alleges that, then the same consequence must perforce
through reckless negligence of the follow where the same reckless act caused
defendant, the bus driven by him hit merely damage to property—not death—
another bus causing upon some of its and physical injuries. Verily, the value of a
passengers, serious physical injuries, upon human life lost as a result of a vehicular
others less serious physical injuries and collision cannot be equated with any
upon still others slight physical injuries, in amount of damages caused to a motor
addition to damage to property. Such vehicle arising from the same mishap.”
information does not purport to complex the Gan vs. Court of Appeals, 165 SCRA
offense of slight physical injuries with 378, No. L-44264 September 19, 1988
reckless negligence with that of damage to The test for determining whether or
property and serious and less serious not a person is negligent in doing an act
physical injuries through reckless whereby injury or damage results to the
imprudence. person or property of another is this: Would
a prudent man in the position of the person
Ibabao vs. People, 132 SCRA 216, No. to whom negligence is attributed foresee
L-36957 September 28, 1984 harm to the person injured as a reasonable
We find merit in petitioner’s consequence of the course about to be
contention, however, that the increased pursued? If so, the law imposes the duty on
penalty is inapplicable to him because the the doer to take precaution against its
failure to give aid to the injured on the spot mischievous results and the failure to do so
has not been alleged in the Information. So constitutes negligence. Applying the above
far as we have been able to ascertain, this tests to the case at bar, we find the
question has not been definitely passed petitioner not guilty of the crime of Simple
upon by this Court. But, we agree with the Imprudence resulting in Homicide. The
then Court of Appeals when it ruled in appellate court in finding the petitioner
People vs. Beduya that “the failure to guilty said: “The accused should have
render assistance, constitutes a qualifying stepped on the brakes when she saw the
circumstances because the presence thereof car going in the opposite direction followed
raises the penalty by one degree (like by another which overtook the first by
treachery which qualifies homicide to passing towards its left. She should not only
murder). The same must be alleged in the have swerved the car she was driving to the
information to apprise the defendant of this right but should have also tried to stop or
charge unlike an ordinary aggravating lessen her speed so that she would not
circumstance which even if not alleged in bump into the pedestrian who was crossing
the information, can be taken into account at the time but also the jeepney which was
if proved at the trial without objection.” then parked along the street.” The course
of action suggested by the appellate court
Buerano vs. Court of Appeals, 115 would seem reasonable were it not for the
SCRA 82, No. L-30269 July 19, 1982 fact that such suggestion did not take into
Conviction of accused in the charge account the amount of time afforded
of slight and less serious physical injuries petitioner to react to the situation she was
through reckless imprudence constitutes in. For it is undeniable that the suggested
double jeopardy to the charge of the crime course of action presupposes sufficient time
of damage to property through reckless for appellant to analyze the situation
imprudence. He stressed that “if double confronting her and to ponder on which of
the different courses of action would result degree of care and diligence is a negative
in the least possible harm to herself and to ingredient of the offense charged.
others. Due to the lack of eyewitnesses, no
evidence was presented by the prosecution People vs. Belbes, 334 SCRA 161, G.R.
with respect to the relative distances of No. 124670 June 21, 2000
petitioner to the parked jeepney and the Appellant’s claim of self-defense
oncoming overtaking vehicle that would could not prosper. The evidence on record,
tend to prove that petitioner did have however, reveals an incomplete justifying
sufficient time to reflect on the circumstance defined in Article 11,
consequences of her instant decision to paragraph number 5 of the Revised Penal
swerve her car to the right without stepping Code. A person incurs no criminal liability
on her brakes. when he acts in the fulfillment of a duty or
Carillo vs. People, 229 SCRA 386, G.R. in the lawful exercise of a right or office.
No. 86890 January 21, 1994 But we must stress there are two requisites
Petitioner should serve the interest for this justifying circumstance: (a) that the
of his patient with the greatest of solicitude offender acted in the performance of a duty
giving them always his best talent and skill. or in the lawful exercise of a duty or in the
Once summoned, petitioner lawful exercise of a right; and (b) that the
anaesthesiologist could not be readily injury or offense committed be the
found. When he finally appeared at 10:30 in necessary consequence of the due
the evening, he was evidently in a bad performance of such right or office. In the
temper, commenting critically on the instant case, only the first requisite is
dextrose bottles before ordering their present; admittedly appellant acted in the
removal. This circumstance indicated he performance of his duty. However, the
was not disposed to attend to this second requisite is lacking, for the killing
unexpected call, in violation of the canons need not be a necessary consequence of
of his profession that as a physician, he the performance of his duty.
should serve the interest of his patient “with
the greatest of solicitude, giving them Loney vs. People, 482 SCRA 194, G.R.
always his best talent and skill.” No. 152644 February 10, 2006
Simple negligence is defined as a Mala in se cannot absorb mala
mere lack of prevision in a situation where prohibita crimes; What makes the former a
either the threatened harm is not immediate felony is the criminal intent (dolo) or
or the danger not openly visible.—As early negligence (culpa) while what make the
as in People v. Vistan, the Court defined latter crime are special laws enacting them.
simple negligence, penalized under what is —On petitioners’ claim that the charge for
now Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, violation of Article 365 of the RPC “absorbs”
as “a mere lack of prevision in a situation the charges for violation of PD 1067, PD
where either the threatened harm is not 984, and RA 7942, suffice it to say that a
immediate or the danger not openly visible.” mala in se felony (such as Reckless
Put in a slightly different way, the gravamen Imprudence Resulting in Damage to
of the offense of simple negligence is the Property) cannot absorb mala prohibita
failure to exercise the diligence necessitated crimes (such as those violating PD 1067, PD
or called for by the situation which was not 984, and RA 7942). What makes the former
immediately life-destructive but which a felony is criminal intent (dolo) or
culminated, in the present case, in the negligence (culpa); what makes the latter
death of a human being three (3) days crimes are the special laws enacting them.
later. Such failure to exercise the necessary