ART. 269. UNLAWFUL ARREST

The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, in any case other than those authorized by law, or without reasonable ground therefor, shall arrest or detain another for the purpose of delivering him to the proper authorities.

ELEMENTS1. Offender arrests or detains another person2. Purpose is to deliver him to the proper authorities3. The arrest or detention is not authorized by law, or there is no reasonable ground therefor Offender is any person, whether public officer or private individual A private person may arrest individual without warrant under same circumstances when public officer can make arrest (Sec. 6, Rule 113 Revised Criminal Procedure If private person arrests someone + no legal or reasonable ground + purpose is to deliver person arrested to proper authorities -> he is liable

Arbitrary Detention (Art. 124)Unlawful Arrest (Art. 269)

Unlawful arrests by public officers: has authority to arrest and detain person, but NO legal ground

Public officer has NO authority to arrest and detain; or did not act in official capacity

No unlawful arrest when the arrest is authorized by warrant issued by court The proper issuance of valid warrant presupposed a reasonable ground therefor (People v. Lim Chun, C.A.)

Unlawful Arrest Illegal Detention

Purpose of locking up or detaining victim is to deliver him to proper authorities + detention is unlawfulAny other case

Victim was tied with piece of rope and conducted to the municipal jail. The fact that accused immediately conducted him to municipal jail brings the offense within Art. 269 (U.S v. Fontanilla)

Article 125: Delay in the Delivery of Detained Persons to the Proper Judicial Authority

Unlawful Arrest

Detention is for some legal groundDetention not authorized by law

Crime committed by failure to deliver person to proper judicial authority within certain period of timeCrime committed by making an arrest not authorized by law

With regard to length of detention, motive is controlling for unlawful arrest. If purpose is to deliver him to proper authorities, it is unlawful arrest. But absence of this motive may be shown by length of time victim is detained

SECTION TWO: KIDNAPPING OF MINORSCRIMES CALLED KIDNAPPING OF MINORS1. Kidnapping and failure to return a minor (Art. 270)2. Inducing a minor to abandon his home (Art. 271)

ART. 270. KIDNAPPING AND FAILURE TO RETURN A MINOR

The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who, being entrusted with the custody of a minor person, shall deliberately fail to restore the latter to his parents or guardians. (As amended by R.A. No. 18)

ELEMENTS1. Offender is entrusted with the custody of a minor person (whether over or under 7 years but less than 21 years) 2. He deliberately fails to restore minor to parents or guardians Age of minor is under 21 years Amendment is silent as to age of minor. Reasonable belief: the legal provisions cover all minors, whether under or over 7 years of age, but less than 21. (Guevara) (Note: the age of majority is now reduced to 18 years old by R.A. No. 7809) Deliberate failure of the custodian of the minor to restore him to his parents or guardian is what is punished Not about kidnapping of a minor, but deliberate failure of custodian to such minor to restore him to his parents or guardian When crime is committed by father or mother of the minor, the penalty is arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding P300, or both

Article 270: Kidnapping and Failure to Return a Minor (as amended by R.A. No 18)Article 267: Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention

Punishes deliberate failure by person having custody of the minor to restore minor to his parents or guardianThe kidnapping of a minor is also punished

Offender is entrusted with custody of the minorOffender is not entrusted with custody of the victim

*both constitute a deprivation of liberty

Kidnapping and failure to return a minor under Art. 270 is necessarily included in Art. 267 par. 4 (Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention of Minor) People v. Jo-> Art. 270 par. 1 might have been superseded by Art. 267, as amended, which punishes as serious illegal detention, the kidnapping of a minor, regardless of the purpose of detention Essential element of Art. 270: offender is entrusted with the custody of the minor What is punished: deliberate failure of offender having custody of the minor to restore him to parents or guardian Not necessary that the purpose of the offender is to separate permanently the minor from his parents or guardian

ART. 271. INDUCING A MINOR TO ABANDON HIS HOME

The penalty of prision correccional and a fine not exceeding seven hundred pesos shall be imposed upon anyone who shall induce a minor to abandon the home of his parents or guardians or the persons entrusted with his custody.

If the person committing any of the crimes covered by the two preceding articles shall be the father or the mother of the minor, the penalty shall be arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding three hundred pesos, or both. (As amended by Republic A ct No. 18)

ELEMENTS1. Minor is living in the home of his parents or guardian or the person entrusted with his custody2. Offender induces said minor to abandon such home Age of the minor is under 21 years Term minor was inserted by R.A. No. 18, Sec. 5 in lieu of person under age but over seven years before the amendment. (Note: the age of majority is now reduced to 18 years old by R.A. No. 6809) Inducement must be actual, committed with criminal intent, and determined by a will to cause damage. People v. Paalam -> It is essential that the inducement be actual, committed with criminal intent, and determined by a will to cause damage. The representations made by the accused to said minors highly praising Manila City and her offer and promise to take them to that city clearly do not constitute inducement which is essential to the act. The phrase to induce means to influence; to prevail on; to move by persuasion; to incite by motives. There was also very little difference in their ages, so there could not be much difference in their degree of intelligence. (It cant be supposed that the accused commanded such ascendancy over the minors as to be able to prevail on them) What constitutes the crime is the act of inducing a minor to abandon his home or the home of his guardian Not necessary that the minor actually abandons home People v. Apolinar-> The mere commission of any act which tends to influence, persuade or prevail on a minor to abandon his home is what constitutes the crime. So long as inducement is done maliciously and with criminal intent, its effect on the minor (such as whether by reason thereof he actually decides to abandon his home) is immaterial. The minor should not leave his home of his own free will. Soledad asked a minor named Belen Cabalfin if she wanted to go to Manila and promised that she would find a job and could continue her studies in Manila. Belen agreed. Belen was induced to abandon her parental home because of the aforesaid promise of Soledad Belo. (People v. Ricarte) Note: If the minor would leave his home of his own free will and would go and live with another person, the latter is not criminally liable. Father or mother may commit crimes under Articles 270 and 271. Where father and mother are living separately and custody of minor is given to one of them, the other parent who kidnaps such minor from the one having custody OR induces such minor to leave his home is liable

SECTION 3. SLAVERY AND SERVITUDECRIMES CALLED SLAVERY AND SERVITUDE1. Slavery (Art. 272)2. Exploitation of child labor (Art. 273)3. Services rendered under compulsion in payment of debt (Art. 274)

ART. 272. SLAVERY

The penalty of prision mayor and a fine of not exceeding 10,000 pesos shall be imposed upon anyone who shall purchase, sell, kidnap, or detain a human being for the purpose of enslaving him.

If the crime he committed for the purpose of assigning the offended party to some immoral traffic, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period.

ELEMENTS1. Offender purchases, sells, kidnaps or detains a human being 2. Purpose of offender is to enslave such human being Qualifying circumstance: if purpose of offender is to assign offended party to some immoral traffic (prostitution). Penalty is higher.

SlaveryKidnapping; or Illegal Detention

Purpose is to enslave the victimOther purpose

The employment or custody of a minor with the consent of the parent or guardian, although against the childs own will, CANNOT be considered involuntary servitude (U.S. v. Cabanag) When it is proven that defendant was obliged to render service in plaintiffs house as a servant without remuneration, and to remain there so long as debt hasnt been paid = SLAVERY (Reyes v. Alojado)

ART. 273. EXPLOITATION OF CHILD LABOR

The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon anyone who, under the pretext of reimbursing himself of a debt incurred by an ascendant, guardian, or person entrusted with the custody of a minor, shall, against the latter's will, retain him in his service.

ELEMENTS1. Offender retains a minor in his service2. It is against the will of the minor3. It is under the pretext of reimbursing himself of a debt incurred by an ascendant, guardian or person entrusted with the custody of such minor Service of minor must be against his will. If minor consents, no violation. Indebtedness is not a ground for detention. The existence of an indebtedness constitutes no legal justification for holding a person and depriving him of his freedom to live where he wills (Caunca v. Salazar)

ART. 274. SERVICES RENDERED UNDER COMULSION IN PAYENT OF DEBT

The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person who, in order to require or enforce the payment of a debt, shall compel the debtor to work for him, against his will, as household servant or farm laborer.

ELEMENTS1. Offender compels a debtor to work for him, either as household servant or farm laborer2. It is against the debtors will3. Purpose is to require or enforce the payment of a debt

Specifically provides that the debtor is compelled to work as HOUSEHOULD SERVANT or FARM LABORER. (Office janitor is not allowed) Does not distinguish w/n victim is a minor. (Unlike Art. 273)

Article 273Article 274

The minor who is compelled to render services for the supposed debt of his parent or guardianThe debtor himself is the one compelled to work for the offender

Service of minor is not limited to household and farm workOnly household and farm work

CHAPTER 2: CRIMES AGAINST SECURITYSECTION 1. ABANDONMENT OF HELPLESS PERSONS AND EXPLOITATION OF MINORSCRIMES CALLED ABANDONMENT OF HELPLESS PERSONS AND EXPLOITATION OF MINORS:1. Abandonment of persons in danger and abandonment of ones victim (Art. 275)2. Abandoning a minor (Art. 276)3. Abandonment of minor by person entrusted with his custody; indifference of parents (Art. 277)4. Exploitation of minors (Art. 278)

ART. 275. ABANDONMENT OF PERSONS IN DANGER AND ABANDONMENT OF ONES OWN VICTIM

The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon:

1. Anyone who shall fail to render assistance to any person whom he shall find in an uninhabited place wounded or in danger of dying, when he can render such assistance without detriment to himself, unless such omission shall constitute a more serious offense;

2. Anyone who shall fail to help or render assistance to another whom he has accidentally wounded or injured;

3. Anyone who, having found an abandoned child under seven years of age, shall fail to deliver said child to the authorities or to his family, or shall fail to take him to a safe place.

Acts punishable under Art. 2751. Failing to render assistance when the offender finds person in an uninhabited place wounded or in danger of dying, when he can render assistance w/o detriment to himself (unless, such omission shall constitute a more serious offense)Elementsa. Place is NOT inhabitedb. Accused found there a person wounded or in danger of dying; c. Accused can render assistance w/o detriment to himselfd. Accused FAILS to render assistance2. Failing to help or render assistance to another whom offender accidentally wounded or injured3. Failing to deliver child, under seven years old, whom the offender has found abandoned, to authorities or to his family, or by failing to take him to safe place If person intentionally wounded another in uninhabited place, par. 1 of Art. 275 is not applicable. Omission constituting a more serious offense Example: Offender who failed to render assistance to dying person in uninhabited place HAD THE CUSTODY of such person who is a minor under seven years of age, then the minor died-> penalty of prision correccional (par. 2. Art 276) will be imposed, not arresto mayor under this article Paragraph 2 of this article only applies when accidentally injured by accused. If person intentionally shoots or stabs someone who is wounded and he does not render him assistance, he doesnt fall under this article. He could be liable for homicide, physical injuries, etc etc. It is immaterial that the offender did not know the child is under seven years. (Albert) It seems that paragraph 3 applies also to one who found a lost child, not just abandoned. Child under 7 years must be found by the accused in unsafe place.

ART. 276. ABANDONING A MINOR

The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon anyone who shall abandon a child under seven years of age, the custody of which is incumbent upon him.

When the death of the minor shall result from such abandonment, the culprit shall be punished by prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods; but if the life of the minor shall have been in danger only, the penalty shall be prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.

The provisions contained in the two preceding paragraphs shall not prevent the imposition of the penalty provided for the act committed, when the same shall constitute a more serious offense.

ELEMENTS1. Offender: has custody of child2. Child: under 7 years of age3. Offender abandons child4. Offender has no intent to kill child when latter is abandoned Purpose in abandoning minor is to avoid the obligation of taking care of the minor (since he has custody). If there is intent to kill and child dies, crime could be murder, parricide, etc etc, as the case may be. But cannot fall under this article. Reason: this article shall not prevent the imposition of penalty when it constitutes a more serious offense. (Art. 276, par. 3) Intent to kill cant be presumed from death of child. Intent to kill is presumed from death of victim of crime only applies to crimes against persons. Permanent, conscious, and deliberate abandonment is required. Par. 1 of this article penalizes mere abandonment of child even when his life is not endangered only need is that there is interruption of the care and protection child needs by reason of his tender age Abandonment is not the momentary leaving of the child. Abandonment must deprive him of care and protection from danger to his person Such act must be conscious and deliberate (People v. Bandian) Circumstances qualifying the offense:1. Death of the minor resulted from such abandonment2. Life of the minor was in danger because of the abandonment Parents guilty of abandoning their children shall be deprived of parental authority.

ART. 277. ABANDONMENT OF MINOR BY PERSON ENTRUSTED WITH HIS CUSTODY; INDIFFERENCE OF PARENTS

The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon anyone who, having charge of the rearing or education of a minor, shall deliver said minor to a public institution or other persons, without the consent of the one who entrusted such child to his care or, in the absence of the latter, without the consent of the proper authorities.

The same penalty shall be imposed upon the parents who shall neglect their children by not giving them the education which their station in life requires and financial condition permits.

Acts punished under Art. 2771. Delivering a minor to a public institution or other persons-without consent of the one who entrusted such minor to the care of the offender or, -in the absence of that one, without the consent of the proper authorities2. Neglecting his (offenders) children by:-not giving them education which their a) station in life requires and b) financial condition permitsElements of abandonment of minor by one charged w/ the rearing or education of said minora. Offender has charge of the rearing or education of a minorb. He delivers said minor to a public institution or other personsc. The one who entrusted child to the offender DID NOT consent to such act; -OR if the one who entrusted such child to offender is absent, the proper authorities DID NOT consent to it Only person charged with rearing or education of minor is liable. Someone found a Negrito child in the forest and brought her to Manila, gave her to another person since he could not support her. He isnt guilty under this article, he is not charged with rearing or education of the minor Negrito. (U.S. v Payog) Rear- to bring to maturity by educating, nourishing, etc; to rear children

Abandonment of minor by person entrusted with custody Art. 277Abandonment of a minor under Art. 276

Custody of the offender is specific-> rearing or education of the minorThe custody of the offender is stated in general

Minor is under 21 years of age(Note: age of majority is now reduced to 18 years old, R.A. No 6809)Minor is under 7 years of age

Minor is delivered to a public institution or other personMinor is abandoned in such a way as to deprive him of care and protection his tender years need

Elements of indifference of parents1. Offender is a parent2. He neglects his children by not giving them education3. Station in life a) requires such education, andb) financial condition permits it Obligation to educate children terminates if mother and children refuse without good reason to live with accused Accused had to go to another province to earn a living. Wife and children refused to go with him. Accused is not liable for abandoning family and for neglecting children (People v. Miraflores) Failure to give education must be due to deliberate desire to evade such obligation

ART. 278. EXPLOITATION OF MINORS

The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods6 and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon:

1. Any person who shall cause any boy or girl under sixteen years of age to perform any dangerous feat of balancing, physical strength, or contortion.

2. Any person who, being an acrobat, gymnast, rope- walker, diver, wild-animal tamer or circus manager, or engaged in a similar calling, shall employ in exhibitions of these kinds, children under sixteen years of age who are not his children or descendants.

3. Any person engaged in any of the callings enumerated in the next preceding paragraph who shall employ any descendant of his under twelve years of age in such dangerous exhibitions.

4. Any ascendant, guardian, teacher, or person entrusted in any capacity with the care of a child under sixteen years of age, who shall deliver such child gratuitously to any person following any of the callings enumerated in paragraph 2 hereof, or to any habitual vagrant or beggar.

If the delivery shall have been made in consideration of any price, compensation, or promise, the penalty shall in every case be imposed in its maximum period.

In either case, the guardian or curator convicted shall also be removed from office as guardian or curator; and in the case of the parents of the child, they may be deprived, temporarily or perpetually, in the discretion of the court, of their parental authority.

5. Any person who shall induce any child under sixteen years of age to abandon the home of its ascendants, guardians, curators, or teachers to follow any person engaged in any of the callings mentioned in paragraph 2 hereof, or to accompany any habitual vagrant or beggar.

Acts punished under this article1. By causing boy or girl under 16 y.o. old to perform any dangerous feat of balancing, physical strength or contortion. Offender: any person.2. By employing children under 16 y.o. who arent children or descendants of the offender in: exhibitions of acrobat, gymnast, rope-walker, diver, or wild-animal tamer. Offender: acrobat, etc.; or circus manager; or person engaged in similar calling.3. By employing any descendant under 12 y.o. in dangerous exhibitions enumerated in next preceding paragraph. Offender: engaged in any of the said callings.4. By delivering a child under 16 y.o. gratuitously to a) any person following any of the callings enumerated in par. 2; or to b) any habitual vagrant or beggar.Offender: ascendant, guardian, teacher or person entrusted in any capacity with the care of the child.5. By inducing any child under 16 y.o. to abandon the home of its ascendants, guardians, curators or teachers to follow ANY person in ANY calling mentioned in par. .2, or to accompany any habitual vagrant or beggar. Offender: any person.Exploitation of minors (Art. 278, par. 5)Inducing a minor to abandon his home (Art. 271)

Purpose of inducing minor to abandon home is to follow any person engaged in the calling of being an acrobat, gymnast, rope-walker, diver, wild-animal tamer or circus manager;

Or to accompany any habitual vagrant or beggar If there is no such purpose (mentioned in the left column)

Victim is under 16 years of age

(But always note: age of majority is now reduced to 18 y.o. by R.A. No.6809)Victim is a minor under 21 years of age

Circumstance qualifying the offense: delivery of the child is made in consideration of any price, compensation or promise Offender shall be deprived of parental authority or guardianship Exploitation of minor must be of such nature as to endanger his life or safety

ART. 279. ADDITIONAL PENALTIES FOR OTHER OFFENSES

The imposition of the penalties prescribed in the preceding articles, shall not prevent the imposition upon the same person of the penalty provided for any other felonies defined and punished by this Code.

SECTION 2. TRESPASS TO DWELLING

ART. 280. QUALIFIED TRESPASS TO DWELLING

Any private person who shall enter the dwelling of another against the latter's will, shall be punished by arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.

If the offense be committed by means of violence or intimidation, the penalty shall be prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods8 and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.

The provisions of this article shall not be applicable to any person who shall enter another's dwelling for the purpose of preventing some serious harm to himself, the occupants of the dwelling, or a third person, nor shall it be applicable to any person who shall enter a dwelling for the purpose of rendering some service to humanity or justice, nor to anyone who shall enter cafes, taverns, inns, and other public houses, while the same are open.

ELEMENTS OF TRESPASS TO DWELLING1. Offender is a private person2. He enters the dwelling of another3. Entrance is against latters will Circumstance qualifying the offense: violence or intimidation Offender is private person If public officer or employee-> violation of domicile Dwelling place: any building or structure exclusively devoted for rest and comfort (distinguished from places for business, offices) People v. Lamahang: a store of cheap goods which happened to also be dwelling place of owner, considered dwelling W/N building is dwelling house or not: depends on the USE to which it is put Dwelling includes a room when occupied by another person U.S. v Silvano: accused was living, as a boarder, in same house which had the room of the victim. The nature of the crime or accuseds responsibility is not altered by the fact that he lived in the same house as the victim. Entrance must be against the will of owner or occupant. Against doesnt mean mere lack of consent of the dweller-> mere absence of consent is not enough to constitute trespass to dwelling To commit trespass, entrance should be against presumed or express prohibition of the occupant. Lack of permission should NOT be confused with prohibition. (People v. De Peralta) Lack of permission does not amount to prohibition. Groizard, cited in People v. Peralta: Not necessary to always obtain previous permission from owner. With utmost good faith, a person, of whom entrance has not been denied beforehand, may suppose the owner has no objection to receiving him. All members of household: presumed to have authority to extend invitation to enter Invitation to enter, given by 12 year-old girl, an inmate thereof = enough to justify claim that it wasnt against occupants will, in the absence of express prohibition (U.S. v. Dulfo) Implied prohibition: Early in the morning, there was no lock to the door to prevent the entrance of any person. Still, there is trespass to dwelling. Express prohibition is not necessary for prohibition in this case is presumed. Consider the time (EARLY morning), the fact that the door was closed, and that the daughter was sleeping (People v. Clemente) Late hour of the night, after inmates have retired and closed their doors. Express prohibition not needed anymore here, it is presumed (U.S. v Mesina) Door was fastened by a string too weak and inadequate to hold it fast -> still an implied prohibition (U.S. v Silvano) Owner made defendants wait in the open porch and then closed the door behind him as he entered drawing room (Gabriel v. People) Whenever entrance is made through means not intended for ingress (like window) Prohibition is implied in entrance through the window, even if the window was open. (People v. Marcial) Prohibition must be in existence prior to, or at the time of entrance. Prohibition is not necessary when violence or intimidation is employed by the offender. Violence or intimidation qualifies trespass to dwelling, even if door of the house was already open, and there was no express prohibition (U.S. v Abanto) Trespass may be committed by owner of the dwelling. Even if he owns the house, he cannot enter the house against the will of actual occupant. He could have asked the court for aid for his proprietary rights protection (People v. Almeda) All trespassers ordinarily have intention to commit another crime, BUT if NO over act of crime intended to be committed -> ONLY crime is trespass to dwelling. Culprit who entered a dwelling through window to steal, but was caught before he could take the property= trespass to dwelling only, not attempted robbery Intruder was caught in the act of forcibly attempting to enter dwelling= attempted trespass to dwelling, not attempted robbery (People v. Tayag and Morales) When trespass to dwelling is separate from other offense committed in the dwelling: People v. Medina: when accused entered the dwelling through window, he had NO intent to kill person inside. Intent to kill came while he was being arrested (after he trespassed), so crime of trespass to dwelling is separate and distinct offense. Facts of case: Accused entered window. He was arrested but he resisted. He stabbed son of captain. Son didnt die cause of timely medical attention. He assaulted captain, wife, and daughter. -> Accused committed trespass to dwelling through violence, frustrated homicide, and less serious physical injuries. If purpose of the accused was to kill person injured: frustrated homicide only, and dwelling or unlawful entry would just be aggravating circumstance. Cases when this article are NOT applicable:1. Entrance to anothers dwelling is to: prevent some serous harm to himself, occupants of dwelling, or third person2. Purpose is to render some service to humanity or injustice3. Place where entrance made is: caf, tavern, inn, and other public houses, while the same are open (Art. 280, last par.) Gabriel v. People: Meralco line inspectors had no right to enter house against his will just because of suspicion that he was hiding a transformer used to steal electricity. Render a service to justice cant be used here.