1

Jovie D. Dacoycoy March 4, 2013

BS Criminology III Criminal Law II


1. Pedro, the 14-year-old son of Juan was caught rubbing a 25 centavo coin against the
asphalt, in order to be used as a gambling tool for cara y cruz. What is/are the
crime/crimes is Pedro guilty of? Why or why not?
Answer:
Pedro committed mutilation of coins under Article 164 of the Revised Penal
Code. Such article punishes mutilating coins of the legal currency, with the further
requirement that there be intent to damage or to defraud another. The act of rubbing a
coin against the asphalt, in order to be used as a gambling tool for cara y cruz indicates
that there is an intent to damage the coin and to defraud another because it will be used
as a gambling tool for cara y cruz. According to Article 165, mutilation means to take
off part of the metal either by filing it or substituting it for another metal of inferior
quality. Moreover, the process of mutilating the coin is equivalent to diminishing the
physical component of the coin.
Furthermore, Pedro also violated Presidential Decree No. 1602 which punishes
any person who, in any manner, shall directly or indirectly take part in any illegal or
unauthorized activities or games such as cara y cruz, pompiang and the like.
However, according to Section 58, Republic Act No. 9344 otherwise known as the
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, states that, persons below eighteen (18)
years of age shall be exempt from prosecution for crime of gambling being inconsistent
with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Provided, that said
persons shall undergo appropriate counseling and treatment program. Therefore, Pedro
is exempt from his criminal liability.

2. Angelito, a Singaporean, went to Hongkong. In Hongkong, he produced a fake 1,000
peso bill of the Republic of the Philippines.
a. Can Angelito be prosecuted in the Philippines?
b. What is/are the crime/crimes is Angelito guilty of?
Answer:
Angelito can be prosecuted in the Philippines. He committed the forging
treasury or bank notes or other documents payable to bearer; importing, and uttering
such false or forged notes and documents under Article 166 of the Revised Penal Code.
The importation of false or forged obligations or noted means to bring them into the
Philippines, which presupposes that the obligations or notes are forged or falsified in a
foreign country. The code punishes forging or falsification of bank notes and of
documents of credit payable to bearer and issued by the State more severely because it
tends to bring such documents into discredit and the offense produces a lack of
confidence on the part of the holders of said documents to the prejudice of the interests
of society and of the State.
The reason for punishing Angelito, even though he is a foreigner a
Singaporean, is so as to maintain the integrity of the currency and thus insure the credit
standing of the government and prevent the imposition on the public and the
government of worthless notes or obligations.
Furthermore, according to Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the
provisions of said code shall be enforced within the Philippines Archipelago, including
its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone. However, the same Article 2 of


2
the Revised Penal Code provides that its provisions shall be enforced outside of the
jurisdiction of the Philippines against those who should forge or counterfeit any coin or
currency note of the Philippines or obligation and securities issued by the Government
of the Philippines. Thus, any person who makes false or counterfeit coins (Art. 163) or
forges treasury or bank notes or other obligations and securities (Art. 166) in a foreign
country may be prosecuted before our civil courts for violation of Art 163 or Art 166 of
the Revised Penal Code.

3. Gayot is a barangay tanod in the very very far barangay of Masaging, Naujan.
During his duty in guarding the barangay hall, he chance upon several barangay
resolution. Gayot, being angry with the Barangay Captain Aguba, alter several of
such resolution.
a. What is/are the crime/crimes, if any, is Gayot guilty of? Why or why not?
Answer:
Gayot committed falsification by private individuals and use of falsified
documents under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code. Gayot, being a public officer
barangay tanod, who does not take advantage of his official position, altered a genuine
document which changes its meaning. He did not took advantage of his official position
as a barangay tanod in falsifying a document because he has no duty to make or to
prepare or otherwise to intervene in the preparation of the document and he has no
official custody of the document which he falsifies. Even if the offender was a public
officer but if he did not take advantage of his official position, he would be guilty of
falsification of a document by a private person under Article 172.
Furthermore, the document that Gayot falsified was a public or official
document. To sum it all up, all of the elements under Article 172 are present so
therefore Gayot is guilty under this crime.
Additionally, he also committed usurpation of authority or official function
under Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code. Usurpation of authority or official function
can be committed by performing an act pertaining to any person in authority or public
officer of the Republic of the Philippines or of a foreign government or any agency
thereof, under pretense of official position, and without being lawfully entitled to do so.
In usurpation of official function, it is essential that the offender should have performed
an act pertaining to a person in authority or public officer, in addition to other
requirements.

4. Erick John Rae Laygo, in order to solicit money from barrios, individuals and groups
and having a lawful employment as a construction worker, post as a beggar on
Saturdays and Sundays.
a. Is he qualified to be a vagrant? Why or why not?
b. Can he also be charge of another crime if any?
Answer:
He is definitely not qualified as a vagrant because he has a lawful employment
which gives him source of income to support his daily living. However, his act posting
as a beggar implies that he neglects his occupation and made me realize that he is
possibly guilty of mendicancy under P.D. No. 1563. Under the Mendicancy Law of 1978,
one who has no visible and legal means of support, or lawful employment and who is
physically able to work but neglects to apply himself to some lawful calling and instead
uses begging as a means of living, is a mendicant and, upon conviction, shall be
punished by a fine not exceeding P500.00 or by imprisonment for a period not


3
exceeding 2 years or both at the discretion of the court. Considering the circumstances
that Erick has a lawful employment as a construction worker, but still he neglects to
commit permanently to that occupation and rather post as a beggar in order to solicit
from the barrios, individuals and groups. He is not considered as a vagrant because he
has a source of income that is a visible means of support but rather he is a mendicant
who uses begging as a means of living.

5. Libre is an insurgent of the Royal Army of Sulu. However, he post and made others
believe that he is a Colonel by wearing the uniform and insignia of the Royal Army
of Sulu. Can he be charge guilty under Article 179 of the Revised Penal Code? Why
or why not?
Answer:
Libre can be charge guilty of the crime illegal use of uniform or insignia under
Article 179 of the Revised Penal Code. The three (3) elements of the crime under Article
179 are present. The offender makes use of insignia, uniform or dress, which pertains to
an office not held by the offender or to a class of persons of which he is not a member,
and it is used publicly and improperly.
It has been clearly stated above that the offender, Libre made used of the
insignia, uniform or dress that pertains to an office not held by him, which means he is
not a member. Libre, being an insurgent or a rebellious or revolutionary of the Royal
Army of Sulu implies undoubtedly that he is not a member of such organization.
Moreover, he used it publicly. Even though it is not stated above that he also used the
said uniform or insignia improperly, he, therefore, cannot wear it properly because he is
not a member.

6. Give three (3) acts which can be considered as a grave scandal according to the
Philippine Supreme Court.
a. People vs. Dumlao, et al., C.A., 38 O.G. 3715 this case is a public scandal
among the persons witnessing them, besides being contrary to morals and
good customs.
b. U.S. vs. Samaniego, 16 Phil. 663 the acts complained was committed in a
public place or within the public knowledge or view.

7. The Vagina Monologue