Saplagio, Quennie Jane N.

Provisions:
Article 328 - Special cases of malicious mischief. Any person who shall cause
damage to obstruct the performance of public functions, or using any poisonous or
corrosive substance; or spreading any infection or contagion among cattle; or who
cause damage to the property of the National Museum or National Library, or to any
archive or registry, waterworks, road, promenade, or any other thing used in common
by the public, shall be punished:
1. By prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the
damage caused exceeds 1,000 pesos;
2. By arresto mayor, if such value does not exceed the abovementioned amount but it is
over 200 pesos; and
3. By arresto menor, in such value does not exceed 200 pesos.
Elements:
Malicious Mischief is qualified by:
1. Causing Damage to obstruct the performance of public functions; (there must be
an intent to obstruct the performance of public functions)
2. Using any poisonous or corrosive substance;
3. Spreading any infection or contagion among cattle; or
4. Causing damage to the property of the National Museum or National Library, or
to any archive or registry, waterworks, road, promenade, or any other thing used
in common by the public
Notes:
1. Mischief mentioned in the first clause (No.1) is different from sedition (Art. 139),
in that element of public and tumultuous uprising is not present.
2. The 2 offenses are, however, similar in that there is present in the commission of
the offense, the intent to obstruct the performance of public functions.
Article 329. Other mischiefs. The mischiefs not included in the next preceding
article shall be punished:
1. By arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods, if the value of the damage
caused exceeds 1,000 pesos;
2. By arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if such value is over 200 pesos
but does not exceed 1,000 pesos; and
3. By arresto menor or fine of not less than the value of the damage caused and not
more than 200 pesos, if the amount involved does not exceed 200 pesos or cannot be
estimated.
Saplagio, Quennie Jane N.

Other Mischief (not included in Article 328 are punished according to the value of
the damage caused)
1. Damages exceeds 1,000 pesos- Arresto Mayor Med-Max
2. Over 200-1,000 pesos- Arresto Mayor Min- Med
3. Not more than 200 pesos or cannot be estimated-Arresto Menor or a fine of
not less than the damage caused and not more than 200 pesos.

Article 330. Damage and obstruction to means of communication. The penalty

of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon any
person who shall damage any railway, telegraph or telephone lines.
If the damage shall result in any derailment of cars, collision or other accident, the
penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed, without prejudice to the criminal liability of
the offender for the other consequences of his criminal act.chanrobles virtual law library
For the purpose of the provisions of the article, the electric wires, traction cables, signal
system and other things pertaining to railways, shall be deemed to constitute an integral
part of a railway system.
Elements:
1. Committed by damaging any railway, telegraph or telephone lines (pertaining to
railways, and only with intent to cause damage)
2. Qualified: if the damage shall result in any derailment of cars, collision, or other
accident
Person Liable:
1. Any person who shall damage any railway, telegraph or telephone lines.
2. The offense is qualified if the damage shall result in the derailment of cars,
collision or other accident. Art. 330 does not apply when the telegraph or
telephone do not pertain to railways.

Article 331. Destroying or damaging statues, public monuments or paintings.

Any person who shall destroy or damage statues or any other useful or ornamental
public monument shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to
prision correccional in its minimum period.
Saplagio, Quennie Jane N.

Any person who shall destroy or damage any useful or ornamental painting of a public
nature shall suffer the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or
both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.
Chapter Ten
EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY IN CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY

Article 332. Persons exempt from criminal liability. No criminal, but only civil
liability shall result from the commission of the crime of theft, swindling or malicious
mischief committed or caused mutually by the following persons:
1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line.
2. The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the deceased
spouse before the same shall have passed into the possession of another; and
3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together.
The exemption established by this article shall not be applicable to strangers
participating in the commission of the crime.
Elements:
Crimes Involved:
1. Theft
2. Swindling
3. Malicious Mischief

Persons Exempted:
1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity on the same line.
2. The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the
deceased spouse before the same shall have passed to the possession of
another.
3. Brothers and sisters and brothers in law and sisters in law, if living together.
4. Stepfather, adopted father, natural children, concubine, paramour included
5. Also applies to common-law spouses.
Saplagio, Quennie Jane N.

Cases:
G.R. No. 190834, November 26, 2014
ARIEL T. LIM, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent
Ponente: Peralta, J:

Petitioner issued Bank of Commerce Check Nos. 0013813 and 0013814, dated
June 30, 1998 and July 15, 1998, respectively, payable to CASH, in the amount of
P100, 000.00 for each check. He gave the checks to Mr. Willie Castor (Castor) as his
campaign donation to the latter's candidacy in the elections of 1998. It was Castor who
ordered the delivery of printing materials and used petitioner's checks to pay for the
same. Claiming that the printing materials were delivered too late, Castor instructed
petitioner to issue a "Stop Payment" order for the two checks. Thus, the checks were
dishonored by the bank because of said order and during trial, when the bank officer
was presented on the witness stand; he admitted that said checks were drawn against
insufficient funds (DAIF). Private complainant Magna B. Badiee sent two demand letters
to petitioner, dated July 20, 1998 and July 23, 1998 and, subsequently, private
complainant filed a complaint against petitioner before the Office of the Prosecutor.
After the lapse of more than one month from receipt of the demand letters, and after
receiving the subpoena from the Office of the Prosecutor, petitioner issued a
replacement check dated September 8, 1998 in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P200,000.00). Private complainant Magna B. Badiee was able to encash said
replacement check.
On September 12, 2006, the MeTC promulgated its Decision finding petitioner guilty of
two (2) counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22. The RTC modifies the MeTC decision with
respect to criminal case no. 327138 (07-249931), because the lower court of Manila has
no jurisdiction to try and decide cases where the essential ingredients of the crime
charged happened in Quezon City. The decision of the lower court with respect to
criminal case no. 327138 (07-249931) is ordered vacated and set aside for lack of
jurisdiction.
The CA promulgated its Decision affirming in toto the RTC judgment. Petitioner's motion
for reconsideration thereof was denied per Resolution dated January 4, 2010.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime
under B. P. Blg.22.
HELD: The court acquitted the accused. The check was issued by petitioner merely as
a campaign contribution to Castor's candidacy. As found by the trial court, it was Castor
who instructed petitioner to issue a "Stop Payment" order for the two checks because
the campaign materials, for which the checks were used as payment, were not
delivered on time. Petitioner relied on Castor's word and complied with his instructions,
as it was Castor who was supposed to take delivery of said materials. Verily, it is easy
to see how petitioner made the mistake of readily complying with the instruction to stop
payment since he believed Castor's word that there is no longer any valid reason to pay
Saplagio, Quennie Jane N.

complainant as delivery was not made as agreed upon. Nevertheless, two months after
receiving the demand letter from private complainant and just several days after
receiving the subpoena from the Office of the Prosecutor, accused issued a
replacement check which was successfully encashed by private complainant.
In the more recent case of Tan v. Philippine Commercial International Bank, the Court
enumerated the elements for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 being "
(1) The accused makes, draws or issues a check to apply to account or for value;
(2) The accused knows at the time of the issuance that he or she does not have
sufficient funds in, or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full
upon its presentment; and
(3) The check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds
or credit, or it would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer,
without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment." To facilitate proving the
second element, the law created a prima facie presumption of knowledge of
insufficiency of funds or credit, which is established when it is shown that the drawer of
the check was notified of its dishonor and, within five banking days thereafter, failed to
fully pay the amount of the check or make arrangements for its full payment. If the
check, however, is made good or the drawer pays the value of the check within the five-
day period, then the presumption is rebutted. Evidently, one of the essential elements of
the violation is no longer present and the drawer may no longer be indicted for B.P. Blg.
22. Said payment within the period prescribed by the law is a complete defense.
Furthermore, to avoid any confusion, the Court's ruling in this case should be well
differentiated from cases where the accused is charged with estafa under Article 315,
par. 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, where the fraud is perpetuated by postdating a
check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in
the bank, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the
check. In said case of estafa, damage and deceit are the essential elements of the
offense, and the check is merely the accused's tool in committing fraud. In such a case,
paying the value of the dishonored check will not free the accused from criminal liability.
It will merely satisfy the civil liability of the crime but not the criminal liability.
In fine, the Court holds that herein petitioner must be exonerated from the imposition of
penalties for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 as he had already paid the amount of the
dishonored checks six (6) months before the filing of Informations with the court. Such a
course of action is more in keeping with justice and equity.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated June 30, 2009, in CA-GR.
CR No. 31725, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Ariel T. Lim is
ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. 07-249932.
SO ORDERED.
Saplagio, Quennie Jane N.

DANTE BUEBOS and G.R. No. 163938

SARMELITO BUEBOS,
Petitioners,
- versus -
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent. March 28, 2008

Facts: Adelina B. Borbe was in her house at Hacienda San Miguel,

Tabaco, Albay watching over her sick child. She was lying down when she heard some
noise around the house. She got up and looked through the window and saw the four
accused, Rolando Buela, Sarmelito Buebos, Dante Buebos and Antonio Cornel, Jr.
congregating in front of her hut. When she went out, she saw the roof of her nipa hut
already on fire. She shouted for help. Instead of coming to her immediate succor, the
four fled. At some distance away, Olipiano Berjuela heard Adelina scream for
help. Olipiano was then drinking with Pepito Borbe to celebrate New Years
Eve. Olipiano immediately ran to the place and saw a number of people jumping over
the fence. When he focused his flashlight on them, he was able to identify Sarmelito
Buebos, Dante Buebos and Antonio Cornel, Jr. He also saw Rolando Buela running
away.
Issue: Whether or not the accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the
crime of Arson.
Held: The court ruled that the accused-appellant satisfied all the requisites of the Crime
of Arson. The following are the requisites for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient for
a conviction: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the
inferences are derived have been proven; and (c) the combination of all the
circumstances results in a moral certainty that the accused, to the exclusion of all
others, is the one who has committed the crime. Thus, to justify a conviction based on
circumstantial evidence, the combination of circumstances must be interwoven in such
a way as to leave no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused.
The facts from which the cited circumstances arose have been proved through positive
testimony. Evidently, these circumstances form an unbroken chain of events leading to
one fair conclusion the culpability of petitioners for the burning of the hut. The Court is
convinced that the circumstances, taken together, leave no doubt that petitioner
perpetrated the arson.
CATTLE RUSTLING LAW of 1974 (P.D. 533)
Cattle Rustling is defined as the taking away by means, method or scheme, without
the consent of the owner/raiser, of any large cattle whether or not for profit or gain, or
whether committed with or without violence against or intimidation of persons or force
upon things. It includes the killing of large cattle or taking it as meat or hide without the
consent of the owner/raiser.
Large cattle shall include the cow, carabao, horse, mule, ass, or other domesticated
member of the bovine family. Goats are not large cattle.
Presumption of Cattle Rustling Failure to exhibit the required documents by any
person having in his possession, control, or custody of large cattle, upon demand by
Saplagio, Quennie Jane N.

competent authorities shall be prima facie evidence that the large cattle in his
possession, control and custody are the fruits of the crime of cattle rustling.