Acts of Lasciviousness

Art. 336.  Acts of lasciviousness.  — Any person who shall commit any act of lasciviousness upon other persons of either sex, under any of the circumstances mentioned in the preceding article, shall be punished by prision correccional.  

Elements:

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

2.  That the act of lasciviousness is committed against a person of either sex 

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

 a.  By using force or intimidation 

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

 c.  By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority 

 d.  When the offended party is under 12 years of age or is demented 

Examples

Embracing, kissing and holding girl’s breast is act of lasciviousness. 

•  Taking advantage of the fact that Paula, a young married woman, was alone in the house, the accused went to the house of said woman on the pretext of asking for a glass of water, stealthily approached her and, without giving her an opportunity to defend herself, embraced and kissed her and caught hold of her breasts. When Paula recovered from the shock, she defended herself in spite of the fact that the accused threatened to kill her with a dagger.  

•  When a man embraces and kisses a woman three times and intentionally fondled her breast at the same time in a theater where the lights were out and the people’s attention was naturally concentrated on the picture, he must be considered as having done so with a feeling of lasciviousness, a mental process of emotion that differs in intensity in different situations and different persons. Being a purely mental process discernible only by overt acts, no inflexible rule can be laid down as an accurate measure. 

•  Kissing and embracing a woman against her will are acts of lasciviousness when prompted by lust or lewd designs. 

Compelling a girl to dance naked before men is an act of lasciviousness

For her failure to pay her debt, the girl, after beating her with a stick, was compelled by the defendant to take off her clothes and dance before himself and may other persons. Held: there was a crime of acts of lasciviousness, even if the dominating motive is revenge, for her failure to pay a debt, for it cannot be believed that there was no admixture of lasciviousness in the thought and purpose of the defendant who could devise such method.

Lover's embrace and kisses, not acts of lasciviousness

•  Lover’s embrace and kisses are not acts of lasciviousness, there being no evidence that the lover was actuated by lustful design or purpose, or that his conduct was lewd or lascivious. 

Motive of lascivious acts 

Motive of lascivious acts is not important because the essence of lewdness is the very act itself. It is not a defense that appellant was motivated not by lewdness but by a desire to avenge the fact that her father committed a criminal attack on appellant's wife during the Japanese occupation. 

The act of lasciviousness must be committed under any of the circumstances mentioned in the definition of the crime of rape 

1.  By using force or intimidation; 

2.  When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; 

3.  By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; or 

4.  The offended party is under 12 years old or is demented.

•  It is not necessary that intimidation or physical force be irresistible, it being sufficient that some violence or moral compulsion amounting to intimidation, annuls or subdues the free exercise of the will of the offended party. 

In some cases, touching the breast of a woman is considered unjust vexation only. 

•  Accused, inside a Catholic church and after the service has begun, approached a girl from behind and forcibly embraced and kissed her on the left cheek and at the same time fondled her breast.  It was held that the accused was guilty only of unjust vexation. The CA said, “considering the religious atmosphere and the presence of many persons, the conduct of the accused cannot be considered lascivious. He performed the said acts either to spite the girl or to force her to accept him as a lover. (People v. Anonuevo) 

 •  The accused, in the store of the offended girl, kissed her in public view and touched her breast. The crime was unjust vexation because there were no lewd designs. It appeared that the accused had been wooing the girl, but she jilted him. 

 •  The presence or absence of the lewd designs is inferred from the nature of the acts themselves and the environmental circumstances.  

Acts of lasciviousness distinguished from unjust vexation 

•  When the accused merely kissed and embraced the complainant, either out of passion or other motive, touching the girl’s breast as a mere incident to embrace, is unjust vexation. 

 •  But when the accused not only kissed and embraced the complainant, but fondled her breast with the particular design to independently derive vicarious pleasure therefrom, the element of lewd design exists. 

 •  Where the accused touched three times the private parts of the offended woman over her panties, without employing any force or intimidation, he is guilty of unjust vexation, because it might have been committed merely to satisfy a “silly whim.” 

    

•  But the act of the accused in forcibly placing his hand between the legs of a 12-year old girl, or without force if she be under that age, constitutes the crime of acts of lasciviousness. 

Distinguished from grave coercion 

•  Where an old woman was taken from her house against her will, slapped and maltreated, her drawers taken off and her hands and feet bound by the accused to compel her to admit that she stole clothes of certain persons. The crime was grave coercion. 

    

Abuses against chastity distinguished from offenses against chastity 

•  Abuses Against Chastity (Art. 246, RPC) 

-  is committed by public officer  

- mere immoral or indecent proposal made earnestly and persistently is sufficient 

•  Offenses Against Chastity 

- committed in most cases by a private individual 

- it is necessary that some actual acts of lasciviousness should have been executed by the offender. 

Distinguished from attempted rape 

Similarities:

1.  The manner of committing the crime is the same – by force or intimidation is employed, by means of fraudulent machinations or grave abuse of authority, or the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, under 12 years of age or is demented. 

2.  The offended party in both crimes is a person of either sex. 

3. The performance of acts of lasciviousness character is common to both crimes. 

Differences:

1. If the acts performed by the offender clearly indicate that his purpose was to lie with the offended woman, it is attempted or frustrated rape

2. In case of attempted rape, the lascivious acts are but the preparatory acts to the commission of rape; whereas, in the other, the lascivious acts are themselves the final objective sought by the offender.

It is not attempted rape, when there is no intent to have sexual intercourse. 

Circumstances indicating intention to lie with the offended party 

•  Slipping his trousers down and tearing the drawers of the girl, as well as kissing her and fondling her breasts, abundantly show an intention to have intercourse with her by force. 

•  The accused lifted the dress of the woman and placed himself on top of her. The woman awoke and screamed for help. But the accused persisted in his purpose, thereby indicating his intention to ravish her. 

Desistance in the commission of attempted rape may constitute acts of lasciviousness 

•  Desistance does not imply the absolute irresponsibility of the offender with respect to acts already committed. If the acts of lasciviousness were already committed, they are within the nature of the consummated crime of acts of lasciviousness, since actual damage was already done to a lawful right. 

No attempted or frustrated crime of acts of lasciviousness 

From the moment the offender performs all the elements necessary for the existence of the felony, he actually attains his purpose and, from that moment, all the essential elements of the offense have been accomplished. 

Art. 336 vs. Art. 339

Act of lasciviousness under Art. 336 is committed against a male or a female and under circumstances o rape, i.e., without consent.

Acts of lasciviousness with consent of the offended party under Art. 339 is committed against a female under circumstances of seduction.

Under R.A. No. 7610, it is child abuse. Where the child is under 12, the penalty is one degree higher. 

Sources: 

Leonor D. Boado, Notes and Cases on the Revised Penal Code, 2004 ed.

Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book II, 2001 ed. 

read more...

Simple Seduction

Art. 338.  Simple seduction.  — The seduction of a woman who is single or a widow of good reputation, over twelve but under eighteen years of age, committed by means of deceit, shall be punished by arresto mayor.          

Elements:

1.  That the offended party is over 12 and under 18

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

Example

•  The accused went to the house of his fiancée, her parents then being absent, and availing himself of that opportunity, with a renewal of his promise to make he his wife, he succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. Held: The accused is guilty of simple seduction. Deceit, the usual form of which being an unfulfilled promise of marriage, is an important element of the offense.

The offended girl must be over 12 and under 18

•  If she is under 12, the crime is rape, even if the offender succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her by means of deceit.

 •  If she is over 18, there is no force or intimidation or she is not unconscious or otherwise deprived of reason, there is no crime even if the accused has sexual intercourse with her. This is true even if deceit is employed by the accused.

Virginity of the offended party is not required

•  It is not essential in simple seduction that the woman seduced be a virgin, as all that is necessary is that she is of good reputation.

• But a woman who had illicit relations with a number of men prior to accused’s sexual intercourse with her, is not of good reputation.

There must be sexual intercourse

•  If there is no sexual intercourse and only acts of lewdness are performed, the crime is acts of lasciviousness.

Deceit generally takes the form of unfulfilled promise of marriage and this promise need not immediately precede the carnal act.

•  Promise of marriage must be the inducement and the woman must yield because of the promise or other inducement. If she consents merely from carnal lust, and the intercourse is from mutual desire, there is no seduction.

May the man who is willing and ready to marry the girl seduced by him be held liable for simple seduction?

•  It is believed that he is liable. Because his willingness to marry her may still amount to deceit, not by itself but by attending circumstances vitiating such willingness, as when the man knows that the girl cannot legally consent to the marriage, and yet he makes a promise to marry her. The consent of the parents cannot be taken for granted, as in majority of case, parents would not consent to the marriage of their young daughter.

Deceit consisting in unfulfilled promise of material things

•  If a woman, under 18 but over 12, agrees to sexual intercourse with a man who promised to give her precious jewelry, and the man never fulfills it, there is no seduction because she proves to be a woman of loose morals. She is a high-class prostitute.

Promise of marriage by a married man, whom the woman knew to be married, is not deceit because it is clear that there was no reliance on the promise.

Promise of marriage after sexual intercourse or after a woman has yielded her body to the man’s illicit embraces, does not constitute deceit.

No continuing offense of seduction.

Purpose of the law in punishing simple seduction

•  Not to punish illicit intercourse but to punish the seducer who by means of promise of marriage, destroys the chastity of an unmarried female of previous chaste character, and who thus draws her aside from the path of virtue and rectitude and then fails and refuses to fulfill his promise, a character despicable in the eyes of every decent, honorable man.

Simple seduction vs. qualified seduction

1. Offended Party

SS - woman is single or a widow of good reputation

QS - woman is a virgin (morally)

2. Offender

SS - offender may be any person

QS - offender is any person in public authority, priest, house servant, domestic, guardian, teacher or any person entrusted with the education or custody of the woman seduced

3. Age of offended party

SS - the victim is always over 12 but under 18

QS - the victim may be over 18 when the offender is the brother or ascendant 

• Only the crime of rape and seduction carry the element of sexual intercourse (other than adultery and concubinage). In forcible abduction, when sexual intercourse occurs, the crime is Forcible Abduction with Rape (complex crime under Article 48) because forcible abduction does not involve sexual intercourse as an element. 

Sources: 

Leonor D. Boado, Notes and Cases on the Revised Penal Code, 2004 ed.

Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book II, 2001 ed. 

read more...

Acts of Lasciviousness with the Consent of the Offended Party

Art. 339.  Acts of lasciviousness with the consent of the offended party. — The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed to punish any other acts of lasciviousness committed by the same persons and the same circumstances as those provided in Articles 337 and 338.  

Elements

1.  That the offender commits acts of lasciviousness or lewdness

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

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

Offended party

•  Male cannot be the offended party in this crime because unlike Article 336, Article 339 does not mention “persons of wither sex” as the offended party.

“Committed by the same persons and under the same circumstances as those provided in Articles 337 and 338.”

•  In order that the crime of acts of lasciviousness with the consent of the offended party may be committed, it is necessary that the crime is committed under the circumstances which would make it qualified or simple seduction had there been sexual intercourse, instead of acts of lewdness only.

“With the consent of the offended party”

•  The offended woman may have consented to the acts of lasciviousness being performed by the offender on her person, but the consent is obtained by abuse of authority, confidence, relationship or by means of deceit.

Article 336 and 339, compared

•  Both treat of acts of lasciviousness.

•  Under Article 336, the acts are committed under circumstances which, had there been carnal knowledge, would amount to rape.

•  Under Article 339, the acts of lasciviousness are committed under the circumstances which had there been carnal knowledge, would amount to either qualified seduction or simple seduction. There may be consent, but there is either abuse of authority, confidence or relationship, or deceit.

Penalty when victim is under 12

•  One degree higher than that imposed by law when the victim is under 12 years of age (Sec. 10, RA No. 7610) 

read more...

White Slave Trade

Art. 341. White slave trade. — The penalty of prision mayor in its medium and maximum period shall be imposed upon any person who, in any manner, or under any pretext, shall engage in the business or shall profit by prostitution or shall enlist the services of any other for the purpose of prostitution (As amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 186.) 

  

Acts penalized as white slave trade

1.  Engaging in the business of prostitution

2.  Profiting by prostitution

3.  Enlisting the services of woman for the purpose of prostitution

One of the above-mentioned acts is sufficient to constitute the offense

• Even if there is no proof that he enlisted the services of women for the purpose of prostitution, he would still be criminally liable if he shared in the income of the prostitutes.

• Habituality not a necessary element of white slave trade. It is sufficient that the accused has committed any of the acts enumerated in Article 341 of the RPC.

Offender need not be the owner of the house

• Person responsible under Article 341 is the person who maintains or engages in the business. It is not a defense that he is only the manager or the man in charge of the house with a fixed salary.

Maintainer or manager of house of ill-repute need not be present therein at the time of raid or arrest or while illicit traffic is being conducted.

“Under any pretext”

• One who engaged the services of a woman ostensible as a maid but in reality for purposes of prostitution and who in fact dedicated her to such immoral purposes for profit, is guilty of white slave trade.

Penalty when victim is less than 12

• One degree higher than that imposed by law when the victim is under 12 years of age (Sec. 10, RA No. 7610)

read more...

Forcible Abduction

Art. 342.  Forcible abduction.  — The abduction of any woman against her will and with lewd designs shall be punished by reclusion temporal.  The same penalty shall be imposed in every case, if the female abducted be under twelve years of age.

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.

Any woman

•  The woman abducted may be married since Article 342 mentions “any woman” as the victim of the crime.

•  The virginity of the woman is not an essential element of the crime of forcible abduction.

Crimes against chastity where age and reputation of victim are IMMATERIAL:

1.  Rape

2.  Acts of lasciviousness against the will or without the consent of the offended party

3.  Qualified seduction of sister or descendant

4.  Forcible abduction

Against her will


• The taking away of the woman must be against her will, when force or intimidation is used by the offender.

• The taking away of the woman may be accomplished by means of deceit first and then by means of violence

• Thus, when the defendant, who has served as intermediary between the lovers, told the woman that her lover was awaiting her at a spot near the growth of sugar cane for the purpose of joining her and eloping with her which was NOT true, and upon arriving at the place, defendant caught her by the hand and gave her a slap, and dragged her into the midst of sugar cane growing , where, threatening her with a dagger he succeeded in lying with her. (US v. De Vivar)

• NOTE: Defendant should have been prosecuted and punished for the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape.

Crime is forcible abduction if female abducted is under 12


• If the female abducted is under 12, the crime is always forcible abduction with or without the consent of the child.  The reason for this, is that she has no will of her own, therefore, is incapable of giving consent. The law presumes that the abduction is against her will. 

Lewd design

• Sexual intercourse is not necessary in forcible abduction. The intent to seduce being sufficient.

• Lewd designs may be shown by the conduct of the accused

• Lewd designs present in hurried ceremony of marriage by force

• Where the ceremony of the marriage is merely an artifice by which the accused sought to escape the criminal consequences of his acts, the intention to contract marriage constitutes lewd designs, as where the offender knows that the girl cannot give consent legally to the marriage because of minority.

• Intention to marry does not constitute unchaste designs when both defendant and the woman have the required age for consenting to the marriage

• NOTE: The offended party in People v. Crisostomo, was 30 years of age. The intention to marry on the part of the accused was not considred as constitutive of unchaste design.

• When there are several defendants, it is enough that one of them had lewd designs, as long as the same was known to the others who cooperated in the commission of the felony.

• Husband not liable for abduction of his wife, as the element of unchaste or lewd design is wanting. 

Nature of the crime of forcible abduction

• The act of the offender is violative of the individual liberty of the abducted, her honor and reputation, and of public order.

Forcible abduction vs. grave coercion

• In both crimes, there is violence or intimidation used by the offender and the offended party is compelled to do something against her will.

• When there is no lewd design, it is coercion, provided that there is no deprivation of liberty for appreciable length of time.

Forcible abduction distinguished from corruption of minors

• Where a 13-year old girl was abducted by the accused without lewd designs on his part, but for the purpose of lending her to illicit intercourse with others, the crime committed by the accused was held to be not abduction but corruption of minors.

When there is deprivation of liberty and no lewd designs, it is kidnapping and serious illegal detention.

Forcible abduction with rape 

• A, B, C and others grabbed a girl, 15 years of age and then dragged her to a nearby forest. There, she was brutally ravished, first by A and afterwards by B.

Held: The crime is not kidnapping with rape, but forcible abduction with rape. When the violent taking of a woman is motivated by lewd designs, forcible abduction is the offense. When it is not so motivated, such taking constitutes kidnapping. One is offense against chastity, the other against personal liberty.


• Only when the rape is consummated can the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape be committed. There is no complex crime of forcible abduction with acts of lasciviousness because the latter is an element thereof; in that case, the crime is Forcible Abduction only as the acts of lasciviousness is an outward manifestation of the lewd designs.


Forcible Abduction with Rape is complex crime if the taking of the woman amounts to forcible abduction and thereafter she was abused.  In People vs. Bacalso and People vs. Jose, only one of the several rapes was complexed with Forcible Abduction. The other rapes were charged separately as one count each. 


In contrast, Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention with Rape is NOT a complex crime. When the taking of the woman amounts to Kidnapping and thereafter raped, the rape is a qualifying circumstance.


When there is conspiracy, each co-conspirator will be responsible for his own and for other's rape.

There is no complex crime of forcible abduction with attempted rape

•  The attempt to rape is absorbed by the abduction, being the element of lewd designs of the latter.

Forcible abduction only, or rape only

• Abduction but the resistance of the woman to the alleged rape was not tenacious, the accused would be guilty only of abduction

When will abduction be absorbed in the crime of rape?

• Rape may absorb forcible abduction if the main objective was to rape the victim. Here, the offender held the victim by the arm, pushed her inside a waiting tricycle, and brought her to his house, where she was padlocked in a room to prevent her from escaping; the subsequent rapes committed on the victim who was released only the tenth day of her abduction were ruled to constitute only as many counts of rape (People vs. Shariff Ali El Akhtar, June 1999)

Attempted forcible abduction

• The accused, who previously made an attempt upon the chastity of the offended girl, tried to take away in a carriage, while she was standing at the door of her house. The accused did not succeed in taking her because of the girl’s resistance and intervention of policeman. 

Held: The offense was attempted abduction. The lewd designs were indicated by the holding of the girl around her waist and by the attempt of the accused upon he chastity of the girl on previous night.

Forcible abduction vs. acts of lasciviousness

•  To prove lewd designs in forcible abduction, actual illicit relations with the woman abducted need not be shown. Intent to seduce is sufficient.

• In the crime of acts of lasciviousness, the lecherous acts must have actually been committed. 

• In the crime of abduction, the person abducted must be a woman, while in the crime of acts of lasciviousness, the lustful acts may be committed upon persons of either sex.

• One of these two crimes involves some important act which is not an essential element of the other, so that the conviction of one of them is not obstacle to that of the other.


Conviction of acts of lasciviousness, not a bar to a conviction of forcible abduction


Can there be consented abduction with simple seduction?

• If the original intent was to induce the woman to sexual intercourse, the crime is simple seduction only. There must be a considerable interval between the consented abduction and seduction. Otherwise, the crime is simple seduction only.


If the original purpose is to take the woman with lewd designs, and the lewd designs led to sexual intercourse, the crime is only simple seduction, the taking is absorbed in simple seduction. But if after a considerable length of time after the consented abduction had been consummated and thereafter sexual intercourse was had with the woman, the crime is consented abduction with simple seduction may be committed. 

Consented abduction vs. seduction

• In consented abduction, the gravamen is the alarm and disturbance to the parents and the family of the victim and the infringement of their rights. In seduction, the gravamen is the wrong done to the woman. 

Sources: 

Leonor D. Boado, Notes and Cases on the Revised Penal Code, 2004 ed.

Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book II, 2001 ed. 

read more...

Consented Abduction

Art. 343.  Consented abduction.  — The abduction of a virgin over twelve years and under eighteen years of age, carried out with her consent and with lewd designs, shall be punished by the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.

Elements

1.  That the offended party must be a virgin.

2.  That she must be over 12 but under 18.

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.

Forcible abduction if under 12 years old

• If virgin is under 12, it is forcible abduction

• The taking away of the girl in consented abduction need not be with some character of permanence. 

• “No matter how short is the taking away, the crime exists.”

• The abductor need not actually and personally have taken the abducted female from her parent’s home, or induced her to abandon it. It is sufficient that he was instrumental in her escape.

• Consent of the minor to being taken away may be due to honeyed promises of marriage by the offender.

• When there was no solicitation or cajolery and no deceit and the girl voluntarily went with the man, there is no crime committed even if they had sexual intercourse

• Article 343 of the RPC contemplates that the accused be an active physical agency instrumental in causing the female to leave or abandon her house. Where the female voluntarily leaves her home and subsequently is taken by the accused to a particular place for a prohibited purpose, of where the female on her own volition goes to the home of the accused, who may be under moral duty to send her away, he does not come within the prescription of the law by permitting her to stay.

• The taking away must be with lewd designs

• Actual sexual intercourse with the abducted girl is not necessary.

• The intention to marry may show lewd designs as when the offender knows of should know that the minor cannot legally consent to the marriage.

Purpose of the law in punishing the crime of consented abduction

• To prescribe punishment for the disgrace to her family and the alarm caused therein by the disappearance of the one who is, by her age and sex, susceptible to cajolery and deceit.

Consented abduction with rape

Where a 15 year old girl was induced to leave her home and later forcibly violated by the four accused (People vs. Amante, 49 Phil 679)

read more...

Bobby Carriaga vs. Mun. Judge Romeo L. Anasario

Facts:

Bobby Carriaga is the complainant in criminal cases for estafa, less serious physical injuries and grave threats against jail guards Antonio Redula and Arsenio Tuanda pending before the sala of Municipal Judge Romeo Anasario. 

Bobby filed an administrative complaint against Judge Anasario for gross ignorance of the law and partiality. He alleged that Judge Anasario is biased in favor of the defendants considering that he admitted defendants' affidavits even if they were filed 120 days late. He filed a motion for inhibition but it was denied, prompting him to file the instant administrative complaint. 

In his manifestation, Judge Anasario stated that the requirement that the accused shall file a counter-affidavit in ten (10) days time is merely directory, not mandatory.” He stressed that he considered “what is substantial justice rather than mere technicalities” in admitting the counter-affidavits belatedly filed. He also maintained that there is no rule that late counter-affidavits should be expunged from the records.

Issue: 

Whether or not the requirement that the accused shall file a counter-affidavit in 10 days is mandatory.

Held:

The Revised Rule on Summary Procedure was promulgated specifically to achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases. In allowing the submission of the accused’s counter-affidavits after 130 days from notice, respondent judge violated the Rule.  He should have observed that Section 12(b) of the Rule provides that the court shall issue an order “which shall require the accused to submit his counter-affidavit and the affidavits of his witnesses” x x x “not later than ten (10) days from receipt of said order.”  Section 19(e) of the same Rule also provides that a motion for extension to file affidavits is prohibited.  Clearly, these provisions are mandatory.

When the law or rule is clear, there is no room for interpretation and judges have no option but to obey.

Issue:

Whether or not Judge Anasario is administratively liable

Held:

We thus find that respondent judge is administratively liable for violation of the Supreme Court Rules, specifically the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.

As to the charge of partiality, we find the same to be without merit. That he admitted accused’s counter-affidavits is not a sufficient basis to conclude that he is biased.  Mere suspicion of partiality is not enough. There should be clear and convincing evidence to prove the charge.

Judge Anasario was declared guilty of violation of Supreme Court Rules and was FINED in the sum of P11,000.00. (Bobby Carriaga vs. Mun. Judge Romeo L. Anasario, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1403, February 3, 2003)

read more...