Filipinos are known for being family-oriented and this dominant quality is probably one of the reasons a law that exempts family who commit theft, swindling and malicious mischief from criminal liability exists. While it is a dead give-away that Filipinos value their family more than anyone or anything else, can this law be a good reason to promote solidarity in spite of criminal liability of a loved one?
Under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code, "No criminal liability, 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."
However, there are still some exceptions to the rule. A family will not be criminally liable for the aforementioned crimes, but the person will still be subject to civil liability. A complex crime will also be treated as one and will be subject to a single criminal prosecution. The exception only applies to a complex crime and not a crime of simple estafa. As mentioned under Article 332 the law only applies to the felonies of theft, malicious mischief and swindling. However, if the crimes that are included in Article 332 are perpetrated with another crime such as estafa, extension will not be applied. A person still has a criminal liability regardless of his relationship to the offended party.
The provision’s coverage is only for estafa, simple theft and malicious mischief. This means complex crimes are not covered by such provisions. In one case involving an accused who did not only commit simple estafa but estafa through falsification of public document, the offense’s real nature was identified by the facts presented. As a result, the accused was not given the ability to avail himself of the absolutory cause that is only provided under the exempting law. The law still brings confusion when it comes to exception and if promoting solidarity and harmony is the only reason to deter the offended party from pursuing criminal charges, then it is no longer surprising this law has been considered strange and absurd.
