Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Red Notes Criminal Law
Red Notes Criminal Law
CRIMINAL LAW
T $ t$n s8$4i%i4 $in"us 4&i!$s -&$+ Treason .ualified $iracy .ualified /ribery $arricide 1urder 3idnapping and 4erious llegal 5etention #obbery with (omicide 5estructive Arson #ape committed by two or more persons, or with a deadly weapon or with homicide $lunder
(;) W -t -&$ t $ inst-n4$s < $n t $ .$-t 8$n-3t/ 4"u3. n"t 0$ i!8"s$.1 -3t "ug it s "u3. "t $&<is$ 0$ !$t$. "ut2 (1((9* 1((5) ANSWER+ 9nder Art. !6 of the #$%, the death penalty shall not be imposed when: &. The guilty person is below &7 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime, or -. s more than 68 years of age, or 3. *hen upon appeal of the case by the 4%, the required ma+ority vote is not obtained for the imposition of the death penalty. ()) W $n is t $ 0$n$%it "% t $ In.$t$&!in-t$ S$nt$n4$ L-< n"t -883i4-03$2 (1(((* ,::6) ANSWER+ The ndeterminate 4entence ;aw does not apply to: &. $ersons convicted of offenses punishable with death penalty or life imprisonment< -. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason< '. Those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage< !. Those convicted of piracy< 0. Those who are habitual delinquents< 2. Those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence< 6. Those who violated the terms of conditional pardon granted to them by the %hief =xecutive< 7. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year< ". Those who, upon the approval of the law (5ecember 0, &"''), had been sentenced by final +udgment< 10. Those sentenced to the penalty of &estierro or suspension.
(9)
W -t is -n i!8"ssi03$ 4&i!$2 (1((6* ,::6) ANSWER+ t is an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment, or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. (Art ', par (% /ut where the acts performed which would have resulted in an impossible crime also &) constitute an offense under the #$%, or (-) would sub+ect the accused to criminal liability although of a different category, the penalty to be imposed should be that for the latter and not that for an impossible crime.
9,
L-<
CRIMINAL LAW
(5) Distinguis instig-ti"n %&"! $nt&-8!$nt' (1((:* 1((;* ,::6) ANSWER+ Insti)ation takes place when a peace officer induces a person to commit a crime. *ithout the inducement, the crime would not be committed. (ence, it is exempting by reason of public policy. )therwise, the peace officer would be a co>principal. )n the other hand, entrapment signifies the ways and means devised by a peace officer to entrap or apprehend a person who has committed a crime. *ith or without the entrapment, the crime has been committed already. (ence, entrapment is not mitigating. (() W -t is t $ 8u&8"s$ "% t $ =&"0-ti"n L-<2 (1(5)* 1(5() ANSWER+ The purposes of the $robation ;aw are: a. To promote the correction and rehabilitation of an offender by providing him with individuali,ed treatment< b. To provide an opportunity for the reformation of a penitent offender which might be less probable if he were to serve a prison sentence< and c. To prevent the commission of offenses. (1:) W -t is t $ ."4t&in$ "% i!83i$. 4"ns8i&-4/2 (1((5* ,::6) ANSWER+ The doctrine of implied conspiracy holds two or more persons participating in the commission of a crime collectively responsible and liable as co>conspirators although absent any agreement to that effect, when they act in concert, demonstrating unity of criminal intent and a common purpose or ob+ective. The existence of a conspiracy shall be inferred or deduced from their criminal participation in pursuing the crime and thus the act of one shall be the act of all. (11) A&$ &$43usi"n 8$&8$tu- -n. 3i%$ i!8&is"n!$nt t $ s-!$2 C-n t $/ 0$ i!8"s$. int$&4 -ng$-03/2 (1((1* 1((7* ,::1) ANSWER+ ?). Reclusion perpetua is a penalty prescribed by the #$%, with a fixed duration of imprisonment from -8 years and & day to !8 years, and carries with it accessory penalties. Li*e imprisonment, on the other hand, is a penalty prescribed by special laws, with no fixed duration of imprisonment and without any accessory penalty.
(1,) W -t is - !$!"&-n.u! 4 $4>2 Is - 8$&s"n < " issu$s - !$!"&-n.u! 4 $4> <it "ut su%%i4i$nt %un.s gui3t/ "% #i"3-ting B'= B3g' ,,2 (1((7*1((;) ANSWER+ A memorandum check is an ordinary check with the word @1emorandum,A @1emo,A or @1emA written across the check, signifying that the maker or drawer engages to pay its holder absolutely, thus partaking the nature of a promissory note. t is drawn on a bank and is a bill of exchange within the purview of 4ec. &70 of the ?egotiable nstruments ;aw. A person who issued a memorandum check without sufficient funds is guilty of violating /.$ /lg. -- as said law covers all checks whether it is an evidence of indebtedness, or in payment of a pre>existing obligation, or as deposit or guarantee.
9,
L-<
CRIMINAL LAW
A. B=4, A1 can be prosecuted for murder despite the lapse of -0 years, because the crime has not yet prescribed and legally, its prescriptive period has not even commenced to run. The period of prescription of a crime shall commence to run only from the day on which the crime has been discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents. )*, a private person who saw the killing but never disclosed it, is not the offended party nor has the crime been discovered by the authorities or their agents. (Revise& Penal Co&e, Art $.% /. ?), T#BCs contention is incorrect because the pardon granted by the $resident does not expressly extinguish the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification to hold public office. A pardon granted by the $resident shall not work the restoration of the right to hold public office, or the right of suffrage, unless such right is expressly restored by the terms of the pardon. (Revise& Penal Co&e, Art 0"% QUESTION V A' T $ .$-t 8$n-3t/ 4-nn"t 0$ in%3i4t$. un.$& < i4 "% t $ %"33"<ing 4i&4u!st-n4$s+ 1' W $n t $ gui3t/ 8$&s"n is -t 3$-st 15 /$-&s "% -g$ -t t $ ti!$ "% t $ 4"!!issi"n "% t $ 4&i!$' ,' W $n t $ gui3t/ 8$&s"n is !"&$ t -n 9: /$-&s "% -g$' 6' W $n1 u8"n -88$-3 t" "& -ut"!-ti4 &$#i$< 0/ t $ Su8&$!$ C"u&t1 t $ &$Fui&$. !-E"&it/ %"& t $ i!8"siti"n "% .$-t 8$n-3t/ is n"t "0t-in$.' 7' W $n t $ 8$&s"n is 4"n#i4t$. "% - 4-8it-3 4&i!$ 0ut 0$%"&$ $@$4uti"n 0$4"!$s ins-n$' ;' W $n t $ -44us$. is - <"!-n < i3$ s $ is 8&$gn-nt "& <it in "n$ /$-& -%t$& .$3i#$&/' E@83-in /"u& -ns<$& "& 4 "i4$ 0&i$%3/' B' CB= is 3$g-33/ !-&&i$. t" OBM' Wit "ut "0t-ining - !-&&i-g$ 3i4$ns$1 CB= 4"nt&-4t$. - s$4"n. !-&&i-g$ t" RST' Is CB= 3i-03$ %"& 0ig-!/2 R$-s"n 0&i$%3/' Sugg$st$. Ans<$&s+ A. 9nderstanding the word @inflictedA to mean the imposition of the death penalty, not its execution, the circumstance in which the penalty cannot be inflicted is no. -: @when the guilty is more than 68 years of ageA (Article !6, #evised $enal %ode). nstead, the penalty shall be commuted to reclusion perpetua, with the accessory penalties provided in Article !8, #$%. n circumstance no. & the guilty person is at least &7 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime, the death penalty can be imposed since the offender is already of legal age when he committed the crime. %ircumstance no. ' no longer operates, considering the decision of the 4upreme %ourt in $eople vs. =fren 1ateo (G.#. ?o. &!6267>76, Huly 6, -88!) providing an intermediate review by the %ourt of Appeals for such cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment before they are elevated to the 4upreme %ourt. *hile the Fundamental ;aw requires a mandatory review by the 4upreme %ourt of cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or death, nowhere, however, has it proscribed an intermediate review. A prior determination by the %ourt of Appeals on, particularly, the factual issues, would minimi,e the possibility of an error of +udgment. f the %ourt of Appeals should affirm the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, it could then render +udgment imposing the corresponding penalty as the circumstances so warrant, refrain from entering +udgment and elevate the entire records of the case to the 4upreme %ourt for its final disposition. n circumstances nos. ! and 0, the death penalty can be imposed if prescribed by the law violated although its execution shall be suspended when the convict becomes insane before it could be executed and while he is insane. ;ikewise, the death penalty can be imposed upon a woman but its execution shall be suspended during her pregnancy and for one year after her delivery. (UP La+ Center%
9,
L-<
CRIMINAL LAW
certificate and school records which show the date of birth of the victim, is shown to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable. (PE5PLE vs PRU4A, 9 R 4o .0,'!., 5ctober ./, (//(% Furthermore, if the offender is merely a relative, not a parent, ascendant, step>parent, or guardian or common>law spouse of the mother of the victim, the information must allege that he is a relative by consanguinity or affinity, as the case may be, Iwithin the third civil degree.I Thus, it is not enough for the information to merely allege that appellant is the IuncleI of the victim even if the prosecution is able to prove this matter during trial. t is still necessary to allege that such relationship was Iwithin the third civil degree,I so that in the absence of said allegation, appellant can only be held liable for simple rape and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. (PE5PLE vs HERE;ESE, 9 R 4o .'#'/!, September .., (//0% QUESTION VII A' AG <-s 4"n#i4t$. "% &$4>3$ss i!8&u.$n4$ &$su3ting in "!i4i.$' T $ t&i-3 4"u&t s$nt$n4$. i! t" - 8&is"n t$&! -s <$33 -s t" 8-/ =1;:1::: -s 4i#i3 in.$!nit/ -n. .-!-g$s' W i3$ is -88$-3 <-s 8$n.ing1 AG !$t - %-t-3 -44i.$nt' A$ 3$%t - /"ung <i."<1 , 4 i3.&$n -n. !i33i"nB8$s" $st-t$' W -t is t $ $%%$4t1 i% -n/1 "% is .$-t "n is 4&i!in-3 -s <$33 -s 4i#i3 3i-0i3it/2 E@83-in 0&i$%3/2 B' OG -n. YO <$&$ 0"t 4"u&ting t $i& 4"B$!83"/$$1 SUE' B$4-us$ "% t $i& 0itt$& &i#-3&/1 OD .$4i.$. t" g$t &i. "% YO 0/ 8"is"ning i!' OD 8"u&$. - su0st-n4$ int" YOCs 4"%%$$ t in>ing it <-s -&s$ni4' It tu&n$. "ut t -t t $ su0st-n4$ <-s < it$ sug-& su0stitut$ >n"<n -s EFu-3' N"t ing -88$n$. t" YO -%t$& $ .&-n> t $ 4"%%$$' W -t 4&i!in-3 3i-0i3it/ .i. OD in4u&1 i% -n/2 E@83-in 0&i$%3/' Sugg$st$. Ans<$&s+ A. The death of the accused pending the appeal of his conviction will extinguish his criminal liability as well as his civil liability arising from the crime committed. (owever civil liability arising from sources other than the crime committed survives and maybe pursued in a separate civil action. 4ources of civil liability other than crime are law, contracts, quasi>contracts and quasi>delicts. (PE5PLE vs 7A<56AS, 9 R 45 .#(//!, September (, .$$'%
/. )E incurred criminal liability for impossible crime. The crime committed by )E could have been murder, which is a crime against persons, if it were not on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. The substance poured by )E on B)Cs drink was not arsenic as )E thought it would be, but was merely white sugar which was ineffectual to produce B)Cs death. (Revise& Penal Co&e, Art '% QUESTION VIII A' =A >i33$. OJ1 is 8"3iti4-3 &i#-3 in t $ $3$4ti"n 4-!8-ign %"& M-/"& "% t $i& t"<n' T $ in%"&!-ti"n -g-inst =A -33$g$. t -t $ us$. -n un3i4$ns$. %i&$-&! in t $ >i33ing "% t $ #i4ti!1 -n. t is <-s 8&"#$. 0$/"n. &$-s"n-03$ ."u0t 0/ t $ 8&"s$4uti"n' T $ t&i-3 4"u&t 4"n#i4t$. =A "% t<" 4&i!$s+ !u&.$& -n. i33$g-3 8"ss$ssi"n "% %i&$-&!s' Is t $ 4"n#i4ti"n 4"&&$4t2 R$-s"n 0&i$%/' B' DCB1 t $ .-ug t$& "% MCB1 st"3$ t $ $-&&ings "% GDY1 - st&-ng$&' MCB 8-<n$. t $ $-&nings <it TBI =-<ns "8 -s - 83$.g$ %"& =;:: 3"-n' Du&ing t $ t&i-31 MCB &-is$. t $ .$%$ns$ t -t 0$ing t $ !"t $& "% DCB1s $ 4-nn"t 0$ $3. 3i-03$ -s -n -44$ss"&/' Wi33 MCBCs .$%$ns$ 8&"s8$&2 R$-s"n 0&i$%3/' Sugg$st$. Ans<$&s+ A. ?), $( should be convicted only of murder. The use of the unlicensed firearm shall be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance only and not punishable separately. f homicide or
9,
L-<
CRIMINAL LAW
&. #ebellion is committed by a public uprising and taking arms against the government while coup dC etat is committed by means of swift attack accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy, and stealth. The purpose of rebellion is either to remove from the allegiance to the $hilippine Government or its laws the territory of the $hilippines or any part thereof or any body of land, naval or other armed forces< or to deprive the %hief =xecutive or %ongress wholly or partially of any of their powers or prerogatives. )n the other hand, the purpose of a coup dC etat is to sei,e or diminish state power from the duly constituted authorities of the government or any military camp or the installation communication networks, public utilities and other facilities needed for the exercise of continued possession of powers. #ebellion may be committed by any group of persons while coup d Jetat is committed by a person or persons belonging to the military or police, or holding any public office or employment. #ebellion is committed by more than & person as it involves a public uprising, while coup d Jetat may be committed by only one person. -. %ompound crime is when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies while a complex crime is when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other. '. Hustifying circumstance are those when the act of a person is said to be in accordance with law, so that such person is deemed not to have transgressed the law and is free from both criminal and civil liability. )n the other hand, exempting circumstances are those grounds for exemption from punishment because there is wanting in the agent of the crime any of the conditions which makes the act voluntary or negligent. !. ntent is the purpose to use a particular means to effect a definite result while motive is the moving power which impels one to action for such result. 0. )ral defamation, known as slander, is a malicious imputation of any act, omission or circumstance against a person, done orally in public, tending to cause dishonor, discredit, contempt, embarrassment or ridicule to the latter. This is a crime against honor penali,ed in Art. '07 of the #evised $enal %ode. %riminal conversation is a term used in making a polite reference to sexual intercourse as in certain crimes, like rape, seduction and adultery. t has no definite concept as a crime. (UP La+ Center%
9,
L-<
CRIMINAL LAW
i! t $
ANSWER+ NO, the #evised $enal %ode does not impose the penalty of life imprisonment in any of the crimes punishable therein. The proper penalty imposable is reclusion perpetua, not life imprisonment. t bears reiterating that reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment are not synonymous penalties. They are distinct in nature, in duration and in accessory penalties.. #eclusion perpetua entails imprisonment for -8 years and & day to !8 years. t also carries with it accessory penalties, namely: perpetual absolute disqualification and civil interdiction for life or for the duration of the sentence. t is not the same as Ilife imprisonmentI which, for one thing, does not carry with it any accessory penalty, and for another, does not appear to have any definite extent or duration. (PE5PLE vs ME3I4A, SR 9 R 4os .(!!#"=#, >une .,, (//0 % Qu$sti"n N"' 6 A&!$. <it s "tguns1 R1 C1 -n. J 0-&g$. int" t $ "us$ "% M"./ < i3$ t $ 3-tt$& <-s -#ing .inn$& <it is %-!i3/' R 8">$. is gun -t M"./ < i3$ C -n. J si!u3t-n$"us3/ g&-00$. t $ "gBti$. M"./' A 8i$4$ "% 43"t <-s 83-4$. in t $ !"ut "% M"./ -n. $ <-s $&.$. int" #-n' M"./ <-s t->$n t" - s$43u.$. -&$- in t $ n$@t t"<n -n. <-s s "t t" .$-t ' W$&$ t $ R1 C1 -n. J gui3t/ "% !u&.$& "& >i.n-88ing2 ANSWER+ They are guilty of murder, not kidnapping. The act of the malefactors of abducting 1ody was merely incidental to their primary purpose of killing him. *here the detention andKor forcible taking away of the victim by the accused, even for an appreciable period of time but for the primary and ultimate purpose of killing them, holds the offenders liable for taking their lives or such other offenses they committed in relation thereto, but the incidental deprivation of the victimsL liberty does not constitute kidnapping or serious illegal detention. *hat is primordial then is the specific intent of the malefactors as disclosed in the information or criminal complaint that is determinative of what crime the accused is charged with M that of murder or kidnapping. n murder, the specific intent is to kill the victim. n kidnapping, the specific intent is to deprive the victim of hisKher liberty. n this case, it is evident that the specific intent of #, %, and H in barging into the house of 1ody was to kill him and that he was sei,ed precisely to kill him with the attendant modifying circumstances. (PE5PLE vs 3ELIM, 9 R 4o .'(!!0, >anuar: (,, (//0% Qu$sti"n N"' 7 On$ $#$ning1 A1 B1 C -n. D1 $-4 -&!$. <it -n.guns1 0-&g$. int" t $ "us$ "% H$"&g$ -n. is 1:B/$-& "3. s"n C &ist"8 $&' T $ %"u& int&u.$&s .&-gg$. H$"&g$ -n. C &ist"8 $& "ut "% t $ "us$ int" t $i& g$t -<-/ 4-& -n. .&"#$ "%%' A%t$& -0"ut %i%t$$n !inut$s1 A -n. B -3ig t$. %&"! t $ 4-& 0&inging C &ist"8 $& <it t $!' In t $ !$-nti!$1 t $ 8"3i4$ &$4$i#$. &-.i" &$8"&t t -t H$"&g$ -n. is s"n C &ist"8 $& -. 0$$n >i.n-88$.' A 4 $4>8"int <-s 8ut u8
-n. it <-s t $&$ t -t t $ 8"3i4$ int$&4$8t$. t $ 4-& 4-&&/ing H$"&g$1 -n. <-s t us -03$ t" &$s4u$ t $ 3-tt$&' A%t$& "n$ <$$>1 H$"&g$ &$4$i#$. - -n.<&itt$n 3$tt$&1 .$!-n.ing =6M %"& C &ist"8 $&Cs &$3$-s$' N" &-ns"! !"n$/1 "<$#$&1 <-s $#$& 8-i.1 %"& t $ 8"3i4$ <-s -03$ t" &$s4u$ C &ist"8 $&' W -t 4&i!$ "& 4&i!$s <$&$ 4"!!itt$. 0/ A1 B1 C1 -n. D2 ANSWER+ As to the abduction of %hristopher, A, /, %, and 5 are liable for kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Art. -26 of the #evised $enal %ode (#$%), the elements of which are as follows: &. That the offender is a private individual< -. That he detains another or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty< '. That the act of detention must be illegal< and !. That in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present: a. That the detention lasts for more than ' days< b. That it is committed simulating public authority< c. That any serious physical in+uries are inflicted upon the person detained or threats to kill him are made< or d. That the person detained is a minor, female, or a public officer. n the problem at hand, the detention of %hristopher lasted for more than ' days. Furthermore, %hristopher is a minor. ?either actual demand for nor actual payment of ransom is necessary for the crime to be committed. Although kidnapping for a certain purpose is a qualifying circumstance, the law does not require that the purpose be accomplished. As to the abduction of George, they are liable for slight illegal detention, which is committed if the kidnapping is committed in the absence of any of the circumstances qualifying the crime to serious illegal detention. n the instant case, George was kidnapped and detained illegally by the malefactors only for less than a day. Also George was not detained for the purpose of extorting ransom for his release. ?either was he inflicted with any serious physical in+uries, nor did the malefactors simulate public authority, or threatened to kill George. Although A, /, %, and 5 kidnapped George and %hristopher on the same occasion and from the same situs, they are guilty of two separate crimes: kidnapping and serious illegal detention and slight illegal detention. The malefactors were animated by two sets of separate criminal intents and criminal resolutions in kidnapping and illegally detaining the two victims. The criminal intent in kidnapping %hristopher was separate from and independent of the criminal intent and resolution in kidnapping and detaining George for less than three days. n the mind and conscience of the malefactors, they had committed two separate felonies< hence, should be meted two separate penalties for the said crimes. (PE5PLE vs PA9ALASA4, 9 R 4os .0.$(" ? .0,$$., >une .,, (//0% Qu$sti"n N"' ; On S$8t$!0$& ,51 1(()1 Ju-n -n. Vi4t"& 0"-&.$. -t -&"un. 6+:: -'!' - Fi#$ St-& Bus .&i#$n 0/ R"."3%" C-4-ti-n1 0"un. %"& =-ng-sin-n1 in C-!-4 i3$1 B-3int-<->1 Qu$?"n Cit/' T<$nt/ (,:) !inut$s "& s" 3-t$&1 < $n t $ 0us &$-4 $. t $ #i4init/ "% N-0u-g1 =3-&i.$31 Bu3-4-n1 -3"ng t $ N"&t E@8&$ss<-/1 t $ -44us$. <it guns in -n. su..$n3/ st"". u8 -n. -nn"un4$. - "3.Bu8' Si!u3t-n$"us3/ <it t $ -nn"un4$!$nt "% - "3.Bu81 Ju-n %i&$. is gun u8<-&.s' Vi4t"&1 !$-n< i3$1 t""> t $ gun "% - !-n s$-t$. -t t $ 0-4>' B"t t $n <$nt "n t" t->$ t $ !"n$/ -n. #-3u-03$s "% t $ 8-ss$ng$&s1 in43u.ing t $ 0us 4"n.u4t"&Is 4"33$4ti"ns' T $&$-%t$&1 t $ .u" -88&"-4 $. t $ !-n -t t $ 0-4> t$33ing i! in t $ #$&n-4u3-& J=-s$nsi/- >n- 8-&$1 8-8-t-/in >- n-!in' B-&i3 !" &in -ng 8-8-t-/ s- i/"'J T $/ 8"int$. t $i& guns -t i! -n. %i&$. s$#$&-3 s "ts "03i#i"us "% t $ 83$- %"& !$&4/ "% t $i& #i4ti! -%t$&< i4 t $ 3-tt$& 4"33-8s$. "n t $ %3""&' T $ t<" (,) t $n -3ig t$. %&"! t $ 0us -n. %3$.' Du&ing t $ in#$stig-ti"n 4"n.u4t$. 0/ t $ 8"3i4$1 it <-s %"un. "ut t -t t $ s3-in 8-ss$ng$& <-s 8"3i4$!-n' Ju-n -n. Vi4t"& <$&$ 4 -&g$. <it -n. %"un. gui3t/ "% R"00$&/ <it A"!i4i.$ -s 8$n-3i?$. un.$& A&t' ,(7 "% t $ R=C' (-) W-s t&$-4 $&/ -tt$n.-nt in t $ 4"!!issi"n "% t $ 4&i!$2
9,
L-<
CRIMINAL LAW
ANSWER+ (-) YES, treachery was attendant in the commission of the crime. There is treachery when the following essential elements are present, vi,: (a) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself< and (b) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods or forms of attack employed by him. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk to himself. Treachery may also be appreciated even if the victim was warned of the danger to his life where he was defenseless and unable to flee at the time of the infliction of the coup de grace. n the case at bar, the victim was disarmed and then shot even as he pleaded for dear life. *hen the victim was shot, he was defenseless. (e was shot at close range, thus insuring his death. (0) YES, treachery is applied to the constituent crime of IhomicideI and not to the constituent crime of IrobberyI of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. Going by the letter of the law, treachery is applicable only to crimes against persons as enumerated in Title =ight, %hapters )ne and Two, /ook of the #evised $enal %ode. (owever, the 4upreme %ourt of 4pain has consistently applied treachery to robbery with homicide, classified as a crime against property. %iting decisions of the 4upreme %ourt of 4pain, %uello %alon, a noted commentator of the 4panish $enal %ode says that despite the strict and express reference of the penal code to treachery being applicable to persons, treachery also applies to other crimes such as robbery with homicide. Thus, treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance to robbery with homicide although said crime is classified as a crime against property (PE5PLE vs ESC56E, et al , 9 R 4o .'/!#", April ', (//0% Qu$sti"n N"' ) On t $ nig t in Fu$sti"n1 M-nu$3 -n. J"s$ <$nt t" t $ "us$ "% R"nit" -n. M-&i- F$ t" 0"&&"< !"n$/' M-&i- F$ &$%us$. -t %i&st t" 3$n. t $ !"n$/ 0ut s $ <-s 8&$#-i3$. u8"n 0/ R"nit"' M-nu$31 J"s$ -n. R"nit" t $n -. - .&in>ing s8&$$ in t $ s-3-' A%t$& !i.nig t1 M-&i- F$ s8&$-. - !-t %"& M-nu$3 -n. J"s$ t" s3$$8 "n1 < i3$ s $ -n. R"nit" <$nt t" t $i& &""! t" s3$$8' At -&"un. ,+:: -'!'1 M-nu$31 -&!$. <it - '65 4-3i0$& gun1 -n. J"s$1 -&!$. <it >ni%$1 $nt$&$. t $ 0$.&""! "% R"nit" -n. M-&i- F$ < " <$&$ s3$$8ing' M-nu$3 8">$. t $ s-i. gun "n M-&i- F$' S $ <">$ u8 -n. -tt$!8t$. t" st-n. u8 0ut M-nu$3 "&.$&$. $& t" 3i$ ."<n' M-nu$3 "&.$&$. J"s$ t" ti$ t $ -n.s "% M-&i- F$ 0$ in. $& 0-4> -n. 8ut - t-8$ "n $& !"ut ' J"s$ 4"!83i$.' T $/ t $n .i#$st$. M-&i- F$ "% $& E$<$3&i$s -n. 3-t$& "n $& !"n$/' M-nu$3 t""> - 03-n>$t -n. "&.$&$. J"s$ t" >i33 R"nit" <it it' J"s$ <$nt t" t $ >it4 $n1 g"t - >ni%$1 4"#$&$. R"nit" <it t $ 03-n>$t -n. s-t "n t"8 "% i! t $n st-00$. t $ 3-tt$& s$#$&-3 ti!$s' M-nu$3 -3s" st-00$. R"nit" "n .i%%$&$nt 8-&ts "% is 0"./' M-nu$3 it R"nit" <it t $ 0utt "% is gun' J"s$ s3it t $ t &"-t "% R"nit" -n. t""> t $ 3-tt$&Is <&ist<-t4 -n. &ing' M-nu$3 -n. J"s$ st-/$. in t $ "us$ unti3 7+:: -'!' B$%"&$ t $/ 3$%t1 M-nu$3 -n. J"s$ t"3. M-&i- F$ t -t t $/ <$&$ -4ting "n "&.$&s "% 4$&t-in 8$"83$' T $/ -3s" <-&n$. $& n"t t" &$8"&t t $ in4i.$nt t" t $ 8"3i4$ -ut "&iti$s1 "t $&<is$ t $/ <i33 >i33 $&' M-&i- F$ !-n-g$. t" unti$ $&s$3% -n. &$8"&t$. t $ in4i.$nt t" 8"3i4$ -ut "&iti$s' M-/ M-nu$3 -n. J"s$ 0$ 4"n#i4t$. "% t $ s8$4i-3 4"!83$@ 4&i!$ "% &"00$&/ <it "!i4i.$ "& s$8-&-t$ 4&i!$s "% !u&.$& -n. &"00$&/2 ANSWER+ 1anuel and Hose are liable of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The elements of the crime are as follows: (&) the taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons< (-) the property taken belongs to another< (') the taking is done with animo lucrandi< and (!) by reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof, homicide is committed. A conviction for robbery with homicide requires certitude that the robbery is the main purpose and ob+ective of the malefactor and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. The animo lucrandi must preceed the killing. f the original design does not comprehend robbery, but robbery follows the homicide either as an afterthought or merely as an incident of the homicide, then the malefactor is guilty of two separate crimes, that of homicide or murder and robbery, and
not of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, a single and indivisible offense. t is the intent of the actor to rob which supplies the connection between the homicide and the robbery necessary to constitute the complex crime of robbery with homicide. (owever, the law does not require that the sole motive of the malefactor is robbery and commits homicide by reason or on the occasion thereof. n $eople vs. Tidula, et al., this %ourt ruled that even if the malefactor intends to kill and rob another, it does not preclude his conviction for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. A conviction for robbery with homicide is proper even if the homicide is committed before, during or after the commission of the robbery. The homicide may be committed by the actor at the spur of the moment or by mere accident. =ven if two or more persons are killed and a woman is raped and physical in+uries are inflicted on another, on the occasion or by reason of robbery, there is only one special complex crime of robbery with homicide. *hat is primordial is the result obtained without reference or distinction as to the circumstances, cause, modes or persons intervening in the commission of the crime. Furthermore, robbery with homicide is committed even if the victim of the robbery is different from the victim of homicide, as long as the homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. t is not even necessary that the victim of the robbery is the very person the malefactor intended to rob. For the conviction of the special complex crime, the robbery itself must be proved as conclusively as any other element of the crime. n this case, the prosecution proved through the testimony of 1aria Fe that the appellants threatened to kill her and her family and robbed her of her money and +ewelry. t may be true that the original intent of appellant 1anuel was to borrow money from #onito and 1aria Fe but later on conspired with Hose and robbed the couple of their money and pieces of +ewelry, and on the occasion thereof, they killed #onito. ?onetheless, the appellants are guilty of robbery with homicide. n $eople v. Tidong, this %ourt held that the appellant was guilty of robbery with homicide even if his original intention was to demand for separation pay from his employer and ended up killing his employer in the process. (PE5PLE vs 3A4IELA, et al , 9 R 4o .0$(0/, April (', (//0% Qu$sti"n N"' 9 O&3-n." <-s t $ "<n$& "% - 8-&4$3 "% 3-n. 3"4-t$. in T-3is-/1 C$0u' On D$4$!0$& 171 1(59 O&3-n." s"3. t $ -0"#$ !$nti"n$. 8&"8$&t/ %"& =):1:::':: t" A0&- -! 8u&su-nt t" 4"nt&-4t t" s$33 $nt$&$. int" 0$t<$$n t $!' It <-s sti8u3-t$. in t $ 4"nt&-4t t -t A0&- -! <i33 t$n.$& -n initi-3 ."<n 8-/!$nt "% =,:1:::'::1 < i3$ t $ 0-3-n4$ "% t $ t"t-3 -!"unt "% t $ 8&"8$&t/ <i33 0$ 8-i. "n - !"nt 3/ 0-sis* t -t %-i3u&$ "n t $ 8-&t "% t $ 0u/$& t" 8-/ -n/ !"nt 3/ inst-33!$nts <it in ): .-/s %&"! its .u$ .-t$ <i33 $ntit3$ t $ s$33$& t" s$33 t $ 8&"8$&t/ t" t i&. 8$&s"ns* -n. t -t t $ .$$. "% s-3$ -n. t $ tit3$ t" t $ 8&"8$&t/ <i33 0$ t&-ns%$&&$. t" t $ #$n.$$ "n3/ -%t$& %u33 8-/!$nt "% t $ 8u&4 -s$ 8&i4$ -s 0$$n t$n.$&$.' A0&- -! %-it %u33/ 8-i. t $ !"nt 3/ inst-33!$nts' A$ -3s" "0t-in$. O&3-n."Cs 4"ns$nt in -#ing t $ 8&"8$&t/ %$n4$.' A"<$#$&1 "n J-nu-&/ 161 1(5(1 O&3-n." s"3. t $ s-!$ 8-&4$3 "% 3-n. t" Wi33i-! %"& =,::1:::':: -s $#i.$n4$. 0/ t $ D$$. "% A0s"3ut$ S-3$ $@$4ut$. 0/ t $ %"&!$& in %-#"& "% t $ 3-tt$&' C"ns$Fu$nt3/1 < i3$ A0&- -! <-s in t $ 8&"4$ss "% %$n4ing t $ 3"t1 $ <-s s "4>$. t" >n"< t -t t $ s-!$ -. 0$$n s"3. 0/ O&3-n." t" Wi33i-!' T is $#$nt 8&"!8t$. Wi33i-! t" %i3$ - 4-s$ "% $st-%- un.$& A&t' 61) (,) "% t $ R=C O&3-n." %"& .is8"sing 8&$#i"us3/ $n4u!0$&$. 8&"8$&t/' Is O&3-n." 3i-03$ %"& t $ 4&i!$ "% $st-%- -s .$%in$. in A&t' 61) (,) "% t $ R$#is$. =$n-3 C".$2 ANSWER+ NO, the gravamen of the crime is the disposition of legally encumbered real property by the offender under the express representation that there is no encumbrance thereon. (ence, for one to be criminally liable for estafa under the law, the accused must make an express representation in the deed of conveyance that the property sold or disposed of is free from any encumbrance. The prosecution is burdened to allege in the information and prove the confluence of the following essential elements of the crime for the accused to be criminally liable for estafa under
9,
L-<
CRIMINAL LAW
Qu$sti"n N"' ( At -0"ut 9 "C43"4> in t $ !"&ning1 Migu$3 <$nt t" is %-&! t" 43$-& is 3-n. 8&$8-&-t"&/ t" 83"<ing -n. 83-nting' W i3$ $ <-s 4utting <$$.s in t $ %-&!1 R"0$&t" -n. is g&"u81 n-!$3/+ Ai3-&i"1 F$3i@1 =$8it"1 L$"n-&."1 D"!ing" -n. B$&t" -&&i#$. -t t $ %-&!' F&"! .ist-n4$ "% -0"ut 1: !$t$&s1 Migu$3 n"ti4$. t -t R"0$&t" -n. is g&"u8 <$&$ -33 -&!$. <it $it $& - 3"ng 0"3" "& s3ings "t "& 0u4>s "t (s "tgun)' As R"0$&t" -88&"-4 $. Migu$31 $ .&$< is s "tgun1 -i!$. it -t Migu$3 -n. %i&$. itting t $ 3-tt$& "n t $ 4 $st' Ai3-&i" -3s" %i&$. is s "tgun < i4 <-s .i&$4t$. -t Migu$3' I!!$.i-t$3/ t $&$-%t$&1 R"0$&t" -n. is g&"u8 &-n -<-/' Migu$3 <$nt .i&$4t3/ t" t $ 8"3i4$ st-ti"n t" &$8"&t t $ in4i.$nt' T $n Migu$3 <-s t->$n t" t $ "s8it-3 %"& t&$-t!$nt "% is guns "t <"un.s "n is 4 $st -n. 3$%t si.$ "% t $ 0"./' R"0$&t" <-s t $n t&i$. %"& %&ust&-t$. "!i4i.$' A$ 4"nt$n.s t -t $ -. n" int$nt t" >i33 Migu$31 t us1 $ is gui3t/ "n3/ "% s3ig t "& 3$ss s$&i"us 8 /si4-3 inEu&i$s' Is R"0$&t" 4"&&$4t2
ANSWER+ NO, #oberto acted with intent to kill in firing the gun at 1iguel. 9sually, the intent to kill is shown by the kind of weapon used by the offender and the parts of the victimCs body at which the weapon was aimed, as shown by the wounds inflicted. %orollarily, conviction for a frustrated felony requires that the offender must have performed all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a result but nevertheless did not produce it due to a cause independent of the offenderCs will. (ere, it is undisputed that appellant fired his gun point>blank at 1igeul, hitting the latter at his breast. The nature of the weapon used and the location of the wounds speak for themselves of #obertoCs intent to finish off 1iguel /eran who, by now, must have been dead if no timely medical attendance was given him. (95R5SPE vs PE5PLE 58 6HE PHILIPPI4ES, 9 R 4o .'!$!', >anuar: ($, (//'% Qu$sti"n N"' 1: N"&!- <-s 4 -&g$. <it #i"3-ti"n "% B-t-s =-!0-ns- B3g' ,, 0$%"&$ t $ Muni4i8-3 T&i-3 C"u&t' A%t$& t&i-3 s $ <-s 4"n#i4t$. -n. s$nt$n4$. t" su%%$& i!8&is"n!$nt "% "n$ /$-&' T $ 8$titi"n$& &$!-in$. -t 3-&g$ -n. n" -88$-3 <-s %i3$. %&"! -n/ "% t $ s-i. .$4isi"ns' In t $ !$-nti!$1 t $ Su8&$!$ C"u&t issu$. Su8&$!$ C"u&t A.!inist&-ti#$ Ci&4u3-& N"' 1,B,::: $nE"ining -33 4"u&ts -n. Eu.g$s 4"n4$&n$. t" t->$ n"ti4$ "% t $ &u3ing -n. 8"3i4/ "% t $ C"u&t $nun4i-t$. in V-4- #' C"u&t "% A88$-3s -n. Li! #' =$"83$ <it &$g-&. t" t $ i!8"siti"n "% t $ 8$n-3t/ %"& #i"3-ti"ns "% B'=' B3g' ,,' A%t$& %i#$ /$-&s1 t $ 8$titi"n$& <-s %in-33/ -&&$st$. < i3$ s $ <-s -883/ing %"& -n NBI 43$-&-n4$' S $ <-s %"&t <it .$t-in$.' S $ t $n %i3$. -n u&g$nt !"ti"n <it t $ Muni4i8-3 T&i-3 C"u&t -s>ing t $ 4"u&t t" -883/ SC A.!in' Ci&4u3-& N"' 1,B,::: -n. "&.$& $& &$3$-s$ %&"! .$t$nti"n' S $ 8"sits t -t SC A.!in' Ci&4u3-& N"' 1,B,::: .$3$t$. t $ 8$n-3t/ "% i!8&is"n!$nt %"& #i"3-ti"n "% B'=' B3g' ,, -n. -33"<s "n3/ t $ i!8"siti"n "% - %in$' Is N"&!-Cs 4"nt$nti"n 4"&&$4t2 ANSWER+ NO, 4% Admin. %ircular ?o. &'>-88&, 4% Admin. %ircular ?o. &->-888 merely lays down a rule of preference in the application of the penalties for violation of /.$. /lg. --. t does not amend /.$. /lg. --, nor defeat the legislative intent behind the law. The clear tenor and intention of Administrative %ircular ?o. &->-888 is not to remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty, but to lay down a rule of preference in the application of the penalties provided for in /.$. /lg. --. The pursuit of this purpose clearly does not foreclose the possibility of imprisonment for violators of /.$. /lg. --. ?either does it defeat the legislative intent behind the law. Thus, Administrative %ircular ?o. &->-888 establishes a rule of preference in the application of the penal provisions of /.$. /lg. -- such that where the circumstances of both the offense and the offender clearly indicate good faith or a clear mistake of fact without taint of negligence, the imposition of a fine alone should be considered as the more appropriate penalty. ?eedless to say, the determination of whether the circumstances warrant the imposition of a fine alone rests solely upon the Hudge. 4hould the Hudge decide that imprisonment is the more appropriate penalty, Administrative %ircular ?o. &->-888 ought not be deemed a hindrance. (3E >5<A vs 6HE >AIL WAR3E4 58 7A6A49AS CI6< A43 H54 RU7E4 A 9AL;E@, 9 R 4os .#$'.,=.$, 3ecember ./, (//0 % Qu$sti"n N"' 11 A.-!1 - .$-3$& in s -0u <-s 4"nt-4t$. 0/ - 8"s$u& 0u/$& %"& t $ 8u&4 -s$ "% s -0u' T $/ !$t -t t $ 8-&>ing 3"t "% - s "88ing !-33' W $n A.-! s "<$. t $ 8"s$u&B0u/$& t&-ns8-&$nt 83-sti4 t$- 0-g < i4 4"nt-in$. < it$ 4&/st-33in$ su0st-n4$s1 t $ s-i. 8"s$u&B0u/$& in tu&n -n.$. "#$& -n $n#$3"8$ 4"nt-ining t $ !-&>$. =11:::':: 0i33s -n. t $ 0"".3$ !"n$/ t" A.-!' T $ 8"s$u& 0u/$& t $n i!!$.i-t$3/ i.$nti%i$. i!s$3% -s - 8"3i4$ "%%i4$& -n. -&&$st$. A.-!'
9,
L-<
CRIMINAL LAW
conformably to Article 0& of the #evised $enal %ode which is prision correccional, because the murder was committed in the attempted stage. This penalty should be reduced by one degree, which is arresto mayor, to determine the minimum of the indeterminate penalty. Accordingly, 5ario should be sentenced to a straight penalty of four (!) months. t goes without saying that if the trial court decides to impose on the accused a penalty of imprisonment of one year or less, it should impose a straight penalty and not an indeterminate penalty. (PE5PLE vs 3ARILA<, 9 R 4os .0$!#.=#(, >anuar: (", (//'% Qu$sti"n N"' 16 A3%&$." -%t$& -#ing - .&in>ing s8&$$ <it "t $& 4&$< !$!0$&s <$nt 0-4> t" FLB E#$& IV1 <$&$ $ <-s <"&>ing -s - 4"">' G-n.$&1 t $ 4-8t-in "% t $ #$ss$31 "&.$&$. %"". %&"! A3%&$."' A3%&$." "n3/ g-#$ &i4$ t" G-n.$&1 -n. t"3. t $ 3-tt$& t -t $ <-s n"t -03$ t" 4""> -n/ #i-n.' G-n.$& <-s in4$ns$. -n. t"3. A3%$&." t -t $ <-s - us$3$ss 4""> -n. it <"u3. 0$ 0$tt$& %"& i! t" &$sign %&"! is $!83"/!$nt' A3%&$." ign"&$. G-n.$&Is .i-t&i0$s -n. <$nt t" t $ >it4 $n t" ti./ t ings u8' M$-n< i3$1 G-n.$& <$nt t" t $ >it4 $n -n. t""> t $ >ni%$ %&"! t $ t&-/ n$-& t $ .""&' Wit t $ >ni%$ in is -n.1 G-n.$& <$nt n$-& A3%&$."1 < " !"#$. 0-4><-&. t"<-&.s t $ %&"nt 8-&t "% t $ 0"-t* 0ut G-n.$& 8u&su$. t $ i!' W $n $ <-s 4"&n$&$.1 A3%&$." <-s %"&4$. t" g&-883$ <it G-n.$& %"& t $ 8"ss$ssi"n "% t $ >ni%$' Wit is 3$%t -n.1 A3%&$." $3. G-n.$&Cs &ig t %"&$-&!1 -n. <it is 3$%t -n.1 t<ist$. G-n.$&Cs &ig t -n. t"<-&.s t $ 4 $st' G-n.$& 83-4$. is 3$%t -n. "n A3%&$."Is s "u3.$&' A3%&$." <-s -03$ t" <&$st 8"ss$ssi"n "% t $ >ni%$1 -n. st-00$. G-n.$& "n t $ 4 $st' G-n.$& 83-4$. is &ig t -n. "n A3%&$."Is "t $& s "u3.$&1 -s $ <-s st-00$. "n t $ 4 $st1 "n t $ -0."!$n -n. "n t $ 0-4>' G-n.$& %$331 is $-. itting t $ $.g$ "% t $ .$4>' A3%&$." 4"u3. n" 3"ng$& &$!$!0$& t $ nu!0$& "% ti!$s $ st-00$. G-n.$&' C -&g$. <it -n. 4"n#i4t$. "% !u&.$&1 A3%&$." -&gu$s t -t t $ >i33ing "% G-n.$& <-s !-.$ in s$3%B.$%$ns$. Di. t $ -88$33-nt -4t in s$3%B.$%$ns$2 ANSWER+ NO, the inceptual aggression of Dander had already ceased after Alfredo had wrested possession of the knife. Alfredo managed to wrest possession of the knife from the victim. *hile Alfredo was grappling for the possession of the knife, Dander placed his left hand on AlfredoCs right shoulder. =ven after Alfredo had wrested possession of the knife, he stabbed Dander while the latter placed his right hand on AlfredoCs other shoulder. ?evertheless, Alfredo stabbed the hapless Dander six more times. Two of the stab wounds were at the back of Dander. Furthermore, the number, locations and depth of the wounds sustained by Dander belie AlfredoLs pretension that he killed the victim in self>defense< the same are proof that Alfredo intended to kill the victim and not merely to defend himself. The victim sustained no less than six (2) stab wounds. t certainly defies reason why Alfredo had to inflict such in+uries on the victim if he was only defending himself. 4elf>defense must be distinguished from retaliation< in that in retaliation, the inceptual unlawful aggression had already ceased when the accused attacked him. n self>defense, the unlawful aggression was still existing when the aggressor was in+ured or disabled by the person making the defense (PE5PLE 58 6HE PHILIPPI4ES vs 9ALLE95, 9 R 4o .(!',$, >ul: .., (//0% Qu$sti"n N"' 17 L-t$ in t $ $#$ning "n O4t"0$& 1:1 1((91 T"t"/1 R-n./1 R"tBR"t1 -n. J"nBJ"n1 0"-&.$. - NED MAJ T-@i4-0 in A3-0-ng1 .&i#$n 0/ M-nn/' W $n t $ t-@i st"88$. un.$& t $ 0&i.g$ -t M""n<-3> su0.i#isi"n1 T"t"/ t"3. M-nn/1 MTol, pera-pera lang ito, dahil kailangan lang'N A"<$#$&1 M-nn/ &$sist$. -n. t&i$. t" g$t "ut "% t $ t-@i 4-0' T"t"/ 8u33$. i! 0-4> in -n. st-00$. i! <it - 03-.$. <$-8"n "n t $ 4 $st' R-n./1 R"tBR"t1 -n. J"nBJ"n t""> tu&ns in st-00ing M-nn/ <it 03-.$. <$-8"ns' M-nn/ !-n-g$. t" g$t "ut "% t $ t-@i4-01 -n. %3$$ %&"! t $ s4$n$' A$ <-s 3-t$& "n t->$n t" - "s8it-3 < $&$ $ $@8i&$.'
9,
L-<
CRIMINAL LAW
ANSWER+ NO, there was no showing that Totoy and his cohorts managed to take any money from the victim. For Totoy and his cohorts to be guilty of consummated robbery, there must be incontrovertible proof that property was taken from the victim. The malefactors are guilty of attempted robbery with homicide only, because they commenced the commission of robbery directly by overt acts but was not able to perform all the acts of execution which would produce robbery by reason of some causes or accident other than their own spontaneous desistance. n this case, Totoy demanded from the victim, I6ol, pera=pera lan) ito, &ahil Aailan)an lan).I The victim refused to part with his earnings and resisted. (e even tried to get out of the taxicab but Totoy pulled him back and stabbed him. #andy, #ot>#ot and Hon>Hon followed suit and stabbed the victim with their bladed weapons. The victim was able to flee from the vehicle without anything being taken from him. Totoy and his confederates commenced by overt acts the execution of the robbery, but failed to perform all the acts of execution by reason of the victimLs resistance (PE5PLE vs 75CALA4, 9 R 4o .'.#(!, September ', (//0% Qu$sti"n N"' 1; At -&"un. 1,+:: n""n1 C$s-& s-< is 4"usinBinB3-<1 Lit" -n. =-8-ng .&-gging is s$#$nt/Bt<"B/$-&B"3. -unti$1 N-ti#i.-.1 in t $ .i&$4ti"n "% - %"&$st$. -&$- < $&$ t $&$ <$&$ -3s" !-ng" -n. 4"4"nut t&$$s' C$s-& s "ut$.1 JA"/1 0->it nin/" >in->-3-.>-. -ng ->ing ti/-2J =-8-ng -n. Lit" -88&"-4 $. -n. t"3. i! n"t t" int$&%$&$' T $n =-8-ng 8"int$. - >ni%$ -t C$s-& -n. <-&n$. i! n"t t" &$#$-3 < -t $ s-< t" -n/"n$* "t $&<is$1 t $/ <"u3. >i33 i! -n. is %-!i3/1 in43u.ing is 4 i3.&$n' L-t$& C$s-& s-< "< Lit" -n. =-8-ng %"&4i03/ t""> t $ 8"ss$ssi"ns "% N-ti#i.-. -n. -3s" s-< "< t $/ st&-ng3$. N-ti#i.-. using - < it$ &"8$' Initi-33/1 C$s-& >$8t < -t $ s-< t" i!s$3% 0$4-us$ "% %$-& "% &$t-3i-ti"n %&"! t $ -44us$.' L-t$& "n "<$#$&1 $ &$#$-3$. < -t $ s-< .u&ing t $ 4"!!issi"n "% t $ 4&i!$' As - &$su3t1 - 4&i!in-3 in%"&!-ti"n %"& &"00$&/ <it "!i4i.$ <-s %i3$. -g-inst Lit" -n. =-8-ng' A&$ Lit" -n. =-8-ng gui3t/ "% &"00$&/ <it "!i4i.$2 ANSWER+ YES, the accused are guilty of robbery with homicide. n robbery, there must be an unlawful taking or apoderamiento which is defined as the taking of items without the consent of the owner, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things. Taking is considered complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same. There is, likewise, no need to prove the exact amount of money taken, as long as there is proof of the unlawful taking. ntent to gain, or animus lucrandi, as an element of the crime of robbery, is an internal act, hence, presumed from the unlawful taking of things. n robbery with homicide, the original criminal design of the malefactor is to commit robbery, with homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. The intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life. The homicide may take place before, during or after the robbery. There is no such felony of robbery with homicide through reckless imprudence or simple negligence. The constitutive elements of the crime, namely, robbery and homicide, must be consummated. As long as there is a nexus between the robbery and the homicide, the latter crime may be committed in a place other than the situs of the robbery. (PE5PLE vs HER4A43E@, 9 R 4o .0$"$!, >une .#, (//'% Qu$sti"n N"' 1) F&"! 0$ in. D"!in-."&1 A&t$!i" 8"int$. is s "tgun -t D"!in-."& -n. s "t t $ 3-tt$& "n4$ "n t $ 0-4>' D"!in-."& %$33 t" t $ g&"un. %-4$ ."<n' T $n 4-!$ A&tu&" -n. D"si!"1 < " <$&$ -&!$. <it - s!-33 0"3"s' A&tu&" tu&n$. D"!in-."&Is 0"./ %-4$ u81 -n. st-00$. i! !"&$ t -n "n4$ <it t $ 0"3"' D"si!" %"33"<$. suit -n. st-00$. D"!in-."& "n4$ <it is 0"3"' T $ t &$$ t $n %3$. %&"! t $ s4$n$1 t"<-&.s t $ .i&$4ti"n "% B-3i&i &i#$&' T $ t &$$ <$&$ t $n t&i$. -n. 4"n#i4t$. "% !u&.$& %"& t $ >i33ing "% D"!in-."&' T $ t&i-3 4"u&t 4"n43u.$. t $&$ <-s - 4"ns8i&-4/ 0$t<$$n A&t$!i"1 A&tu&"1 -n. D"si!"' On -88$-31
t $ -88$33-nts 4"nt$n. t -t t $ t&i-3 4"u&t $&&"n$"us3/ &u3$. "n t $ $@ist$n4$ "% 4"ns8i&-4/ 0$4-us$ n" -g&$$!$nt -!"ng t $ -88$33-nts t" >i33 t $ #i4ti! <-s 8&"#$.' M-/ 4"ns8i&-4/ $@ist .$s8it$ -0s$n4$ "% -n $@8&$ss -g&$$!$nt t" >i33 t $ #i4ti!2 ANSWER+ YES. 5irect evidence is not required to prove conspiracy. t may be proved by circumstantial evidence. t is not even required that they have an agreement for an appreciable period to commence it. *hat is important is that all participants performed specific acts with such cooperation and coordination bringing about the death of the victim. *hen conspiracy is present, the act of one is the act of all. n this case, Artemio, Arturo, and Eosimo acted in concert to achieve a common purpose, i.e., to kill 5ominador. Artemio shot 5ominador at close range. Artemio and Eosimo followed suit and stabbed 5ominador with their bolos. The three fled from the scene together, carrying their weapons with them. ndubitably, the three acted in concert< hence, all are guilty for the killing of 5ominador. (PE5PLE vs ELL5RA7A, et al , 9 R 4o .(0$.! 3ecember ./, (//0% QUESTION NO' 19 On M-/ )1 1((:1 < i3$ L$- <-s s3$$8ing1 s $ s-< J"$3 -n. B$&n-&."1 16 -n. 1, /$-&s "3. &$s8$4ti#$3/1 "3.ing $& -n.s -n. %$$t -s s $ <-s 0$ing un.&$ss$.' L$- st&ugg3$. 0ut <-s $-si3/ "#$&8"<$&$. 0/ t $ t<"' S $ t &$-t$n$. t" s "ut1 0ut s $ <-s t"3. t -t n"0"./ <"u3. $-& $&' J"$3 <$tt$. L$- Cs #-gin- <it is s-3i#- -n. 8&"4$$.$. t" -#$ 4-&n-3 >n"<3$.g$ <it $&' B$&n-&." st"". 0/ t $ .""& "% t $ &""! -s - 3"">"ut < i3$ J"$3 <-s -#ing is <-/ <it L$- ' A%t$& t $i& .-st-&.3/ .$$.1 J"$3 -n. B$&n-&." t $n 4-33$. L"u -n. Li"n$31 L$-Cs sist$&s1 int" t $ &""!1 3$tting t $! s$$ t $i& sist$& n->$.' J"$3 -n. B$&n-&." t &$-t$n$. t" >i33 $& -n. t $ !$!0$&s "% t $ %-!i3/ i% s $ t"3. -n/"n$ -0"ut < -t -88$n$. t" $&' J"$3 -n. B$&n-&." 3$%t t $ &""! t"g$t $&' In - 8&"s$4uti"n %"& &-8$1 s "u3. J"$3 -n. B$&n-&." 0$ $@$!8t$. %&"! 4&i!in-3 3i-0i3it/ "n t $ g&"un. "% !in"&it/2 ANSWER+ NO, the facts show beyond cavil that Hoel and /ernardo acted with discernment when they raped the victim, thus: (a) they wetted the victimLs vagina before they raped her< (b) one of them acted as a lookout while the other was raping the victim< (c) they threatened to kill the victim if she divulged to her parents what they did to her< (d) they ordered ;eah ;ou and ;ionel to look at their sister naked after they had raped her. A minor who is over nine years old and under fifteen years old at the time of the commission of the crimes is exempt from criminal liability only when the said minor acted without discernment. t is the burden of the prosecution to prove that a minor acted with discernment when he committed the crime charged. The discernment that constitutes an exception to the exemption from criminal liability of a minor under fifteen years of age but over nine, who commits an act prohibited by law, is his mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong, and such capacity may be known and should be determined by taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances afforded by the records in each case, the very appearance, the very attitude, the very comportment and behavior of said minor, not only before and during the commission of the act, but also after and even during the trial. (PE5PLE vs C5R6E@A45, 9 R 4o .(0.'/ September (0, (//0% QUESTION NO' 15 B$t<$$n 11+:: 8'!' -n. 1,+:: !i.nig t1 B"00/ <-s sitting in%&"nt "% t $ "us$ "% 4$&t-in A3ing =$t' B"00/ &$$>$. "% 3iFu"& -n. -88$-&$. t" 0$ .&un>' H&$g -&&i#$. t"g$t $& <it J-i!$ -n. 0$g-n t-3>ing -0"ut t $ 0-s>$t0-33 g-!$ t -t t $/ -. Eust s$$n' B"00/1 < " <-s s$-t$. 0$si.$ J-i!$1 .i. n"t t->$ 8-&t in t $ 4"n#$&s-ti"n' Su..$n3/1 B"00/ %&is>$. J-i!$Cs <-ist -n. utt$&$. t -t $ M<-nt$. t" >i33'N J-i!$ -n. H&$g 0$4-!$ %&ig t$n$. -n. i!!$.i-t$3/ <$nt t" t $i& "us$1 < i4 <-s Eust -.E-4$nt t" A3ing =$tCs "us$' W i3$ H&$g <-s
9,
L-<
CRIMINAL LAW
ANSWER+ NO, mere suddenness of the attack on the unarmed and unsuspecting victim does not +ustify the finding of treachery. As a general rule, a sudden attack by the assailant, whether frontally or from behind, is treachery if such mode of attack was deliberately adopted by him with the purpose of depriving the victim of a chance to either fight or retreat. The rule does not apply if the attack was not preconceived but merely triggered by infuriation of =dgar on an act made by )ndo. n the present case, it is apparent that the attack was not preconceived. t was triggered by =dgarCs anger because of the )ndoCs refusal to have a drink with the former and his companion. Treachery cannot be appreciated if it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the assailant did not make any preparation to kill the victim in such a manner as to insure the killing or to make it impossible or difficult for the victim to defend himself. The prosecution must prove that the killing was premeditated or that the assailant chose a method of attack directly and specially to facilitate and insure the killing without risk to himself. The mode of attack must be planned by the offender and must not spring from the unexpected turn of events. (PE5PLE vs 3UMA3A9, 9 R 4o .'!.$" >une ', (//'% QUESTION NO' ,1 J"E" <-s 4"n#i4t$. "% t $ 4&i!$ "% !u&.$&1 -n. <-s s$nt$n4$. t" su%%$& t $ 8$n-3t/ "% .$-t 0/ 3$t -3 inE$4ti"n1 %"& 4-using t $ .$-t "% Ri4-&." "n F$0&u-&/ ,61 1((91 <it t $ us$ "% -n un3i4$ns$. %i&$-&!' T $ t&i-3 4"u&t s$nt$n4$. J"E" t" su%%$& t $ 8$n-3t/ "% .$-t 1 -88&$4i-ting t $ us$ "% -n un3i4$ns$. %i&$-&! -s - s8$4i-3 -gg&-#-ting 4i&4u!st-n4$ 8u&su-nt t" R'A'5,(7 < i4 t""> $%%$4t -%t$& t $ >i33ing "n Ju3/ )1 1((9' W-s t $ t&i-3 4"u&t 4"&&$4t in i!8"sing t $ .$-t 8$n-3t/2 ANSWER+ NO. 9nder Article -!7 of the #$%, as amended by #A ?o. 620", the imposable penalty for murder is #eclusion $erpetua to 5eath. 4ince #A ?o. 7-"! took effect after the crime charged was committed, it should be applied prospectively and not retroactively. For if the new law were to be applied retroactively as the trial court did, the same would aggravate the criminal liability of Ho+o and the imposable penalty for the crime charged. (PE5PLE vs ABUI43E E6 AL , 9 R 4o .00!00 Au)ust ($, (//0%
QUESTION NO' ,, M-&it- <-s 4 -&g$. <it -n. 4"n#i4t$. "% t $ 4&i!$ "% t $%t %"& st$-3ing E$<$3&i$s' S $ <-s -3s" "&.$&$. t" 8-/ t $ 8&i#-t$ "%%$n.$. 8-&t/ t $ su!s "% =11;::1::: %"& t $ #-3u$ "% t $ st"3$n E$<$3&i$s -n. =1::1::: %"& !"&-3 .-!-g$s' Du&ing t $ 8$n.$n4/ "% $& -88$-3 t" t $ Su8&$!$ C"u&t s $ .i$.' T $ 8&i#-t$ "%%$n.$. 8-&t/ !"#$s t -t s $ 0$ 8-i. t $ su!s -<-&.$. &$8&$s$nting t $ M-&it-Cs 4i#i3 3i-0i3it/' M-/ -!"unts &$8&$s$nting 4i#i3 3i-0i3it/ ex-delicto 0$ -<-&.$. .$s8it$ t $ .$-t "% t $ -44us$. 8$n.ing -88$-32 ANSWER+ NO, the civil action instituted with the criminal action for recovery of civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto extinguished, upon the extinction of the criminal action due to the death of the accused. The pecuniary liabilities ad+udged against 1arita are undeniably ex delicto. 4he was ordered to pay actual damages, which is the value of the pieces of +ewelry allegedly taken from the private complainant, and moral damages for the fear and trauma caused to the complainant by reason of the commission of the crime. These civil liabilities arose from the crime of Theft and are based solely on said delict. (3E 9U@MA4 vs PE5PLE, 9 R 4o .#'#!$ 5ctober ,, (//0%
9,
L-<
CRIMINAL LAW
On -88$-31 J"s$ -ss$&ts t -t un.$& t $ 4&i!in-3 4"!83-int1 $ <-s 4 -&g$. "% &-8$ un.$& 8-&-g&-8 11 A&ti43$ 66; "% t $ R$#is$. =$n-3 C".$1 -s -!$n.$.' A"<$#$&1 t $ 8&"s$4uti"n1 t &"ug t $ #i4ti! $&s$3%1 %-i3$. t" 8&"#$ t -t $ %"&4$.1 t &$-t$n$. "& inti!i.-t$. $& int" -#ing s$@u-3 int$&4"u&s$ <it i!' Fu&t $&!"&$1 -44"&.ing t" J"s$1 t $ 8&"s$4ut"& !$&$3/ 8&"#$. t -t t $ #i4ti! <-s - !$nt-3 &$t-&.-t$ -n. t -t $ -. s$@u-3 int$&4"u&s$ <it $&' A$ 4-nn"t 0$ 4"n#i4t$. "% &-8$ un.$& 8-&-g&-8 ,1 A&ti43$ 66; "% t $ R$#is$. =$n-3 C".$* "t $&<is$1 $ <"u3. 0$ .$8&i#$. "% is &ig t t" 0$ in%"&!$. "% t $ n-tu&$ "% t $ 4&i!$ 4 -&g$. -g-inst i!' D$s8it$ t $ t&i-3 4"u&tCs %in.ings t -t t $ 8&"s$4uti"n %-i3$. t" 8&"#$ &-8$ -s 4 -&g$. in t $ 4&i!in-3 4"!83-int un.$& 8-&-g&-8 11 A&ti43$ 66; "% t $ R$#is$. =$n-3 C".$1 t $ 4"u&t sti33 4"n#i4t$. i! "% &-8$ un.$& t $ s$4"n. 8-&-g&-8 "% t $ s-i. A&ti43$ M-/ t $ -88$33-nt 0$ 4"n#i4t$. "% &-8$ t &"ug %"&4$ "& inti!i.-ti"n2 ANSWER+ YES, it bears stressing that force or intimidation may be actual or constructive. n this case, the victim is a mental retardate. Hose took advantage of her condition and succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. (ence, he is guilty of forcible rape. %arnal knowledge of an insane woman, knowing her to be insane, is rape. There is a lack of capacity to consent, and it is presumed that the act was done without her consent, hence it is against the femaleCs will< the force required may be in the wrongful act itself. t follows that such act is done Jforcibly and against her will.C n an indictment the office of the words Jagainst her willC is merely to negative consent. (PE5PLE vs 7ALA6A@5, 9 R 4o ..,/(! >anuar: ($, (//'% QUESTION NO' ,9 F&-n4is4" &$nt$. - &""! in t $ "us$ un.$& t $ 4-&$ "% =u&it-' =u&it- "44u8i$. -n"t $& &""! in t $ "us$' S $ -. - #$&/ 43"s$ &$3-ti"ns i8 <it F&-n4is4"1 0ut 0$4-!$ .isi33usi"n$. < $n $ %-i3$. t" 8-/ t $ !"nt 3/ &$nt-3s' E@-s8$&-t$.1 =u&it- -. t $ !-tt$& 83-4$. in t $ 8"3i4$ 03"tt$&' T is in%u&i-t$. F&-n4is4"' On$ $#$ning1 F&-n4is4" -&&i#$. -t is n$ig 0"&Cs &$si.$n4$ -n. 03u&t$.+ M=-&$1 I <i33 >i33 =u&it-'N A"<$#$&1 t $ n$ig 0"& t"3. F&-n4is4" t -t =u&it- <-s #$&/ >in. t" i! -n. 4"uns$3$. -g-inst >i33ing $&' At ;+:: -'!' "n O4t"0$& 111 1((;1 F&-n4is4" st-00$. =u&it- < i3$ t $ 3-t$& <-s -s3$$8 insi.$ $& &""!1 t $&$0/ 4-using $& .$-t ' W$&$ t $ -gg&-#-ting 4i&4u!st-n4$s "% t&$-4 $&/ -n. $#i.$nt 8&$!$.it-ti"n 8&$s$nt in t is 4-s$2 ANSWER+ NO, the facts fail to show that Francisco deliberately or consciously adopted a mode of attack to ensure the killing. There is even no showing of the particulars as to how the aggression commenced or the events that led to the stabbing. For treachery to be qualifying, the prosecution must prove the confluence of the following requisites: (a) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked the opportunity to defend himself or retaliate< (b) that the accused deliberately and consciously adopted the means of execution. ?either was evident premeditation attendant in the commission of the crime. Francisco may have intended to kill the victim even before )ctober &&, &""0. (owever, there is nothing in the facts to show that from that time on, until the victim was stabbed and killed, Francisco performed overt acts indicating his determination to commit the crime. For evident premeditation to be appreciated the following must be present: (&) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime< (-) an overt act showing that the accused clung to their determination to commit the crime< and (') the lapse of a sufficient period of time, as to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of the act. (PE5PLE vs SA46IA95, 9 R 4o .'!0.' 8ebruar: ", (//'% QUESTION NO' ,5
9,
L-<
CRIMINAL LAW
QUESTION NO' 6: Vi4$nt$1 "n is <-/ "!$ %&"! <"&>1 %"un. is <i%$ -n. .-ug t$&1 T$"."&- -n. Ju3i&$s8$4ti#$3/1 -t - n$ig 0"&Cs "us$ i.ing' A$ %"un. "ut t -t1 H-00/1 t $ us0-n. "% is "t $& .-ug t$& Ju3i-1 $-&3i$& 4-!$ t" Vi4$nt$Cs "us$ .&un> -n. st-&t$. 0"@ing -n. >i4>ing Ju3i-* -%t$& < i4 H-00/ <$nt "!$ -n. s3$8t' F&ig t$n$. "% %u&t $& t&"u03$ %&"! H-00/1 Vi4$nt$ &$%$&&$. t $ !-tt$& t" Ju-n1 t $ 3$-.$& "% MH&$$n-n1N -n -gg&u8-ti"n "% 4i#i3i-ns -&!$. <it 0"3"s -n. unting >ni#$s < " t-s>$. t $!s$3#$s t" 8&$s$&#$ t $ 8$-4$ -n. "&.$& in t $ 4"!!unit/' Vi4$nt$ t-3>$. t" Ju-n -n. t $ 3-tt$& -g&$$. t" -&&$st H-00/' T $ "t $& !$!0$&s "% H&$$n-n <$&$ t $n 4-33$. t" $38 in t $ -&&$st' T $/ <$nt t" H-00/Cs "us$ -n. <$&$ -03$ t" $#$ntu-33/ -<->$n i! -n. ti$. is -n.s 0$ in. i!' H-00/ <-s 0&"ug t 0$%"&$ Ju3i- -n. <-s -s>$. < / $ -. 0"@$. Ju3i-' H-0// s-i. it <-s 0$4-us$ $ <-s -ng&/ -n. t -t $ <-s .&un>' Ju-n t $n -n. t $&$ -.Eu.g$. i! gui3t/' T $/ t $n st-&t$. <-3>ing' W $n Ju-n -n. t $ "t $&s <$&$ 6 !$t$&s - $-. "% H-00/1 t $/ st"88$.' H-00/ <-s t $n st-00$. -t is si.$ -n. 0-4> -n. t $n %in-33/ s "t' H&$$n-n .u!8$. t $ .$-. 0"./ -t - !$-t g&in.$& < $&$ it <-s s &$..$. 0$/"n. &$4"gniti"n' C-n 4&u$3t/ 0$ -88&$4i-t$. -s -n -gg&-#-ting 4i&4u!st-n4$ in t is 4-s$2 ANSWER+ NO. $aragraph -&, Article &! of the #evised $enal %ode provides that there is cruelty in the commission of a felony when the wrong done in the commission of the crime is deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its commission. There is no cruelty when the other wrong is done after the victim is already dead. The test in appreciating cruelty as an aggravating circumstance is whether the accused deliberately and sadistically augmented the wrong by causing another wrong not necessary for its commission, or inhumanly increased the victimLs suffering or outraged or scoffed at his person or corpse. n this case, Huan and his confederates threw Gabby into the meat grinder, the latter was already dead. (PE5PLE vs SI7549A, et al , 9 R 4o $#$/. >une .", (//0% QUESTION NO' 61 In - 8-&t/1 L$" -n. is <i%$ <$&$ singing t"g$t $&' A%t$& t $i& .u$t1 t $ 4"u83$ .$4i.$. t" g" "!$' L$" -n.$. t $ !i4&"8 "n$ t" B$&n-0$1 &$!-&>ing1 JB-/-<1 its /"u& tu&n 0$4-us$ <$ -&$ g"ing "!$ <it !/ <i%$'J B$&n-0$ t""> t $ !i4&"8 "n$ -n. 0$g-n t" sing <it is <i%$ H&-4i-' A"<$#$&1 $ <-s $n&-g$. < $n t $ #i.$">$ su..$n3/ st"88$.' B$&n-0$ s "ut$.' JVu3#"% /"u& !"t $&1 < " is t"ug $&$1 /"u -&$ %"u3ing !$'J Si!u3t-n$"us3/1 B$&n-0$ 8u33$. - t-03$ -n. tu&n$. it u8si.$ ."<n' A$ g&-00$. -n $!8t/ 0"tt3$ "% 0$$& g&-n.$ -n. s!-s $. it' A$ t $n s "ut$. in#$4ti#$s -t t $ ="nt-<$ %-!i3/+ JVu3#- "% /"u& !"t $&1 /"u ="nt-<$ %-!i3/J L$" 4"n%&"nt$. B$&n-0$ -n. .$!-n.$. t" >n"< < / B$&n-0$ <-s s" !-. -t is %-!i3/' T" 8&$#$nt t $ -3&$-./ t$ns$ situ-ti"n %&"! %u&t $& $s4-3-ting1 H&-4i- 8&"..$. L$" t" 3$-#$' As L$" <-s &$t&i$#ing is s3i88$&s1 B$&n-0$ t&i$. t" it i! <it t $ 0&">$n 0"tt3$' L$" 8-&&i$. t $ t &ust -n. 0"@$. B$&n-0$ "n t $ n"s$' T $/ <$&$ s$8-&-t$. 0/ t $ B-&-ng-/ K-g-<-.s < " 0&"ug t B$&n-0$ t" is t&i4/43$' On is <-/1 t" t $ t&i4/43$1 B$&n-0$ <-&n$. L$"+ JW-it %"& !$ -n. I <i33 4"!$ 0-4>'J N"n"ng1 B$&n-0$Is s"n1 .&"#$ t $ t&i4/43$ -n. 0&"ug t t $ 3-tt$& "!$' A%t$& -0"ut t i&t/ t" %"&t/ !inut$s1 B$&n-0$ &$tu&n$.1 -&!$. <it - s "&t gun' A$ 8"siti"n$. i!s$3% in - .-&> 83-4$' Su..$n3/1 H&-4i- $-&. - guns "t' S $ tu&n$. $& $-. t"<-&.s t $ .i&$4ti"n < $&$ t $ guns "t $!-n-t$. %&"! -n. s-< t -t L$" <-s it "n t $ 3$%t t$!83$ -n. %$33 t" t $ g&"un.1 !"&t-33/ <"un.$.' A%t$& t&i-31 t $ 4"u&t &$n.$&$. - .$4isi"n %in.ing B$&n-0$ gui3t/ 0$/"n. &$-s"n-03$ ."u0t "% !u&.$& Fu-3i%i$. 0/ t&$-4 $&/ -n. $#i.$nt 8&$!$.it-ti"n' (1) Di. t $ t&i-3 4"u&t g&-#$3/ $&& in %in.ing t -t t $ 4&i!$ 4"!!itt$. <-s "n$ "% !u&.$& Fu-3i%i$. 0/ t&$-4 $&/2 (,) Di. t $ t&i-3 4"u&t g&-#$3/ $&& in -88&$4i-ting $#i.$nt 8&$!$.it-ti"n -s -n -gg&-#-ting 4i&4u!st-n4$2
9,
L-<
CRIMINAL LAW
QUESTION NO' 66 Di$g"1 < " <-s <$-&ing - 8-i& "% s "&t 8-nts 0ut n->$. %&"! <-ist u81 $nt$&$. t $ 0$.&""! "% M"n-1 <$nt "n t"8 "% $&1 $3. $& -n.s1 &$!"#$. $& 8-nt/1 !-s $. $& 0&$-sts -n. t"u4 $. $& s$@ "&g-n' A"<$#$&1 Di$g" s-< R"ss$31 M"n-Cs /"ung$& 0&"t $& 8$$8ing t &"ug t $ .""& "% t $ &""! -n. .is!"unt$.' A$ 0$&-t$. R"ss$3 %"& 8$$8ing -n. "&.$&$. i! t" g" 0-4> t" is &""! -n. t" s3$$8' Di$g" t $n 3$%t M"n-Cs &""!' Is Di$g" gui3t/ "% 4"nsu!!-t$. -4ts "% 3-s4i#i"usn$ss .$%in$. in A&ti43$ 66) "% t $ R$#is$. =$n-3 C".$ "& -tt$!8t$. &-8$ un.$& A&ti43$ 66; "% t $ s-i. C".$2 ANSWER+ 5iego is guilty of attempted rape and not of acts of lasciviousness. 5iego intended to have carnal knowledge of 1ona, and by the series of his overt acts he commenced the execution of rape which, if not for his desistance, will ripen into the crime of rape. Although 5iego desisted from performing all the acts of execution however his desistance was not spontaneous as he was impelled to do so only because of the sudden and unexpected arrival of #ossel. (PE5PLE vs LI@A3A, 9 R 4os .'0'",=!., >anuar: (', (//0%
L-<
9,
QUESTION W -t is Mist->$ "% F-4t2 W -t -&$ its &$Fuisit$s2 ANSWER+ 1istake of Fact is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused in+ury to another. (e is not, however, criminally liable because he did not act with criminal intent. An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent which arises upon the commission of a felonious act. The requisites of 1istake of Fact are as follows:
CRIMINAL LAW
D is a principal by inducement. /y promising to give B $&8,888.88 to kill E, which is an agreement for a consideration, the inducement was made directly with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime. Further, the facts show that B has no personal reason to kill E except the inducement which is therefore, the determining cause for the commission of the crime by B. B is a principal by direct participation because he killed E pursuant to the inducement or agreement for a consideration and he, therefore, personally took part in the execution of the act constituting the crime. (Revise& Penal Co&e, Art .!, par .% * is neither a principal nor an accomplice. Although * offered and actually transported B to the island where E was vacationing as he owns the only motor boat in the locality, the facts of the problem do not show that * has any knowledge of the criminal design nor purpose of B. To be a principal by indispensable cooperation, it is essential that there be either anterior conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose an intention immediately before the commission of the crime. This means participation in the same resolution of B, the principal by direct participation. * is not a principal by direct participation because he did not participate directly in the execution of the act constituting the crime. %learly, he also is not a principal by inducement because he did not induce B to kill E. * is not an accomplice because he has also no knowledge of the criminal design of B, the principal by direct participation. f * has knowledge of the criminal purpose of B then he will be a principal by indispensable cooperation because he cooperated in the commission of the crime by B, which is the transporting of B to the island in his boat which is the only one in the locality, without which the crime would not have been accomplished. (Revise& Penal Co&e, Art .!, Par 0% QUESTION Is 8&i"& -g&$$!$nt t" 4"!!it - 4&i!$ n$4$ss-&/ %"& t $ $@ist$n4$ "% 4"ns8i&-4/2 ANSWER+ NO, conspiracy is present so long as the acts of the accused clearly manifest a concurrence of the will and a common intent or design to commit a crime. t may be inferred if it is proven that two or more persons aimed their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful ob+ect, each doing a part so that their acts N although apparently independent> were in fact connected and cooperative, thus indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment. This is also known as the 5octrine of mplied %onspiracy. %onspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused>> from the beginning, during and after the crime>> which are indicative of design, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments. )nce it is shown that there is concurrence in action or action in concert to achieve a criminal design, the act of one is deemed the act of all the conspirators. (PE5PLE vs 8ELIPE, 9 R 4o .'(#/# 3ecember .., (//0% QUESTION At "n$ ti!$1 8-st !i.nig t1 t $ -44us$. <$nt ."<nst-i&s <it - 3"-.$. gun t" in#$stig-t$ < -t $ t "ug t <$&$ t $ %""tst$8s "% -n unin#it$. gu$st' A%t$& s$$ing < -t -88$-&$. t" i! -n -&!$. st&-ng$& 3"">ing -&"un. -n. "ut t" &"0 t $ "us$1 $ %i&$. is gun s$&i"us3/ inEu&ing t $ !-n' W $n t $ 3ig ts tu&n$. "n1 t $ un%"&tun-t$ #i4ti! tu&n$. "ut t" 0$ is 0&"t $& in 3-< "n is <-/ t" t $ >it4 $n t" g$t s"!$ 3ig t sn-4>s' T $ -44us$. <-s in.i4t$. %"& s$&i"us 8 /si4-3 inEu&i$s' S "u3. t $ -44us$.1 gi#$n t $ 4i&4u!st-n4$s1 0$ -4Fuitt$. "& 4"n#i4t$.2 W /2 ANSWER+ The accused should be convicted because, even assuming the facts to be true in his belief, his act of shooting a burglar when there is no unlawful aggression on the person is not +ustified. 5efense of property or property right does not +ustify the act of firing a gun at a burglar unless the life and limb of the accused is already in imminent and immediate danger. Although the accused acted out of a misapprehension of the facts, hi is not absolved from criminal liability. ((//0 7ar EDaminations%
9,
L-<
CRIMINAL LAW
QUESTION (1) Distinguis 0$t<$$n -n "&.in-&/ 4"!83$@ 4&i!$ -n. - s8$4i-3 4"!83$@ 4&i!$ -s t" t $i& 4"n4$8ts -n. -s t" t $ i!8"siti"n "% 8$n-3ti$s' (,) C-n t $&$ 0$ - 4"!83$@ 4&i!$ "% 4"u8 .C$t-t <it &$0$33i"n2 (6) C-n t $&$ 0$ - 4"!83$@ 4&i!$ "% 4"u8 .C$t-t <it s$.iti"n2 ANSWER+ (1) n concept N An ordinary complex crime is made up of two or more crimes being punished in distinct provisions of the #evised $enal %ode but alleged in one information either because they were brought about by a single felonious act or because one offense is a necessary means for committing the other offense or offenses. They are alleged in one information so that only one penalty shall be imposed. A special complex crime, on the other hand, is made up of two or more crimes which are considered only as components of a single indivisible offense being punished in one provision of the #evised $enal %ode. As to penalties N n ordinary complex crime, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed and in its maximum period. n special complex crime, only one penalty is specifically prescribed for all the component crimes, which are regarded as one indivisible offense. The component crimes are not regarded as distinct crimes and so the penalty for the most serious crime is not the penalty to be imposed nor in its maximum period. t is the penalty specifically provided for the special complex crime that shall be applied according to the rules on imposition of the penalty. (,) YES, if there was conspiracy between the offender(s) committing the coup dCetat and the offenders committing the rebellion. /y conspiracy, the crime of one would be the crime of the other and vice versa. This is possible because the offender in coup dCetat may be any person belonging to the military or the national police or public officer, whereas rebellion does not so require. 1oreover, the crime of coup dCetat may be committed singly, whereas rebellion requires a public uprising and taking up arms to overthrow the duly constituted government. 4ince the two crimes are essentially different and punished with distinct penalties, there is no legal impediment to the application of Art. !7 of the #evised $enal %ode. (6) YES, coup dCetat can be complexed with sedition because the two crimes are essentially different and distinctly punished under the #evised $enal %ode. 4edition may not be directed against the Government or non>political in ob+ective, whereas coup dCetat is always political in ob+ective as it is directed against the Government and led by persons or public officer holding public office belonging to the military or national police. Art. !7 of the %ode may apply under the conditions therein provided. ((//0 7ar EDaminations% QUESTION In < -t 4-s$s is A&t' 75 n"t -883i4-03$2
ANSWER+ The rules in Art. !7 are not applicable: (&) *hen the crimes sub+ect of the case have common elements< (-) *hen the crimes involved are sub+ect to the rule of absorption of one crime by the other< (') *here the two offenses resulting from a single act are specifically punished as a single crime, such as less serious physical in+uries with serious slander of deed, since this is punished under Art. -20 par. -, as the single crime of less serious physical in+uries with ignominy< (!) n special complex crimes< (0) *hen the crimes involved cannot be legally complexed, vi,: a) 1alicious obtention or abusive service of search warrant (Art. &-") with per+ury< b) /ribery (Art. -&8) with infidelity in the custody of prisoners< c) 1altreatment of prisoners (Art. -'0) with serious physical in+uries<
d) 9surpation of real rights (Art. '&-) with serious physical in+uries< and e) Abandonment of persons in danger (Art. -60) and crimes against minors (Arts. -62>-67) with another felony. QUESTION W $n !-/ ins-nit/ 0$ -88&$4i-t$. -s -n $@$!8ting 4i&4u!st-n4$ un.$& A&ti43$ 1, "% t $ R$#is$. =$n-3 C".$2 ANSWER+ nsanity under Art. &-, par. &, of The #evised $enal %ode exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, i.e., appellant is deprived of reason< he acts without the least discernment because of complete absence of the power to discern< or, there is a total deprivation of freedom of the will. The fact that a person behaves cra,ily is not conclusive that he is insane. The prevalent meaning of the word Icra,yI is not synonymous with the legal terms Iinsane,I Inon compos mentis,I Iunsound mind,I Iidiot,I or Ilunatic.I The popular conception of the word Icra,yI is being used to describe a person or an act unnatural or out of the ordinary. A man may behave in a cra,y manner but it does not necessarily and conclusively prove that he is legally so (PE5PLE vs 8L5RE435, 9 R 4o .0",'# 5ctober ,, (//0% QUESTION Distinguis 8&"#"4-ti"n %&"! #in.i4-ti"n "% - g&-#$ "%%$ns$ -s !itig-ting 4i&4u!st-n4$s' ANSWER+ n the case of provocation, it is made directly only to the person committing the felony< in vindication, the grave offense may be committed also against the offenderCs relatives mentioned by the law. n vindication, the offended party must have done a grave offense to the offender or his relatives mentioned in the law< while in provocation, the cause that brought about the provocation need not be a grave offense. n provocation, it is necessary that the provocation or threat immediately preceded the act, i.e., that there be no interval of time between the provocation and the commission of the crime< while in vindication, the vindication of the grave offense may be proximate, which admits of an interval of time between the grave offense done by the offended party and the commission of the crime by the accused. QUESTION Li"n$3 <-s 0$ing -&&$st$. %"& -#ing 4"!!itt$. - 4&i!$' W $n $ s-< t $ 8"3i4$ !"#ing t"<-&.s i!1 $ "%%$&$. n" &$sist-n4$ -n. -33"<$. t $! t" -&&$st i! <it "ut 8&"t$st' M-/ t $ !itig-ting 4i&4u!st-n4$ "% #"3unt-&/ su&&$n.$& 0$ -88&$4i-t$. in Li"n$3Cs %-#"&2 ANSWER+ NO, the fact that ;ionel did not resist arrest or deny his criminal act did not constitute voluntary surrender. A surrender, to be voluntary, must be spontaneous and must clearly indicate the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities. (ere, the ;ionel was arrested. There was, therefore no voluntary surrender to speak of because ;ionel was in fact arrested. There is voluntary surrender only when the following requisites are proven, namely: (&) the offender has not actually been arrested< (-) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority< and (') the surrender was voluntary. A surrender to be voluntary must be spontaneous, showing the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt, or he wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his search and capture. Ooluntary surrender presupposes repentance. (PE5PLE vs 5SPI9, 9 R 4o .'.!"", 4ovember .,, (//0% QUESTION
9,
L-<
CRIMINAL LAW
QUESTION T"8->1 - 8$&#$&t1 &-8$. M-&i- < " <-s -t t -t ti!$ "n3/ 1: /$-&s "3.' M-&i-Cs %-!i3/ %i3$. - 4"!83-int -g-inst T"8->' W $n T"8-> >n$< t is $ <$nt t" M-&i-Cs %-!i3/ -n. "%%$&$. 8&"!is$ t" !-&&/ M-&i-' W $n T"8-> <-s 0$ing -&&$st$. $ -&gu$. t -t t $&$ <-s -3&$-./ 8&"!is$ t" !-&&/ M-&i- $n4$1 is 4&i!in-3 3i-0i3it/ s "u3. 0$ $@tinguis $.' D$4i.$' ANSWER+ TopakCs criminal liability was not extinguished. Article -22>% of #A 7'0' requires that there be a subsequent valid marriage to effect the extinction of the criminal liability. 1ere promise to marry is not enough. Further, there can be no valid marriage between 1aria and Topak as 1aria is only &8 years old, she lacks the capacity to enter into a valid marriage. QUESTION W -t -&$ t $ .istin4ti"ns 0$t<$$n 8-&."n 0/ t $ =&$si.$nt -n. 0/ t $ "%%$n.$. 8-&t/2
ANSWER+ &. $ardon by the $resident extinguishes the criminal liability of the offender< such is not the case when the pardon is given by the offended party. -. $ardon by the $resident cannot include civil liability that the offender must pay< but the offended party can expressly waive the civil liability that the offender must pay. '. n cases where the law allows pardon by the offended party (Art '!!), the pardon should be given before the institution of the criminal prosecution and must be extended to both offenders< whereas, pardon by the $resident is granted only after conviction and may be extended to any of the offenders. QUESTION W -t is i!8&is"n!$nt2
su0si.i-&/ i!8&is"n!$nt2
W $n
ANSWER+ 9nder Article '" of the #$%, subsidiary imprisonment is a subsidiary personal liability imposed when the person has no property with which to meet the F ?= mentioned in Article '7, paragraph ' at the rate of one day for each $7.88. (owever, in order that subsidiary imprisonment may be enforced, it must be expressly stated in the +udgment that in case of failure to pay the fine, the accused must suffer subsidiary imprisonment. n absence of such express statement, the subsidiary imprisonment cannot be imposed. The reason is because subsidiary imprisonment is a substitute principal penalty, not an accessory penalty. (Ramos v 9onon), !( SCRA #$% 1oreover, there is no subsidiary penalty if: a) The principal penalty is higher than prision correccional< b) t is not of fixed duration< c) The subsidiary penalty, though properly imposable is not expressly stated in the +udgment< d) The penalty is not F 54 (Fine< mprisonment and fine< &estierro and fine< suspension and fine)< or e) The penalty does not include fine. QUESTION T 3".g$. in t $ M- -&3i>- A"t$3 <it "ut n"ti%/ing t $ !-n-g$!$nt "% t $ "t$3 "% t $ g"".s $ 0&"ug t -3"ng <it i!' N$it $& .i. $ %"33"< t $ .i&$4ti"ns "% t $ "t$3 <it &$s8$4t t" t $ 4-&$ -n. #igi3-n4$ "#$& s-i. g"".s' On$ $#$ning1 t $ 0$330"/ "% t $ "t$3 8">$. - gun "n T -n. .i#$st$. i! "% is g"".s' Assu!ing t -t t $ s-i. 0$330"/ -0s4"n.$.1 !-/ t $ "<n$& "% t $ "t$3 0$ !-.$ su0si.i-&i3/ 3i-03$ %"& t $ &$stituti"n "% s-i. g"".s1 "& t" 8-/ t $ #-3u$ t $&$"%2 R$-s"n %u33/' ANSWER+ The owner of the hotel is subsidiarily and civilly liable for the restitution of the goods or to pay the value thereof. An inkeeper or tavernkeeper is subsidiarily and civilly liable for restitution of goods taken by means of robbery with violence and intimidation against persons when the same is committed by the inkeeperCs employees. 1aharlika (otel is subsidiarily liable because the goods were taken by the hotelCs bellboy by means of robbery. The nature of the business of the hotel is to provide not only lodging for the guests but also security to their persons and effects. The necessity for this security to their persons and effects is apparent from the provisions of Articles &""7>-88' of the ?ew %ivil %ode and Article &8- of the #evised $enal %ode. The security mentioned is not confined to effects delivered to the hotel management for safekeeping but also to all effects brought in the hotel. The reason is that the hotel management has supervision and control over their inns and the premises thereof.
9,
L-<
CRIMINAL LAW
QUESTION Ju-n .$ C-st&" -3&$-./ -. t &$$ (6) 8&$#i"us 4"n#i4ti"ns 0/ %in-3 Eu.g!$nt %"& t $%t < $n $ <-s %"un. gui3t/ "% R"00$&/ <it A"!i4i.$' In t $ 3-st 4-s$1 t $ t&i-3 Eu.g$ 4"nsi.$&$. -g-inst t $ -44us$. 0"t &$4i.i#is! -n. -0itu-3 .$3inFu$n4/' T $ -44us$. -88$-3$. -n. 4"nt$n.$. t -t in is 3-st 4"n#i4ti"n1 t $ t&i-3 4"u&t 4-nn"t 4"nsi.$& -g-inst i! - %in.ing "% &$4i.i#is! -n.1 -g-in1 -0itu-3 .$3inFu$n4/' Is t $ -88$-3 !$&it"&i"us2 E@83-in' ANSWER+ NO, the appeal is not meritorious. #ecidivism and habitual delinquency are correctly considered in this case because the basis of recidivism is different from that of habitual delinquency. Huan is a recidivist because he had been previously convicted by final +udgment for theft and again found guilty of robbery with homicide, which are both crimes against property, embraced under the same Title (Title Ten, /ook Two) of the #evised $enal %ode. The implication is that he is speciali,ing in the commission of crimes against property, hence aggravating in the conviction for robbery with homicide. (abitual delinquency, which brings about an additional penalty when an offender is convicted a third time or more for specified crimes, is correctly considered because Huan had already three (') previous convictions by final +udgment for theft and again convicted for robbery with homicide. And the crimes specified as basis for habitual delinquency includes, inter alia, theft and robbery. QUESTION A -n. B 83$-.$. gui3t/ t" t $ 4&i!$ "% 8-&&i4i.$' T $ 4"u&t %"un. t &$$ !itig-ting 4i&4u!st-n4$s1 n-!$3/ 83$- "% gui3t/1 3-4> "% inst&u4ti"n -n. 3-4> "% int$nt t" 4"!!it s" g&-#$ <&"ng -s t -t 4"!!itt$.' T $ 8&$s4&i0$. 8$n-3t/ %"& 8-&&i4i.$ is &$43usi"n 8$&8$tu- t" .$-t ' I!8"s$ t $ 8&"8$& 8&in4i8-3 8$n-3t/' ANSWER+ The proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. =ven if there are two or more mitigating circumstances, a court cannot lower the penalty by one degree. n cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the lower penalty shall be applied when the commission of the crime is attended by some mitigating circumstances and there are no aggravating circumstances. (Revise& Penal Co&e, Art "0, par 0% QUESTION A <-s 4"n#i4t$. "% t $ 4"!83$@ 4&i!$ "% .$-t t ."4u!$nt' Sin4$ t $ -!"unt in#"3#$. ." n"t $@4$$. =,::'::1 %"& $st-%- is -&&$st" !-/"& in its !$.iu! -n. !-@i!u! 8$&i".s' %"& %-3si%i4-ti"n "% 8u03i4 ."4u!$nt is 8&isi"n !-/"& 83us %in$ n"t I!8"s$ t $ 8&"8$& 8$n-3t/'
&"ug %-3si%i4-ti"n "% 8u03i4 t $ 8$n-3t/ 8&$s4&i0$. 0/ 3-< T $ 8$n-3t/ 8&$s4&i0$. 0/ 3-< t" $@4$$. =;1:::'::'
ANSWER+ The proper penalty is A?B #A?G= * T( ? prision correctional (six months and one day to six years) as 1 ? 191, to A?B #A?G= within prision mayor maximum (ten years and one day to twelve years) as 1AD 191. For the purpose of determining the penalty next lower in degree, the penalty that should be considered as a starting point is the whole of prision mayor, it being the penalty prescribed by law, and not prision mayor in its maximum period, which is only the penalty actually applied because of Article !7 of the #evised $enal %ode. The penalty next lower in degree therefor is prision correccional and it is within the range of this penalty that the minimum should be taken. (R A 45 './0% QUESTION E%&$n1 - 0us .&i#$&1 <-s 4 -&g$. <it R$4>3$ss I!8&u.$n4$ R$su3ting in A"!i4i.$ %"& t $ .$-t "% R"!/' T $ t&i-3 4"u&t %"un. i! gui3t/ -s 4 -&g$.' E%&$n -883i$. %"& 8&"0-ti"n -n.
<-s gi#$n .u$ 4"u&s$ 0/ t $ t&i-3 4"u&t' A$ t $&$-%t$& %i3$. - %u33 -88$-3 &$g-&.ing t $ i!8"siti"n "% .-!-g$s' T $ RTC .$ni$. t" gi#$ .u$ 4"u&s$ t" t $ n"ti4$ "% -88$-3' M-/ E%&$n %i3$ - n"ti4$ "% -88$-3 n"t<it st-n.ing is -883i4-ti"n %"& 8&"0-ti"n2 ANSWER+ YES, the appeal in this case involved only the civil aspect of the trial courtCs +udgment. t must be remembered that the civil liability of the accused is not part of the penalty for the crime committed. $5 "27, otherwise known as the $robation ;aw provides that the filing of the application for probation shall be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal. #elying solely on the letter of the law, the filing of the application for probation should be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal. (owever, the above law provides only for the suspension of the sentence imposed on the accused by virtue of his application for probation. t has absolutely no bearing on civil liability. Although the execution of sentence is suspended by the grant of probation, it does not follow that the civil liability of the offender, if any, is extinguished. (SAL;A4 ;S PE5PLE, 9 R 4o .#0,'#, September .., (//0% QUESTION A <-s t<" !"nt s 0$3"< $ig t$$n /$-&s "% -g$ < $n $ 4"!!itt$. t $ 4&i!$' A$ <-s 4 -&g$. <it t $ 4&i!$ t &$$ !"nt s 3-t$&' Inst$-. "% 8&$8-&ing t" s$&#$ - E-i3 t$&!1 $ s"ug t - sus8$nsi"n "% t $ s$nt$n4$ "n t $ g&"un. t -t $ <-s - Eu#$ni3$ "%%$n.$&' S "u3. $ 0$ $ntit3$. t" - sus8$nsi"n "% s$nt$n4$2 R$-s"ns' ANSWER+ NO, A is not entitled to a suspension of the sentence because he is no longer a minor at the time of the promulgation of the sentence. For purposes of suspension of sentence, the offenderCs age at the time of promulgation of the sentence in the one considered, not his age when he committed the crime. 4o, although A was below eighteen when he committed the crime, but he was already twenty three years only when sentenced, he is no longer eligible to suspension of sentence. ((//0 7ar EDaminations% QUESTION C-n Eu#$ni3$ "%%$n.$&s1 < " -&$ &$4i.i#ists1 #-3i.3/ -s> %"& sus8$nsi"n "% s$nt$n4$2 E@83-in' ANSWER+ YES, so long as the offender is a minor at the time of promulgation of sentence. The law establishing family courts, #epublic Act 7'2", provides to this effect: that if the minor is found guilty, the court should promulgate the sentence and ascertain any civil liability which the accused may have incurred. (owever, the sentence shall be suspended without the need of application pursuant to $5 28', otherwise known as the %hild and Bouth welfare code. (RA ,0"$, Sec #A% t is under $5 28' that an application for the suspension of the sentence is required and thereunder it is one of the condition of suspension of sentence that the offender be a first time convict: this has been displaced by #A 7'2". ((//0 7ar EDaminations% QUESTION W -t is t $ 8u&8"s$ %"& %i@ing t $ !-@i!u! -n. !ini!u! t$&!s in t $ In.$t$&!in-t$ S$nt$n4$ L-<2 ANSWER+ The purpose of the law in fixing the minimum term of the sentence is to set the grace period at which the convict may be released on parole from imprisonment, unless by his conduct he is not deserving of parole and thus he shall continue serving his prison term in +ail but in no case to
9,
L-<
CRIMINAL LAW
ANSWER+ *hen the crime is punished by the #evised $enal %ode, the maximum period is that which could be properly imposed in view of the ordinary mitigating and aggravating circumstances. The minimum period is that which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that provided by the #$% for the offense without regard to the ordinary mitigating and aggravating circumstances. =xcept in the case of privileged mitigating circumstances, which are taken into consideration in determining such penalty next lower. The penalty next lower is determined according to the scale provided in Art. 6& of the #$%. *hen the crime is punished by special law maximum and minimum terms shall not be more than nor less than the period of imprisonment fixed by the special law. QUESTION A&ni$ 4"!!itt$. in.$t$&!in-t$ 8$n-3t/'
"!i4i.$'
I!8"s$ t $
ANSWER+ (aving been found guilty of the crime of homicide, the penalty that should be imposed on Arnie should be reclusion temporal under Article -!" of the #evised $enal %ode. There being one (&) mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the penalty to be imposed shall be the minimum period of reclusion temporal, that is, from twelve (&-) years and one (&) day to fourteen (&!) years and eight (7) months. Applying the ndeterminate 4entence ;aw, the minimum of the penalty to be imposed shall be the penalty next lower which is prision mayor in any of its periods. Therefore, Arnie may be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of ten (&8) years and one (&) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (&!) years and eight (7) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum. (PE5PLE vs A4654I5, 9 R 4o .(,$//, >ul: .', (///% QUESTION On Jun$ 11 1(551 - 4"!83-int %"& 4"n4u0in-g$ 4"!!itt$. in F$0&u-&/ 1(59 <-s %i3$. -g-inst R"0$&t" in t $ !uni4i8-3 t&i-3 4"u&t "% T-n?-1 C-#it$ %"& 8u&8"s$s "% 8&$3i!in-&/ in#$stig-ti"n' F"& #-&i"us &$-s"ns1 it <-s "n3/ "n Ju3/ 61 1((5 < $n t $ Eu.g$ "% s-i. 4"u&t .$4i.$. t $ 4-s$ 0/ .is!issing it %"& 3-4> "% Eu&is.i4ti"n sin4$ t $ 4&i!$ <-s 4"!!itt$. in M-ni3-' T $ 4-s$ <-s su0s$Fu$nt3/ %i3$. <it t $ 4it/ %is4-3 "% M-ni3- 0ut it <-s .is!iss$. "n t $ g&"un. t -t t $ 4&i!$ -. -3&$-./ 8&$s4&i0$.' T $ 3-< 8&"#i.$s t -t t $ 4&i!$ "% 4"n4u0in-g$ 8&$s4&i0$s in 1: /$-&s' W-s t $ .is!iss-3 0/ t $ %is4-3 4"&&$4t2 E@83-in' ANSWER+ NO, the fiscalCs dismissal of the case on alleged prescription is not correct. The filing of the complaint with the municipal trial court, although only for preliminary investigation, interrupted and suspended the period of prescription in as much as the +urisdiction of a court in a criminal case is determined by the allegation in the complaint or information, not by the result of proof. ((//. bar eDaminations%
QUESTION A <-& 0$t<$$n = i3i88in$s -n. C in- <-s .$43-&$. -s t $ 3-tt$& s"ug t t" in#-.$ t $ 4"unt&/' M$!0$&s "% t $ C in$s$ -&!/ t $n 0"ug t 0-n.-g$s %&"! - .&ugst"&$ "<n$. 0/ Ju-n' W $n t $ = i3i88in$ -&!/ %"un. "ut1 Ju-n <-s 4 -&g$. -n. 3-t$& "n 4"n#i4t$. "% t&$-s"n' W-s is 4"n#i4ti"n 8&"8$&2 ANSWER+ NO, the sale of bandages to the enemy does not per se constitute treason because the said articles are not exclusively for war purposes and their sale does not necessarily carry an intention on the part of Huan to adhere to the enemy. Although it may constitute giving aid or comfort to the enemy, still there is no treason as there is no intent to betray the $hilippines. (Revise& Penal Co&e, Art ..'% QUESTION R"g$& -n. An.&$s 0"-&.$. 0/ !$-ns "% - !"t"&0"-t1 t $ MLT T-0-ng-" -s s-i. #$ss$3 <-s s-i3ing -3"ng t $ is3-n. "% Min."&"' A&!$. <it MB1) &i%3$s1 t $/ .$t-in$. t $ 4&$< -n. t""> 4"!83$t$ 4"nt&"3 "% t $ #$ss$3' T $&$-%t$&1 R"g$& "&.$&$. t $ 4&$< t" t->$ t $ JMLT T-0-ng-"J t" - 8"&t in Sing-8"&$' T $&$1 t $ #$ss$3Cs 4-&g" <-s t&-ns%$&&$. t" t $ "3. "% -n"t $& #$ss$31 t $ JN-#i =&i.$J' R"g$& -n. An.&$s s"3. t $ 4-&g" -n. .i#i.$. t $ 8&"4$$.s 0$t<$$n t $!s$3#$s' W $n 4 -&g$. <it Fu-3i%i$. 8i&-4/ un.$& ='D' ;6,1 R"g$& -n. An.&$s -&gu$ t -t t $/ 4-nn"t 0$ 4"n#i4t$. %"& -4ts ."n$ "utsi.$ = i3i88in$ <-t$&s "& t$&&it"&/1 sin4$ t $ 4-&g" <-s t->$n -n. .is8"s$. "% 0$/"n. = i3i88in$ <-t$&s' Is t $&$ 4"nt$nti"n 4"&&$4t2 ANSWER+ ?), because the attack on and sei,ure of I1KT TabangaoI and its cargo were committed in $hilippine waters, although the captive vessel was later brought by the pirates to 4ingapore where its cargo was off>loaded, transferred, and sold. ?otwithstanding that $residential 5ecree ?o. 0'requires that the attack and sei,ure of the vessel and its cargo be committed in $hilippine waters, the disposition by the pirates of the vessel and its cargo is still deemed part of the act of piracy, hence, the same need not be committed in $hilippine waters. 1oreover, piracy falls under Title )ne of /ook Two of the #evised $enal %ode. As such, it is an exception to the rule on territoriality in criminal law. The same principle applies even if #oger and Andres were charged, not with a violation of qualified piracy under the penal code but under a special law, $residential 5ecree ?o. 0'- which penali,es piracy in $hilippine waters. Oerily, $residential 5ecree ?o. 0'- should be applied with more force here since its purpose is precisely to discourage and prevent piracy in $hilippine waters. t is likewise, well>settled that regardless of the law penali,ing the same, piracy is a reprehensible crime against the whole world. (PE5PLE vs 6ULI4, 9 R 4o ...!/$, Au)ust 0/, (//.% QUESTION =&i#-t$ Fi&stBC3-ss M-n-t-. <-s t&$-4 $&"us3/ gunn$. ."<n 0/ - g&"u8 "% 5 !$n < i3$ !-nning t $ t&-%%i4 -t B"ni%-4i" St' in M-n.-u$ Cit/' As - &$su3t "% t $ >i33ing1 t<" t$-!s "% 8"3i4$ "%%i4$&s <$&$ t-s>$. t" 4"n.u4t su&#$i33-n4$ "n - sus8$4t$. s-%$ "us$ "% !$!0$&s "% t $ N$< =$"83$Cs A&!/ (N=A) S8-&&"< Unit 3"4-t$. in C$0u Cit/' A$&$1 t $/ <$&$ -03$ t" -&&$st R".&ig" -n. E.<in' R".&ig" $@$4ut$. -n $@t&-Eu.i4i-3 4"n%$ssi"n < $&$in $ 4"n%$ss$. t -t $ -n. t $ g&"u8 "% E.<in >i33$. =%4' M-n-t-.' A$ 3i>$<is$ -.!itt$. t -t $ -n. E.<in <$&$ !$!0$&s "% t $ S8-&&"< Unit -n. t -t t $/ un.$&t""> t $ >i33ing "% =%4' M-n-t-. u8"n t $ "&.$&s "% t $i& &$0$3 4"!!-n.$&' S "u3. R".&ig" -n. E.<in 0$ 4"n#i4t$. "% .i&$4t -ss-u3t <it !u&.$&1 %"& t $ &$-s"n t -t M-n-t-. <-s - >i33$. in t $ 8$&%"&!-n4$ "% is .uti$s -s - 8$&s"n in -ut "&it/2 ANSWER+
9,
L-<
CRIMINAL LAW
NO, in such case, the crime committed is falsification of private document only and not estafa through falsification. There is no complex crime of estafa through falsification of private document, because the immediate effect of falsification of private document is the same as that of estafa. The falsification of a private document cannot be said to be a means to commit estafa, because the fraudulent gain obtained through deceit in estafa, in the commission of which a private document was falsified, is nothing more or less than the very damage caused by the falsification of such document. (Revise& Penal Co&e, Art .!(% QUESTION 6 -&!$. !$n 0&">$ int" t $ HSIS 0ui3.ing -n. $@8&$ss$. g&i$% "#$& t $ 8""& 8$&%"&!-n4$ "% t $ -g$n4/' T $/ 4-33$. t $ 8$"83$ t $&$ t" $38 t $!s$3#$s t" -33 t $ t ings %"un. in t $ 8&$!is$s 0ut t $/1 t $ -44us$.1 .i. n"t $38 t $!s$3#$s t" - sing3$ "0E$4t' W -t <-s t $ 4&i!$ 4"!!itt$.2 ANSWER+ The accused committed the crime of direct assault. There are two forms of direct assault and the first is committed where the offenders through force, violence, or intimidation committed acts aimed at any of the ob+ectives of #ebellion or 4edition. n the instant case, all the requisites for the first form of sedition was present: &. the accused used force, violence or intimidation< -. there was no public uprising because there were only ' of them< 3. their aim is to attain any of the purposes of rebellion or sedition, which in this case is, to despoil for any political or social end, any person, municipality or province, or the national government of all its property or any part thereof. (Revise& Penal Co&e, Art .',% QUESTION Ju-n <-s s$nt$n4$. t" t $ 8$n-3t/ "% D$sti$&&" < $&$in $ <-s 8&" i0it$. t" $nt$& t $ 0-&&i" "% Lu0-ng %"& - s8$4i%i$. 8$&i".' On M-/ ,1 t $ 0-&&i" "% Lu0-ng 4$3$0&-t$. its %i$st-1 -n. M-@1 t $ 0$st %&i$n. "% Ju-n sin4$ 4 i3. "". in#it$. t $ 3-tt$&' Ju-n $@4it$.3/ -tt$n.$. t $ 4$3$0&-ti"n -n. 4"ns$Fu$nt3/ #i"3-t$. is s$nt$n4$' W -t is t $ 4&i!$ 4"!!itt$. 0/ Ju-n -n. < -t is 8$n-3t/ t" 0$ i!8"s$.2
ANSWER+ Huan committed the crime of evasion of service of sentence under Art. &06 of the #$%. This crime may be committed even if the convict was originally sentenced to 5estierro, as when he will enter the prohibited places or come within the prohibited radius to such places as stated in the +udgment. The penalty to be imposed is not imprisonment but also destierro. The reason is that the penalty for the evasion cannot be more severe than the penalty that was evaded. QUESTION N"n" <-s 4"n#i4t$. "% t $ 4&i!$ "% t $%t -n. <-s s$nt$n4$. t" i!8&is"n!$nt' Ais !"t $&1 .$s8$&-t$ t" -#$ i! &$3$-s$.1 <$nt t" t $ Muni4i8-3 M-/"& -n. -s>$. %"& is $38' T $ !-/"& .$!-n.$. =1::1:::':: in $@4 -ng$ %"& t $ &$3$-s$ "% N"n" %&"! i!8&is"n!$nt' W $n N"n" <-s n"t &$3$-s$.1 t $ !"t $& %i3$. - 0&i0$&/ 4-s$ -g-inst t $ !-/"&' D$4i.$' ANSWER+ The crime is not bribery because in bribery it is essential that the act which the offender agrees to perform or which he executes be connected with the performance of his official duties. n the instant case, the release of a prisoner is not connected with the 1ayorCs duties. nstead, the 1ayor is guilty of estafa because by promising the mother that he would release Huan, he pretended to possess authority to do so.
9,
L-<
CRIMINAL LAW
QUESTION M-/ t $ 4&i!$ "% M-3#$&s-ti"n 0$ 4"!!itt$. 0/ - 8&i#-t$ in.i#i.u-32 8&"8$&t/ 0$ t $ su0E$4t !-tt$& "% t $ 4&i!$ "% M-3#$&s-ti"n2
M-/ 8&i#-t$
ANSWERS+ B=4, private individuals who, having charge of any national, provincial or municipal funds, revenue or property appropriate, take, or misappropriate or consent, or through abandonment or negligence permit another person to take them, are liable for the crime of malversation. The same criminal liability may be incurred by an administrator or depositary of funds or property, attached, sei,ed or deposited by public authority, even if such property belongs to a private individual. B=4, the expression, @even if such property belongs to a private individualA, is a sweeping and all embracing statement so as to include a case where private funds or property are involved, as long such funds or property are placed in the custody of accountable public officers. (Revise& Penal Co&e, Article (((% QUESTION W -t is t$4 ni4-3 !-3#$&s-ti"n2 ANSWER+ Technical malversation is a crime committed by any public officer who shall apply any public funds or property under his administration to any public use other than that for which funds or property were appropriated by law or ordinance. (Revise& Penal Co&e, Article ((/% QUESTION E."ng t &$< - 0-g 4"nt-ining g-s"3in$ -t t $ "us$ "% -n"t $& -n. 3it it' T $ %&"nt <-33 "% t $ "us$ st-&t$. 03-?ing' F"&t <it 1 t $ n$ig 0"&s 8"u&$. <-t$& "n t $ 0u&ning 8"&ti"n "% t $ "us$' On3/ - 8"&ti"n "% t $ "us$ <-s 0u&n$.' Dis4uss E."ngCs 4&i!in-3 3i-0i3it/' ANSWER+ =dong is liable for destructive arson in the consummated stage. t is destructive arson because fire was resorted to in destroying an inhabited house or dwelling. The arson is consummated because the house was in fact already burned although not totally. n arson, it is not required that the premises be totally burned for the crime to be consummated. t is enough that the premises suffer destruction by burning. (Revise& Penal Co&e, Art 0(/% QUESTION A1 < i3$ -tt$n.ing - %i$st- -t - n$ig 0"&ing t"<n 4 -n4$. u8"n Q < " <-s <$-&ing t $ s "$s1 8-nts -n. s i&t 0$3"nging t" A < i4 <$&$ st"3$n - !"nt -g" < i3$ 0$ing -ng$. "utsi.$ ACs "us$ t" .&/' R$-3i?ing t is1 A i!!$.i-t$3/ -44"st$. Q -n. -ss$&t$. is "<n$&s i8 "#$& t $ 8$&s"n-3 -88-&$3 <"&n 0/ Q' A %u&t $& .$!-n.$. its &$tu&n -n. < $n Q &$%us$. t" &$!"#$ t $ 43"t ing1 t $ %"&!$& .&$< - %-n >ni%$ -n. t &$-t$n$. Q < " $#$ntu-33/ 4"n4$.$.' Di. A 4"!!it -n/ 4&i!$2 ANSWER+ YES, A is guilty of grave coercion. . was in the actual possession of the disputed garments and with violence, A compelled . to remove the same and turn the things to him which the latter initially did not desire to give up if not for the threat given by A. A compelled . with violence and threat to do something against the latterCs will, this constitutes grave coercion punished under the #evised $enal %ode. =ven granting that A is the owner of the clothes, . being in actual possession of the same, the duty devolves upon A to seek the aid of proper authority and assert ownership in a manner provided by law.
QUESTION A -s -n i33$giti!-t$ s"n B1 < " !-u3$. -n. >i33$. t $ 3$giti!-t$ %-t $& "% A' Is B gui3t/ "% 8-&&i4i.$2 ANSWER+ NO, because under Art. -!2 of the #$% on parricide, in case of other ascendants (grandparents, great>grandparents, etc.) the relationship with the killer must be legitimate. The same is true with other descendants, that is, grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc. 4ince / is an illegitimate child of A he canCt be held guilty of parricide for killing ACs father (/Cs grandfather). QUESTION M&' G >i33$.+ (1) - <"!-n <it < "! $ 3i#$. <it "ut t $ 0$n$%it "% 43$&g/1 (,) t $i& 4 i3. < " <-s "n3/ t<" .-/s "3.1 (6) t $i& .-ug t$&1 -n. (7) t $i& -."8t$. s"n' W -t 4&i!$ "& 4&i!$s .i. M&' G 4"!!it2 ANSWER+ 1r. D committed the following crimes: (&) (omicide or murder as the case may be, for the killing of his common>law wife who is not legally considered a spouse. (-) nfanticide for the killing of the child as said child is less than (') days old. (owever the penalty corresponding to parricide shall be imposed since A is related to the child within the degree defined in the crime of parricide. (') $arricide for the killing of their daughter, whether legitimate or illegitimate, as long as she is not less than three (') days old at the time of the killing. (4) 1urder for the killing of their adopted son as the relationship between 1r. D and the said son must be by blood in order for parricide to arise. (.$$$ 7ar EDaminations% QUESTION Tit" st&u4> G in t $ !"ut <it - 3$-. 8i8$1 4-using t $ 3"ss "% t $ 3-tt$&Cs %"u& %&"nt t$$t ' W -t is t $ 4&i!$ 4"!!itt$.2 ANSWER+ Tito is liable for serious physical in+ury as the loss of teeth constitutes a deformity. /y deformity is meant physical ugliness, permanent and definite abnormality. t must be conspicuous and visible. The in+ury contemplated is an in+ury that cannot be repaired by the action of nature. The fact that the in+ured party may have artificial teeth, if he has the necessary means and so desires, does not repair the in+ury, although it may lessen the disfigurement. (Revise& Penal Co&e, Art ("0% QUESTION Ru./ <-s 4 -&g$. <it &-8$' It <-s -33$g$. in t $ in%"&!-ti"n t -t t $ #i4ti! <-s !in"& -n. t -t Ru./ <-s t $ st$8B%-t $& "% t $ #i4ti!' Du&ing t $ t&i-3 "% t $ 4-s$1 it <-s 8&"#$.1 -!"ng "t $&s1 t -t Ru./ <-s - 3i#$Bin 8-&tn$& "% t $ #i4ti!Cs !"t $&' In t $ $#$nt "% 4"n#i4ti"n %"& t $ 4&i!$ "% &-8$1 !-/ Ru./ 0$ i!8"s$. t $ 8$n-3t/ "% .$-t 2 ANSWER+ NO. 9nder section && of #epublic Act ?o. 620", the death penalty is imposed in rape cases where Ithe victim is under eighteen (&7) years of age and the offender is . . . the common>law spouse of the parent of the victim.I /eing in the nature of special qualifying circumstances, the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender must be both alleged and proved with certainty. n the case at bar, although the information against #udy alleged that he is the stepfather of the victim, the evidence shows that complainantLs mother, was not married to #udy and that he
9,
L-<
CRIMINAL LAW
QUESTION Lu4-s &-8$. is sist$& Y' Y t$sti%i$. t -t Lu4-s ins$&t$. is 8$nis insi.$ $& #-gin- -n. t -t Lu4-s $E-4u3-t$. t<i4$ .u&ing t $ s$@u-3 int$&4"u&s$ t -t 3-st$. %"& -0"ut t i&t/ !inut$s1 -%t$& < i4 Lu4-s <it .&$< is 8$nis -n. 3$%t' T $ t&i-3 4"u&t 4"n#i4t$. Lu4-s "% t<" 4"unts "% Fu-3i%i$. &-8$ -n. s$nt$n4$. i! t" su%%$& t $ 8$n-3t/ "% .$-t "n 0"t 4"unts1 t $ &-8$ 0$ing Fu-3i%i$. 0/ t $ 4i&4u!st-n4$ "% &$3-ti"ns i8 un.$& A&t' 1; "% t $ R$#is$. =$n-3 C".$' (1) S "u3. Lu4-s 0$ 4"n#i4t$. "% t<" 4"unts "% &-8$2 (,) Wi33 t $ -3t$&n-ti#$ 4i&4u!st-n4$ "% &$3-ti"ns i8 <-&&-nt t $ i!8"siti"n "% t $ .$-t 8$n-3t/2 ANSWERS+ (&) ?). ;ucas committed only one act of rape although he e+aculated twice during the sexual act. ;ucas did not withdraw his penis to insert it again into the vagina or to ItouchI the labia ma+ora or the labia minora when he e+aculated the second time. t is not the number of times that the offender e+aculates rather it is the penetration or ItouchingI that determines the consummation of the sexual act. B testified that ;ucasC penis penetrated her genitalia. At that point, ;ucas had already consummated the rape. The mere introduction of the penis into the labia ma+ora of the victimLs genitalia engenders the crime of rape. (ence, it is the ItouchingI or IentryI of the penis into the labia ma+ora or the labia minora of the pudendum of the victimLs genitalia that consummates rape. (-) ?). The #evised $enal %ode is silent as to when the alternative circumstance of relationship is mitigating and when it is aggravating. Hurisprudence considers relationship as an aggravating circumstance in crimes against chastity. (owever, rape is no longer a crime against chastity for it is now classified as a crime against persons. 1oreover, the aggravating circumstance sufficient to +ustify the imposition of the death penalty must not only be duly alleged and proven, it must be one of those enumerated in Article &! of the #evised $enal %ode or that specified by law such as under 4ection && of #epublic Act ?o. 620", amending Article ''0 of the #evised $enal %ode. *herein it is provided that the death penalty is to be imposed in rape cases Iwhen the victim is under eighteen (&7) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step>parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common>law spouse of the parent of the victim.I The %ourt has since held that the circumstances enumerated by the amendatory law are to be regarded as special qualifying (aggravating) circumstances. *hen the penalty to be imposed is a range of penalties where the maximum penalty is death and the appreciation of an aggravating circumstance would call for the imposition of the maximum penalty, which is death, the term Iaggravating circumstanceI must be strictly construed. The law must declare unequivocally an attendant circumstance as qualifying to warrant the imposition of the death penalty. The %onstitution expressly provides that the death penalty may only be imposed for crimes defined as heinous by %ongress. Any attendant circumstance that qualifies a crime as heinous must be expressly so prescribed by %ongress. (owever, resort must be made to the strict interpretation of the term Iaggravating circumstanceI only for the purpose of imposing the death penalty. n all other cases where the maximum penalty is not death, the term Iaggravating circumstanceI must be interpreted in its broad or generic sense so as to include the alternative circumstances under Article &0 of the #evised $enal %ode. (PE5PLE vs 5RILLA, 9 R 4os .',$0$='/, 8ebruar: .0, (//'% QUESTION Un.$& A&t' ,,6: "% t $ Ci#i3 C".$1 $@$!83-&/ .-!-g$s -s - 8-&t "% t $ 4i#i3 3i-0i3it/ !-/ 0$ i!8"s$. < $n t $ 4&i!$ <-s 4"!!itt$. <it "n$ "& !"&$ -gg&-#-ting 4i&4u!st-n4$s' M-/
t $ -88&$4i-ti"n "% t $ Fu-3i%/ing -gg&-#-ting 4i&4u!st-n4$ "% &$3-ti"ns i8 in &-8$ 4-s$s Eusti%/ t $ -<-&. "% $@$!83-&/ .-!-g$s2 ANSWER+ YES, the term Iaggravating circumstancesI used by the %ivil %ode, the law not having specified otherwise, is to be understood in its broad or generic sense. The commission of an offense has a two>pronged effect, one on the public as it breaches the social order and the other upon the private victim as it causes personal sufferings, each of which is addressed by, respectively, the prescription of heavier punishment for the accused and by an award of additional damages to the victim. The increase of the penalty or a shift to a graver felony underscores the exacerbation of the offense by the attendance of aggravating circumstances, whether ordinary or qualifying, in its commission. 9nlike the criminal which is basically a 4tate concern, the award of damages, however, is likewise, if not primarily, intended for the offended party who suffers thereby. t would make little sense for an award of exemplary damages to be due the private offended party when the aggravating circumstance is ordinary but to be withheld when it is qualifying. *ithal, the ordinary or qualifying nature of an aggravating circumstance is a distinction that should only be of consequence to the criminal, rather than to the civil, liability of the offender. n fine, relative to the civil aspect of the case, an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, should entitle the offended party to an award of exemplary damages within the unbridled meaning of Article --'8 of the %ivil %ode. (PE5PLE vs CA6U7I9, 9 R 4o .0!,'(, Au)ust (0, (//.% QUESTION M-/"& Ant"n &-8$. Ms' S si@ ()) ti!$s' A%t$& s-tis%/ing is 3ust1 $ >i33$. t $ -83$ss #i4ti!' M-/"& Ant"n <-s 4 -&g$. <it ) 4"unts "% &-8$ <it "!i4i.$' A$ -&gu$s t -t it <-s -0su&. t -t $ 0$ 4 -&g$. <it 1 !u4 3$ss 4"n#i4t$. "% si@ 4"unts "% &-8$ <it "!i4i.$ 0$4-us$ t $ #i4ti! in t is 4-s$ 4"u3. n"t -#$ .i$. si@ ti!$s -n. t -t t $&$ <-s "n3/ "n$ <"!-n (#i4ti!) >i33$.' Is $ 4"&&$4t2 ANSWER+ NO1 he can be charged with and convicted of six counts of the special complex crime of homicide even if only one person was killed. n the special complex crime of rape with homicide, the homicide is used to qualify or raise a penalty provided by law. t is not necessary that there are as many persons killed as are the crimes of rape with homicide. t is possible that only one person is killed and the death of that person is used to qualify or to aggravate the penalty for each of the rapes committed by the accused. There is one common denominator, the homicide aggravates the penalty in all six crimes of rape. Thus, where the offender commits six acts of rape against the same victim, the homicide committed on the occasion or by reason of each rape, must be deemed as a constituent of the special complex crime of rape with homicide. Therefore, there will be as many crimes of rape with homicide as there are rapes committed. n effect, the presence of homicide qualifies the crime of rape, thereby raising its penalty to the highest degree. Thus, homicide committed on the occasion or by reason of the rape, loses its character as an independent offense, but assumes a new character, and functions like a qualifying circumstance. /y fiction of law, it is merged with rape to constitute a constituent element of a special complex crime of rape with homicide. (SancheE vs 3emetriou, 9 R 4os ...!!.=!!, 4ovember $, .$$0% QUESTION C&is-nt"1 - E$$8n$/ .&i#$&1 <-s s8$$.ing -3"ng - 8u03i4 t "&"ug %-&$1 < $n su..$n3/ is 4$338 "n$ 0$$8$.' As $ &$-4 $. %"& is 4$338 "n$1 $ .i. n"t n"ti4$ t $ t&-%%i4 3ig t tu&n &$.' As $ 4&"ss$. t $ int$&s$4ti"n1 $ 0u!8$. - 8&$gn-nt 3-./ 4&"ssing t $ st&$$t' T $ #i"3$nt i!8-4t 4-us$. t $ 0-0/ t" 0$ .is3".g$. %&"! t $ 3-./Cs <"!0' W -t 4&i!$1 i% -n/1 .i. C&is-nt" 4"!!it2 ANSWER+
9,
L-<
CRIMINAL LAW
H-i. -n. F"&ti4 1 -&!$. <it -n.guns $!$&g$. %&"! t $ &$-& $n. "% t $ #$ i43$ -n. %i&$. s "t < i4 it t $ 3$%t si.$ "% t $ 8i4>Bu8' T $/ "&.$&$. I!8$&i" -n. Tu!-ng t" g$t "ut "% t $ #$ i43$' H-i. t u!8$. I!8$&i" "n t $ $-. <it - '65 4-3i0$& &$#"3#$& 4-using i! t" %-33 ."<n1 < i3$ Tu!-ng <-s it s$#$&-3 ti!$s 0/ F"&ti4 <it %ist03"<s in #-&i"us 8-&ts "% t $ 0"./ -n. !"!$nt-&i3/ 3"st 4"ns4i"usn$ss' I!8$&i" -n. Tu!-ng <$&$ t $n .i#$st$. "% t $i& #-3u-03$s' H-i. -n. F"&ti4 .&"#$ t $ 8i4>Bu81 <it M-&i3"u -n. M-&it$ss -t t $ 0-4> s$-t1 t"<-&.s - .i&t &"-. < $&$ t $/ 8-&>$. t $ #$ i43$' At t is Eun4tu&$1 H-i. -. t&-ns%$&&$. t" t $ 0-4>s$-t <it M-&i3"u < i3$ M-&it$ss <-s !-.$ t" sit u8 in %&"nt <it F"&ti4 ' H-i. 8">$. is gun -t t $ &ig t si.$ "% M-&i3"uIs n$4> -n. su44$$.$. in -#ing s$@u-3 int$&4"u&s$ <it $&' M-&it$ss1 "n t $ "t $& -n.1 <-s &-#-g$. 0/ F"&ti4 ' T $/ s<it4 $. #i4ti!s t<i4$ 0$%"&$ .i#$sting t $! "% t $i& 8"ss$ssi"ns' W -t 4&i!$Ls <$&$ 4"!!itt$. 0/ H-i. -n. F"&ti4 2 ANSWER+ As for the unlawful taking of mperio and TumangCs valuables, Gaid and Fortich are liable for simple robbery. The asportation by Gaid and Fortich of the personal properties was done by means of violence against or intimidation upon the persons of mperio and Tumang. The physical in+uries inflicted upon mperio and Tumang by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery are penali,ed under Article -"!, paragraph 6 of the #evised $enal %ode. 4light physical in+uries and less serious physical in+uries inflicted in the commission of the robbery are absorbed in the crime of simple robbery. As for the violence inflicted upon the person of Tumang, the element of intent to kill was not present. t must be stressed that while Fortich was armed with a handgun, he never shot Tumang but merely hit him on the head with it. t has been held that intent to kill being an essential element of the offense of frustrated or attempted homicide, said element must be proved by clear and convincing evidence and with the same degree of certainty as is required of the other elements of the crime. The inference of intent to kill should not be drawn in the absence of circumstances sufficient to prove such intent beyond reasonable doubt. Fortich and Gaid are each guilty of the crime of forcible abduction with rape and, likewise, of two counts of rape as defined and penali,ed in Article '!-, in relation to Article --2>A, of the #evised $enal %ode for the abduction of 1arilou and the subsequent acts of rape committed against her. The same criminal liability is incurred by Fortich and Gaid with respect to the forcible abduction of and subsequent acts of rape committed against 1aritess. They are liable not only for the acts of rape committed personally by them but also for each act of rape committed by the other because of the existence of conspiracy. Fortich and Gaid acted in concert, each of them doing his part in the commission of the offense. t has been held that in such a case, the act of one becomes the act of all and each of the accused will thereby be deemed equally guilty of the crime committed. 1ore importantly, when the first act of rape was committed by Fortich and Gaid, the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape was then consummated. Any subsequent acts of intercourse would be only separate acts of rape and can no longer be considered separate complex crimes of forcible abduction with rape. (PE5PLE vs 85R6ICH an& 9AI3, 9 R 4o ,/0$$='/', 4ovember .0, .$$!% QUESTION G1 D -n. Y su44$ss%u33/ &"00$. - su8$&!-&>$t1 "<$#$& "n t $i& <-/ "ut1 G -n. D >i33$. Y t" $n-03$ t $! t" g$t - 3-&g$& s -&$ "% t $ 3""t' Is &"00$&/ <it "!i4i.$ 4"!!itt$. $#$n i% t $ 8$&s"n >i33$. is "n$ "% t $ &"00$&s2 ANSWER+ YES, robbery with homicide is committed when in the course of the robbery another robber is killed by companion, who wants to partake his share of the loot. The law does not require that the person killed is the owner of the property taken. Article -"! of the #evised $enal %ode provides: @ Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against xxx any personA. $ar. & points that when by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, the
9,
L-<
CRIMINAL LAW
ANSWER+ ?), because sabelo and 1ito did not commit the robbery indiscriminately against any person, instead they committed the same against a particular victim. $residential 5ecree ?o. 0'punishes as highway robbery or brigandage only acts of robbery perpetrated by outlaws indiscriminately against any person or persons on $hilippine highways as defined therein, and not acts of robbery committed against only a predetermined or particular victim. f the purpose is only a particular robbery, the crime is only robbery, or robbery in band if there are at least four armed participants. The mere fact that the robbery was committed on a highway does not invite the application of $residential 5ecree ?o. 0'-. The preambular clause of $residential 5ecree ?o. 0'reveals the intention of the law to prevent lawless elements from committing acts of depredation upon the persons and properties of innocent and defenseless inhabitants who travel from one place to another, thereby disturbing the peace, order and tranquility of the nation and stunting the economic and social progress of the people. ndeed, it is hard to conceive of how a single act of robbery against a particular person chosen by the accused as their specific victim could be considered as committed on the Iinnocent and defenseless inhabitants who travel from one place to another,I and which single act of depredation would be capable of Istunting the economic and social progress of the peopleI. (PE5PLE vs PU45, 9 R 4o $!'!., 8ebruar: .!, .$$0% QUESTION A>!-. <-s -44us$. "% un3-<%u33/ t->ing - !"t"&4/43$ <it t $ us$ "% #i"3$n4$ -n. inti!i.-ti"n1 -n. >i33ing t $ "<n$& t $&$"% 0/ &$-s"n "% su4 un3-<%u3 t->ing' A%t$& t&i-31 $ <-s 4"n#i4t$. "% C-&n-88ing <it A"!i4i.$' W-s is 4"n#i4ti"n 8&"8$&2 ANSWER+ NO, because there is no such crime denominated as %arnapping with (omicide. The proper denomination for the crime is %arnapping as defined and penali,ed under of #epublic Act ?o. 20'", 4ections - and &!. 9nder #epublic Act ?o. 20'", 4ection &!, the penalty for carnapping in case the owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle is killed in the course of the commission of the carnapping shall be reclusion perpetua to death. (PE5PLE vs SIRA3, 9 R 4o .0/#$', >ul: #, (///% QUESTION M&s' S <-s - 0-n> t$33$&' In n$$. "% !"n$/1 s $ t""> =;1:::':: %&"! $& !"n$/ .&-<$& -n. !-.$ it -88$-& t -t - 4$&t-in .$8"sit"& !-.$ - <it .&-<-3 %&"! is -44"unt < $n in %-4t n" su4 <it .&-<-3 <-s !-.$' W -t 4&i!$ <-s 4"!!itt$. 0/ M&s' S2 ANSWER+ 1rs. 4 is liable for qualified theft. 1rs. 4 was only in material possession of the deposits as she received the same in behalf of the bank. Huridical possession remains with the bank. Huridical possession means possession which gives the transferee a right over the thing which the transferee may set up even against the owner. f a bank teller appropriates the money for personal gain then the felony committed is theft. Further, since 1rs. 4 occupies a position of confidence, and the bank places money in her possession due to the confidence reposed on her, the felony of qualified theft was committed. (R5BUE vs PE5PLE, 9 R 4o .0,$#' 4ovember (#, (//'% QUESTION D"$s - n"#-ti"n "& 4"!8&"!is$ -%%$4t t $ 4&i!in-3 3i-0i3it/ "% - 8$&s"n -44us$. "% $st-%-2 E@83-in' ANSWER+ ?ovation or compromise does not affect criminal liability of the offender of the accused. 4o, partial payment or extension of time to pay the amount misappropriated or acceptance of a promissory note for payment of the amount involved does not extinguish criminal liability, because
9,
L-<
CRIMINAL LAW
QUESTION W $n ."$s t $ -4t "% 8"st.-ting "& issuing - 4 $4> 4"nstitut$ $st-%-2 ANSWER+ To constitute estafa, the act of postdating or issuing a check in payment of an obligation must be the efficient cause of defraudation and, as such, it should be either prior to or simultaneous with, the act of fraud. (4A9RAMPA v PE5PLE, 0," SCRA '.(% QUESTION C-n -n -g$nt < " %-i3$. t" tu&n "#$& t $ 8-&t "% 4"!!issi"n 0$ $3. 3i-03$ %"& $st-%-2
is 4"33$4ti"n < i4
&$8&$s$nts
is
ANSWER+ t depends. if the agent is authori,ed to retain his commission out of the amounts he collected, there is no estafa. )therwise, he is guilty of estafa because the right to a commission does not make the agent a +oint owner with a right to the money collected. QUESTION Sit- 8u&4 -s$. 11::: 0-gs "% sug-& %&"! Su>i1 in 8-/!$nt t $&$"%1 Sit- issu$. si@ 8"stB .-t$. 4 $4>s' On3/ t<" "% t $ 4 $4>s <$&$ "n"&$. 0/ t $ .&-<$$ 0-n> < i3$ t $ &$st <$&$ &$tu&n$. %"& 3-4> "% su%i4i$nt %un.s' U8"n >n"<3$.g$ "% t $ .is "n"& "% $& 4 $4>s1 Sit- issu$. -n"t $& s$t "% 4 $4>s -s &$83-4$!$nt %"& t $ "n$s t -t <$&$ .is "n"&$.' R$g&$tt-03/1 t $s$ 4 $4>s <$&$ -3s" .is "n"&$.' Sit- t $n <$nt t" Su>i -n. "%%$&$. t" !->$ - 8-&ti-3 8-/!$nt1 $@83-ining t -t s $ <-s un-03$ t" %un. $& 4 $4>s "n ti!$ .u$ t" t $ su..$n -n. un%"&$s$$n %3u4tu-ti"n in t $ 8&i4$ "% sug-&1 < i4 &$su3t$. in $& in-0i3it/ n"t "n3/ t" 4"33$4t %&"! $& "<n 0u/$&s1 0ut t" s$33 -33 t $ sug-& -s s $ -. $@8$4t$.' Su>i -44$8t$. t $ 8-&ti-3 8-/!$nt -n. -33"<$. Sit- t" &$tu&n (, 0-gs "% sug-&' U8"n %-i3u&$ "% Sit- 8-/ t $ &$st "% t $ -!"unt1 s $ <-s 4 -&g$. <it $st-%- un.$& 8-&' ,(D)1 A&t' 61; "% t $ R$#is$. =$n-3 C".$' M-/ Sit- 0$ 4"n#i4t$. "% t $ 4&i!$ 4 -&g$.2 ANSWER+ NO, because there was no fraud or deceit on the part of 4ita. For the crime of estafa to exist, the element of fraud or bad faith is indispensable. And its presence must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before the accused can be found guilty of such crime. These circumstances M the prompt action of 4ita in offering to replace the dishonored checks and in later making partial payment and the taking of postdated checks and subsequently of the replacement checks, and the acceptance of partial payment M show, first, that in all probability 4uki knew that the funds to cover the six postdated checks were to come from the sale of the sugar which the accused had bought from it. This kind of a situation is not unusual in the
trading of commodities like sugar and rice. f 4uki had such knowledge, then it follows that there was no deceit. And where there is no proven deceit or fraud, there is no crime of estafa. )n the other hand, one who is guilty of bad faith would probably not have acted the way the 4ita did. f she had fraudulent intentions at the time of the sale and the issuance of the sub+ect checks, her normal reaction would have been to hide or at least avoid or delay confrontation with 4uki. /ut she did neither. )n the contrary, as soon as she was, notified of the dishonor, she immediately went to 4uki to offer replacement checks and later, partial payment, both of which were accepted by 4uki. (PE5PLE vs SI49S54, 9 R 4o !#$(/, 4ovember .(, .$$(% QUESTION C-n - .&-<$& < " <-s -4Fuitt$. "& 4"n#i4t$. un.$& t $ R$#is$. =$n-3 C".$ "& $st-%0$ 8&"s$4ut$. un.$& B= B3g' ,,2 ANSWER+ YES. An acquittal or conviction of the drawer under the #evised $enal %ode is not a bar to his prosecution or conviction under /$ --, because the latter law requires the additional fact of the drawerCs knowledge of lack of insufficiency of funds. QUESTION M1 - !-&&i$. <"!-n1 -. s$@u-3 int$&4"u&s$ <it - !-n < " <-s n"t $& us0-n.' T $ !-n .i. n"t >n"< s $ <-s !-&&i$.' W -t 4&i!$1 i% -n/1 .i. $-4 "% t $! 4"!!it2 W /2 ANSWER+ 1, the married woman, committed the crime of adultery under article ''' of the #evised $enal %ode, as amended, for having sexual intercourse with a man not her husband while her marriage was still subsisting. /ut the man who had carnal knowledge of her not knowing her to the married shall not be liable for adultery. ((//( 7ar EDaminations% QUESTION M&' O is !-&&i$.' A$ -s - 8-&-!"u& <it < "! $ -s s$@u-3 &$3-ti"ns "n - !"&$ "& 3$ss &$gu3-& 0-sis' T $/ !$$t -t 3$-st "n4$ - <$$> in "t$3s1 !"t$3s -n. "t $& 83-4$. < $&$ t $/ 4-n 0$ -3"n$' Is M&' O gui3t/ "% -n/ 4&i!$2
ANSWER+ 1r. ) is guilty of the crime of concubinage by having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances with a woman who is not his wife. (aving sexual relations on a more of less regular basis on motels, hotels and other places may be considered a scandalous circumstance that offends public conscience giving rise to criticism and general protest, such act being imprudent and wanton and setting a bad example. ((//( 7ar EDaminations% QUESTION W -t is t $ !$-ning "% #i&ginit/ in Fu-3i%i$. s$.u4ti"n -n. 4"ns$nt$. -0.u4ti"n2 ANSWER+ Oirginity in qualified seduction does not require physical virginity (virgo intacta) or as the term is understood in medical science. The legal view is that qualified seduction only requires virginity in law, i.e., that the victim has no other voluntary carnal relations with another man. ;ikewise, virginity in consented abduction is not to be understood in its material sense, as to exclude a virtuous woman of good reputation, since the essence of the crime of abduction is not in+ury to the woman but the outrage and alarm to her family. QUESTION W " -&$ t $ 8$&s"ns &$s8"nsi03$ %"& 3i0$32
9,
L-<
CRIMINAL LAW
ANSWER+ 1.
The person who publishes, exhibits or causes the publication, or exhibition of any defamation in writing or similar means (Art 0"/,par .% -. The author or editor of a book of pamphlet 3. The editor or business manager of a daily newspaper, maga,ine or serial publication (Art 0"/, par (% !. The owner of the printing plant which publishes a libelous article with his consent and all other persons who in any way participate in or have connection with its publication
QUESTION Is "n$st !ist->$ - 4"!8$t$ .$%$ns$ in 3i0$32 ANSWER+ ?o, the publication of the article through an honest mistake is not a complete defense but serves only to mitigate damages where the article is libelous per se. QUESTION W -t is !-3i4$ in 3-< -n. !-3i4$ in %-4t in &$3-ti"n t" t $ 4&i!$ "% 3i0$32 ANSWER+ 1alice in ;aw > f on its fact the article is defamatory, even if the facts therein are true, it is presumed that the offender acted with malice. (ence, no evidence regarding malice has to be submitted eDcept where what is involved is privileged communication under Art. '0!, in which case malice in law cannot arise and malice in fact has to be proved. 1alice in fact > f the article is not defamatory on its face or it is ambiguous, but it can be considered libelous in light of the surrounding circumstances which gave rise to its existence, then actual malice on the part of the offender has to be proved. QUESTION W -t is t $ &u3$ &$g-&.ing 8&""% "% t&ut un.$& A&t' 6)1 "% t $ R$#is$. =$n-3 C".$2 ANSWER+ As a general rule, proof of truth of the defamation against the victim is not a defense. ?onetheless, such proof of the truth is admissible if the act imputed constitutes a crime, whether the victim is a private individual or a public officer. n such cases, proof of the truth plus )oo& motives an& Fusti*iable en&s will warrant the acquittal of the accused. (owever, in the imputation of a crime against public officers in connection with the performance of public functions, proof of truth is an absolute defense< no need to establish good motive.
QUESTION W $n is s3-n.$& 4"nsi.$&$. g&-#$ "& si!83$2 ANSWER+ t is considered grave when it is of a serious or insulting nature, (=xample: a false charge of immorality) otherwise, it is only considered simple slander. QUESTION Is t $ .$%$ns$ "% 4"nt&i0ut"&/ n$g3ig$n4$ -883i4-03$ in 4&i!in-3 4-s$s t &"ug &$4>3$ss i!8&u.$n4$2 ANSWER+
NO, the defense of contributory negligence does not apply in criminal cases through reckless imprudence since one cannot allege negligence of another to evade the effects of ones own negligence. QUESTION B"0 <-s - n$"8 /t$ "% t $ =-s-<-/ F&-t$&nit/' A$ <-s t->$n t" t $ "us$ "% D"ng1 "n$ "% t $ !$!0$&s "% t $ %&-t$&nit/1 %"& is %in-3 initi-ti"n &ig ts' T $ initi-ti"n &ig ts <$&$ 4"n.u4t$. in t $ g-&-g$ "% t $ "us$' Du&ing t $ initi-ti"n &ig ts1 On/">1 D"ngCs "us$ 0"/1 <-s "&.$&$. 0/ D"ng t" s$&#$ .&in>s -n. %"". t" t $ !$!0$&s "% t $ %&-t$&nit/ < " <$&$ -#ing - .&in>ing s8&$$ -s t $ initi-ti"n <-s 4"n.u4t$.' In t $ !i.st "% t $ initi-ti"n &ig ts1 < i4 in#"3#$. 8 /si4-3 #i"3$n4$1 B"0 4"33-8s$.' T $ !$!0$&s "% t $ %&-t$&nit/1 in43u.ing D"ng1 8-ni4>$. -n. i!!$.i-t$3/ 3$%t t $ "us$' B$%"&$ 3$-#ing1 D"ng1 inst&u4t$. On/"> t" t->$ B"0 t" t $ "s8it-3' On/"> .i. s"1 0ut u8"n -&&i#ing -t t $ "s8it-31 B"0 <-s -3&$-./ .$-.' On/"> <-s -&&$st$. 0/ t $ 8"3i4$' A%t$& 8"3i4$ int$&&"g-ti"n1 On/"> &$-s"n$. t -t $ <-s !$&$ "us$ 0"/ -n. $ <-s n"t - !$!0$& "% t $ =-s-<-/ F&-t$&nit/ < " 4"n.u4t$. t $ -?ing' Ais st-t$!$nts 3$. t" t $ -&&$st "% D"ng' F"& is 8-&t1 D"ng -.!itt$. -#ing 8-&ti4i8-t$. in -?ing B"0 0ut -&gu$. t -t $ -. n" int$nti"n t" 4"!!it s" g&-#$ - <&"ng' (1) M-/ On/"> 0$ 4 -&g$. %"& #i"3-ti"n "% t $ AntiBA-?ing L-<2 (,) Is D"ng $ntit3$. t" t $ !itig-ting 4i&4u!st-n4$ t -t t $&$ <-s n" int$nti"n t" 4"!!it s" g&-#$ - <&"ng2 ANSWER+ (1) YES, )nyok may be charged under the Anti>(a,ing ;aw because his presence during the ha,ing is prima facie evidence of participation therein as a principal unless he prevented the commission of the acts of leading to the death of /ob. The Anti>(a,ing ;aw in creating this presumption does not distinguish whether the person present is a member of the fraternity or not. The law merely uses the phrase @any personA. The facts clearly show that )nyok did not do anything to prevent the infliction of physical violence against /ob causing the latterCs death. (R A 4o ,/'$, sec ', par e% (,) NO, the Anti>(a,ing ;aw expressly provides that any person charged with any violation thereof shall not be entitled to the mitigating circumstance that there was no intention to commit so grave a wrong. (R A 4o ,/'$, sec ', par e%
QUESTION J$nn/ <-s -883/ing -s - s-3$s 3-./ in t $ MS Su8$&st"&$' H&$g1 t $ $-. "% t $ Au!-n R$s"u&4$s D$8-&t!$nt1 -s>$. J$nn/ i% s $ 4"u3. &-is$ $& s>i&t s" t -t $ 4"u3. s$$ $& 3$gs' H&$g t"3. J$nn/ t -t it <-s is 8"3i4/ t -t -33 s-3$s 3-.i$s in MS Su8$&st"&$ -. %3-<3$ss 3$gs' J$nn/ &$%us$. -n. .$4i.$. t" 3$-#$' H&$g .$ni$. J$nn/Cs $!83"/!$nt -883i4-ti"n %"& $& &$%us-3 t" -44$.$ t" is .$!-n.' Is H&$g 3i-03$ %"& s$@u-3 -&-ss!$nt2 ANSWER+ YES, GregCs act of demanding Henny raise to her skirt to view her legs clearly constitutes a demand for a sexual favor as a condition for her employment. The Anti>4exual (arassment Act provides that a manager or employer who demands, requests or otherwise requires any sexual favor from another in a work related or employment environment shall be liable for sexual harassment, regardless of whether the demand request or requirement is accepted by the ob+ect of the act. (ence, GregCs criminal liability is not affected by HennyCs refusal to accede to his demand. (R A 4o !,!!, sec 0% QUESTION
9,
L-<
CRIMINAL LAW
In - 8&"s$4uti"n %"& B'=' B3g ,,1 !-/ Luis su44$ss%u33/ 4"nt$n. t -t+ (1) t $ 4 $4>s <$&$ n"t issu$. in 8-/!$nt "% -n "03ig-ti"n 0ut <$&$ !$&$3/ t" gu-&-nt$$ 8-/!$nt "% 4ust"!$& "&.$&s1 -n. t -t (,) t $ sin4$ t $ 4 $4> <-s 8&$s$nt$. %"& 8-/!$nt 0$/"n. (: .-/s %&"! its issu-n4$1 t $ 8&$su!8ti"n "% >n"<3$.g$ "% 3-4> "% %un.s un.$& S$4ti"n , "% B'=' B3g' ,, s "u3. n"t -883/ t" i!2 ANSWER+ NO, ;uisC contentions are incorrect. First, /.$. /lg. -- punishes the issuance of a bouncing check and not the purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and conditions relating to its issuance. To determine the reason for which checks are issued, or the terms and conditions for their issuance, will greatly erode the faith the public reposes in the stability and commercial value of checks as currency substitutes, and bring about havoc in trade and in banking communities. 4o what the law punishes is the issuance of a bouncing check and not the purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and conditions relating to its issuance. The mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum. 4econd, the law does not require a maker to maintain funds in his bank account for only "8 days. t is not an element of the offense. That the check must be deposited within ninety ("8) days is simply one of the conditions for the prima facie presumption of knowledge of lack of funds to arise. ?either does it discharge petitioner from his duty to maintain sufficient funds in the account within a reasonable time thereof. 9nder 4ection &72 of the ?egotiable nstruments ;aw, Ia check must be presented for payment within a reasonable time after its issue or the drawer will be discharged from liability thereon to the extent of the loss caused by the delay.I /y current banking practice, a check becomes stale after more than six (2) months, -' or &78 days. The check was deposited &06 days after the date of the check, hence said checks cannot be considered stale. )nly the presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds was lost, but such knowledge could still be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence. (W549 vs C5UR6 58 APPEALS, 9 R 4o ..!,#!, 8ebruar: (, (//.% QUESTION M-/ - 8$&s"n1 < " issu$. - 4 $4> < i4 <-s .is "n"&$. u8"n 8&$s$nt!$nt %"& 8-/!$nt1 0$ 4"n#i4t$. "% B'=' ,, i% $ 8-i. t $ -!"unt "% t $ 4 $4> $#$n 0$%"&$ &$4$i8t "% t $ n"ti4$ "% .is "n"&2 W -t i% t $ &$-s"n %"& t $ .is "n"& "% t $ 4 $4> <-s t -t it <-s M.&-<n -g-inst un4"33$4t$. .$8"sitN -n. n"t M.&-<n -g-inst insu%%i4i$nt %un.sN1 <i33 - 8&"s$4uti"n un.$& B'=' ,, 8&"s8$&2 ANSWER+ NO, knowledge of insufficiency of funds is rebutted when it is shown that the maker or drawer pays or makes arrangements for the payment of the check within five banking days after receiving notice that such check had been dishonored< more so when the dishonored check is paid even before receipt of notice of dishonor. Thus, it is essential for the maker or drawer to be notified of the dishonor of her check, so he could pay the value thereof or make arrangements for its payment within the period prescribed by law. f the reason for the dishonor of a check was that it was @drawn against insufficient fundsA, the drawer thereof is still liable under /.$. -- because +ust the same, said drawer has no sufficient funds in his account to cover the amount of the check at the time of its presentment. This situation arises when a check is deposited with the bank to fund another check drawn against such bank, and the check so deposited has not been credited by the bank. =ven with uncollected deposits, the bank may honor the check at its discretion in favor of clients, in which case there would be no violation of /.$. /lg. --. %orollarily, if the bank so desires, it could likewise dishonor the check if drawn against uncollected deposits, in which case the drawer could be held liable for violation of /$ /lg. -- (A7ARBUE@ vs C5UR6 58 APPEALS, 9 R 4o .',##!, Au)ust !, (//0% QUESTION W -t is t $ 4&i!$ "% 83un.$& un.$& t $ =3un.$& L-< (R'A' N"' 9:5:)2
9,
L-<
CRIMINAL LAW
ANSWER+ t is committed by any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires ill>gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt or criminal acts: (a) misappropriation or malversation of public funds< (b) receiving any commission or kickbacks by reason of his public position< (c) illegal disposition of assets belonging to the government< (d) receiving or accepting shares of stocks or equity in any business enterprise or undertaking< (e) establishing monopolies or combinations or implementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons< (f) taking undue advantage of official position to the pre+udice of the government< in the aggregate amount of at least $08 1illion. These acts are mentioned only as predicate acts of the crime of plunder and the allegations relative thereto are not to be taken or to be understood as allegations charging separate criminal offenses punished under the #evised $enal %ode, the Anti>Graft and %orrupt $ractices Act and other related penal statutes. These predicate acts merely constitute acts of plunder and are not crimes separate and independent of the crime of plunder (SERAPI5 vs SA43I9A47A<A4, 9 R 4o .','",, >anuar: (,, (//0% QUESTION W -t is !$-nt 0/ M4"!0in-ti"nN -n. Ms$&i$sN "% "#$&t "& 4&i!in-3 -4ts un.$& t $ =3un.$& L-<2 ANSWER+ *hen the $lunder ;aw speaks of @combinationA, it is referring to at least two (-) acts falling under different categories of enumeration provided in 4ec. &, par. (d). =xample: raids on the public treasury in 4ec. &, par. (d), subpar. (&), and fraudulent conveyance of assets belonging to the ?ational Government under 4ec. & par. (d), subpar. ('). )n the other hand, to constitute a @seriesA there must be two (-) or more overt or criminal acts falling under the same category of enumeration found in 4ec. &, par. (d), say, misappropriation, malversation and raids on the public treasury, all of which falls under 4ec. &, par. (d), subpar. (&). Oerily, had the legislature intended a technical or distinctive meaning for @combinationA and @seriesA, it would have taken greater pains in specially providing for it in the law. (ES6RA3A vs SA43I9A47A<A4, 9R 4o .',#"/, 4ovember (., (//.% QUESTION Is t $ 4&i!$ "% 83un.$& !-3u! in s$ "& !-3u! 8&" i0itu!2 ANSWER+ $lunder is a crime of malum in se because the constitutive crimes are mala in se. The elements of mens rea must be proven in a prosecution for plunder. 1oreover, any doubt as to whether the crime of plunder is malum in se must be deemed to have been resolved in the affirmative decision of %ongress in &""' to include it among the heinous crimes punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. The legislative declaration in #.A. 620" that plunder is a heinous offense implies that it is malum in se. For when the acts punished are inherently immoral or inherently wrong, they are mala in se and it does not matter that such acts are punished in a special law, especially since in the case of plunder the predicate crimes are mainly mala in se. (>oseph EFercito Estra&a vs San&i)anba:an, 9 R 4o .',#"/, 4ovember (., (//.% QUESTION M-n?" <-s -&&$st$. %"& &"00$&/ "% #-3u-03$ 8i$4$s "% E$<$3&/ "<n$. 0/ is %"&!$& $!83"/$&' A$ -.!itt$. t -t $ t""> t $ E$<$3&/ 0ut s"3. t $ s-!$ t" -88$33-nt' Su0s$Fu$nt3/1 -88$33-nt <-s -&&$st$. -n. %&"! is 8"ss$ssi"n t $ 8"3i4$ &$4"#$&$. s"!$ "% t $ st"3$n 8i$4$s
"% E$<$3&/' A$ <-s 4 -&g$. <it #i"3-ti"n "% ='D' 1)1, "& t $ AntiBF$n4ing L-<' B/ <-/ "% .$%$ns$1 $ 43-i!$. t -t t $ #-3u-03$s &$4"#$&$. %&"! i! <$&$ 3$giti!-t$3/ -4Fui&$. 0/ i! %&"! "t $& s"u&4$s "t $& t -n M-n?" -n. t -t $ is n"t in#"3#$. in t $ 4&i!$ "% &"00$&/ 4"!!itt$. 0/ M-n?"' (1) D"$s t $ AntiBF$n4ing L-< &$Fui&$ t $ -44us$. t" 0$1 in -n/ <-/1 in#"3#$. in t $ 4&i!$ "% &"00$&/ ("& t $%t)2 (,) Di. -88$33-nt 4"!!itt$. - #i"3-ti"n "% t $ AntiBF$n4ing L-<2 ANSWER+ (1) NO. t is enough that the elements concur: a) a crime of robbery or theft has been committed< b) the accused is not a principal or accomplice in the commission of the robbery or theft, but receives, keeps, acquires, buys andKor sells, or in any matter deals in any article, item, ob+ect or anything of value derived from robbery or theft< c) the accused knows or should have known that such article, item, ob+ect or thing was the proceeds of robbery or theft< and d) there is, on the part of the accused, an intent to gain for himself or for another. (3iEon=Pamintuan vs People, (0' SCRA "0% (,) YES. All the elements of the crime of fencing are present. The prosecution has sufficiently established the fact of robbery as testified to by the person who committed the same. At any rate, the law does not require proof of purchase of the stolen articles by the accused as mere possession thereof is enough to give rise to a presumption of fencing. Appellant, who was in possession of some of the stolen articles has not rebutted this presumption. (Capili vs CA, 9 R 4o .0$(#/, Au)ust .", (///% QUESTION Att/' Tit" t$3$8 "n$. L$" t" .is4uss t $ s$tt3$!$nt "% - .i&$4t -ss-u3t 4-s$ %i3$. 0/ Att/' Tit"Cs 43i$nt -g-inst L$"' Att/' E.1 L$"Cs &$t-in$. 4"uns$31 s$4&$t3/ 3ist$n$. t" t $ t$3$8 "n$ 4"n#$&s-ti"n t &"ug - t$3$8 "n$ $@t$nsi"n' (-) W-s t $ 4"n#$&s-ti"n 0$t<$$n Att/' Tit" -n. L$" M8&i#-t$N in n-tu&$ -s t" 0$ t $ su0E$4t "% #i"3-ti"n "% t $ R'A' N"' 7,::1 "t $&<is$ >n"<n -s t $ AntiBWi&$t-88ing A4t2 (0) Is -n $@t$nsi"n t$3$8 "n$ -!"ng t $ 8&" i0it$. .$#i4$s in R'A' N"' 7,::1 su4 t -t its us$ t" "#$& $-& - 8&i#-t$ 4"n#$&s-ti"n <"u3. 4"nstitut$ - #i"3-ti"n "% s-i. A4t2 ANSWERS+ (a) YES, the telephone conversation between Atty. Tito and ;eo was IprivateI in the sense that the words uttered were made between one person and another as distinguished from words between a speaker and a public. As worded under the law, if a party secretly records a public speech, he would not be penali,ed under 4ection l because the speech is public. The conversations or communications contemplated under #.A. ?o. !-88 are those made between one person and another person M not between a speaker and a public. (9AA4A4 vs I46ERME3IA6E APPELLA6E C5UR6, 9 R 4o L="$,/$, 5ctober .", .$,"- RAMIRE@ vs H545RA7LE C5UR6 58 APPEALS, 9 R 4o $0,00, September (,, .$$#% (b) NO, an extension telephone cannot be placed in the same category as a dictaphone, dictagraph or the other devices enumerated in 4ection & of #A ?o. !-88 as the use thereof cannot be considered as ItappingI the wire or cable of a telephone line. The telephone extension in this case was not installed for that purpose. t is a separate device and distinct set of a movable apparatus consisting of a wire and a set of telephone receiver not forming part of a main telephone set which can be detached or removed and can be transferred away from one place to another and to be plugged or attached to a main telephone line to get the desired communication coming from the other party or end. The law refers to a ItapI of a wire or cable or the use of a Idevice or arrangementI for the purpose of secretly overhearing, intercepting, or recording the communication. There must be either a physical interruption through a wiretap or the deliberate installation of a device or arrangement in order to overhear, intercept, or record the spoken words.
9,
L-<
CRIMINAL LAW
NO1 the Anti>Graft and %orrupt $ractices Act expressly provides that in addition to acts and omissions of public officers already penali,ed by existing law (such as those under Title 4even of the #evised $enal %ode), the acts or omissions described therein constitute corrupt practices of public officers and are punishable thereby. (R A 4o 0/.$, Sec 0% QUESTION W -t -&$ t $ s-3i$nt %$-tu&$s "% t $ D-ng$&"us D&ugs A4t (R'A' (1);)2 ANSWER+ 1. The former classification of dangerous drugs into either prohibited or regulated drugs has been discontinued. The present classification now involves both &an)erous &ru)s an& controlle& precursors an& essential chemicals. 2. Plantin) evi&ence to incriminate an innocent party, and actin) as *inancier, protectorGco&&ler are duly defined and correspondingly punished. 3. Plea bar)ainin) for those charged under any provision of the Act, and regardless of the imposable penalty, shall not be allo+e&. %onvicted drug traffickers and pushers cannot avail o* probation, regardless of the penalty imposed 4. 4ome acts are punishable by life imprisonment to death, which is a peculiar penalty. 5. The #$% cannot apply even in a suppletory character because the penalties provided under the #$% are not adopted therein. 6. 4pecifically provides that in case the offender is a minor, privile)e miti)atin) circumstance o* minorit: may be appreciated. 6. Attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the crimes penali,ed therein are punishable with the same penalty as when the crime is consummated or actually committed. QUESTION A -n. B <$&$ <-3>ing -3"ng M$n.i"3- < $n t $/ s-< - g&"u8 "% 8"3i4$!$n -88&"-4 ing t $!' B i!!$.i-t$3/ -n.$. t" A1 t $ s-4 $t "% s -0u $ <-s 4-&&/ing insi.$ is 8"4>$t' T $ 8"3i4$ s-< A 83-4ing t $ s -0u insi.$ is 0-g' I% A <-s un-<-&$ t -t < -t <-s insi.$ t $ s-4 $t gi#$n t" i! <-s s -0u1 is s $ n"n$t $3$ss 3i-03$ un.$& t $ D-ng$&"us D&ugs A4t2 ANSWER+ NO, A will not be criminally liable because he is unaware of the content of the sachet handed to him by /, and therefore, the criminal intent to possess the drug in violation of the 5angerous 5rugs Act is absent. There would be no basis to impute criminal liability to her in the absence of animus possi&en&i. ((//( 7ar EDaminations% QUESTION M-/ t $ 4&i!$ "% i33$g-3 s-3$ "% .&ugs 0$ 4"nsu!!-t$. <it "ut t $ $@4 -ng$ "% t $ !-&>$. !"n$/2 ANSWER+ YES. The consummation of the crime of illegal sale of drugs may be sufficiently established even in the absence of an exchange of money. The offer to sell and then the sale itself arises when the poseur>buyer shows the money to the offender, which prompts the latter to show the contents of the carton, and hand it over to the poseur>buyer. 1ere showing of the said regulated drug does not negate the existence of an offer to sell or an actual sale. The crime of illegal sale of drugs is committed as soon as the sale transaction is consummated. The payment could precede or follow delivery of the drug sold. n a Ibuy>bustI operation, what is important is the fact that the poseur> buyer received the shabu from the offender and that the same was presented as evidence in %ourt. n short, proof of the transaction suffices. 4ettled is the rule that as long as the police officer went through the operation as a buyer and his offer was accepted by the offender and the dangerous
9,
L-<
CRIMINAL LAW
QUESTION W -t -&$ t $ -4ts 4"nsi.$&$. -s "0st&u4ti"n in t $ -88&$ $nsi"n -n. 8&"s$4uti"n "% "%%$n.$&s 8unis $. un.$& =D' NO' 15,(2 ANSWER+ The following acts are prohibited under $5 &7-": &. preventing witnesses from testifying in any criminal proceeding or from reporting the commission of any offense or the identity of offenders by means of bribery, misrepresentation, deceit, intimidation, force or threats< -. altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing evidence in criminal cases< '. harboring or concealing or facilitating the escape of any person he knows or has reasonable ground to believe or suspect
!. publicly using a fictitious name for the purpose of concealing a crime. 0. delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by obstructing the service of process or court orders or disturbing proceedings< 2. making, presenting or using any record, document, paper or ob+ect with knowledge of its falsity and with intent to affect the course or outcome of the investigation or official proceeding< 6. soliciting, accepting or agreeing to accept any benefit in consideration of abstaining from, discounting or impeding the prosecution of a criminal offender< 7. threatening another with the infliction of any wrong upon his person, honor or property or that of any member of his family to prevent such person from appearing in the investigation of official proceedings in criminal cases or imposing a condition whether lawful or unlawful in order to prevent a person from appearing< ". giving false or fabricated information to mislead or prevent the law enforcement agencies from apprehending the offender or from protecting the life and property of victim or fabricating information from the data gathered in confidence by authorities for background information and not for publication to mislead the investigator or the court. QUESTION I% in t $ 4"!!issi"n "% .i&$4t -ss-u3t <it !u3ti83$ -tt$!8t$. "!i4i.$ t $ -44us$. us$. -n un3i4$ns$. %i&$-&!1 4-n t $ -44us$. 0/ 4"n#i4t$. s$8-&-t$3/ "% t $ "%%$ns$s "% (-) i33$g-3 8"ss$ssi"n "% %i&$-&!s un.$& =D 15))1 -s -!$n.$. 0/ RA 5,(71 -n. (0) .i&$4t -ss-u3t <it -tt$!8t$. "!i4i.$2 ANSWER+ NO. #A 7-"! provides that possession and use of an unlicensed firearm shall be punishable as a separate offense only if no other crime is committed. 4o if an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of any other crime, there can be no separate offense of simple illegal possession of firearms. ncidentally, the law also provides that if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. 4ince direct assault with multiple attempted homicide was committed in this case, the accused cannot be separately convicted of illegal possession of firearms, and neither can the use of the unlicensed firearm be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance because the offense committed was direct assault with attempted homicide and not plain homicide or murder as provided in #A 7-"!. $enal laws are construed liberally in favor of the accused. n this case, the plain meaning of #A 7-"!Cs simple language is most favorable to the accused. Oerily, no other interpretation is +ustified, for the language of the new law demonstrates the legislative intent to favor the accused. *hile it is true that this interpretation effectively exonerates the accused of illegal possession of an unlicensed firearm, an offense which normally carries a penalty heavier than that for direct assault. *hile the penalty for the first is prision ma:or, for the second it is only prision correccional. ndeed, the accused may evade conviction for illegal possession of firearms by using such weapons in committing an even lighter offense, like alarm and scandal or slight physical in+uries, both of which are punishable by arresto menor. This consequence, however, necessarily arises from the language of #A 7-"!, whose wisdom is not sub+ect to +udicial review. Any perception that the result reached here appears unwise should be addressed to %ongress. ndeed, the courts have no discretion to give statutes a new meaning detached from the manifest intendment and language of the legislature. Hudicial power is constitutionally confined only to
9,
L-<
CRIMINAL LAW
i!!in$nt .-ng$& t" < i4 t $ 8$&s"n -tt-4>$. is $@8"s$.1 -n. t $ instin4t !"&$ t -n t $ &$-s"n1 t -t !"#$s "& i!8$3s t $ .$%$ns$1 -n. t $ 8&"8"&ti"n-t$n$ss t $&$"% ."$s n"t .$8$n. u8"n t $ -&! ."n$1 0ut &$sts u8"n t $ i!!in$nt .-ng$& "% su4 inEu&/' (PEOPLE vs. UTU!L. ./. #o. ((5'&&. 2ebruar3 '',())0+. The actuation of deceased Fleischer in angrily ordering the continuance of the fencing would have resulted in the further chiseling of the walls of appellantCs house as well as the closure of the access to and from his house and his rice millMwhich were not only imminent but were actually in progress. There is no question, therefore, that there was aggression on the part of the victims: Fleischer was ordering, and #ubia was actually participating in the fencing. This was indeed an aggression, not on the person of appellant, but on his property rights. The reasonableness of the resistance is also a requirement of the +ustifying circumstance of self>defense or defense of oneCs rights under paragraph & of Article &&, #evised $enal %ode. *hen the appellant fired his shotgun from his window, killing his two victims, his resistance was disproportionate to the attack. Appellant who was sleeping when the victims chiselled his house and fenced off his estate and who asked them to stop doing so is not guilty of sufficient provocation when he shot the victims who ignored his plea. (PEOPLE vs. #!/6!E7. #os. L-&&%00-0$. !pril '1,()*&.+ 9nlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude and the accused must present proof of positively strong act of aggression. =ven if we give credence to accused>appellantCs version of the events, specifically that the deceased hurled invectives at him and moved as if to draw something from his waist, the %ourt are unable to establish a finding of unlawful aggression on the victimCs part. 9nlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude and the accused must present proof of positively strong act of real aggression. (PEOPLE vs. !/-7!L!, ./. #o. (&1$1*. October '', ()))+ OBEDIENCE TO ORDER OF A SU=ERIOR OFFICER The subordinate who, in following an order of the superior, failed to observe all auditing procedures of disbursement, cannot escape responsibility for such omission< but where he acted in good faith, his liability should only be administrative or civil in nature, not criminal. (T!8UE#! vs. .!#9- !#8!"!#. ./. #os. (1&51(-1&. 2ebruar3 ($,())$+ INSANITY AS EGEM=TINH CIRCUMSTANCE Accuse>appellant must thus prove that he was completely deprived of reason when he killed his father in order to be exempt for parricide. There is nothing either in the report of 5r. Gerona or his testimony which indubitably show that accused>appellant was completely without reason when he killed his father because the latter wanted him to leave the house. The defense of insanity is in the nature of confession and avoidance and, like the +ustifying circumstance of self> defense, the burden is on the defense to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was insane immediately before the commission of the crime or at the very moment of its execution. Although schi,ophrenia is not exempting if it does not completely deprive the offender of the consciousness of his acts, it may nevertheless be considered mitigating under Art &' (") if it diminishes the exercise of his will power. (PEOPLE vs. 8!#E7, ./. #o. ('5*%), :anuar3 '1, ()))+ EGEM=TINH CIRCUMSTANCE OF MINORITY *ith respect to accused>appellant #ene =stepano, the records show that he was only thirteen (&') years of age at the time of the commission of the offense. 9nder Art.&-, par. ('), of the #$%, a person over nine (") years of age and under fifteen (&0) years is exempt from criminal liability unless it is shown that he acted with discernment. T $ !in"& &$%$&&$. t" $&$ is
9,
L-<
CRIMINAL LAW
accused. n the case at bench, the assault came in the course of an altercation and after appellant had sharpened his bolo in full view of the victim. AppellantCs act of sharpening his bolo can be interpreted as an attempt to frighten the victim so the latter would leave him alone. t was simply foolhardy for the victim to continue walking to and fro near appellant in a taunting manner while the latter was sharpening his bolo. The suddenness of the attack does not, by itself, suffice to support a finding of alevosia where the decision to attack was made peremptorily and the victimCs helpless position was incidental. (PEOPLE vs. /E!L, ./. #o. )&%&0. ,arch '%, ())5+ COM=LEG CRIME *here the appellant inflicted a stab wound on each of the two (-) victims who were separated from each other by a distance of three (') meters, the acts of the appellant may not be characteri,ed as a &elito compuesto. There were, in other words two (-) distinct acts, directed at two (-) different victims successively, separated from each other by a brief but discernible interval of time and space. A &elito compuesto, in contrast, arises from a single physical act resulting in simultaneous in+ury to two (-) or more victims. (PEOPLE vs. ,-.-O#. ./. #o. 0&%*1. 2ebruar3 '0,())(+ AMNESTY A 8$&s"n &$3$-s$. 0/ -!n$st/ st-n.s 0$%"&$ t $ 3-< -s t "ug $ -. 4"!!itt$. n" "%%$ns$' A!n$st/ 3"">s 0-4><-&. -n. -0"3is $s -n. 8uts int" "03i#i"n t $ "%%$ns$ its$3%1 it s" "#$&3"">s -n. "03it$&-t$s t $ "%%$ns$ <it < i4 $ is 4 -&g$.' A!n$st/ is - 8u03i4 -4t "% < i4 t $ 4"u&t s "u3. t->$ Eu.i4i-3 n"ti4$' Thus, the right to the benefits of amnesty, once established by the evidence presented either by the complainant or prosecution or by the offense, can not be waived, because it is of public interest that a person who is regarded by the Amnesty $roclamation, which has force of the law, not only as innocent, for he stands in the eyes of the law as if he had never committed any punishable offense because of the amnesty, but as a patriot or hero, and not to be punished as a criminal. (PEOPLE vs. 6E/!, ./. #o. '05&). 2ebruar3 '*, ())1+ =ARDON =-&."n ."$s n"t i8s" %-4t" &$st"&$ - 4"n#i4t$. %$3"n t" 8u03i4 "%%i4$ n$4$ss-&i3/ &$3inFuis $. "& %"&%$it$. 0/ &$-s"n "% t $ 4"n#i4ti"n -3t "ug su4 8-&."n un."u0t$.3/ &$st"&$s is $3igi0i3it/ %"& -88"int!$nt t" t -t "%%i4$' The pardon granted to petitioner resulted in removing her disqualification from holding public employment, but to regain her former post, she must reapply and undergo the usual procedure required for a new appointment. The %ourt cannot oblige her %ivil liability arising from crime. t subsists notwithstanding service of sentence, or for any reason the sentence is not served by pardon, amnesty or commutation of sentence. $etitionerCs civil liability may only be extinguished by the same causes recogni,ed in the %ivil %ode, namely: payment, loss the thing due, remission of the debt, merger of the rights of creditor and debtor, compensation and novation. (,O#.!#TO vs. 2!;TO/!#, ./. #o. $*'&). 2ebruar3 ), ()*)+
L-<
9,
MALVERSATION t is settled that good faith is a valid defense in the prosecution of malversation for it would negate criminal intent on the part of the accused. To constitute a crime, the act must, except in certain crimes made such by statute, be accompanied by criminal intent, or by such negligence or indifference to duty or to consequences as, in law, is equivalent to criminal intent. The maxim is actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit reaMa crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing the act complained of is innocent. (T!8UE#! vs. .!#9- !#8!"!#. ./. #os. (1&51(-1&. 2ebruar3 ($,())$+
CRIMINAL LAW
ESTAFA TAROUHA FALSIFICATION Acts of endorsing of checks by way of identification of the signatures of the payees entitled to said checks and their proceeds constitute the crime of estafa through falsification of mercantile document by reckless imprudence because such endorsement constituted a written representation that the payees participated in the indorsement and cashing of the checks, when in truth and in fact the true payees had no direct intervention in the proceedings. In t $ 4&i!$ "% %-3si%i4-ti"n 0/ i!8&u.$n4$ "% 8u03i4 "& !$&4-nti3$ ."4u!$nts t $ $3$!$nt "% int$nt t" 4-us$ .-!-g$ is n"t &$Fui&$. 0$4-us$ < -t t $ 3-< s$$>s t" &$8&$ss is t $ 8&$Eu.i4$ t" t $ 8u03i4 4"n%i.$n4$ in t $s$ ."4u!$nts. (.!,.O# vs. ;!, et al. #os. L-(1&0% and L-(1&$0. ,arch &(.()5*+ RA=E T $&$ is n" su4 4&i!$ -s %&ust&-t$. &-8$. %learly, in the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has carnal knowledge of his victim, he actually attains his purpose and from that moment also all the essential elements of the offense have been accomplished. ?othing more is left to be done by the offender, because he has performed the last act necessary to produce the crime. Thus, the felony is consummated. The uniform rule is that for the consummation of rape, perfect penetration is not essential. Any penetration of the female organ by the male organ is sufficient. =ntry of the labia or the lips of the female organ, without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina is sufficient to warrant conviction. (PEOPLE vs. =U->!#OL!, ./. #o. ('0(%*, ,a3 5, ()))+ Absence of in+uries doe not negate the commission of rape. t is true that, although complainant testified that appellant boxed her on the stomach, the medical report did not indicate any abrasion, hematoma or bruise on that part of her anatomy. This is of no consequence. 1edical authorities agree that when force is applied on the stomach, no marks may be detected. n+uries may have been caused in the internal organs, but external signs are not always visible. The absence of in+uries, however, does not negate the commission of rape. (PEOPLE vs. :O"!, ./. #o. $)1)1. October (, ())&+ t should be underscored that the presence or absence of spermato,oa in the vagina is not determinative of the commission of rape because a sperm test is not a sine qua non for the successful prosecution of a rape case. Thus, the lack of spermato,oa in the victimCs body does not negate the crime of rape. The important element in rape is penetration of the pudenda and not emission of seminal fluid. (PEOPLE vs. 8O#9O", ./. #o. $)1*). ,a3 (*, ())&+ ROBBERY *hen robbery is committed by three (') persons in conspiracy and not by a band, that is more than three (') armed malefactors taking part in the commission of the crime, "n3/ t $ "%%$n.$& 4"!!itting &-8$ s -33 0$ 3i-03$ %"& t $ s8$4i-3 4"!83$@ 4&i!$ "% &"00$&/ <it &-8$' (PEOPLE vs. ,O/E#O, ./. #o. )'1%), ,arch '', ())&+
t should be noted that there is no law providing that the additional rapeKs or homicideKs should be considered as aggravating circumstances. The enumeration of aggravating circumstance under Art. &! of the #evised $enal %ode is exclusive as opposed to the enumeration in Art. &' of the same code regarding mitigating circumstances where there is a specific paragraph (par &8) providing for analogous circumstances. t is true that the additional rapes (or killings in the case of multiple homicide on the occasion of robbery) would result in an analogous situation where from the standpoint of the gravity of the offense, robbery with one rape would be on the same level as robbery with multiple rapes. (owever, the remedy lies with the legislature. A penal law is liberally construed in favor of the offender and no person should be brought within its terms if he is not clearly made so by the statute. n view of the foregoing, the additional rape committed by herein accused>appellant should not be considered as aggravating. The proper penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court is proper. (PEOPLE vs. /E !L!, ./. #o. (&151*. !pril 5, '111+
n robbery with homicide cases, the prosecution need only to prove these elements: (a) the taking of personal property with violence or intimidation against persons< (b) that the property taken belongs toanother< (c) the taking be done with animus lucrandi< and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, homicide (used in its generic sense) was committed. These elements were present when accused>appellants, acting in unison, demanded money from her mother, forcibly took tha same against her will and then hacked here to death. (PEOPLE vs. ;!8-LE., ./. #o.((&$*5. .eptember (%, ())5+ t has been repeatedly held that when direct and intimate connection exists between the robbery and the killing, regardless of which the two precedes the other, or whether they are committed at the same time, the crime committed is the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. t is a settled doctrine that when death supervenes by reason or on occasion of the robbery, it is immaterial that the occurrence of death was by mere accident. *hat is important and decisive is that death results by reason or on occasion of the robbery. The death of robbery victim by accident can, however, be considered as a mitigating circumstance. f the circumstances would indicate no intention to kill, as in the instant case where evidently, the intention is to prevent the deceased from making an outcry, and so a @pandesalA was stuffed into her mouth, the mitigating circumstance of not having intended to commit so grave may be appreciated. The stuffing of the @pandesalA in the mouth would not have produced asphyxiation had it not slid into the neckline, @caused by the victimCs own movements.A (PEOPLE vs. OPE/O, #o. L- %*$)0. :une ((, ()*(+ KIDNA==INH WITA SERIOUS ILLEHAL DETENTION T $ $ss$n4$ "% >i.n-88ing "& s$&i"us i33$g-3 .$t$nti"n is t $ -4tu-3 4"n%in$!$nt "& &$st&-int "% t $ #i4ti! "& t $ .$8&i#-ti"n "% is 3i0$&t/. There is no kidnapping with murder , but only murder where a '>year old child was gagged, hidden in a box where it did and ransom asked. The demand for ransom did not convert the offense in to kidnapping with murder. The defendant was well aware that the child would be suffocated to death in a few moments after she left. The demand for ransom is only a part of the diabolic scheme of the defendant to murder the child, to conceal his body and then demand money before the discovery of the cadaver. (PEOPLE vs. LO/!, ./. #o.%)%&1. ,arch &1, ()*'+ DEATA UNDER EGCE=TIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES There is no question that the accused surprised his wife and her paramour, the victim in this case, in the act of illicit copulation, as a result of which, he went out to kill the deceased in a fit of a passionate outburst. Art. -!6 prescribes the following elements: (&) that a legally married person surprises his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person< and (-) that he kills any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter. These elements are present in the case. Though about one hour, had passed between the time the accused>appellant discovered his wife having sexual intercourse with the victim and the time the latter was actually shot, the shooting must be understood to be the continuation of the pursuit of the victim by the accused> appellant. The #$%, in requiring that the accused @shall kill any of them or both of themR immediatelyA after surprising his spouse in the act of sexual intercourse, does not say that he should commit the killing instantly thereafter. t only requires that the death caused be the proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the accused after chancing upon his spouse in the basest act of infidelity. /ut the killing should have been actually motivated by the same blind impulse, and must not have been influenced by external factors. The killing must be the direct by> product of the accusedCs rage. (PEOPLE vs. !8!/;!. L-$%%&&. .eptember (%,()*$+. CARNA==INH %onsidering the phraseology of amended 4ection &! of #.A. ?o. 20'", the carnapping and the killing (or the rape) may be considered a single or indivisible or a special complex crime which, however, is not covered by Article !7 of the #evised $enal %ode. As such, the killing (or the rape)
9,
L-<
CRIMINAL LAW
INCLUSIVE YEARS
FREQUENCY
TOTALS
Aberratio ictus Accessories (Art. &") Aggravating circumstances (generic) Aggravating circumstances (qualifying) Aggravating: band Aggravating: cruelty Aggravating: dwelling Aggravating: evident premeditation Aggravating: motor vehicle Agg&-#-ting+ nig tti!$
Agg&-#-ting+ &$4i.i#is!
6 &
Aggravating: uninhabited place Aggravating: unlawful entry Alternative: ntoxication Applicability of the #$% (Art.-) Applicability of the #$% (Art -) %ircumstances wKc exempt from criminal liability C"!83$@ 4&i!$
& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & ' & & &
C"ns8i&-4/
5 & &
3elito continua&o 5octrine of implied conspiracy Error in personae =xempting circumstances =xempting : accident =xempting : insanity =xempting: minority =xtinction of criminal liability F$3"ni$s (-tt$!8t$. O %&ust&-t$.)
L-<
A-0itu-3 D$3inFu$n4/
6 -
; -
Hustifying circumstances
9,
CRIMINAL LAW
Hustifying: avoidance of greater in+uryKevil Hustifying: defense of a stranger Hustifying: lawful exercise of a right Justi%/ing+ s$3%B.$%$ns$
-88! &""8 -88&""& -88' -888 &""7 &""2 &""' &""8 -888 -88& &""! -88& -88& -888 &""' -88! -88' -88&""" &""' -88&""0 &""" &""6 &""&""" &""6 &""2 &""-888 -888 -88! &""! &""& &""8 &""" &""6 &""0 &""" -88-888 &""0 &""! -888 &""' -88! -88& -888 &""! &""' &""" &""! -88!
& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & ' & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &
Hustifying: $erformance of a 5uty ;ife imprisonment Mala in se Mala Prohibita 1arriage against the provisions of the marriage law Mitig-ting 4i&4u!st-n4$s
; &
1itigating: immediate vindication of a grave offense 1itigating: passion S obfuscation Mitig-ting + 83$- "% gui3t/
7 & &
7 7 & &
; -
; -
& & & & & & & & & & & & &
11 &
B""> II
A4ts "% 3-s4i#i"usn$ss &""2 &""! &""' -88&""2 &""-888 &""0 &""! -88! &""2 &""0 &""! &""' -88! -88&""7 &""& -88&""! &""2 -88-88& &""' -88& &""& &""' &""6 &""8 -88&""&""& -88-88& &""' -88& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &
Big-!/
; &
%oncubinage %onnivingKconsenting to evasion %onsented Abduction %orruption of public officials 5eath under exceptional circumstances 5amage to property 5eath in tumultuous affray 5elay in the delivery of detained persons 5elivery of prisoners from +ails 5ereliction in the prosecution of offenses Di&$4t -ss-u3t
L-<
5irect bribery
9,
CRIMINAL LAW
Est-%-
&""6 -88-888 &""" &""6 &""2 &""' &""&""& &""8 &""" &""& &""! &""" &""7 &""' &""&""& -888 &""" -88' &""7 &""6 &""2 &""! &""' &""&""8 &""0 &""" &""6 &""" &""2 &""' -88& &""' -88! &""6 -88&""2 -88' -88&""' -88! &""" &""! -88& &""" &""2 &""! &""8 &""! -88& &""" &""7
& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & ' & & & & & ' '
=stafa through negligence False Testimony in civil cases False testimony favorable to defendant F-3si%i4-ti"n "% ."4u!$nts (A&t' 191 O 19,)
) & &
(omicide wK assault llegal detention llegal possession S use of false treasury notes llegal use of public fundsKproperty mmoral doctrines, obscene publications, etc. ndirect Assault ndirect bribery 3idnapping 3idnapping and failure to return a minor 3idnapping wK homicide ;ibel 1arriages contracted against the marriage law 1alicious 1ischief 1altreatment M-3#$&s-ti"n
1: & & & & & & & & ' & & -
5 &
$ersons exempt from criminal liability $ersons in Authority = /si4-3 InEu&i$s (A&t' ,),B,)))
R-8$
& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &
17 -
' &
7 & -
5 &
; & &
L-<
R"00$&/ <it
"!i4i.$
7 -
9,
CRIMINAL LAW
4imulation of births 4lander by deed 4ubordination of per+ury 4ubsidiary criminal liability T $%t (Fu-3i%i$.) T $%t
Trespass to dwelling (qualified) 9n+ust vexation 9nlicensed firearm 9surpation of real rights Oiolation of domicile S=ECIAL LAWS AntiBF$n4ing L-< (=D 1)1,)
&""8 -88&""! &""6 &""7 -88&""0 -88& -888 &""7 -88&""! &""! &""7 &""2 -88&""2 &""0 &""&""8 -88' -88& -888 &""6 &""& &""8 -88&""& &""' -88-88' &""2 &""0 &""! &""&""& &""8 -88&""' -88& -88! -88-888 &""7 &""2 &""0 &""' &""8 -88! &""7 &""6 -88& -888 -88&
& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &
Anti>(a,ing ;aw (#A 78!") Anti>4ubversion Act (#A &688) Anti>*iretapping Act (#A !-88) B"un4ing C $4>s L-< ( B= ,,)
9 & &
5 6 &
On 4 i3. -0us$1 $@83"it-ti"n O .is4&i!in-ti"n (RA9)1:) %ode of %onduct for $ublic =mployees(#A4 26&') D-ng$&"us D&ugs A4t (RA )7,;)
6 -
& & & ' & & & & & & & & &
&
;aw on $lunder (#A6878) $unishing illegal Fishing ($50'!) #ights of persons arrested (#A 6!'7) Trusts #eceipts ;aw ($5 &&0) %hild S Bouth *elfare %ode
9,
L-<