Criminal Law: Answers To Bar Examination Questions in

Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006)
1 of 86
ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS IN
CRIMINAL LAW
ARRANGED BY TOPIC
(1994 2006)
Version 1973 2003 Edited and Arranged by: J !"##" L $$%&'I( ) !* A+", A!*-". P/ I( )
(Silliman University College of Law)
U0* #"* 123
Dondee
ReTake BarOps 2007
From the ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS IN CRIMINAL LAW ! the U" LAW COM"LEX a#$ "%ILI""INE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SC%OOLS
&'(! )* 2007
Version 1994-2006 Updated by
Dondee
2 of 86
FORWAR+
This work is not intended for sale or commerce. This work is freeware. It may be freely copied and distributed. It is primarily intended for all those who desire to have a deeper understanding of the issues touched by the Philippine Bar Examinations and its trend. It is specially intended for law students from the provinces who, very often, are recipients of deliberately distorted notes from other unscrupulous law schools and students. hare to others this work and you will be richly rewarded by !od in heaven. It is also very good karma. "e would like to seek the indulgence of the reader for some Bar #uestions which are improperly classified under a topic and for some topics which are improperly or ignorantly phrased, for the authors are $ust Bar %eviewees who have prepared this work while reviewing for the Bar Exams under time constraints and within their limited knowledge of the law. "e would like to seek the reader&s indulgence for a lot of typographical errors in this work.
The 'uthors (uly )*, )++,

-pdated by.
(uly /, )++0
Version 1994-2006
Updated by Dondee
3 of 86
T 1+" )4 C)!#"!#5
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
General Principles; Schools of thought in Criminal Law (1996) General Principles; Territoriality (199 ) General Principles; Territoriality; !uris"iction o#er $essel (%&&&) 'se of (liases; )hen (llowe" (%&&6) 10 10 10 10
10
6ELONIES
Conspiracy (199*) Conspiracy; (#oi"ance of Greater +#il (%&& ) Conspiracy; Co,Conspirator (199-) Conspiracy; Common .elonious Purpose (199 ) Conspiracy; Comple/ Crime with 0ape (1996) Conspiracy; .light to +#a"e (pprehension (%&&1) Conspiracy; .light to +#a"e (pprehension (%&&1) Conspiracy; 2mplie" Conspiracy (199-) Conspiracy; 2mplie" Conspiracy; +ffects (%&&1) Criminal Lia3ility4 5estructi#e (rson (%&&&) Criminal Lia3ility4 .elonious (ct of Scaring (1996) Criminal Lia3ility4 .elonious (ct; Pro/imate Cause (1996) Criminal Lia3ility4 2mpossi3le Crimes (%&&&) Criminal Lia3ility; .elonious (ct of Scaring (%&&1) Criminal Lia3ility; .elonious (ct of Scaring (%&&6) Criminal Lia3ility; .elonious (ct; 2mme"iate Cause (%&&1) Criminal Lia3ility; .elonious (ct; Pro/imate Cause (199 ) Criminal Lia3ility; .elonious (ct; Pro/imate Cause (199*) Criminal Lia3ility; .elonious (ct; Pro/imate Cause (1999) Criminal Lia3ility; .elonious (ct; Pro/imate Cause (%&&1) Criminal Lia3ility; .elonious (ct; Pro/imate Cause (%&& ) Criminal Lia3ility; 2mpossi3le Crime (%&& ) Criminal Lia3ility; 2mpossi3le Crimes (199 ) Criminal Lia3ility; 2mpossi3le Crimes; 7i"napping (%&&&) 8ala in Se #s9 8ala Prohi3ita (199*) 8ala in Se #s9 8ala Prohi3ita (1999) 8ala in Se #s9 8ala Prohi3ita (%&&1) 8ala in Se #s9 8ala Prohi3ita (%&&1) 8ala Prohi3ita; (ctual 2n:ury 0e;uire" (%&&&) 8alum in Se #s9 8alum Prohi3itum (%&&6) 8oti#e #s9 2ntent (1996) 8oti#e #s9 2ntent (1999) 8oti#e #s9 2ntent (%&& ) 8oti#e; Proof thereof; <ot +ssential; Con#iction (%&&6) 10 11 11 11 11 12 12 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 19 19
10
JUSTI6YING 7 EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES

+/empting Circumstances; Co#erage (%&&&) +/empting Circumstances; 8inority (199-) +/empting; 8inority; 11 yrs =l"; (3sence of 5iscernment (%&&&) !ustifying #s9 +/empting Circumstances (%&& ) !ustifying; 5efense of >onor; 0e;uisites (%&&%) !ustifying; 5efense of Stranger (%&&%) !ustifying; .ulfillment of 5uty; 0e;uisites (%&&&) !ustifying; S5; 5efense of >onor; 0e;uisites (199-) !ustifying; 5efense of >onor; +lements (%&&&) !ustifying; S5; 5efense of Property; 0e;uisites (1996) !ustifying; S5; 5efense of Property; 0e;uisites (%&&1) 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 21 21 21 21
19
Version 1994-2006
Updated by Dondee
4 of 86
22
?ualifying; +lements of a Crime (%&&1)
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
8itigating; <on,2nto/ication (%&&&) 8itigating; Plea of Guilty (1999) 8itigating; Plea of Guilty; 0e;uisites (1999) 8itigating; Plea of Guilty; $oluntary Surren"er (199*) 8itigating; $oluntary Surren"er (1996) 8itigating; $oluntary Surren"er; +lements (1999) 22 22 22 22 23 23
22
AGGRA8ATING CIRCUMSTANCES
(ggra#ating Circumstances (1996) (ggra#ating Circumstances; Generis #s9 ?ualifying (1999) (ggra#ating Circumstances; 7in"s @ Penalties (1999) (ggra#ating; Cruelty; 0elationship (199 ) (ggra#ating; 8ust 3e allege" in the information (%&&&) (ggra#ating; <ighttime; Aan" (199 ) (ggra#ating; 0eci"i#ism (%&&1) (ggra#ating; 0eci"i#ism #s9 ?uasi,0eci"i#ism (199-) (ggra#ating; Treachery @ 'nlawful +ntry (199*) 23 24 24 24 24 24 24 25 25
23
ALTERNATI8E CIRCUMSTANCES
(lternati#e Circumstances; 2nto/ication (%&&%) 25
25 25
25 26 26 26 26 27 27 27 27
PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE 6OR 6ELONIES

(nti,.encing Law; .encing (1996) (nti,.encing Law; .encing #s9 Theft or 0o33ery (1996) (nti,.encing Law; .encing; +lements (1996) Criminal Lia3ility; (ccessories @ .ence (199-) Criminal Lia3ility; <on,+/emption as (ccessory (%&& ) Criminal Lia3ility; Principal 3y 5irect Participation; Co,Principal 3y 2n"ispensa3le Cooperation (%&&&) Criminal Lia3ility; Principal 3y 2n"ucement (%&&%) Criminal Lia3ility; Principal; 2n"ucement @ Participation (199 ) 5estructi#e (rson (199 )
PENALTIES
Comple/ Crime #s9 Compoun" Crime (%&& ) Comple/ Crime #s9 Special Comple/ Crime #s9 5elito Continua"o (%&&6) Comple/ Crime; (3erratio ictus #s9 error in personae (199 ) Comple/ Crime; (3erratio 2ctusB +rror 2n Personae @ Praeter 2ntentionem (1999) Comple/ Crime; (3erratio 2ctus; (ttempte" 8ur"er with >omici"e (%&&&) Comple/ Crime; 5octrine of (3erratio 2ctus; <ot (pplica3le (1996) Comple/ Crimes; Coup "Cetat @ re3ellion @ se"ition (%&&1) Comple/ Crimes; 5etermination of the Crime (1999) Comple/ Crimes; <ature @ Penalty 2n#ol#e" (1999) Comple/ Crimes; =r"inary Comple/ Crime #s9 Special Comple/ Crime (%&&1) Continuing =ffense #s9 5elito Continua"o (199 ) 5eath Penalty (%&& ) 5eath Penalty; ?ualifie" 0ape; 0e;uisites (%&& ) >a3itual 5elin;uency @ 0eci"i#ism (%&&1) 2n"eterminate Sentence Law (199 ) 2n"eterminate Sentence Law (1999) 2n"eterminate Sentence Law (1999) 2n"eterminate Sentence Law (%&&%) 2n"eterminate Sentence Law (%&&6) 2n"eterminate Sentence Law; +/ceptions (1999) 2n"eterminate Sentence Law; +/ceptions (%&&1) 27 28 28 28 28 29 29 29 30 30 30 30 31 31 31 32 32 32 32 32 33
27
Version 1994-2006
Updated by Dondee
5 of 86
33 33 33 33 34 34 34 34 35 35 35 35 35 36 36 36 36 36 37 37 37 38
Penalties4 .ine or 2mprisonment #s9 Su3si"iary 2mprisonment (%&&6) Penalties4 Pecuniary Penalties #s9 Pecuniary Lia3ilities (%&&6) Penalties; Comple/ Crime of +stafa (199*) Penalties; .actors to Consi"er (1991) Penalties; >omici"e wD 8o"ifying Circumstance (1996) Penalties; 8itigating Circumstances wDout (ggra#ating Circumstance (199*) Penalties; Parrici"e wD 8itigating Circumstance (199*) Penalties; Pre#enti#e 2mprisonment (199 ) Penalties; 0eclusion Perpetua (0() <o9 *969 (%&&6) Penalties; 0eclusion Perpetua #s9 Life 2mprisonment (199 ) Penalties; 0eclusion Perpetua #s9 Life 2mprisonment (%&&1) Pro3ation Law4 Proper Perio" (%&&6) Pro3ation Law; Aarre" 3y (ppeal (199 ) Pro3ation Law; Aarre" 3y (ppeal (%&&1) Pro3ation Law; 8a/imum Term #s9 Total Term (199*) Pro3ation Law; =r"er 5enying Pro3ation; <ot (ppeala3le (%&&%) Pro3ation Law; Perio" Co#ere" (%&& ) Pro3ation Law; 0ight; Aarre" 3y (ppeal (1996) Pro3ation Law; 0ight; Aarre" 3y (ppeal (%&&1) Suspension of Sentence; ("ultsD8inors (%&&6) Suspension of Sentence; 8inors (%&&1) Suspension of Sentence; Eouthful =ffen"er (1996)
EXTINCTION O6 CRIMINAL LIABILITY

(mnesty #s9 P5 116& (%&&6) (mnesty; Crimes Co#ere" (%&&6) +/tinction; Criminal @ Ci#il Lia3ilities; +ffects; 5eath of accuse" pen"ing appeal (%&& ) +/tinction; Criminal @ Ci#il Lia3ilities; +ffects; 5eath of =ffen"e" Party (%&&&) Par"on #s9 (mnesty (%&&6) Par"on; +ffect; Ci#il 2nter"iction (%&& ) Par"on; +ffect; 0einstatement (199 ) Prescription of Crimes; Aigamy (1996) Prescription of Crimes; Commencement (%&&&) Prescription of Crimes; Commencement (%&& ) Prescription of Crimes; Concu3inage (%&&1) Prescription of Crimes; .alse Testimony (199 ) Prescription of Crimes; Simple Slan"er (199*) 38 38 38 38 39 39 39 40 40 40 40 41 41
38
CI8IL LIABILITY
Ci#il lia3ility; +ffect of (c;uittal (%&&&) Ci#il lia3ility; +ffect of (c;uittal (%&&&) Ci#il Lia3ility; Su3si"iary; +mployers (199-) Ci#il Lia3ility; )hen 8an"atory; Criminal Lia3ility (%&&6) 5amages; >omici"e; Temperate 5amages (%&&6) 41 41 42 42 42
41
CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND T9E LAW O6 NATIONS

Piracy in the >igh Seas @ ?ualifie" Piracy (%&&6) 42
42 43
43
CRIMES AGAINST T9E 6UNDAMENTAL LAW O6 T9E STATE

$iolation of 5omicile #s9 Trespass to 5welling (%&&%)
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER

(rt 11 ; 0e3ellion; Politically 8oti#ate"; Committe" 3y <P( 8em3ers (199-) (rt 11 ,(4 Coup "C etat @ 0ape; .rustrate" (%&&6) (rt 11 ,(; Coup "Cetat (%&&%) (rt 11 ,(; Coup "Cetat; <ew .irearms Law (199-) (rt 116; Conspiracy to Commit 0e3ellion (199 ) 43 44 44 44 44
43
Version 1994-2006
Updated by Dondee
6 of 86
44 45 45 45 46 46 46
(rt 1 -; 5irect (ssault #s9 0esistance @ 5iso3e"ience (%&&1) (rt 1 -; 5irect (ssault; Teachers @ Professors (%&&%) (rt 1 -; Persons in (uthorityD(gents of Persons in (uthority (%&&&) (rt 166; 5eli#ery of Prisoners from !ail (%&&%) (rt 16*; +#asion of Ser#ice of Sentence (199-) (rt9 11 ; 0e3ellion #s9 Coup "Fetat (%&& ) Comple/ Crime; 5irect (ssault with mur"er (%&&&)
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST

.alse <otes; 2llegal Possession (1999) .alse Testimony (199 ) .alsification; Presumption of .alsification (1999) .orgery @ .alsification (1999) Gra#e Scan"al (1996) Per:ury (1996) Per:ury (199*) Per:ury (%&&6) 47 47 47 47 48 48 48 49
47
CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC O66ICERS

Ari3ery @ Corruption of Pu3lic =fficial (%&&1) 5irect Ari3ery4 2nfi"elity in the Custo"y of 5ocuments (%&&6) !uris"iction; 2mpeacha3le Pu3lic =fficers (%&&6) 8al#ersation (199 ) 8al#ersation (1999) 8al#ersation (1999) 8al#ersation (%&&1) 8al#ersation (%&&6) 8al#ersation #s9 +stafa (1999) 8al#ersation; Properties; Custo"ia Legis (%&&1) 8al#ersation; Technical 8al#ersation (1996) Pu3lic =fficers; "efinition (1999) Pu3lic =fficers; 2nfi"elity in Custo"y of Prisoners (1996) Pu3lic =fficers; 2nfi"elity in Custo"y of Prisoners (199*) 49 49 50 50 50 50 50 51 51 52 52 52 52 53
49
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS

Comple/ Crime; >omici"e wD (ssault,(uthority (1996) Comple/ Crime; Parrici"e wD unintentional a3ortion (199 ) Criminal Lia3ilities; 0ape; >omici"e @ Theft (199- <o) Criminal Lia3ility; Tumultous (ffray (199*) Criminal Lia3ility; Tumultuous (ffray (%&&1) 5eath un"er +/ceptional Circumstances (%&&1) 5eath un"er +/ceptional Circumstances (%&&6) >omici"e; .raustrate"; Physical 2n:uries (199 ) 2nfantici"e (%&&6) 8ur"er @ Sec9 %6B 09(9 <o9 9166 (%&&6) 8ur"er (1999) 8ur"er; 5efinition @ +lements (1999) 8ur"er; +#i"ent Preme"itation (1996) 8ur"er; >omici"e; 2nfantici"e; Parrici"e (1999) 8ur"er; 0ecGles 2mpru"ence (%&&1) 8ur"er; Treachery (1996) 8ur"er; 'se of 2llegal .irearms (%&& ) Parrici"e (1999) Parrici"e (1999) Parrici"e; 8ultiple Parrici"e; >omici"e (199*) 0ape (1996) 0ape; (3sence of .orce @ 2ntimi"ation (1996) 0ape; (nti,0ape Law of 199* (%&&%) 53 53 53 54 54 54 54 55 55 55 55 56 56 56 56 57 57 57 57 57 58 58 58
53
Version 1994-2006
Updated by Dondee
7 of 86
58 59 59 59 59 59 60
0ape; (nti,0ape Law of 199* (%&&%) 0ape; Consente" (3"uction (%&&%) 0ape; +ffect; (ffi"a#it of 5esistance (1991) 0ape; 8ale $ictim (%&&%) 0ape; 8ultiple 0apes; .orci3le (3"uction (%&&&) 0ape; Proper Party (1991) 0ape; Statutory 0ape; 8ental 0etar"ate $ictim (1996)
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY

(r3itrary 5etention; +lements; Groun"s (%&&6) Gra#e Coercion (199-) Gra#e Coercion #s9 8altreatment of Prisoner (1999) 2llegal 5etention #s9 Gra#e Coercion (1999) 7i"napping (%&&%) 7i"napping (%&&6) 7i"napping wD >omici"e (%&&6) 7i"napping; +ffects; $oluntary 0elease (%&& ) 7i"napping; 2llegal 5etention; 8inority (%&&6) 7i"napping; Proposal to 7i"nap (1996) 7i"napping; Serious 2llegal 5etention (199*) Trespass to 5welling; Pri#ate Persons (%&&6) Tresspass to 5welling; 0ule of (3sorption (199 ) 'n:ust $e/ation #s (cts of Lasci#iousness (199 ) 60 60 61 61 61 61 62 62 62 63 63 63 64 64
60
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY

(rson; 5estructi#e (rson (199 ) (rson; 5estructi#e (rson (%&&&) (rson; <ew (rson Law (%&& ) AP %%; 8emoran"um ChecG (199 ) AP %%; 8emoran"um ChecG (1996) AP %%; Presumption of 7nowle"ge (%&&%) +stafa @ Trust 0eceipt Law (1996) +stafa (1999) +stafa #s9 AP %% (1996) +stafa #s9 AP %% (%&&1) +stafa #s9 8oney 8arGet Placement (1996) +stafa #s9 Theft (%&&6) +stafa; +lements (%&&6) +stafa; .alsification of Commercial 5ocument (%&&&) +stafa; .alsification of Commercial 5ocuments (199*) +stafa; Swin"ling (199-) 0o33ery (1996) 0o33ery un"er 0PC (%&&&) 0o33ery un"er 0PC (%&&1) 0o33ery #s9 >ighway 0o33ery (%&&&) 0o33ery wD force upon things (%&&&) 0o33ery wD >omici"e , 09(9 <o9 *669 (%&&6) 0o33ery wD >omici"e (1996) 0o33ery wD >omici"e (199-) 0o33ery wD >omici"e (%&&1) 0o33ery wD >omici"e; Special Comple/ Crime (1996) 0o33ery wD 2ntimi"ation #s9 Theft (%&&%) 0o33ery wD 0ape (1999) 0o33ery wD 0ape; Conspiracy (%&& ) 0o33ery; >omici"e; (rson (1996) 0o33ery; 0ape (199*) Theft (199-) Theft (%&&1) 64 64 64 65 65 65 65 66 66 66 67 67 67 67 68 68 68 68 68 69 69 69 70 70 71 71 71 71 71 72 72 72 73
64
Version 1994-2006
Updated by Dondee
8 of 86
73 73 73 73 74 74
Theft; ?ualifie" Theft (%&&%) Theft; ?ualifie" Theft (%&&%) Theft; ?ualifie" Theft (%&&6) Theft; Stages of +/ecution (199-) Theft; Stages of +/ecution (%&&&) 'surpation of 0eal 0ights (1996)
CRIMES AGAINST C9ASTITY

(cts of Lasci#iousness #s9 'n:ust $e/ation (199 ) ("ultery (%&&%) Concu3inage (199 ) Concu3inage (%&&%) 'n:ust $e/ation #s9 (ct of Lasci#iousness (%&&6) 74 74 74 75 75
74
CRIMES AGAINST T9E CI8IL STATUS O6 PERSONS

Aigamy (199 ) Aigamy (1996) Aigamy (%&& ) Aigamy; Prescripti#e Perio" (1996) Simulation of Airth @ Chil" TrafficGing (%&&%) 75 75 75 76 76
75
CRIMES AGAINST 9ONOR

Li3el (%&&%) Li3el (%&&1) Li3el (%&&6) Slan"er (19--) Slan"er (1996) Slan"er 3y 5ee" #s9 8altreatment (199 ) Slan"er #s9 Criminal Con#ersation (%&& ) 76 76 77 77 77 77 77
76
MISCELLANEOUS
Corpus 5elicti (%&&1) Corpus 5elicti; 5efinition @ +lements (%&&&) +ntrapment #s9 2nstigation (1996) +ntrapment #s9 2nstigation (%&&1) 78 78 78 78
78
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

(nti,Carnapping (ct; Carnapping wD >omici"e (199-) (nti,Graft @ Corrupt Practices , 0( 1&19 (199*) (nti,>aHing law I 0( -& 9 (%&&%) C>2L5 (A'S+; 0( *61& (%&& ) Chil" (3use; 0( *61& (%&&6) 5angerous 5rug (ct4 Plea,Aargaining (%&&6) 5angerous 5rugs (ct (199-) 5angerous 5rugs (ct (%&&6) 5angerous 5rugs (ct (6 %6); 8arGe" 8oney (%&&&) 5angerous 5rugs (ct (6 %6); Plea Aargaining (199-) 5angerous 5rugs (ct; Consummation of Sale (1996) 5angerous 5rugs (ct; Criminal 2ntent to Posses (%&&%) 5angerous 5rugs (ct; Plea,Aargaining (%&& ) >ighway 0o33ery (%&&1) 2llegal .ishing , P5 *& (1996) 2llegal Possession of .irearms I 0( -%9 (199-) 2llegal Possession of .irearms @ (mmunitions (%&&&) P5 6 @ 0( 6*11 @ 2n"irect Ari3ery (%&&6) P5 6 (199 ) P5 6 (199*)
79
79 79 80 80 80 80 80 81 81 81 82 82 82 82 82 83 83 83 83 84
Dondee
9 of 86 Plun"er un"er 0( *&-&; Prescripti#e Perio" (1991)........................................................................................ 84 09(9 <o9 916& (nti,8oney Laun"ering (ct (%&&6).......................................................................................... 84 0a 1&19; Pre#enti#e Suspension (1999)..................................................................................................... 84 0( 1&19; Pre#enti#e Suspension (%&&&)..................................................................................................... 84 0( 1&19; Pu3lic =fficer (%&&1).................................................................................................................85 0a 6*11; Co#erage (%&&1)......................................................................................................................85 0( * 1-,+conomic Sa3otage; 2llegal 0ecruitment (%&& )................................................................................. 85 0( *61& I Chil" +/ploitation (%&&6)...........................................................................................................86
Dondee
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
General Principles; Schools of thought in Criminal Law (1996) 1} What are the different schools of thought or theories in Criminal Law and describe each briefly. 2) To what theory does our Re ised !enal Code belong"
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1. There are two schools of thought in Criminal Law# and these are $a) the CL%&&'C%L T()*R+# which sim,ly means that the basis of criminal liabilities is human free will# and the ,ur,ose of the ,enalty is retribution which must be ,ro,ortional to the gra ity of the offenseand $b) the !*&'T'.'&T T()*R+# which considers man as a social being and his acts are attributable not /ust to his will but to other forces of society. %s such# ,unishment is not the solution# as he is not entirely to be blamed- law and /uris,rudence should not be the yardstic0 in the im,osition of sanction# instead the underlying reasons would be in1uired into.
seaman# aboard 6:. 7!rincess of the !acific7# an o erseas essel which was sailing in the &outh China &ea. The essel# although !anamanian registered# is owned by Lucio &y# a rich 9ili,ino businessman. When 6:. 7!rincess of the !acific7 reached a !hili,,ine !ort at Cebu City# the Ca,tain of the essel turned o er the assailant 8inoy to the !hili,,ine authorities. %n information for homicide was filed against 8inoy in the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. (e mo ed to 1uash the information for lac0 of /urisdiction. 'f you were the 2udge# will you grant the motion" Why" $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
2. We follow the classical school of thought although some ,ro isions of eminently ,ositi ist in tendencies# li0e ,unishment of im,ossible crime# 2u enile circumstances# are incor,orated in our Code. General Principles; Territoriality (199 ) %be# married to Li3a# contracted another marriage with Connie in &inga,ore. Thereafter# %be and Connie returned to the !hili,,ines and li ed as husband and wife in the hometown of %be in Calamba# Laguna. 1) Can %be be ,rosecuted for bigamy"
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1) 4o# %be may not be ,rosecuted for bigamy since the bigamous marriage was contracted or solemni3ed in &inga,ore# hence such iolation is not one of those where the Re ised !enal Code# under %rt. 2 thereof# may be a,,lied e5traterritorially. The general rule on territoriality of criminal law go erns the situation.
General Principles; Territoriality; !uris"iction o#er $essel (%&&&) %fter drin0ing one $1) case of &an 6iguel beer and ta0ing two ,lates of 7,ulutan7# 8inoy# a 9ili,ino seaman# stabbed to death &io 6y# a &inga,orean
10 of 86
+es# the 6otion to =uash the 'nformation should be granted. The !hili,,ine court has no /urisdiction o er the crime committed since it was committed on the high seas or outside of !hili,,ine territory and on board a essel not registered or licensed in the !hili,,ines (US vs. Fowler, 1 Phil 614) 't is the registration of the essel in accordance with the laws of the !hili,,ines# not the citi3enshi, of her owner# which ma0es it a !hili,,ine shi,. The essel being registered in !anama# the laws of !anama go ern while it is in the high seas. 'se of (liases; )hen (llowe" (%&&6) When can a 9ili,ino citi3en residing in this country use an alias legally" >i e ? instances. $2.;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Certificate of )lection Code).
Candidacy $*mnibus
6ELONIES
Conspiracy (199*)
% had a grudge against 9. Deciding to 0ill 9# % and his friends# 8# C# and D# armed themsel es with 0ni es and ,roceeded to the house of 9# ta0ing a ta5icab for the ,ur,ose. %bout 2B meters from their destination# the grou, alighted and after instructing )# the dri er# to wait# tra eled on foot to the house of 9. 8 ,ositioned himself at a distance as the grou,Gs loo0out. C and D stood guard outside the house. 8efore % could enter the house# D left the scene without the 0nowledge of the others. % stealthily entered the house and stabbed 9. 9 ran to the street but was bloc0ed by C# forcing him to flee towards another direction. 'mmediately after % had stabbed 9# % also stabbed > who was isiting 9. Thereafter# % e5iled from the house and# together with 8 and C# returned to the waiting ta5icab and motored away.
1. 2. ?. D. ;. A. F.
!seudonym for literary ,ur,oses. @se of aliases in cinema and tele ision entertainment. 'n athletics and s,orts acti ities $R%. ABC;). @nder the witness ,rotection ,rogram a ,erson may ado,t a different identity $R%. AEC1). When he has been ba,ti3ed or customarily 0nown by such alias. When authori3ed by a com,etent court $C%. 4o. 1D2# as amended by R%. ABC;). When ,ro,erly indicated in a
> died. 9 sur i ed. Who are liable for the death of > and the ,hysical in/uries of 9"
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
% alone should be held liable for the death of >. The ob/ect of the cons,iracy of %. 8# C# and D was to 0ill 9 only. &ince 8# C# and D did not 0now of the stabbing of > by %# they cannot be held criminally therefor. )# the dri er# cannot be also held liable for the death of > since the former was com,letely unaware of said 0illing.
Dondee
9or the ,hysical in/uries of 9# %# 8 and C. should be held liable therefore. ) en if it was only % who actually stabbed and caused ,hysical in/uries to ># 8 and C are nonetheless liable for cons,iring with % and for contributing ,ositi e acts which led to the reali3ation of a common criminal intent. 8 ,ositioned himself as a loo0out# while C bloc0ed 9Gs esca,e. D# howe er# although ,art of the cons,iracy# cannot be held liable because he left the scene before % could enter the house where the stabbing occurred. %lthough he was earlier ,art of the cons,iracy# he did not ,ersonally ,artici,ate in the e5ecution of the crime by acts which directly tended toward the same end (People vs. Tomoro, et al 44 Phil. 38),
Conspiracy; Co,Conspirator (199-) 2uan and %rturo de ised a ,lan to murder 2oel. 'n a narrow alley near 2oelGs house# 2uan will hide behind the big lam,,ost and shoot 2oel when the latter ,asses through on his way to wor0. %rturo will come from the other end of the alley and simultaneously shoot 2oel from behind. *n the a,,ointed day# %rturo was a,,rehended by the authorities before reaching the alley. When 2uan shot 2oel as ,lanned# he was unaware that %rturo was arrested earlier. Discuss the criminal liability of %rturo# if any. H;<I
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
'n the same breath# )# the dri er# cannot be also held liable for the infliction of ,hysical in/uries u,on 9 because there is no showing that he had 0nowledge of the ,lan to 0ill 9. Conspiracy; (#oi"ance of Greater +#il (%&& ) 88 and CC# both armed with 0ni es# attac0ed 9T. The ictimGs son# &T# u,on seeing the attac0# drew his gun but was ,re ented from shooting the attac0ers by %%# who gra,,led with him for ,ossession of the gun. 9T died from 0nife wounds. %%# 88 and CC were charged with murder. 'n his defense# %% in o0ed the /ustifying circumstance of a oidance of greater e il or in/ury# contending that by ,re enting &T from shooting 88 and CC# he merely a oided a greater e il. Will %%Gs defense ,ros,er" Reason briefly. $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
4o# %%Gs defense will not ,ros,er because ob iously there was a cons,iracy among 88# CC and %%# such that the ,rinci,le that when there is a cons,iracy# the act of one is the act of all# shall go ern. The act of &T# the ictimGs son# a,,ears to be a legitimate defense of relati es- hence# /ustified as a defense of his father against the unlawful aggression by 88 and CC. &TGs act to defend his fatherGs life# cannot be regarded as an e il inasmuch as it is# in the eyes of the law# a lawful act.
What %% did was to sto, a lawful defense# not greater e il# to allow 88 and CC achie e their criminal ob/ecti e of stabbing 9T.
11 of 86
%rturo# being one of the two who de ised the ,lan to murder 2oel# thereby becomes a coJ,rinci,al by direct cons,iracy. What is needed only is an o ert act and both will incur criminal liability. %rturoGs liability as a cons,irator arose from his ,artici,ation in /ointly de ising the criminal ,lan with 2uan# to 0ill 2ose. %nd it was ,ursuant to that cons,iracy that 2uan 0illed 2oel. The cons,iracy here is actual# not by inference only. The o ert act was done ,ursuant to that cons,iracy whereof %rturo is coJcons,irator. There being a cons,iracy# the act of one is the act of all. %rturo# therefore# should be liable as a coJcons,irator but the ,enalty on him may be that of an accom,lice only (People vs. ierra, !6 S"#$ 1% People &s. 'edrano, 114 S"#$ 33() because he was not able to actually ,artici,ate in the shooting of 2oel# ha ing been a,,rehended before reaching the ,lace where the crime was committed.
ALTERNATI8E ANSWER3
surrounded the duo. Then 8obby stabbed Dino. &te e# Danny# 4onoy and 2ohnny 0e,t on hitting Dino and Raffy with roc0s. %s a result. Dino died# 8obby# &te e# Danny# 4onoy and 2ohnny were charged with homicide. 's there cons,iracy in this case"
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
+es# there is cons,iracy among the offenders# as manifested by their concerted actions against the ictims# demonstrating a common felonious ,ur,ose of assaulting the ictims. The e5istence of the cons,iracy can be inferred or deduced from the manner the offenders acted in commonly attac0ing Dino and Raffy with roc0s# thereby demonstrating a unity of criminal design to inflict harm on their ictims. Conspiracy; Comple/ Crime with 0ape (1996) 2ose# Domingo# 6anolo# and 9ernando# armed with bolos# at about one oGcloc0 in the morning# robbed a house at a desolate ,lace where Danilo# his wife# and three daughters were li ing. While the four were in the ,rocess of ransac0ing DaniloGs house# 9ernando# noticing that one of DaniloGs daughters was trying to get away# ran after her and finally caught u, with her in a thic0et somewhat distant from the house. 9ernando# before bringing bac0 the daughter to the house# ra,ed her first. Thereafter# the four carted away the belongings of Danilo and his family. a) What crime did 2ose# Domingo# 6anolo and 9ernando commit" )5,lain.
%rturo is not liable because he was not able to ,artici,ate in the 0illing of 2oel. Cons,iracy itself is not ,unishable unless e5,ressly ,ro ided by law and this is not true in the case of 6urder. % coJ cons,irator must ,erform an o ert act ,ursuant to the cons,iracy. Conspiracy; Common .elonious Purpose (199 ) %t about EK?B in the e ening# while Dino and Raffy were wal0ing along !adre 9aura &treet# 6anila. 2ohnny hit them with a roc0 in/uring Dino at the bac0. Raffy a,,roached Dino# but suddenly# 8obby# &te e# Danny and 4onoy
Dondee
b) &u,,ose# after the robbery# the four too0 turns in ra,ing the three daughters of Danilo inside the latterGs house# but before they left# they 0illed the whole family to ,re ent identification# what crime
a cons,iracy# the act of one is the act of all# already go erns them. 'n fact# % and 8 were already in the store to carry out their criminal ,lan.
That 8 ran out of the store and fled u,on hearing the sirens of the ,olice car# is not s,ontaneous desistance but flight to e ade a,,rehension. 't would be different if 8 then tried to sto, % from continuing with the commission of the crime- he did not. &o the act of % in ,ursuing the commission of the crime which both he and 8 designed# ,lanned# and commenced to commit# would also be the act of 8 because of their e5,ressed cons,iracy. 8oth are liable for the com,osite crime of robbery with homicide.
ALTERNATI8E ANSWER3
did the four commit" )5,lain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
$a) 2ose# Domingo# and 6anolo committed Robbery# while 9ernando committed com,le5 crime of Robbery with Ra,e# Cons,iracy can be inferred from the manner the offenders committed the robbery but the ra,e was committed by 9ernando at a ,lace 7distant from the house7 where the robbery was committed# not in the ,resence of the other cons,irators. (ence# 9ernando alone should answer for the ra,e# rendering him liable for the s,ecial com,le5 crime. (People vs. "ant&ria et. al, ).#. 1*84!*, ++ ,&ne 1!!(-
b) The crime would be Robbery with (omicide ... $im,liedK there is still cons,iracy) Conspiracy; .light to +#a"e (pprehension (%&&1) % and 8# both store /anitors# ,lanned to 0ill their em,loyer C at midnight and ta0e the money 0e,t in the cash register. % and 8 together drew the s0etch of the store# where they 0new C would be slee,ing# and ,lanned the se1uence of their attac0. &hortly before midnight# % and 8 were ready to carry out the ,lan. When % was about to lift CGs mos1uito net to thrust his dagger# a ,olice car with sirens blaring ,assed by. &cared# 8 ran out of the store and fled# while % went on to stab C to death# ,ut the money in the bag# and ran outside to loo0 for 8. The latter was nowhere in sight. @n0nown to him# 8 had already left the ,lace. What was the ,artici,ation and corres,onding criminal liability of each# if any" Reasons. C<
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
There was an e5,ressed cons,iracy between % and 8 to 0ill C and ta0e the latterGs money. The ,lanned 0illing and ta0ing of the money a,,ears to be intimately related as com,onent crimes# hence a s,ecial com,le5 crime of robbery with homicide. The cons,iracy being e5,ressed# not /ust im,lied# % and 8 are bound as coJcons,irators after they ha e ,lanned and agreed on the se1uence of their attac0 e en before they committed the crime. Therefore# the ,rinci,le in law that when there is
12 of 86
% shall incur full criminal liability for the crime of robbery with homicide# but 8 shall not incur criminal liability because he desisted. 8Gs s,ontaneous desistance# made before all acts of e5ecution are ,erformed# is e5cul,atory. Cons,iracy to rob and 0ill is not ,er se ,unishable. The desistance need not be actuated by remorse or good moti e. 't is enough that the discontinuance comes from the ,erson who has begun the commission of the crime but before all acts of e5ecution are ,erformed. % ,erson who has began the commission of a crime but desisted# is absol ed from criminal liability as a reward to one# who ha ing set foot on the erge of crime# heeds the call of his conscience and returns to the ,ath of righteousness. Conspiracy; .light to +#a"e (pprehension (%&&1) % and 8# both store /anitors# ,lanned to 0ill their em,loyer C at midnight and ta0e the money 0e,t in the cash register. % and 8 together drew the s0etch of the store# where they 0new C would be slee,ing# and ,lanned the se1uence of their attac0. &hortly before midnight# % and 8 were ready to carry out the ,lan. When % was about to lift CGs mos1uito net to thrust his dagger# a ,olice car with sirens blaring ,assed by. &cared# 8 ran out of the store and fled# while % went on to stab C to death# ,ut the money in the bag# and ran outside to loo0 for 8. The latter was nowhere in sight. @n0nown to him# 8 had already left the ,lace. What was the ,artici,ation and corres,onding criminal liability of each# if any" Reasons.
C<
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
There was an e5,ressed cons,iracy between % and 8 to 0ill C and ta0e the latterGs money. The ,lanned 0illing and ta0ing of the money a,,ears to be intimately related as com,onent crimes# hence a s,ecial com,le5 crime of robbery with homicide. The cons,iracy being e5,ressed# not /ust im,lied# % and 8 are bound as coJcons,irators after they ha e ,lanned and agreed on the se1uence of their attac0 e en before they committed the crime. Therefore# the ,rinci,le in law that when there is a cons,iracy# the act of one is the act of all# already go erns them. 'n fact# % and 8 were already in the store to carry out their criminal ,lan.
That 8 ran out of the store and fled u,on hearing the sirens of the ,olice car# is not s,ontaneous desistance but flight to e ade a,,rehension. 't would be different if 8 then tried to sto, % from continuing with the commission of the crime- he did not. &o the act of % in ,ursuing the commission of the crime which both he and 8 designed# ,lanned# and commenced to commit# would also be the act of 8 because of their e5,ressed cons,iracy. 8oth are liable for the com,osite crime of robbery with homicide.
ALTERNATI8E ANSWER3
% shall incur full criminal liability for the crime of robbery with homicide# but 8 shall not incur criminal liability because he desisted. 8Gs s,ontaneous desistance# made before all acts of e5ecution are ,erformed# is
Dondee
e5cul,atory. Cons,iracy to rob and 0ill is not ,er se ,unishable. The desistance need not be actuated by remorse or good moti e. 't is enough that the discontinuance comes from the ,erson who has begun the commission of the crime but before all acts of e5ecution are ,erformed. % ,erson who has began the commission of a crime but desisted# is absol ed from criminal liability as a reward to one# who ha ing set foot on the erge of crime# heeds the call of his conscience and returns to the ,ath of righteousness. Conspiracy; 2mplie" Conspiracy (199-) What is the doctrine of im,lied cons,iracy" H?<I
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
shall not render one criminally liable as coJcons,irator. Criminal Lia3ility4 5estructi#e (rson (%&&&)
%# 8# C and D# all armed with armalites# ,roceeded to the house of L. +# a neighbor of L# who ha,,ened to be ,assing by# ,ointed to the four cul,rits the room that L occu,ied. The four cul,rits ,e,,ered the room with bullets. @nsatisfied# % e en threw a hand grenade that totally destroyed LGs room. (owe er# un0nown to the four cul,rits# L was not inside the room and nobody was hit or in/ured during the 'ncident. %re %# 8# C and D liable for any crime" )5,lain. $?<)
The doctrine of im,lied cons,iracy holds two or more ,ersons ,artici,ating in the commission of a crime collecti ely res,onsible and liable as coJcons,irators although absent any agreement to that effect# when they act in concert# demonstrating unity of criminal intent and a common ,ur,ose or ob/ecti e. The e5istence of a cons,iracy shall be inferred or deduced from their criminal ,artici,ation in ,ursuing the crime and thus the act of one shall be deemed the act of all.
Conspiracy; 2mplie" Conspiracy; +ffects (%&&1) &tate the conce,t of 7im,lied cons,iracy7 and gi e its legal effects. D<
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
%n 7'6!L')D C*4&!'R%C+7 is one which is only inferred or deduced from the manner the ,artici,ants in the commission of crime carried out its e5ecution. Where the offenders acted in concert in the commission of the crime# meaning that their acts are coordinated or synchroni3ed in a way indicati e that they are ,ursuing a common criminal ob/ecti e# they shall be deemed to be acting in cons,iracy and their criminal liability shall be collecti e# not indi idual.
The legal effects of an 7im,lied cons,iracy7 areK a) 4ot all those who are ,resent at the scene of the crime will be considered cons,iratorsb) *nly those who ,artici,ated by criminal acts in the commission of the crime will be considered as coJ cons,irators- and c) 6ere ac1uiescence to or a,,ro al of the commission of the crime# without any act of criminal ,artici,ation#
13 of 86
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
+es. %# 8. C and D are liable for destructi e arson because of the destruction of the room of L with the use of an e5,losi e# the hand grenade. Liability for an im,ossible crime is to be im,osed only if the act committed would not constitute any other crime under the Re ised !enal Code. %lthough the facts in ol ed are ,arallel to the case of .ntod vs. "o&rt o/ $ppeals (+1( S"#$ (+)# where it was ruled that the liability of the offender was for an im,ossible crime# no hand grenade was used in said case# which constitutes a more serious crime though different from what was intended#
when a ,erson# by a felonious act# generates in the mind of another a sense of imminent danger# ,rom,ting the latter to esca,e from or a oid such danger and in the ,rocess# sustains in/uries or dies# the ,erson committing the felonious act is res,onsible for such in/uries or death.
(US vs. 0alde1, 41 Phil, 14!2% People vs. $pra, +2 S"#$ 1*32.)
Criminal Lia3ility4 .elonious (ct; Pro/imate Cause (1996)

.icente hac0ed %nacleto with a bolo but the latter was able to ,arry it with his hand# causing u,on him a twoJ inch wound on his right ,alm. .icente was not able to hac0 %nacleto further because three ,olicemen arri ed and threatened to shoot .icente if he did not dro, his bolo. .icente was accordingly charged by the ,olice at the ,rosecutorGs office for attem,ted homicide. TwentyJ fi e days later# while the ,reliminary in estigation was in ,rogress# %nacleto was rushed to the hos,ital because of sym,toms of tetanus infection on the twoJinch wound inflicted by .icente. %nacleto died the following day.
Criminal Lia3ility4 .elonious (ct of Scaring (1996) %le5ander# an esca,ed con ict# ran amuc0 on board a &u,erlines 8us bound for 6anila from 8icol and 0illed ten $1B) ,ersons. Terrified by the incident# Carol and 8en/amin who are ,assengers of the bus# /um,ed out of the window and while lying unconscious after hitting the ,a ement of the road# were ran o er and crushed to death by a fast mo ing Desert 9o5 bus tailing the &u,erlines 8us. Can %le5ander be held liable for the death of Carol and 8en/amin although he was com,letely unaware that the two /um,ed out of the bus" )5,lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Can .icente be e entually charged with homicide for the death of %nacleto" )5,lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
+es# %le5ander can be held liable for the death of Carol and 8en/amin because of felonious act of running was the ,ro5imate cause of the ictimGs death. The rule is that
+es# .icente may be charged of homicide for the death of %nacleto# unless the tetanus infection which de elo,ed twenty fi e days later# was brought about by an efficient su,er ening cause. .icenteGs felonious act of causing a twoJinch wound on %nacletoGs right ,alm may still be regarded as the ,ro5imate cause of the latterGs death because without such wound# no tetanus infection could de elo, from the ictimGs right ,alm# and without
Dondee
such tetanus infection the not ha e died with it.
ictim would
committing a felony. %nd any act done by him while committing a felony is no less wrongful# considering that they were ,art of 7,lans to get e en with Cesar7. 9eli,eGs claim that he intended only 7to ,lay a ,ractical /o0e on Cesar7 does not ,ersuade# considering that they are not friends but in fact ri als in courting 6ary/ane. This case is ,arallel to the case of People vs. P&3a4# et al.
ALTERNATI8E ANSWER3
Criminal Lia3ility4 2mpossi3le Crimes (%&&&) a. What is an im,ossible crime" $2<) b. 's an im,ossible crime really a crime" $2<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1. %n im,ossible crime is an act which would be an offense against ,erson or ,ro,erty# were if not for the inherent im,ossibility of its accom,lishment or on account of the em,loyment of inade1uate or ineffectual means $%rt. D# ,ar. 2# R!C) 2. 4o# an im,ossible crime is not really a crime. 't is only soJcalled because the act gi es rise to criminal liability. 8ut actually# no felony is committed. The accused is to be ,unished for his criminal tendency or ,ro,ensity although no crime was committed.
4o# 9eli,e is not liable because the act of frightening another is not a crime. What he did may be wrong# but not all wrongs amount to a crime. 8ecause the act which
Criminal Lia3ility; .elonious (ct of Scaring (%&&1)

6ary/ane had two suitors J 9eli,e and Cesar. &he did not o,enly show her ,reference but on two occasions# acce,ted CesarGs in itation to concerts by Regine and !o,s. 9eli,e was a wor0ing student and could only as0 6ary to see a mo ie which was declined. 9eli,e felt insulted and made ,lans to get e en with Cesar by scaring him off somehow. *ne day# he entered CesarGs room in their boarding house and ,laced a rubber sna0e which a,,eared to be real in CesarGs bac0,ac0. 8ecause Cesar had a wea0 heart# he suffered a heart attac0 u,on o,ening his bac0,ac0 and seeing the sna0e. Cesar died without regaining consciousness. The ,olice in estigation resulted in ,in,ointing 9eli,e as the cul,rit and he was charged with (omicide for CesarGs death. 'n his defense# 9eli,e claimed that he did not 0now about CesarGs wea0 heart and that he only intended to ,lay a ,ractical /o0e on Cesar.
's 9eli,e liable for the death of Cesar or will his defense ,ros,er" Why" $;<}
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
+es# 9eli,e is liable for the death of Cesar but he shall be gi en the benefit of the mitigating circumstance that he did not intend to commit so gra e a wrong as that which was committed $%rt. 1?# ,ar. ?# R!C).
When 9eli,e intruded into CesarGs room without the latterGs consent and too0 liberty with the letterGs bac0,ac0 where he ,laced the rubber sna0e. 9eli,e was already
14 of 86 caused
the death of Cesar is not a crime# no criminal liability may arise therefrom. Criminal Lia3ility; .elonious (ct of Scaring (%&&6) 8elle saw >aston stealing the ,ri3ed coc0 of a neighbor and re,orted him to the ,olice. Thereafter# >aston# while dri ing a car saw 8elle crossing the street. 'ncensed that 8elle had re,orted him# >aston decided to scare her by trying to ma0e it a,,ear that he was about to run her o er. (e re ed the engine of his car and dro e towards her but he a,,lied the bra0es. &ince the road was sli,,ery at that time# the ehicle s0idded and hit 8elle causing her death. Was gaston criminally liable" What is the liability of >aston" Why" $D<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
vs. 0alde1, 41 Phil, 14!2% People vs. $pra, +2 S"#$ 1*32.)

ALTERNATI8E ANSWER3
+es# >aston is liable for 8elleGs death because by his acts of re ing the engine of his car and dri ing towards 8elle is felonious# and such felonious act was the ,ro5imate cause of the ehicle to s0id and hit 8elle# resulting in the latterGs death. &tated otherwise# the death of 8elle was the direct# natural and logical conse1uence of >astonGs felonious act. (People v. $rpa, +2 S"#$ 1*32).
+es# >aston is liable for 8elleGs death because e en though >aston has no intent to 0ill 8elle rather /ust to scare 8elle. 7To scare7 does not indicate intent to 0ill. (owe er# under %rt. D of the Re ised !enal Code# ,ro ides in ,art that criminal liability shall be incurred by any ,erson committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. 'n other words# the rule is that when a ,erson# by a felonious act# generates in the mind of another a sense of imminent danger# ,rom,ting the latter to esca,e from or a oid such danger and in the ,rocess# sustains in/uries or dies# the ,erson committing the felonious act is res,onsible for such in/uries or death . (US
Criminal Lia3ility; .elonious (ct; 2mme"iate Cause (%&&1) The conduct of wife % aroused the ire of her husband 8. 'ncensed with anger almost beyond his control# 8 could not hel, but inflict ,hysical in/uries on %. 6oments after 8 started hitting % with his fists# % suddenly com,lained of se ere chest ,ains. 8# reali3ing that % was indeed in serious trouble# immediately brought her to the hos,ital. Des,ite efforts to alle iate %Gs ,ains# she died of heart attac0. 't turned out that she had been suffering from a lingering heart ailment. What crime# if any# could 8 be held guilty of" C<
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
8 could be held liable for ,arricide because his act of hitting his wife with fist blows and therewith inflicting ,hysical in/uries on her# is felonious. % ,erson committing a felonious act incurs criminal liability although the wrongful conse1uence is different from what he intended $%rt. D# ,ar. 1# Re ised !enal Code).
Dondee
%lthough % died of heart attac0# the said attac0 was generated by 8Gs felonious act of hitting her with his fists. &uch felonious act was the immediate cause of the heart attac0# ha ing materially contributed to and hastened %Gs death. ) en though 8 may ha e acted without intent to 0ill his wife# lac0 of such intent is of no moment when the ictim dies. (owe er# 8 may be gi en the mitigating circumstance of ha ing acted without intention to commit so gra e a wrong as that committed $%rt. 1?# ,ar. ?# Re ised !enal Code).
Criminal Lia3ility; .elonious (ct; Pro/imate Cause (199 ) 8hey elo,ed with &cott. Whereu,on# 8heyGs father# Robin# and brother# Rustom# went to &cottGs house. @,on reaching the house# Rustom in1uired from &cott about his sisterGs whereabouts# while Robin shouted and threatened to 0ill &cott. The latter then went downstairs but Rustom held his $&cottGs) waist. 6eanwhile *li e# the elder sister of &cott# carrying her twoJmonth old child# a,,roached Rustom and &cott to ,acify them. *li e attem,ted to remo e RustomGs hand from &cottGs waist. 8ut Rustom ,ulled *li eGs hand causing her to fall o er her baby. The baby then died moments later. 's Rustom criminally liable for the death of the child"
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
mo ed towards 8 wielding a big 0nife and threatening to stab 8. %t the instant when % was only a few feet from 8# the latter# a,,arently belie ing himself to be in great and immediate ,eril# threw himself into the water# disa,,eared beneath the surface# and drowned. 6ay % be held criminally liable for the death of 8"
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
+es. % can be held criminally liable for the death of 8# %rticle D of the Re ised !enal Code ,ro ides in ,art that criminal liability shall be incurred by any ,erson committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. 'n U.S. vs. 0alde1 41 Phil. 4!2. where the ictim who was threatened by the accused with a 0nife# /um,ed into the ri er but because
+es# Rustom is criminally liable for the death of the child because his felonious act was the ,ro5imate cause of such death. 't was RustomGs act of ,ulling *li eGs hand which caused the latter to fall on her baby. (ad 't not been for said act of Rustom# which is undoubtedly felonious $at least slight coercion) there was no cause for *li e to fall o er her baby. 'n short# RustomGs felonious act is the cause of the e il caused. %ny ,erson ,erforming a felonious act is criminally liable for the direct# natural and logical conse1uence thereof although different from what he intended ($rt. 4, par. 1, #F"% People vs, P&3a4, et al, )# o. 243+4, ov. 18, 1!88). Criminal Lia3ility; .elonious (ct; Pro/imate Cause (199*)
While the crew of a steamer ,re,ared to raise anchor at the !asig Ri er# %# e idently im,atient with the ,rogress of wor0# began to use abusi e language against the men. 8# one of the members of the crew# remonstrated saying that they could wor0 best if they were not insulted. % too0 8Gs attitude as a dis,lay of insubordination and# rising in a rage#
15 of 86
of the strong current or because he did not 0now how to swim# he drowned# the &u,reme Court affirmed the con iction for homicide of the accused because# if a ,erson against whom a criminal assault is directed belie es himself to be in danger of death or great bodily harm and in order to esca,e /um,s into the water# im,elled by the instinct of selfJ ,reser ation# the assailant is res,onsible for the homicide in case death results by drowning. Criminal Lia3ility; .elonious (ct; Pro/imate Cause (1999)
During the robbery in a dwelling house# one of the cul,rits ha,,ened to fire his gun u,ward in the ceiling without meaning to 0ill anyone. The owner of the house who was hiding thereat was hit and 0illed as a result.
Criminal Lia3ility; .elonious (ct; Pro/imate Cause (%&&1)

Luis Cru3 was dee,ly hurt when his offer of lo e was re/ected by his girlfriend 6ari ella one afternoon when he isited her. When he left her house# he wal0ed as if he was slee,wal0ing so much so that a teenage snatcher was able to grab his cell ,hone and flee without being chased by Luis. %t the ne5t LRT station# he boarded one of the coaches bound for 8aclaran. While seated# he ha,,ened to read a news,a,er left on the seat and noticed that the headlines were about the sin0ing of the &u,er 9erry while on its way to Cebu. (e went o er the list of missing ,assengers who were ,resumed dead and came across the name of his grandfather who had raised him from childhood after he was or,haned. (e was shoc0ed and his mind went blan0 for a few minutes# after which he ran amuc0 and# using his balisong# started stabbing at the ,assengers who then scam,ered away# with three of them 2um,ing out of the train and landing on the road below. %ll the three ,assengers died later of their in/uries at the hos,ital.
The defense theori3ed that the 0illing was a mere accident and was not ,er,etrated in connection with# or for ,ur,oses of# the robbery. Will you sustain the defense" Why" $D<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
4o# ' will not sustain the defense. The act being felonious and the ,ro5imate cause of the ictimGs death# the offender is liable therefore although it may not be intended or different from what he intended.
's Luis liable for the death of the three ,assengers who /um,ed out of the mo ing train" &tate your reasons. $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The offender shall be ,rosecuted for the com,osite crime of robbery with homicide# whether the 0illing was intentional or accidental# as long as the 0illing was on occasion of the robbery.
+es# Luis is liable for their deaths because he was committing a felony when he started stabbing at the ,assengers and such wrongful act was the ,ro5imate cause of said ,assengersG /um,ing out of the train- hence their deaths.
Dondee
@nder %rticle D# Re ised !enal Code# any ,erson committing a felony shall incur criminal liability although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. 'n this case# the death of the three ,assengers was the direct# natural and logical conse1uence of LuisG felonious act which created an immediate sense of danger in the minds of said ,assengers who tried to a oid or esca,e from it by /um,ing out of the train. (People vs. $rpa, +2 S"#$ 1532% U.S.
vs. 0alde1, 41 Phil. 4!2-
'n the ,roblem gi en# the im,ossibility of accom,lishing the crime of murder# a crime against ,ersons# was due to the em,loyment of ineffectual means which *M thought was ,oison. The law im,utes criminal liability to the offender although no crime resulted# only to su,,ress his criminal ,ro,ensity because sub/ecti ely# he is a criminal though ob/ecti ely# no crime was committed. Criminal Lia3ility; 2mpossi3le Crimes (199 )
Criminal Lia3ility; .elonious (ct; Pro/imate Cause (%&& ) *n his way home from office# MM rode in a /ee,ney. &ubse1uently# LL boarded the same /ee,ney. @,on reaching a secluded s,ot in =C# LL ,ulled out a grenade from his bag and announced a holdJu,. (e told MM to surrender his watch# wallet and cell,hone. 9earing for his life# MM /um,ed out of the ehicle. 8ut as he fell# his head hit the ,a ement# causing his instant death . 's LL liable for MMGs death" )5,lain briefly. $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
+es# LL is liable for MMGs death because his acts of ,ulling out a grenade and announcing a holdJu,# cou,led with a demand for the watch# wallet and cell,hone of MM is felonious# and such felonious act was the ,ro5imate cause of MMGs /um,ing out of the /ee,ney# resulting in the latterGs death. &tated otherwise# the death of MM was the direct# natural and logical conse1uence of LLGs felonious act which created an immediate sense of danger in the mind of MM who tried to a oid such danger by /um,ing out of the /ee,ney (People v. $rpa, +2 S"#$
1*32).
Criminal Lia3ility; 2mpossi3le Crime (%&& ) *M and +* were both courting their coJ em,loyee# &@). 8ecause of their bitter ri alry# *M decided to get rid of +* by ,oisoning him. *M ,oured a substance into +*Gs coffee thin0ing it was arsenic. 't turned out that the substance was white sugar substitute 0nown as )1ual. 4othing ha,,ened to +* after he dran0 the coffee. What criminal liability did *M incur# if any" )5,lain briefly. $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
*M incurred criminal liability for an im,ossible crime of murder. Criminal liability shall be incurred by any ,erson ,erforming an act which would be an offense against ,ersons or ,ro,erty# were it not for the inherent im,ossibility of its accom,lishment or on account of the em,loyment of inade1uate or ineffectual means $%rt. D# ,ar. 2# R9C).
16 of 86
2!# %ries and Randal ,lanned to 0ill )lsa# a resident of 8arangay !ula# Laurel# 8atangas. They as0ed the assistance of )lla# who is familiar with the ,lace. *n %,ril ?# 1EE2# at about 1BKBB in the e ening# 2!# %ries and Randal# all armed with automatic wea,ons# went to 8arangay !ula. )lla# being the guide# directed her com,anions to the room in the house of )lsa. Whereu,on# 2!# %ries and Randal fired their guns at her room. 9ortunately# )lsa was not around as she attended a ,rayer meeting that e ening in another barangay in Laurel. 2!# et al# were charged and con icted of attem,ted murder by the Regional Trial Court at Tanauan# 8atangas. *n a,,eal to the Court of %,,eals# all the accused ascribed to the trial court the sole error of finding them guilty of attem,ted murder. 'f you were the ,onente# how will you decide the a,,eal"
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
the house is a ,hysical im,ossibility which renders the crime intended 'nherently inca,able of accom,lishment. To con ict the accused of attem,ted murder would ma0e %rt. D# ,ar. 2 ,ractically useless as all circumstances which ,re ented the consummation of the offense will be treated as an incident inde,endent of the actorGs will which is an element of attem,ted or frustrated felony (.ntod vs. "$, +1( S"#$ (+). Criminal Lia3ility4 2mpossi3le Crimes (199-) 8uddy always resented his classmate# 2un. *ne day. 8uddy ,lanned to 0ill 2un by mi5ing ,oison in his lunch. 4ot 0nowing where he can get ,oison# he a,,roached another classmate# 2erry to whom he disclosed his e il ,lan. 8ecause he himself harbored resentment towards 2un# 2erry ga e 8uddy a ,oison# which 8uddy ,laced on 2unGs food. (owe er# 2un did not die because# un0nown to both 8uddy and 2erry# the ,oison was actually ,owdered mil0. 1# What crime or crimes# if any# did 2erry and 8uddy commit" H?<I 2. &u,,ose that# because of his se ere allergy to ,owdered mil0# 2un had to be hos,itali3ed for 1B days for ingesting it. Would your answer to the first 1uestion be the same" H2<I
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
'f ' were the ,onente# ' will set aside the /udgment con icting the accused of attem,ted murder and instead find them guilty of im,ossible crime under %rt. D# ,ar. 2# R!C# in relation to %rt. ;E# R!C. Liability for im,ossible crime arises not only when the im,ossibility is legal# but li0ewise when it is factual or ,hysical im,ossibility# as in the case at bar. )lsaGs absence from
1. 2erry and 8uddy are liable for the soJcalled 7im,ossible crime7 because# with intent to 0ill# they tried to ,oison 2un and thus ,er,etrate 6urder# a crime against ,ersons. 2un was not ,oisoned only because the wouldJ be 0illers were unaware that what they mi5ed with the food of 2un
Dondee
Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006) was
,owdered mil0# not ,oison. 'n short# the act done with criminal intent by 2erry and 8uddy# would ha e constituted a crime against ,ersons were it not for the inherent inefficacy of the means em,loyed. Criminal liability is incurred by them although no crime resulted# because their act of trying to ,oison 2un is criminal.
committed by dolo or cul,a as defined in the Re ised !enal Code. Lac0 of criminal intent is a alid defense# e5ce,t when the crime results from criminal negligence. *n the other hand# crimes mala ,rohibita are those considered wrong only because they are ,rohibited by statute. They constitute iolations of mere rules of con enience designed to secure a more orderly regulation of the affairs of society.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
2. 4o# the answer would not be the same as abo e. 2erry and 8uddy would be liable instead for less serious ,hysical in/uries for causing the hos,itali3ation and medical attendance for 1B days to 2un. Their act of mi5ing with the food eaten by 2un the matter which re1uired such medical attendance# committed with criminal intent# renders them liable for the resulting in/ury. Criminal Lia3ility; 2mpossi3le Crimes; 7i"napping (%&&&)
Carla# D years old# was 0idna,,ed by )nri1ue# the tricycle dri er ,aid by her ,arents to bring and fetch her to and from school. )nri1ue wrote a ransom note demanding !;BB#BBB.BB from CarlaGs ,arents in e5change for CarlaGs freedom. )nri1ue sent the ransom note by mail. (owe er# before the ransom note was recei ed by CarlaGs ,arents# )nri1ueGs hideout was disco ered by the ,olice. Carla was rescued while )nri1ue was arrested and incarcerated. Considering that the ransom note was not recei ed by CarlaGs ,arents# the in estigating ,rosecutor merely filed a case of 7'm,ossible Crime to Commit Nidna,,ing7 against )nri1ue. 's the ,rosecutor correct" Why" $?<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
+es# an act may be malum in se and malum ,rohibitum at the same time. 'n People v. S&ni6o, et a7. ("$ (* 5) (88*) it was held that the omission or failure of election ins,ectors and ,oll cler0s to include a oterGs name in the
4o# the ,rosecutor is not correct in filing a case for 7im,ossible crime to commit 0idna,,ing7 against )nri1ue. 'm,ossible crimes are limited only to acts which when ,erformed would be a crime against ,ersons or ,ro,erty. %s 0idna,,ing is a crime against ,ersonal security and not against ,ersons or ,ro,erty# )nri1ue could not ha e incurred an 7im,ossible crime7 to commit 0idna,,ing. There is thus no im,ossible crime of 0idna,,ing. 8ala in Se #s9 8ala Prohi3ita (199*) 1. Distinguish between crimes mala in se and crimes mala ,rohibita. 2. 6ay an act be malum in se and be# at the same time# malum ,rohibitum"
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Crimes
mala
in
se
are
felonious
acts
17 of 86 registry
list of oters is wrong ,er se because it disenfranchises a oter of his right to ote. 'n this regard it is considered as malum in se. &ince it is ,unished under a s,ecial law $&ec. 1B1 and 1B?# Re ised )lection Code)# it is considered malum ,rohibitum. 8ala in Se #s9 8ala Prohi3ita (1999) Distinguish 7 mala in se7 from 7 mala ,rohibita7$?<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
good faith or lac0 of criminal intent in doing the ,rohibited act is not a defense. 'n crimes mala in se# the acts are by nature wrong# e il or bad# and so generally condemned. The moral trait of the offender is in ol ed- thus# good faith or lac0 of criminal 'ntent on the ,art of the offender is a defense# unless the crime is the result of criminal negligence. Corres,ondingly# modifying circumstances are considered in ,unishing the offender. 8ala in Se #s9 8ala Prohi3ita (%&&1) Distinguish# in their res,ecti e conce,ts and legal im,lications# between crimes mala in se and crimes mala ,rohibits. D<
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
'n 7mala in se7# the acts constituting the crimes are inherently e il# bad or wrong# and hence in ol es the moral traits of the offender- while in 7mala ,rohibita7# the acts constituting the crimes are not inherently bad# e il or wrong but ,rohibited and made ,unishable only for ,ublic good. %nd because the moral trait of the offender is 'n ol ed in 7mala in se7. 6odifying circumstances# the offenderGs e5tent of ,artici,ation in the crime# and the degree of accom,lishment of the crime are ta0en into account in im,osing the ,enaltyK these are not so in 7mala ,rohibita7 where criminal liability arises only when the acts are consummated.
In concept: Crimes mala in se are those where the acts or omissions ,enali3ed are inherently bad# e il# or wrong that they are almost uni ersally condemned. Crimes mala ,rohibita are those where the acts ,enali3ed are not inherently bad# e il# or wrong but ,rohibited by law for ,ublic good# ,ublic welfare or interest and whoe er iolates the ,rohibition are ,enali3ed. In legal implications: 'n crimes mala in se# good faith or lac0 of criminal intent: negligence is a defense# while in crimes mala ,rohibita# good faith or lac0 of criminal intent or malice is not a defenseit is enough that the ,rohibition was oluntarily iolated.
8ala in Se #s9 8ala Prohi3ita (%&&1) 8riefly state what essentially distinguishes a crime mala ,rohibita from a crime mala in se. $2<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
'n crimes mala ,rohibita# the acts are not by nature wrong# e il or bad. They are ,unished only because there is a law ,rohibiting them for ,ublic good# and thus
Dondee
%lso# criminal liability is generally incurred in crimes mala in se e en when the crime is only attem,ted or frustrated# while in crimes mala ,rohibita# criminal liability is generally incurred only when the crime is consummated.
crime was not consummated but was only at an attem,ted stage# and that in fact the >o ernment did not suffer any undue in/ury.
a) 's the contention correct" )5,lain. $?<)
of
both
accused
%lso in crimes mala in se# mitigating and aggra ating circumstances are a,,reciated in im,osing the ,enalties# while in crimes mala ,rohibita# such circumstances are not a,,reciated unless the s,ecial law has ado,ted the scheme or scale of ,enalties under the Re ised !enal Code. 8ala Prohi3ita; (ctual 2n:ury 0e;uire" (%&&&)
6r. Carlos >abisi# a customs guard# and 6r. Rico +to# a ,ri ate 'ndi idual# went to the office of 6r. Diether *cuarto# a customs bro0er# and re,resented themsel es as agents of 6oonglow Commercial Trading# an 'm,orter of childrenGs clothes and toys. 6r. >abisi and 6r. +to engaged 6r. *cuarto to ,re,are and file with the 8ureau of Customs the necessary 'm,ort )ntry and 'nternal Re enue Declaration co ering 6oonglowGs shi,ment. 6r. >abisi and 6r. +to submitted to 6r. *cuarto a ,ac0ing list# a commercial in oice# a bill of lading and a &worn 'm,ort Duty Declaration which declared the shi,ment as childrenGs toys# the ta5es and duties of which were com,uted at !AB#BBB.BB. 6r. *cuarto filed the aforementioned documents with the 6anila 'nternational Container !ort. (owe er# before the shi,ment was released# a s,ot chec0 was conducted by Customs &enior %gent 2ames 8andido# who disco ered that the contents of the an $shi,ment) were not childrenGs toys as declared in the shi,,ing documents but 1#BBB units of ideo cassette recorders with ta5es and duties com,uted at !ABB#BBB.BB. % hold order and warrant of sei3ure and detention were then issued by the District Collector of Customs. 9urther in estigation showed that 6oonglow is nonJe5istent. Conse1uently# 6r. >abisi and 6r. +to were charged with and con icted for iolation of &ection ?$e) of R.%. ?B1E which ma0es it unlawful among others# for ,ublic officers to cause any undue 'n/ury to any ,arty# including the >o ernment. 'n the discharge of official functions through manifest ,artiality# e ident bad faith or gross ine5cusable negligence. 'n their motion for reconsideration# the accused alleged that the decision was erroneous because the
b) %ssuming that the attem,ted or frustrated stage of the iolation charged is not ,unishable# may the accused be ne ertheless con icted for an offense ,unished by the Re ised !enal Code under the facts of the case" )5,lain.
$?<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
+es# the contention of the accused that the crime was not consummated is correct# R%. ?B1E is a s,ecial law ,unishing acts mala ,rohibita. %s a rule# attem,ted
18 of 86 iolation
of a s,ecial law is not ,unished. %ctual in/ury is re1uired. +es# both are liable for attem,ted estafa thru falsification of commercial documents# a com,le5 crime. ... 8alum in Se #s9 8alum Prohi3itum (%&&6) Distinguish malum in se from malum ,rohibitum. $2<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
to use a ,articular means to effect such results. 6oti e is not an essential element of a felony and need not be ,ro ed for ,ur,ose of con iction# while intent is an essential element of felonies by dolo. 2. +es# a crime may be committed without criminal intent if such is a cul,able felony# wherein 'ntent is substituted by negligence or im,rudence# and also in a malum ,rohibitum or if an act is ,unishable by s,ecial law. 8oti#e #s9 2ntent (1999) 1. Distinguish 7moti e7 from 7intent7. 2. When is moti e rele ant to ,ro e a case" When is it not necessary to be established" )5,lain. $?<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
'n crimes malum in se# an act is by nature wrong# e il or bad# and so generally condemned. The moral trait of the offender is in ol ed- thus# good faith or lac0 of criminal 'ntent on the ,art of the offender is a defense# unless the crime is the result of criminal negligence. Corres,ondingly# modifying circumstances are considered in ,unishing the offender. 'n crimes mala ,rohibitum# an act is not by nature wrong# e il or bad. +et# it is ,unished because there is a law ,rohibiting them for ,ublic good# and thus good faith or lac0 of criminal intent in doing the ,rohibited act is not a defense. 8oti#e #s9 2ntent (1996) 1. Distinguish intent from moti e in Criminal Law. 2. 6ay crime be committed without criminal intent"
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1. 76oti e 7 is the mo ing ,ower which im,els a ,erson to do an act for a definite result- while 7intent7 is the ,ur,ose for using a ,articular means to bring about a desired result. 6oti e is not an element of a crime but intent is an element of intentional crimes. 6oti e# if attending a crime# always ,recede the intent. 2. 6oti e is rele ant to ,ro e a case when there is doubt as to the identity of the offender or when the act committed gi es rise to ariant crimes and there is the need to determine the ,ro,er crime to be im,uted to the offender.
1. 6oti e is the mo ing ,ower which im,els one to action for a definite result- whereas intent is the ,ur,ose
Dondee
't is not necessary to ,ro e moti e when the offender is ,ositi ely identified or the criminal act did not gi e rise to ariant crimes. 8oti#e #s9 2ntent (%&& ) Distinguish clearly but briefly between intent and moti e in the commission of an offense.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
b. 's % e5em,ted from criminal liability under %rticle ??2 of the Re ised !enal Code for being a brother
of 8" )5,lain. $2<)

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
a) % is criminally liable for Robbery with force u,on things..... b) 4o# % is not e5em,t from criminal liability under %rt. ??2 because said %rticle a,,lies only to theft# swindling or malicious mischief. (ere# the crime committed is robbery.
'ntent is the ,ur,ose for using a ,articular means to achie e the desired result- while moti e is the mo ing ,ower which im,els a ,erson to act for a definite result. 'ntent is an ingredient of dolo or malice and thus an element of deliberate felonies- while moti e is not an element of a crime but only considered when the identity of the offender is in doubt. 8oti#e; Proof thereof; <ot +ssential; Con#iction (%&&6) 6oti e is essential in the determination of the commisJ sion of a crime and the liabilities of the ,er,etrators. What are the instances where ,roof of moti e is not essential or re1uired to /ustify con iction of an accused" >i e at least ? instances. $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1. 2. ?. D.
;.
When there is an eyewitness or ,ositi e identification of the accused. When the accused admitted or confessed to the commission of the crime. 'n crimes mala prohi8ita. 'n direct assault# when the ictim# who is a ,erson in authority or agent of a ,erson in authority was attac0ed in the actual ,erformance of his duty $%rt. 1DC# Re ised !enal Code). 'n crimes committed through rec0less im,rudence.
JUSTI6YING 7 EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES

+/empting Circumstances; Co#erage (%&&&) %# brother of 8# with the intention of ha ing a night out with his friends# too0 the coconut shell which is being used by 8 as a ban0 for coins from inside their loc0ed cabinet using their common 0ey. 9orthwith# % bro0e the coconut shell outside of their home in the ,resence of his friends. a. What is the criminal liability of %# if any" )5,lain. $?<)
19 of 86
+/empting Circumstances; 8inority (199-) 2ohn# an eightJyear old boy# is fond of watching the tele ision ,rogram 7Meo Rangers.7 *ne e ening while he was engrossed watching his fa orite tele ision show# !etra# a maid changed the channel to enable her to watch 7(ome %long the Riles.7 This enraged 2ohn who got his fatherGs re ol er# and without warning# shot !etra at the bac0 of her head causing her instantaneous death. 's 2ohn criminally liable" H2<I
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
the in/ury. !om,ing lost his right eye.
a) 's Natreena criminally liable" Why" $?<)

b) Discuss the and effects attendant circumstances
thereof. $2<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
4o# 2ohn is not criminally liable for 0illing !etra because he is only C years old when he committed the 0illing. % minor below nine $E) years old is absolutely e5em,t from criminal liability although not from ci il liability. $%rt. 12# ,ar. 2# R!C). +/empting; 8inority; 11 yrs =l"; (3sence of 5iscernment (%&&&)
While they were standing in line awaiting their accination at the school clinic# !om,ing re,eatedly ,ulled the ,onytail of Natreena# his 11 years# 2 months and 1? days old classmate in >rade ; at the &am,aloc )lementary &chool. 'rritated# Natreena turned around and swung at !om,ing with a ball ,en. The to, of the ball ,en hit the right eye of !om,ing which bled ,rofusely. Reali3ing what she had caused. Natreena immediately hel,ed !om,ing. When in estigated# she freely admitted to the school ,rinci,al that she was res,onsible for the in/ury to !om,ingGs eye. %fter the incident# she e5ecuted a statement admitting her cul,ability. Due to
a) 4o# Natreena is not criminally liable although she is ci illy liable. 8eing a minor less than fifteen $1;) years old although o er nine $E) years of age# she is generally e5em,t from criminal liability. The e5ce,tion is where the ,rosecution ,ro ed that the act was committed with discernment. The burden is u,on the ,rosecution to ,ro e that the accused acted with discernment.
The ,resum,tion is that such minor acted without discernment# and this is strengthened by the fact that Natreena only reacted with a ball,en which she must be using in class at the time# and only to sto, !om,ingGs e5atious act of re,eatedly ,ulling her ,onytail. 'n other words# the in/ury was accidental. b) The attendant circumstances which may be considered areK
1. 6inority of the accused as an e5em,ting circumstance under %rticle 12. ,aragra,h ?# Re . !enal Code# where she shall be e5em,t from criminal liability# unless it was ,ro ed that she acted with discernment. She is however civilly liable2. 'f found criminally liable# the minority of the accused as a ,ri ileged mitigating circumstance. % discretionary ,enalty lower by at least two $2)
Dondee
criminal. !ustifying; 5efense of >onor; 0e;uisites (%&&%) When % arri ed home# he found 8 ra,ing his daughter. @,on seeing %# 8 ran away. % too0 his gun and shot 8# 0illing him. Charged with homicide# % claimed he acted in defense of his daughterGs honor. 's % correct" 'f not# can % claim the benefit of any mitigating circumstance or circumstances" $?<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
degrees than that ,rescribed for the crime committed shall be im,osed in accordance with %rticle AC. ,aragra,h 1# Re . !enal Code. The sentence# howe er# should automatically be sus,ended in accordance with &ection ;$a) of Re,. %ct 4o. C?AE otherwise 0nown as the 79amily Courts %ct of 1EEF7?. %lso if found criminally liable# the ordinary mitigating circumstance of not 'ntending to commit so gra e a wrong as that committed# under %rticle 1?# ,aragra,h ?# Re . !enal Code- and
D. The ordinary mitigating circumstance of sufficient ,ro ocation on the ,art of the offended ,arty immediately ,receded the act. !ustifying #s9 +/empting Circumstances (%&& ) Distinguish clearly but brieflyK 8etween /ustifying and e5em,ting circumstances in criminal law.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
4o# % cannot alidly in o0e defense of his daughterGs honor in ha ing 0illed 8 since the ra,e was already consummated- moreo er# 8 already ran away# hence# there was no aggression to defend against and no defense to s,ea0 of.
2ustifying circumstance affects the act# not the actorwhile e5em,ting circumstance affects the actor# not the act. 'n /ustifying circumstance# no criminal and# generally# no ci il liability is incurredwhile in e5em,ting circumstance# ci il liability is generally incurred although there is no criminal liability. 2ustifying s. )5em,ting Circumstances $1EEC) Distinguish between /ustifying and e5em,ting circumstances. H?<I
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1. 'n Justifying CircumstancesK a. The circumstance affects the act# not the actorb. The act is done within legal bounds# hence considered as not a crimec. &ince the act is not a crime# there is no criminald. There being no crime nor criminal# there is no criminal nor ci il liability. Whereas# in an Exempting CircumstancesK a. The circumstance affects the actor# not the actb. The act is felonious and hence a crime but the actor acted without oluntarinessc. %lthough there is a crime# there is no criminal because the actor is regarded only as an instrument of the crimed. There being a wrong done but no
20 of 86
% may# howe er# in o0e the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of ha ing acted in immediate indication of a gra e offense to a descendant# his daughter# under ,ar. ;# %rticle 1? of the Re ised !enal Code# as amended.
!ustifying; 5efense of Stranger (%&&%) % chanced u,on three men who were attac0ing 8 with fist blows. C# one of the men# was about to stab 8 with a 0nife. 4ot 0nowing that 8 was actually the aggressor because he had earlier challenged the three men to a fight# % shot C as the latter was about to stab 8. 6ay % in o0e the defense of a stranger as a /ustifying circumstance in his fa or" Why" $2<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
+es. % may in o0e the /ustifying circumstance of defense of stranger since he was not in ol ed in the fight and he shot C when the latter was about to stab 8. There being no indication that % was induced by re enge# resentment or any other e il moti e in shooting C# his act is /ustified under ,ar ?# %rticle 11 of the Re ised !enal Code# as amended. !ustifying; .ulfillment of 5uty; 0e;uisites (%&&&)
Lucresia# a store owner# was robbed of her bracelet in her home. The following day# at about ; oGcloc0 in the afternoon# a neighbor# 22Jyear old 2unJ2un# who had an unsa ory re,utation# came to her store to buy bottles of beer. Lucresia noticed her bracelet wound around the right arm of 2unJ 2un. %s soon as the latter left# Lucresia went
to a nearby ,olice station and sought the hel, of a ,oliceman on duty# !at. Willie Reyes. (e went with Lucresia to the house of 2unJ2un to confront the latter. !at. Reyes introduced himself as a ,oliceman and tried to get hold of 2unJ2un who resisted and ran away. !at. Reyes chased him and fired two warning shots in the air. 2unJ2un continued to run and when he was about F meters away# !at# Reyes shot him in the right leg. 2unJ 2un was hit and he fell down but he crawled towards a fence# intending to ,ass through an o,ening underneath. When !at. Reyes was about ; meters away# he fired another shot at 2unJ2un hitting him at the right lower hi,. !at. Reyes brought 2unJ2un to the hos,ital# but because of ,rofuse bleeding# he e entually died. !at Reyes was subse1uently charged with homicide. During the trial# !at Reyes raised the defense# by way of e5oneration# that he acted in the fulfillment of a duty. 's the defense tenable" )5,lain. $?<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
4o# the defense of !at. Reyes is not tenable. The defense of ha ing acted in the fulfillment of a duty re1uires as a condition# inter alia# that the in/ury or offense committed be the una oidable or necessary conse1uence of the due ,erformance of the duty (People vs. 5anis, et.al., 24 Phil. +(2) . 't is not enough that the accused acted in fulfillment of a duty.
%fter 2unJ2un was shot in the right leg and was already crawling# there was no need for !at# Reyes to shoot him further. Clearly# !at. Reyes acted beyond the call of duty which brought about the cause of death of the ictim.
Dondee
!ustifying; S5; 5efense of >onor; 0e;uisites (199-)

*ne night# @na# a young married woman# was sound aslee, in her bedroom when she felt a man on to, of her. Thin0ing it was her husband Tito# who came home a day early from his business tri,# @na let him ha e se5 with her. %fter the act# the man said# 7' ho,e you en/oyed it as much as ' did.7 4ot recogni3ing the oice# it dawned u,on Lina that the man was not Tito# her husband. 9urious# @na too0 out TitoGs gun and shot the man. Charged with homicide @na denies cul,ability on the ground of defense of honor. 's her claim tenable" H;<I
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
the in/ured or disabled ,arty already ceased to e5ist when the accused attac0ed him# as in the case at bar# the attac0 made is a retaliation# and not a defense. !aragra,h 1# %rticle 11 of the Code does not go ern. (ence# *sangGs act of stabbing 2ulio to death after the se5ual intercourse was finished# is not defense of honor but an immediate indication of a gra e offense committed against her# which is only mitigating. !ustifying; S5; 5efense of Property; 0e;uisites (1996) % security guard# u,on seeing a man scale the wall of a factory com,ound which he was guarding# shot and
4o# @naGs claim that she acted in defense of honor# is not tenable because the unlawful aggression on her honor had already ceased. Defense of honor as included in selfJ defense# must ha e been done to ,re ent or re,el an unlawful aggression. There is no defense to s,ea0 of where the unlawful aggression no longer e5ists. !ustifying; 5efense of >onor; +lements (%&&&) *sang# a married woman in her early twenties# was slee,ing on a banig on the floor of their ni,a hut beside the seashore when she was awa0ened by the act of a man mounting her. Thin0ing that it was her husband# >ardo#who had returned from fishing in the sea# *sang continued her slee, but allowed the man# who was actually their neighbor# 2ulio# to ha e se5ual intercourse with her. %fter 2ulio satisfied himself# he said 7&alamat *sang7 as he turned to lea e. *nly then did *sang reali3e that the man was not her husband. )nraged# *sang grabbed a balisong from the wall and stabbed 2ulio to death. When tried for homicide# *sang claimed defense of honor. &hould the claim be sustained" Why" $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
4o# *sang7s claim of defense of honor should not be sustained because the aggression on her honor had ceased when she stabbed the aggressor. 'n defense of rights under ,aragra,h 1# %rt. 11 of the R!C# 't is re1uired inter alia that there be $1) unlawful aggression# and $2) reasonable necessity of the means em,loyed to ,re ent or re,el it. The unlawful aggression must be continuing when the aggressor was in/ured or disabled by the ,erson ma0ing a defense.
8ut if the aggression that was begun by
21 of 86 0illed
the latter. @,on in estigation by the ,olice who thereafter arri ed at the scene of the shooting# it was disco ered that the ictim was unarmed. When ,rosecuted for homicide# the security guard claimed that he merely acted in selfJ defense of ,ro,erty and in the ,erformance of his duty as a security guard. 'f you were the /udge# would you con ict him of homicide" )5,lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
seeing what a,,eared to him an armed stranger loo0ing around and out to rob the house# he fired his gun seriously in/uring the man. When the lights were turned on# the unfortunate ictim turned out to be a brotherJinJlaw on his way to the 0itchen to get some light snac0s. The accused was indicted for serious ,hysical in/uries. &hould the accused# gi en the circumstances# be con icted or ac1uitted" Why" D<
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
+es. ' would con ict the security guard for (omicide if ' were the 2udge# because his claim of ha ing acted in defense of ,ro,erty and in ,erformance of a duty cannot fully be /ustified. ) en assuming that the ictim was scaling the wall of the factory com,ound to commit a crime inside the same# shooting him is ne er /ustifiable# e en admitting that such act is considered unlawful aggression on ,ro,erty rights. 'n People vs. arvaes, 1+1 S"#$ 3+!# a ,erson is /ustified to defend his ,ro,erty rights# but all the elements of selfJdefense under %rt. 11# must be ,resent. 'n the instant case# /ust li0e in 4ar aes# the second element $reasonable necessity of the means em,loyed) is absent. (ence# he should be con icted of homicide but entitled to incom,lete selfJdefense.
The accused should be con icted because# e en assuming the facts to be true in his belief# his act of shooting a burglar when there is no unlawful aggression on his ,erson is not /ustified. Defense of ,ro,erty or ,ro,erty 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. %lthough the accused acted out of a misa,,rehension of the facts# he is not absol ed from criminal liability.
ALTERNATI8E ANSWER3
!ustifying; S5; 5efense of Property; 0e;uisites (%&&1)

The accused li ed with his family in a neighborhood that often was the scene of fre1uent robberies. %t one time# ,ast midnight# the accused went downstairs with a loaded gun to in estigate what he thought were footste,s of an unin ited guest. %fter
Considering the gi en circumstances# namelythe fre1uent robberies in the neighborhood# the time was ,ast midnight# and the ictim a,,eared to be an armed burglar in the dar0 and inside his house# the accused could ha e entertained an honest belief that his life and limb or those of his family are already in immediate and imminent danger. (ence# it may be reasonable to acce,t that he acted out of an honest mista0e of fact and therefore without criminal intent. %n honest mista0e of fact negati es criminal intent and thus absol es the accused from criminal liability.
Dondee
?ualifying; +lements of a Crime (%&&1) When would 1ualifying circumstances be deemed# if at all# elements of a crime" D<
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
% 1ualifying circumstance would be deemed an element of a crime when J a. it changes the nature of the crime# bringing about a more serious crime and a hea ier ,enaltyb. it is essential to the crime in ol ed# otherwise some other crime is committed- and
c. it is s,ecifically 'nformation and alleged in the
in order to ,ro o0e him so that he would come out of his house. When 2e,oy came out# 2onas immediately shot him with 2a/aGs . D; caliber gun but missed his target. 'nstead# the bullet hit 2e,oyGs fi e year old son who was following behind him# 0illing the boy instantaneously#
a) What crime or crimes can 2onas and 2a/a be charged with" )5,lain. $2<) b) 'f you were 2onasG and 2a/aGs lawyer# what ,ossible defenses would you set u, in fa or of your clients" )5,lain. $2<)
c)
'f you were the 2udge# how would you decide the
case" )5,lain. $1<)

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,ro en during the trial.

ALTERNATI8E ANSWER3
% 1ualifying circumstance is deemed an element of a crime when it is s,ecifically stated by law as included in the definition of a crime# li0e treachery in the crime of murder.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
8itigating; <on,2nto/ication (%&&&)
Des,ite the massi e ad ertising cam,aign in media against firecrac0ers and gunJfiring during the 4ew +earGs celebrations# 2onas and 2a/a bought ten bo5es of su,er lolo and ,laJ,la in 8ocaue# 8ulacan. 8efore midnight of December ?1# 1EEE# 2onas and 2a/a started their celebration by ha ing a drin0ing s,ree at 2onaGs ,lace by e5,loding their highJ ,owered firecrac0ers in their neighborhood. 'n the course of their con ersation# 2onas confided to 2a/a that he has been 0ee,ing a longJtime grudge against his neighbor 2e,oy in iew of the latterGs refusal to lend him some money. While under the influence of li1uor# 2onas started throwing lighted su,er lolos inside 2e,oyGs fence to irritate him and the same e5,loded inside the latterGs yard. @,on 0nowing that the throwing of the su,er lolo was deliberate# 2e,oy became furious and sternly warned 2onas to sto, his malicious act or he would get what he wanted. % heated argument between 2onas and 2e,oy ensued but 2a/a tried to calm down his friend. %t midnight# 2onas con inced 2a/a to lend him his .D; caliber ,istol so that he could use it to 0noc0 down 2e,oy and to end his arrogance. 2onas thought that after all# e5,losions were e erywhere and nobody would 0now who shot 2e,oy. %fter 2a/a lent his firearm to 2onas# the latter again started started throwing lighted su,er lolos and ,laJ,las at 2e,oyGs yard
22 of 86
a) 2onas and 2a/a# can be charged with the com,le5 crime of attem,ted murder with homicide because a single act caused a less gra e and a gra e felony $%rt. DC. R!C).... b) 'f ' were 2onasG and 2a/aGs lawyer# ' will use the following defensesK a. That the accused had no intention to commit so gra e a wrong as that committed as they merely intended to frighten 2e,oyb. That 2onas committed the crime in a state of into5ication thereby im,airing his will ,ower or ca,acity to understand the wrongfulness of his act. 4onJintentional into5ication is a mitigating circumstance
(People &s. Forti6h, (1!!2)% $rt. 1(, #P".). +81 S"#$ 6**
the mitigating circumstance of ,lea of guilty. (is ,lea of not guilty before the 6unici,al Court is immaterial as it was made during ,reliminary in estigation only and before a court not com,etent to render /udgment. 8itigating; Plea of Guilty; 0e;uisites (1999) 'n order that the ,lea of guilty may be mitigating# what re1uisites must be com,lied with" $2<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
9or ,lea of guilty to be mitigating# the re1uisites areK a. That the accused s,ontaneously ,leaded guilty to the crime chargedb. That such ,lea was made before the court com,etent to try the case and render /udgment- and c. That such ,lea was made ,rior to the ,resentation of e idence for the ,rosecution. 8itigating; Plea of Guilty; $oluntary Surren"er (199*) %fter 0illing the ictim# the accused absconded. (e succeeded in eluding the ,olice until he surfaced and surrendered to the authorities about two years later. Charged with murder# he ,leaded not guilty but# after the ,rosecution had ,resented two witnesses im,licating him to the crime# he changed his ,lea to that of guilty. &hould the mitigating circumstances of oluntary surrender and ,lea of guilty be considered in fa or of the accused"
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
8itigating; Plea of Guilty (1999)

%n accused charged with the crime of homicide ,leaded 7not guilty7 during the ,reliminary in estigation before the 6unici,al Court. @,on the ele ation of the case to the Regional Trial Court the Court of com,etent /urisdiction# he ,leaded guilty freely and oluntarily u,on arraignment. Can his ,lea of guilty before the RTC be considered s,ontaneous and thus entitle him to the mitigating circumstance of s,ontaneous ,lea of guilty under %rt. 1?$F)# R!C" $?<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
+es# his ,lea of guilty before the Regional Trial Court can be considered s,ontaneous# for which he is entitled to
.oluntary surrender should be considered as a mitigating circumstance. %fter two years# the ,olice were still unaware of the whereabouts of the accused and the latter
Dondee
considerable efforts and loo0ing for the accused.
e5,enses
in
!lea of guilty can no longer be a,,reciated as a mitigating circumstance because the ,rosecution had already started with the ,resentation of its e idence $%rt. 1?# ,ar. F. Re ised !enal Code). 8itigating; $oluntary Surren"er (1996)
(ilario# u,on seeing his son engaged in a scuffle with Rene# stabbed and 0illed the latter. %fter the stabbing# he brought his son home. The Chief of !olice of the town# accom,anied by se eral ,olicemen# went to (ilarioGs house# (ilario# u,on seeing the a,,roaching ,olicemen# came down from his house to meet them and oluntarily went with them to the !olice &tation to be in estigated in connection with the 0illing. When e entually charged with and con icted of homicide# (ilario# on a,,eal# faulted the trial court for not a,,reciating in his fa or the mitigating circumstance of oluntary surrender. 's he entitled to such a mitigating circumstance" )5,lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
(#e4es9 "ommentaries, p. 3*3) . Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006) could
ha e continued to elude arrest. %ccordingly# the surrender of the accused should be considered mitigating because it was done s,ontaneously# indicati e of the remorse or re,entance on the ,art of said accused and therefore# by his surrender# the accused sa ed the >o ernment e5,enses# efforts# and time.
ALTERNATI8E ANSWER3
+es# (ilario is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of oluntary surrender. The cru5 of the issue is whether the fact that (ilario went home after the incident# but came down and met the ,olice officers and went with them is considered 7.oluntary surrender#7 The oluntariness of surrender is tested if the same is s,ontaneous showing the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities. This must be either $a) because he ac0nowledges his guilt# or $b) because he wishes to sa e them the trouble and e5,enses necessarily incurred in his search and ca,ture. Thus# the act of the accused in hiding after commission of the crime# but oluntarily went with the ,olicemen who had gone to his hiding ,lace to in estigate# was held to be mitigating circumstance.$People vs.
Da4rit, 6ited in #e4es9 "ommentaries, p. +!!)
8itigating; $oluntary Surren"er; +lements (1999) When is surrender by an accused considered oluntary# and constituti e of the mitigating circumstance of oluntary surrender" $?<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
.oluntary surrender may not be a,,reciated in fa or of the accused. Two years is too long a time to consider the surrender as s,ontaneous (People &s. $8lao, 183 S"#$ 6(8). 9or sure the go ernment had already incurred
% surrender by an offender is considered oluntary when it is s,ontaneous# indicati e of an intent to submit unconditionally to the authorities. To be mitigating# the surrender must beK
23 of 86
a. s,ontaneous# i.e.# indicati e of ac0nowledgment of guilt and not for con enience nor conditionalb. made before the go ernment incurs e5,enses# time and effort in trac0ing down the offenderGs whereabouts- and c. made to a ,erson in authority or the latterGs agents.
c.
identification# what crime did the four commit" )5,lain.

@nder the facts of the case# what aggra ating circumstances may be a,,reciated against the four"
)5,lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
a) 2ose# Domingo# and 6anolo committed Robbery# while 9ernando committed com,le5 crime of Robbery with Ra,e...
AGGRA8ATING CIRCUMSTANCES
(ggra#ating Circumstances (1996) 2ose# Domingo# 6anolo# and 9ernando# armed with bolos# at about one oGcloc0 in the morning# robbed a house at a desolate ,lace where Danilo# his wife# and three daughters were li ing. While the four were in the ,rocess of ransac0ing DaniloGs house# 9ernando# noticing that one of DaniloGs daughters was trying to get away# ran after her and finally caught u, with her in a thic0et somewhat distant from the house. 9ernando# before bringing bac0 the daughter to the house# ra,ed her first. Thereafter# the four carted away the belongings of Danilo and his family. a. What crime did 2ose# Domingo# 6anolo and 9ernando commit" )5,lain. b. &u,,ose# after the robbery# the four too0 turns in ra,ing the three daughters of Danilo inside the latterGs house# but before they left# they 0illed the whole family to ,re ent
b) The crime would be Robbery with (omicide because the 0illings were by reason $to ,re ent identification) and on the occasion of the robbery. The multi,le ra,es committed and the fact that se eral ,ersons were 0illed Hhomicide)# would be considered as aggra ating circumstances. The ra,es are synonymous with 'gnominy and the additional 0illing synonymous with cruelty# (People vs. Solis, 18+ S"#$%
People vs. Pla3a, +*+ S"#$ (31)
c) The aggra ating circumstances which may be considered in the ,remises areK 1. 8and because all the four offenders are armed2. 4octumity because e idently the offenders too0 ad antage of nighttime?. dwelling- and D. @ninhabited ,lace because the house where the crimes were committed was 7at a desolate ,lace7 and ob iously the offenders too0 ad antage of this circumstance in committing the crime.
Dondee
(ggra#ating Circumstances; Generis #s9 ?ualifying (1999) Distinguish generic aggra ating circumstance from 1ualifying aggra ating circumstance.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
lighted cigarrete. Li0e a madman# he laughed while ra,ing her.
What aggra ating circumstances are ,resent in this case"

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
a) Cruelty# for burning the
Generic Aggravating CircumstancesK a. affects only the im,osition of the ,enalty ,rescribed# but not the nature of the crime committedb. can be offset by ordinary mitigating circumstancesc. need not be alleged in the 'nformation as long as ,ro en during the trial# the same shall be considered in im,osing the sentence. Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances: a. must be alleged in the 'nformation and ,ro en during trialb. cannot be offset by mitigating circumstancesc. affects the nature of the crime or brings about a ,enalty higher in degree than that ordinarily ,rescribed. (ggra#ating Circumstances; 7in"s @ Penalties (1999) 4ame the four $D) 0inds of aggra ating circumstances and state their effect on the ,enalty of crimes and nature thereof. $?<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
ictimGs face with a lighted cigarrete# thereby deliberately augmenting the ictimGs suffering by acts clearly unnecessary to the ra,e# while the offender delighted and en/oyed seeing the ictim suffer in ,ain
(People vs. 7&6as, 181 S"#$ 316).
b) Relationshi,# because the offended ,arty is a descendant $daughter) of the offender and considering that the crime is one against chastity.
The four $D) 0inds of aggra ating circumstances areK 1) >)4)R'C %>>R%.%T'4> or those that can generally a,,ly to all crimes# and can be offset by mitigating circumstances# but if not offset# would affect only the ma5imum of the ,enalty ,rescribed by law2) &!)C'9'C %>>R%.%T'4> or those that a,,ly only to ,articular crimes and cannot be offset by mitigating circumstancesK
?) =@%L'9+'4> C'RC@6&T%4C)& or those that change the nature of the crime to a gra er one# or brings about a ,enalty ne5t higher in degree# and cannot be offset by mitigating circumstances-
D) '4()R)4T %>>R%.%T'4> or those that essentially accom,any the commission of the crime and does not affect the ,enalty whatsoe er. (ggra#ating; Cruelty; 0elationship (199 )
8en# a widower# dri en by bestial ,o0ed a gun on his daughter Meny# undressed her and tied her legs bed. (e also burned her face desire# forcibly to the with a
24 of 86
(ggra#ating; 8ust 3e allege" in the information (%&&&) Rico# a member of the %l,ha Rho fraternity# was 0illed by !ocholo# a member of the ri al grou,# &igma !hi *mega. !ocholo was ,rosecuted for homicide before the Regional Trial Court in 8inan# Laguna. During the trial# the ,rosecution was able to ,ro e that the 0illing was committed by means of ,oison in consideration of a ,romise or reward and with cruelty. 'f you were the 2udge# with what crime will you con ict !ocholo" )5,lain. $2<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Raffy a,,roached Dino# but suddenly# 8obby# &te e# Danny and 4onoy surrounded the duo. Then 8obby stabbed Dino. &te e# Danny# 4onoy and 2ohnny 0e,t on hitting Dino and Raffy with roc0s. %s a result. Dino died# 8obby# &te e# Danny# 4onoy and 2ohnny were charged with homicide. Can the court a,,reciate the aggra ating circumstances of nighttime and band"
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
!ocholo should be con icted of the crime of homicide only because the aggra ating circumstances which should 1ualify the crime to murder were not alleged in the 'nformation.
The circumstances of using ,oison# in consideration of a ,romise or reward# and cruelty which attended the 0illing of Rico could only be a,,reciated as generic aggra ating circumstances since none of them ha e been alleged in the information to 1ualify the 0illing to murder. % 1ualifying circumstance must be alleged in the 'nformation and ,ro en beyond reasonable doubt during the trial to be a,,reciated as such.
4o# nighttime cannot be a,,reciated as an aggra ating circumstance because there is no indication that the offenders deliberately sought the co er of dar0ness to facilitate the commission of the crime or that they too0 ad antage of nighttime
(People vs. De los #e4es, +*3 S"#$ 2*2).
8esides# /udicial notice can be ta0en of the fact that !adre 9aura &treet is wellJlighted.
(owe er# band should be considered as the crime was committed by more than three armed malefactors- in a recent &u,reme Court decision# stones or roc0s are considered deadly wea,ons. (ggra#ating; 0eci"i#ism (%&&1)
2uan de Castro already had three $?) ,re ious con ictions by final /udgment for theft when he was found guilty of Robbery with (omicide. 'n the last case# the trial 2udge considered against the accused both recidi ism and habitual delin1uency. The accused a,,ealed and contended that in his last con iction# the trial court cannot consider against him a finding of recidi ism and#
(ggra#ating; <ighttime; Aan" (199 ) %t about EK?B in the e ening# while Dino and Raffy were wal0ing along !adre 9aura &treet# 6anila. 2ohnny hit them with a roc0 in/uring Dino at the bac0.
Dondee
again# of habitual delin1uency. 's the a,,eal meritorious" )5,lain. $;<)

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
4o# the a,,eal is not meritorious. Recidi ism and habitual delin1uency are correctly considered in this case because the basis of recidi ism is different from that of habitual delin1uency.
2uan is a recidi ist because he had been ,re iously con icted by final /udgment for theft and again found guilty for Robbery with (omicide# which are both crimes against ,ro,erty# embraced under the same Title $Title Ten# 8oo0 TwoI of the Re ised !enal Code. The im,lication is that he is s,eciali3ing in the commission of crimes against ,ro,erty# hence aggra ating in the con iction for Robbery with (omicide. (abitual delin1uency# which brings about an additional ,enalty when an offender is con icted a third time or more for s,ecified crimes# is correctly considered ...
ehicle. 'n the e ening of that day# the accused went to bed early and tried to slee,# but being so annoyed o er the sus,ected relation between his wife and the ictim# he could not slee,. Later in the night# he resol ed to 0ill ictim. (e rose from bed and too0 hold of a 0nife. (e entered the a,artment of the ictim through an unloc0ed window. 'nside# he saw the ictim soundly aslee,. (e thereu,on stabbed the ictim# inflicting se eral wounds# which caused his death within a few hours.
(ggra#ating; 0eci"i#ism #s9 ?uasi,0eci"i#ism (199-) Distinguish between recidi ism and 1uasiJ recidi ism. H2<I
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
'n reci ivism J 1. The con ictions of the offender are for crimes embraced in the same Title of the Re ised !enal Code- and 2. This circumstance is generic aggra ating and therefore can be effect by an ordinary mitigating circumstance. Whereas in !uasi"reci ivlsm J 1. The con ictions are not for crimes embraced in the same Title of the Re ised !enal Code# ,ro ided that it is a felony that was committed by the offender before ser ing sentence by final /udgment for another crime or while ser ing sentence for another crime- and 2. This circumstance is a s,ecial aggra ating circumstance which cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance. (ggra#ating; Treachery @ 'nlawful +ntry (199*)
The accused and the ictim occu,ied ad/acent a,artments# each being a se,arate dwelling unit of one big house. The accused sus,ected his wife of ha ing an illicit relation with the ictim. *ne afternoon# he saw the ictim and his wife together on board a
25 of 86
Would you say that the 0illing was attended by the 1ualifying or aggra ating circumstances of e ident ,remeditation# treachery# nighttime and unlawful entry"
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
which is not the ,ro,er ,lace for entrance into the house
$$rt. 14. par. 18. #evised Penal "ode, People vs.

;ar&3a 61 Phil. 318).
ALTERNATI8E CIRCUMSTANCES
(lternati#e Circumstances; 2nto/ication (%&&%) % was in ited to a drin0ing s,ree by friends. %fter ha ing had a drin0 too many# % and 8 had a heated argument# during which % stabbed 8. %s a result# 8 suffered serious ,hysical in/uries. 6ay the into5ication of % be considered aggra ating or mitigating" $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1. ) ident ,remeditation cannot be considered against the accused because he resol ed to 0ill the ictim 7later in the night7 and there was no sufficient la,se of time between the determination and e5ecution# to allow his conscience to o ercome the resolution of his will.
2. TR)%C()R+ may be ,resent because the accused stabbed the ictim while the latter was sound aslee,. %ccordingly# he em,loyed means and methods which directly and s,ecially insured the e5ecution of the act without ris0 himself arising from the defense which the ictim might ha e made (People vs. De:&ina. 6* Phil.
+2! People vs. 'iranda, et at. !* Phil. !1).
?. 4ighttime cannot be a,,reciated because there is no showing that the accused deliberately sought or a ailed of nighttime to insure the success of his act. The 'ntention to commit the crime was concei ed shortly before its commission
(People vs Pardo. 2! Phil, (68).
The into5ication of % may be ,rima facie considered mitigating since it was merely incidental to the commission of the crime. 't may not be considered aggra ating as there is no clear indication from the facts of the case that it was habitual or intentional on the ,art of %. %ggra ating circumstances are not to be ,resumed- they should be ,ro ed beyond reasonable doubt
PERSONS C-&:&! ++2 L& 1+" 4)6ELONIES

(nti,.encing Law; .encing (1996)
9lora# who was engaged in the ,urchase and sale of /ewelry# was ,rosecuted for the iolation of !.D. 1A12# otherwise 0nown as the %ntiJ9encing Law# for ha ing been found to be in ,ossession of recently stolen 2ewelry alued at !1BB#BBB.BB at her /ewelry sho, at Ma,ote
6oreo er# treachery.
nighttime
is
absorbed
in
D. @4L%W9@L )4TR+ may be a,,reciated as an aggra ating circumstance# inasmuch as the accused entered the room of the ictim through the window#
Dondee
Road# Las !inas# 6etro 6anila. &he testified during the trial that she merely bought the same from one named Cecilino and e en ,roduced a recei,t co ering the sale. Cecilino# in the ,ast# used to deli er to her /ewelries for sale but is ,resently nowhere to be found. Con icted by the trial court for iolation of the %ntiJ9encing Law# she argued $or her ac1uittal on a,,eal# contending that the ,rosecution failed to ,ro e that she 0new or should ha e 0nown that the 2ewelries reco ered from her were the ,roceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
the acts of one who is an accessory to the crimes of robbery or theft are included in the acts defined as fencing. 'n fact# the accessory in the crimes of robbery or theft could be ,rosecuted as such under the Re ised !enal Code or as a fence under !.D. 4o. 1A12. (Di1on<Pamint&an vs. People,
+34 S"#$ 63=
(nti,.encing Law; .encing; +lements (1996) What are the elements of fencing"
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The elements of fencing areK a. a crime of robbery or theft has been committed-
4o# 9loraGs defense is not wellJta0en because mere ,ossession of any article of alue which has been the sub/ect of theft or robbery shall be ,rima facie e idence of fencing $!.D.4o. 1A12). The burden is u,on the accused to ,ro e that she ac1uired the /ewelry legitimately. (er defense of ha ing bought the 2ewelry from someone whose whereabouts is un0nown# does not o ercome the ,resum,tion of fencing against her (Pamint&an vs People, ).# 1114+6, 11 ,&l4 1!!4). 8uying ,ersonal ,ro,erty ,uts the buyer on ca eat because of the ,hrases that he should ha e 0nown or ought to 0now that it is the ,roceed from robbery or theft. 8esides# she should ha e followed the administrati e ,rocedure under the decree that of getting a clearance from the authorities in case the dealer is unlicensed in order to esca,e liability.
(nti,.encing Law; .encing #s9 Theft or 0o33ery (1996) What is the difference between a fence and an accessory to theft or robbery" )5,lain. 's there any similarity between them"
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
*ne difference between a fence and an accessory to theft or robbery is the ,enalty in ol ed- a fence is ,unished as a ,rinci,al under !.D. 4o. 1A12 and the ,enalty is higher# whereas an accessory to robbery or theft under the Re ised !enal Code is ,unished two degrees lower than the ,rinci,al# unless he bought or ,rofited from the ,roceeds of theft or robbery arising from robbery in !hili,,ine highways under !.D. 4o. ;?2 where he is ,unished as an accom,lice# hence the ,enalty is one degree lower. %lso# fencing is a malum ,rohibitum and therefore there is no need to ,ro e criminal intent of the accused- this is not so in iolations of Re ised !enal Code.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
+es# there is a similarity in the sense that all
26 of 86
b. accused# who is not a ,rinci,al or accom,lice in the crime# buys# recei es# ,ossesses# 0ee,s# ac1uires# conceals# or dis,oses# or buys and sells# or in any manner deals in any article# item # ob/ect or anything of alue# which has been deri ed from the ,roceeds of said crimec. the accused 0nows or should ha e 0nown that said article# item# ob/ect or anything of alue has been deri ed from the from the ,roceeds of the crime of robbery or theft- and d. there is on the ,art of the accused# intent to gain for himself or for another. Criminal Lia3ility; (ccessories @ .ence (199-) Ning went to the house of Laura who was alone. Laura offered him a drin0 and after consuming three bottles of beer. Ning made ad ances to her and with force and iolence# ra ished her. Then Ning 0illed Laura and too0 her /ewelry.
Doming# NingGs ado,ted brother# learned about the incident. (e went to LauraGs house# hid her body# cleaned e erything and washed the bloodstains inside the room.
criminal liabilities. H1B<I

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Ning committed the com,osite crime of Ra,e with homicide as a single indi isible offense# not a com,le5 crime# and Theft. ...
DomingGs acts# ha ing been done with 0nowledge of the commission of the crime and ob iously to conceal the body of the crime to ,re ent its disco ery# ma0es him an accessory to the crime of ra,e with homicide under %rt. 1E# ,ar. 2 of the Re . !enal Code# but he is e5em,t from criminal liability therefor under %rticle 2B of the Code# being an ado,ted brother of the ,rinci,al.
2ose incurs criminal liability either as an accessory to the crime of theft committed by Ning# or as fence. %lthough he is a legitimate brother of Ning# the e5em,tion under %rticle 2B does not include the ,artici,ation he did# because he ,rofited from the effects of such theft by selling the /ewelry 0nowing that the same was ta0en from Laura. *r 2ose may be ,rosecuted for fencing under the %ntiJ 9encing Law of 1EFE $!D 4o. 1A12) since the /ewelry was the ,roceeds of theft and with intent to gain# he recei ed it from Ning and sold it. Criminal Lia3ility; <on,+/emption as (ccessory (%&& ) DC8# the daughter of 6C8# stole the earrings of L+M# a stranger. 6C8 ,awned the earrings with T8' !awnsho, as a ,ledge for !;BB loan. During the trial# 6C8 raised the defense that being the mother of DC8# she cannot be
Later# Ning ga e 2ose# his legitimate brother# one ,iece of /ewelry belonging to Laura. 2ose 0new that the /ewelry was ta0en from Laura but nonetheless he sold it for !2#BBB. What crime or crimes did Ning# Doming and 2ose commit" Discuss their
Dondee
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
held liable as an accessory. Will 6C8Gs defense ,ros,er" Reason briefly. $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
4o# 6C8Gs defense will not ,ros,er because the e5em,tion from criminal liability of an accessory by irtue of relationshi, with the ,rinci,al does not co er accessories who themsel es ,rofited from or assisted the offender to ,rofit by the effects or ,roceeds of the crime. This nonJe5em,tion of an accessory# though related to the ,rinci,al of the crime# is e5,ressly ,ro ided in %rt. 2B of the Re ised !enal Code. Criminal Lia3ility; Principal 3y 5irect Participation; Co, Principal 3y 2n"ispensa3le Cooperation (%&&&)
Des,ite the massi e ad ertising cam,aign in media against firecrac0ers and gunJfiring during the 4ew +earGs celebrations# 2onas and 2a/a bought ten bo5es of su,er lolo and ,laJ,la in 8ocaue# 8ulacan. 8efore midnight of December ?1# 1EEE# 2onas and 2a/a started their celebration by ha ing a drin0ing s,ree at 2onaGs ,lace by e5,loding their highJ ,owered firecrac0ers in their neighborhood. 'n the course of their con ersation# 2onas confided to 2a/a that he has been 0ee,ing a longJtime grudge against his neighbor 2e,oy in iew of the latterGs refusal to lend him some money. While under the influence of li1uor# 2onas started throwing lighted su,er lolos inside 2e,oyGs fence to irritate him and the same e5,loded inside the latterGs yard. @,on 0nowing that the throwing of the su,er lolo was deliberate# 2e,oy became furious and sternly warned 2onas to sto, his malicious act or he would get what he wanted. % heated argument between 2onas and 2e,oy ensued but 2a/a tried to calm down his friend. %t midnight# 2onas con inced 2a/a to lend him his .D; caliber ,istol so that he could use it to 0noc0 down 2e,oy and to end his arrogance. 2onas thought that after all# e5,losions were e erywhere and nobody would 0now who shot 2e,oy. %fter 2a/a lent his firearm to 2onas# the latter again started started throwing lighted su,er lolos and ,laJ,las at 2e,oyGs yard in order to ,ro o0e him so that he would come out of his house. When 2e,oy came out# 2onas immediately shot him with 2a/aGs . D; caliber gun but missed his target. 'nstead# the bullet hit 2e,oyGs fi e year old son who was following behind him# 0illing the boy instantaneously#
' would con ict 2onas as ,rinci,al by direct ,artici,ation and 2a/a as coJ,rinci,al by 'ndis,ensable coo,eration for the com,le5 crime of murder with homicide. 2a/a should be held liable as coJ,rinci,al and not only as an accom,lice because he 0new of 2onasG criminal design e en before he lent his firearm to 2onas and still he concurred in that criminal design by ,ro iding the firearm. Criminal Lia3ility; Principal 3y 2n"ucement (%&&%)
% as0ed 8 to 0ill C because of a gra e in/ustice done to % by C. % ,romised 8 a reward. 8 was willing to 0ill C# not so much because of the reward ,romised to him but
'f you were the 2udge# how would you decide the case" )5,lain. $1<)
27 of 86 because
he also had his own longJstanding grudge against C# who had wronged him in the ,ast. 'f C is 0illed by 8# would % be liable as a ,rinci,al by inducement" $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
consideration# to commit arson which the latter would not ha e committed were it not for such reason. +oboy and +ongsi are ,rinci,als by direct ,artici,ation ($rt.
12, pars. +1 and 3, #P").
4o. % would not be liable as a ,rinci,al by inducement because the reward he ,romised 8 is not the sole im,elling reason which made 8 to 0ill C. To bring about criminal liability of a coJ,rinci,al# the inducement made by the inducer must be the sole consideration which caused the ,erson induced to commit the crime and without which the crime would not ha e been committed. The facts of the case indicate that 8# the 0iller su,,osedly induced by %# had his own reason to 0ill C out of a long standing grudge. Criminal Lia3ility; Principal; 2n"ucement @ Participation (199 )
Tata owns a threeJstorey building located at 4o. ? (erran &treet. !aco# 6anila. &he wanted to construct a new building but had no money to finance the construction. &o# she insured the building for !?#BBB#BBB.BB. &he then urged +oboy and +ongsi# for monetary consideration# to burn her building so she could collect the insurance ,roceeds. +oboy and +ongsi burned the said building resulting to its total loss.
5estructi#e (rson (199 )

Tata owns a threeJstorey building located at 4o. ? (erran &treet. !aco# 6anila. &he wanted to construct a new building but had no money to finance the construction. &o# she insured the building for !?#BBB#BBB.BB. &he then urged +oboy and +ongsi# for monetary consideration# to burn her building so she could collect the insurance ,roceeds. +oboy and +ongsi burned the said building resulting to its total loss.
What crime did Tata# +oboy and +ongsi commit"

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Tata# +oboy and +ongsi committed the crime of destructi e arson because they collecti ely caused the destruction of ,ro,erty by means of fire under the circumstances which e5,osed to danger the life or ,ro,erty of others
($rt, 3+*, par. (, #P". as amended 84 #$ o. 26(!).
PENALTIES
Comple/ Crime #s9 Compoun" Crime (%&& ) Distinguish clearly but brieflyK 8etween com,ound and com,le5 crimes as conce,ts in the !enal Code.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
What is their res,ecti e criminal liability"

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Tata is a ,rinci,al by inducement because she directly induced +oboy and +ongsi# for a ,rice or monetary
C*6!*@4D CR'6)& result when the offender committed only a single felonious act from which two or
Dondee
Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006) more
crimes resulted. This is ,ro ided for in modified form in the first ,art of %rticle DC# Re ised !enal Code# limiting the resulting crimes to only gra e and:or less gra e felonies. (ence# light felonies are e5cluded e en though resulting from the same single act.
be im,elled by one criminal intent or ,ur,ose# such that each act merely constitutes a ,artial e5ecution of a ,articular crime# iolating one and the same ,enal ,ro ision. 't in ol es a concurrence of felonious acts iolating a common right# a common ,enal ,ro ision# and 'm,elled by a single criminal im,ulse (People vs. 7edesma, 23
S"#$ 22).
C*6!L)L CR'6)& result when the offender has to commit an offense as a necessary means for committing another offense. *nly one information shall be filed and if ,ro en# the ,enalty for the more serious crime shall be im,osed. Comple/ Crime #s9 Special Comple/ Crime #s9 5elito Continua"o (%&&6) Distinguish the following from each otherK
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Comple/ Crime; (3erratio ictus #s9 error in personae (199 ) Distinguish aberratio ictus from error in ,ersonae.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
%n *RD'4%R+ C*6!L)L CR'6) is made u, of two or more crimes being ,unished in distinct ,ro isions of the Re ised !enal Code 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 ,enalty shall be im,osed. %s to ,enalties# ordinary com,le5 crime# the ,enalty for the most serious crime shall be im,osed and in its ma5imum ,eriod
% &!)C'%L C*6!L)L CR'6)# on the other hand# is made u, of two or more crimes which are considered only as com,onents of a single indi isible offense being ,unished in one ,ro ision of the Re ised !enal Code. %s to ,enalties# s,ecial com,le5 crime# only one ,enalty is s,ecifically ,rescribed for all the com,onent crimes which are regarded as one indi isible offense. The com,onent crimes are not regarded as distinct crimes and so the ,enalty for the most serious crime is not the ,enalty to be im,osed nor in its ma5imum ,eriod. 't is the ,enalty s,ecifically ,ro ided for the s,ecial com,le5 crime that shall be a,,lied according to the rules on im,osition of the ,enalty. D)L'T* C*4T'4@%D*# or C*4T'4@*@& CR'6)# is a term used to denote as only one crime a series of felonious acts arising from a single criminal resolution# not susce,tible of di ision# which are carried out in the same ,lace and at about the same time# and iolating one and the same ,enal ,ro ision. The acts done must
28 of 86
%berratio ictus or mista0e in the blow occurs when a felonious act missed the ,erson against whom it was directed and hit instead somebody who was not the intended ictim. )rror in ,ersonae# or mista0e in identity occurs when the felonious act was directed at the ,erson intended# but who turned out to be somebody else. %berratio ictus brings about at least two $2) felonious conse1uence# ie. the attem,ted felony on the intended ictim who was not hit and the felony on the unintended ictim who was hit. % com,le5 crime of the first form under %rt. DC# R!C generally result. 'n error in ,ersonae only one crime is committed
crimes do not result and the ,enalties are to be im,osed distinctly for each resulting crime.
)RR*R '4 !)R&*4%) or mista0e in identity occurs when the offender actually hit the ,erson to whom the blow was directed but turned out to be different from and not the ictim intended. The criminal liability of the offender is not affected# unless the mista0e in identity resulted to a crime different from what the offender intended to commit# in which case the lesser ,enalty between the crime intended and the crime committed shall be im,osed but in the ma5imum ,eriod ($rt. 4!, #F"). !R%)T)R '4T)4T'*4)6 or where the conse1uence went beyond that intended or e5,ected. This is a mitigating circumstance $%rt. 1?. ,ar. ?# R!C) when there is a notorious dis,arity between the act or means em,loyed by the offender and the resulting felony# i#e.# the resulting felony could not be reasonably antici,ated or foreseen by the of fender from the act or means em,loyed by him. Comple/ Crime; (3erratio 2ctus; (ttempte" 8ur"er with >omici"e (%&&&)
Des,ite the massi e ad ertising cam,aign in media against firecrac0ers and gunJfiring during the 4ew +earGs celebrations# 2onas and 2a/a bought ten bo5es of su,er lolo and ,laJ,la in 8ocaue# 8ulacan. 8efore midnight of December ?1# 1EEE# 2onas and 2a/a started their
Comple/ Crime; (3erratio 2ctusB +rror 2n Personae @ Praeter 2ntentionem (1999) What do you understand by aberratio ictusK error in ,ersonae- and ,raeter intentionem" Do they alter the criminal liability of an accused" )5,lain. $D<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
%8)RR%T'* 'CT@& or mista0e in the blow occurs when the offender deli ered the blow at his intended ictim but missed# and instead such blow landed on an unintended ictim. The situation generally brings about com,le5 crimes where from a single act# two or more gra e or less gra e felonies resulted# namely the attem,t against the intended ictim and the conse1uence on the unintended ictim. %s com,le5 crimes# the ,enalty for the more serious crime shall be the one im,osed and in the ma5imum ,eriod. 't is only when the resulting felonies are only light that com,le5
Dondee
celebration by ha ing a drin0ing s,ree at 2onaGs ,lace by e5,loding their highJ ,owered firecrac0ers in their neighborhood. 'n the course of their con ersation# 2onas confided to 2a/a that he has been 0ee,ing a longJtime grudge against his neighbor 2e,oy in iew of the latterGs refusal to lend him some money. While under the influence of li1uor# 2onas started throwing lighted su,er lolos inside 2e,oyGs fence to irritate him and the same e5,loded inside the latterGs yard. @,on 0nowing that the throwing of the su,er lolo was deliberate# 2e,oy became furious and sternly warned 2onas to sto, his malicious act or he would get what he wanted. % heated argument between 2onas and 2e,oy ensued but 2a/a tried to calm down his friend. %t midnight# 2onas con inced 2a/a to lend him his .D; caliber ,istol so that he could use it to 0noc0 down 2e,oy and to end his arrogance. 2onas thought that after all# e5,losions were e erywhere and nobody would 0now who shot 2e,oy. %fter 2a/a lent his firearm to 2onas# the latter again started throwing lighted su,er lolos and ,laJ,las at 2e,oyGs yard in order to ,ro o0e him so that he would come out of his house. When 2e,oy came out# 2onas immediately shot him with 2a/aGs . D; caliber gun but missed his target. 'nstead# the bullet hit 2e,oyGs fi e year old son who was following behind him# 0illing the boy instantaneously#
(omicide with %ttem,ted (omicide. The single act of firing at !aulo resulted in the commission of two felonies# one gra e $homicide) and the other less gra e $attem,ted homicide) thus falling s1uarely under %rt. DC# R!C- hence# the ,enalty would be for the more serious crime $homicide} in its ma5imum ,eriod $1F years D months and 1 day to 2B years).
%berratio ictus $mista0e in the blow) could not be used as a defense as it is not an e5em,ting circumstance. !edrito is liable under the ,rinci,le of %rt. D# R!C# which ma0es a ,erson criminally liable for all the natural and logical conse1uences of his felonious act
a) What crime or crimes can 2onas and 2a/a be charged with" )5,lain. $2<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
2onas and 2a/a# can be charged with the com,le5 crime of attem,ted murder with homicide because a single act caused a less gra e and a gra e felony $%rt. DC. R!C). %ttem,ted murder is a less gra e felony# while consummated homicide is a gra e felonyK both are ,unishable by afflicti e ,enalties. Comple/ Crime; 5octrine of (3erratio 2ctus; <ot (pplica3le (1996) %t the height of an altercation# !edrito shot !aulo but missed# hitting Tiburcio instead# resulting in the death of the latter. !edrito# in o0ing the doctrine of aberratio ictus# claims e5em,tion from criminal liability. 'f you were the /udge# how would you decide the case"
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
'f ' were the 2udge# ' will con ict !edrito and find him guilty of the com,le5 crime of
29 of 86
Comple/ Crimes; Coup "Cetat @ re3ellion @ se"ition (%&&1) 1) Can there be a com,le5 crime of cou, dGetat with rebellion" 2<
2) Can there be a com,le5 crime of cou, dGetat with
holding ,ublic office belonging to the military or national ,olice. %rt. DC of the Code
may a,,ly under the conditions therein ,ro ided.

ALTERNATI8E ANSWER3
sedition" 2<
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1) +es# if there was cons,iracy between the offender: offenders committing the cou, dGetat and the offenders committing the rebellion. 8y cons,iracy# the crime of one would be the crime of the other and ice ersa. This is ,ossible because the offender in cou, dGetat may be any ,erson or ,ersons belonging to the military or the national ,olice or a ,ublic officer# whereas rebellion does not so re1uire. 6oreo er# the crime of cou, dGetat may be committed singly# whereas rebellion re1uires a ,ublic u,rising and ta0ing u, arms to o erthrow the duly constituted go ernment. &ince the two crimes are essentially different and ,unished with distinct ,enalties# there is no legal im,ediment to the a,,lication of %rt. DC of the Re ised !enal Code. 2) +es# cou, dGetat can be com,le5ed with sedition because the two crimes are essentially different and distinctly ,unished under the Re ised !enal Code. &edition may not be directed against the >o ernment or nonJ,olitical in ob/ecti e# whereas cou, dGetat is always ,olitical in ob/ecti e as it is directed against the >o ernment and led by ,ersons or ,ublic officer
The crime of cou, dGetat cannot be com,le5ed with the crime of rebellion because both crimes are directed against the >o ernment or for ,olitical ,ur,oses# although the ,rinci,al offenders are different. The essence may be the same and thus constitute only one crime. 'n this situation# the two crimes are not distinct and therefore# may not be ,ro,er to a,,ly %rticle DC of the Code. Comple/ Crimes; 5etermination of the Crime (1999) %# actuated by malice and with the use of a fully automatic 6J1D subJ machine gun# shot a grou, of ,ersons who were seated in a coc0,it with one burst of successi e# continuous# automatic fire. 9our $D) ,ersons were 0illed thereby# each ha ing hit by different bullets coming from the subJ machine gun of %. 9our $D) cases of murder were filed against %. The trial court ruled that there was only one crime committed by % for the reason that# since % ,erformed only one act# he ha ing ,ressed the trigger of his gun only once# the crime committed was murder. Conse1uently# the trial /udge sentenced % to /ust one ,enalty of reclusion ,er,etua. Was the decision of the trial /udge correct" )5,lain. $D<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Dondee
The decision of the trial /udge is not correct. When the offender made use of an automatic firearm# the acts committed are determined by the number of bullets discharged inasmuch as the firearm being automatic# the offender need only ,ress the trigger once and it would fire continually. 9or each death caused by a distinct and se,arate bullet# the accused incurs distinct criminal liability. (ence# it is not the act of ,ressing the trigger which should be considered as ,roducing the se eral felonies# but the number of bullets which actually ,roduced them. Comple/ Crimes; <ature @ Penalty 2n#ol#e" (1999) What constitutes a com,le5 crime" (ow many crimes maybe in ol ed in a com,le5 crime" What is the ,enalty therefor" $D<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
AS &$ %E#A'&IES J 'n *RD'4%R+ C*6!L)L CR'6)# the ,enalty for the most serious crime shall be im,osed and in its ma5imum ,eriod.
'n &!)C'%L C*6!L)L CR'6)# only one ,enalty is s,ecifically ,rescribed for all the com,onent crimes which are regarded as one indi isible offense. The com,onent crimes are not regarded as distinct crimes and so the ,enalty for the most serious crime is not the ,enalty to be im,osed nor in its ma5imum ,eriod. 't is
% com,le5 crime is constituted when a single act caused two or more gra e or less gra e felonies or when an offense is committed as a necessary means to commit another offense $%rt. DC# R!C). %t least two $2) crimes are in ol ed in a com,le5 crime- either two or more gra e or less gra e felonies resulted from a single act# or an offense is committed as a necessary means for committing another. The ,enalty for the more serious crime shall be im,osed and in its ma5imum ,eriod. $%rt. DC# R!C) Comple/ Crimes; =r"inary Comple/ Crime #s9 Special Comple/ Crime (%&&1) Distinguish between an ordinary com,le5 crime and a s,ecial com,le5 crime as to their conce,ts and as to the im,osition of ,enalties. 2<
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
I# C$#CE%& " %n *RD'4%R+ C*6!L)L CR'6) is made u, of two or more crimes being ,unished in distinct ,ro isions of the Re ised !enal Code but alleged in one 'nformation 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 'nformation so that only one ,enalty shall be im,osed.
% &!)C'%L C*6!L)L CR'6)# on the other hand# is made u, of two or more crimes which are considered only as com,onents of a single indi isible offense being ,unished in one ,ro ision of the Re ised !enal Code.
30 of 86 the
,enalty s,ecifically ,ro ided for the s,ecial com,le5 crime that shall be a,,lied according to the rules on im,osition of the ,enalty. Continuing =ffense #s9 5elito Continua"o (199 ) Differentiate delito continuado from a continuing offense.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
acts were ,erformedthe term 7continuing crime7 is more ,ertinently used with reference to the enue where the criminal action may be instituted. 5eath Penalty (%&& ) %. The death ,enalty cannot be inflicted under which of the following circumstancesK 1) When the guilty ,erson is at least 1C years of age at the time of the commission of the crime. 2) When the guilty ,erson is more than FB years of age. ?) When# u,on a,,eal to or automatic re iew by the &u,reme Court# the re1uired ma/ority for the im,osition of the death ,enalty is not obtained. D) When the ,erson is con icted of a ca,ital crime but before e5ecution becomes insane. ;) When the accused is a woman while she is ,regnant or within one year after deli ery. )5,lain your answer or choice briefly. $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
D)L'T* C*4T'4@%D*# or C*4T'4@*@& CR'6)# is a term used to denote as only one crime a series of felonious acts arising from a single criminal resolution# not susce,tible of di ision# which are carried out in the same ,lace and at about the same time# and iolating one and the same ,enal ,ro ision. The acts done must be im,elled by one criminal intent or ,ur,ose# such that each act merely constitutes a ,artial e5ecution of a ,articular crime# iolating one and the same ,enal ,ro ision. 't in ol es a concurrence of felonious acts iolating a common right# a common ,enal ,ro ision# and im,elled by a single criminal im,ulse (People vs. 7e< desma, 23
S"#$ 22).
*n the other hand# a C*4T'4@'4> *99)4&) is one whose essential ingredients too0 ,lace in more than one munici,ality or city# so much so that the criminal ,rosecution may be instituted and the case tried in the com,etent court of any one of such munici,ality or city.
The term 7C*4T'4@)D CR'6)7 or delito continuado mandates that only one information should be filed against the offender although a series of felonious
%. @nderstanding the word 7inflicted7 to mean the im,osition of the death ,enalty# not its e5ecution# the circumstance in which the death ,enalty cannot be inflicted is no. 2K 7when the guilty ,erson is more than FB years of age7 $%rt. DF# Re ised !enal Code). 'nstead# the ,enalty shall be commuted to reclusion ,er,etua# with the accessory ,enalties ,ro ided in %rticle DB# R9C. 'n circumstance no. 1 when the guilty ,erson is at least 1C years of age at the time of the commission of the
Dondee
crime# the death ,enalty can be im,osed since the offender is already of legal age when he committed the crime. Circumstance no. ? no longer o,erates# considering the decision of the S&preme "o&rt in People vs. >/ren 'ateo ().#. 142628<82, ,&l4 2, +**4) ,ro iding an intermediate re iew for such cases where the ,enalty im,osed is death# reclusion ,er,etua or life im,risonment before they are ele ated to the &u,reme Court.
'n circumtances nos. D O ;# the death ,enalty can be im,osed if ,rescribed by the law iolated although its e5ecution shall be sus,ended when the con ict becomes insane before it could be e5ecuted and while he is insane.
age of the ictim ra,ed has not been ,ro ed beyond reasonable doubt to constitute the crime as 1ualified ra,e and deser ing of the death ,enalty. The guidelines in a,,reciating age as a 1ualifying circumstance in ra,e cases ha e not been met# to witK
1) The ,rimary e idence of the age of the ictim is her birth certificate2) 'n the absence of the birth certificate# age of the ictim maybe ,ro en by authentic document# such as ba,tismal certificate and school records?) 'f the aforesaid documents are shown to ha e been lost or destroyed or otherwise una ailable# the testimony# if clear and credible of the ictimGs mother or any member of the family# by consanguinity or affinity# who is 1ualified to testify on matters res,ecting ,edigree such as the e5act age
Li0ewise# im,osed e5ecution ,regnancy deli ery.
the death ,enalty can be u,on a woman but its shall be sus,ended during her and for one year after her
ALTERNATI8E ANSWER3
The word 7'49L'CT)D7 is found only in %rt. C? to the effect that the death ,enalty may not be 7'49L'CT)D7 u,on a ,regnant woman# such ,enalty is to be sus,ended. 'f 7'49L'CT)D7 is to be construed as 7)L)C@T'*47# then 4o. ; is the choice. 5eath Penalty; ?ualifie" 0ape; 0e;uisites (%&& )
>. was con icted of ra,ing TC# his niece# and he was sentenced to death. 't was alleged in the information that the ictim was a minor below se en years old# and her mother testified that she was only si5 years and ten months old# which her aunt corroborated on the witness stand. The information also alleged that the accused was the ictimGs uncle# a fact ,ro ed by the ,rosecution.
*n automatic re iew before the &u,reme Court# accusedJa,,ellant contends that ca,ital ,unishment could not be im,osed on him because of the inade1uacy of the charges and the insufficiency of the e idence to ,ro e all the elements of the heinous crime of ra,e beyond reasonable doubt. 's a,,ellantGs contention correct" Reason briefly. $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
+es# a,,ellantGs contention is correct insofar as the age of the ictim is concerned. The
31 of 86
or date of birth of the offended ,arty ,ursuant to &ection DB# Rule 1?B of the Rules on ) idence shall be sufficient but only under the following circumstancesK $a) 'f the ictim is alleged to be below ? years of age and what is sought to be ,ro ed is that she is less than F years old- $b) 'f the ictim is alleged to be below F years of age and what is sought to be ,ro ed is that she is less than 12 years old$c) 'f the ictim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be ,ro ed is that she is less than 1C years old. D) 'n the absence of a certificate of li e birth# authentic document# or the testimony of the ictimGs mother or relati es concerning the ictimGs age under the circumstances abo eJstated# com,lainantGs sole testimony can suffice# ,ro ided that it is e5,ressly and clearly admitted by the accused
(People &s. Pr&na, 3!* S"#$ (22 ?+**+=).
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
4o# the a,,eal is not meritorious. Recidi ism and habitual delin1uency are correctly considered in this case because the basis of recidi ism is different from that of habitual delin1uency. 2uan is a recidi ist ...
(abitual delin1uency# which brings about an additional ,enalty when an offender is con icted a third time or more for s,ecified crimes# is correctly considered because 2uan had already three $?) ,re ious con ictions by final /udgment for theft and again con icted for Robbery With (omicide. %nd the crimes s,ecified as basis for habitual delin1uency includes# inter alia# theft and robbery.
>a3itual 5elin;uency @ 0eci"i#ism (%&&1) 2uan de Castro already had three $?) ,re ious con ictions by final /udgment for theft when he was found guilty of Robbery with (omicide. 'n the last case# the trial 2udge considered against the accused both recidi ism and habitual delin1uency. The accused a,,ealed and contended that in his last con iction# the trial court cannot consider against him a finding of recidi ism and# again# of habitual delin1uency. 's the a,,eal meritorious" )5,lain. $;<)
2n"eterminate Sentence Law (199 ) 'tos was con icted of an offense ,enali3ed by a s,ecial law. The ,enalty ,rescribed is not less than si5 years but not more than twel e years. 4o modifying circumstance attended the commission of the crime. 'f you were the /udge# will you a,,ly the 'ndeterminate &entence Law" 'f so# how will you a,,ly it"
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
'f ' were the /udge# ' will a,,ly the ,ro isions of the 'ndeterminate &entence Law# as the last sentence of &ection 1 %ct D1B?# s,ecifically ,ro ides the a,,lication thereof for iolations of s,ecial laws.
@nder the same ,ro ision# the minimum must not be less than the minimum ,ro ided therein $si5 years and one day) and the ma5imum shall not be more than the
Dondee
ma5imum ,ro ided therein# i.e. twel e years. (People vs. #osalina #e4es, 186 S"#$
184)
sentence for offenses ,unishable under the Re ised !enal Code determined" $?<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
2n"eterminate Sentence Law (1999) %ndres is charged with an offense defined by a s,ecial law. The ,enalty ,rescribed for the offense is im,risonment of not less than fi e $;) years but not more than ten H1B) years. @,on arraignment# he entered a ,lea of guilty. 'n the im,osition of the ,ro,er ,enalty# should the 'ndeterminate &entence Law be a,,lied" 'f you were the 2udge trying the case# what ,enalty would you im,ose on %ndres" $D<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
9or crimes ,unished under the Re ised !enal Code# the ma5imum term of the 'ndeterminate sentence shall be the ,enalty ,ro,erly im,osable under the same Code after considering the attending mitigating and:or aggra ating circumstances according to %rt# AD of said Code. The minimum term of the same sentence shall be fi5ed within the range of the ,enalty ne5t lower in degree to that ,rescribed for the crime under the said Code.
+es# the 'ndeterminate &entence Law should be a,,lied because the minimum im,risonment is more than one $1) year. 'f ' were the 2udge# ' will im,ose an indeterminate sentence# the ma5imum of which shall not e5ceed the ma5imum fi5ed by law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum ,enalty ,rescribed by the same. ' ha e the discretion to im,ose the ,enalty within the said minimum and ma5imum. 2n"eterminate Sentence Law (1999) % was con icted of illegal ,ossession of grease guns and two Thom,son subJ machine guns ,unishable under the old law HR% 4o#DI with im,risonment of from fi e $;) to ten $1B) years. The trial court sentenced the accused to suffer im,risonment of fi e $;) years and one $1) day. 's the ,enalty thus im,osed correct" )5,lain. $?<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
(n er the law) what is the purpose for fixing the maximum an the minimum terms of the in eterminate sentence* $2<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
'ndeterminate &entence Law does not a,,ly toK The ,enalty im,osed# being only a straight ,enalty# is not correct because it does not com,ly with the 'ndeterminate &entence Law which a,,lies to this case. &aid law re1uires that if the offense is ,unished by any law other than the Re ised !enal Code# the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence# the ma5imum term of which shall not e5ceed the ma5imum ,enalty fi5ed by the law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum ,enalty ,rescribed by the same.
2n"eterminate Sentence Law (%&&%) (ow are the ma5imum and the minimum terms of the indeterminate
32 of 86
The ,ur,ose of the law in fi5ing the minimum term of the sentence is to set the grace ,eriod at which the con ict may be released on ,arole from im,risonment# unless by his conduct he is not deser ing of ,arole and thus he shall continue ser ing his ,rison term in 2ail but in no case to go beyond the ma5imum term fi5ed in the sentence. 2n"eterminate Sentence Law (%&&6)
(arold was con icted of a crime defined and ,enali3ed by a s,ecial ,enal law where the im,osable ,enalty is from A months# as minimum# to ? years# as ma5imum.
does not a,,ly when the ,enalty im,osed is less than one year $&ec. 2# %rt. D1B?# as amended). c+ a straight penalty of 0 years1 234+
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
4o# because the 'ndeterminate &entence Law will a,,ly when the minimum of the ,enalty e5ceeds one year.
ALTERNATI8E ANSWER/
'f the im,osition of straight ,enalty which consists of the minimum ,eriod of the ,enalty ,rescribed by law# then it may be allowed because it fa ors the accused. 2n"eterminate Sentence Law; +/ceptions (1999) @nder what circumstances is the 'ndeterminate &entence Law not a,,licable" $2<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
&tate with reasons whether the court may correctly im,ose the following ,enaltiesK a+ a straight penalty of ,- months.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
+es# because the ,enalty is less than one year# a straight ,enalty may be im,osed.
(People v. $rellano, ).#. (, 1!3!)
ALTERNATI8E ANSWER3
o, 46(*1, 56to8er
@nder the 'ndeterminate &entence Law# the minimum im,osable ,enalty shall be im,osed but the ma5imum shall not e5ceed the ma5imum im,osable by law.
b+ / months) as minimum) ,, months) as maximum.

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
to
4o# because 'ndeterminate &entence Law

1) !ersons con icted of offenses ,unished with death ,enalty or life im,risonment2) Those con icted of treason# cons,iracy or ,ro,osal to commit treason?) Those con icted of mis,rision of treason# rebellion# sedition or es,ionageD) Those con icted of ,iracy;) Those who are habitual delin1uentsA) Those who shall ha e esca,ed from confinement or e aded sentenceF) Those who iolated the terms of conditional ,ardon granted to them by the Chief )5ecuti eC) Those whose ma5imum term of im,risonment does not e5ceed one year-
Dondee
E) Those who# u,on the a,,ro al of the law $December ;# 1E??). had been sentenced by final 2udgment1B) Those sentenced to the ,enalty of destierro or sus,ension. 2n"eterminate Sentence Law; +/ceptions (%&&1) When would the 'ndeterminate &entence Law be ina,,licable" D<
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
accom,lice or accessory. 'f within each class of offender# there are more of them# such as more than one ,rinci,al or more than one accom,lice or accessory# the liability in each class of offender shall be subsidiary. %nyone of the may be re1uired to ,ay the ci il liability ,ertaining to such offender without ,re/udice to reco ery from those whose share ha e been ,aid by another.
The 'ndeterminate &entence Law is not a,,licable toK 1) those ,ersons con icted of offenses ,unished with death ,enalty or lifeJ im,risonment or reclusion ,er,etua2) those con icted of treason# cons,iracy or ,ro,osal to commit treason?) those con icted of mis,rision of treason# rebellion# sedition or es,ionageD) those con icted of ,iracy;) those who are habitual delin1uentsA) those who shall ha e esca,ed from confinement or e aded sentenceF) those who ha ing been granted conditional ,ardon by the Chief )5ecuti e shall ha e iolated the terms thereofC) those whose ma5imum term of im,risonment does not e5ceed one yearE) those already sentenced by final /udgment at the time of a,,ro al of this %ct- and 1B) those whose sentence im,oses ,enalties which do not in ol e im,risonment# li0e destierro. Penalties4 .ine or 2mprisonment #s9 Su3si"iary 2mprisonment (%&&6) ) and 6 are con icted of a ,enal law that im,oses a ,enalty of fine or im,risonment or both fine and im,risonment. The /udge sentenced them to ,ay the fine# /ointly and se erally# with subsidiary im,risonment in case of insol ency. 's the ,enalty ,ro,er" )5,lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5ay the 6u ge impose an alternative penalty of fine or imprisonment* Explain1 274+

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The ,enalty is not ,ro,er. The two accused must se,arately ,ay the fine# which is their ,enalty. &olidary liability a,,lies only to ci il liabilities.
ALTERNATI8E ANSWER3
4*# because in ,enal law when there are se eral offenders# the court in the e5ercise of its discretion shall determine what shall be the share of each offender de,ending u,on the degree of ,artici,ation P as ,rinci,al#
33 of 86
4o. % fine# whether im,osed as a single or as an alternati e ,enalty# should not and cannot be reduced or con erted into a ,rison term. There is no rule for transmutation of the amount of a fine into a term of im,risonment. (People v.
Da6&46&4, ).#. o. 7<4(1+2 'a4 (, 1!8!)
Penalties4 Pecuniary Penalties #s9 Pecuniary Lia3ilities (%&&6) Distinguish ,ecuniary ,enalties from ,ecuniary liabilities. $2<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
!ecuniary liabilities do not include restitution# but include re,aration of damages caused# the indemnification for conse1uential damages# as well as fines and cost of the ,roceedings. !ecuniary ,enalties include fines and cost of the ,roceedings. Penalties; Comple/ Crime of +stafa (199*)
% was con icted of the com,le5 crime of estafa through falsification of ,ublic document. &ince the amount 'n ol ed did not e5ceed !2BB.BB# the ,enalty ,rescribed by law for estafa is arresto mayor in its medium and ma5imum ,eriods. The ,enalty ,rescribed by law for falsification of ,ublic document is ,rision mayor ,lus fine not to e5ceed !;#BBB.BB.
,rision correccional $si5 $A) months and one $1) day to si5 $A) years) as 6'4'6@6# to %4+ R%4>) within ,rision mayor ma5imum $ten $1B) years and one $1) day to twel e $12) years) as 6%L'6@6. This is in accordance with !eo,le us# >on3ales# F? !hil# ;DE# where 't was ruled that for the ,ur,ose of determining the ,enalty ne5t lower in degree# the ,enalty that should be considered as a starting ,oint is the whole of ,rision mayor# it being the ,enalty ,rescribed by law# and not ,rision mayor in its ma5imum ,eriod# which is only the ,enalty actually a,,lied because of %rticle DC of the Re ised !enal Code. The ,enalty ne5t lower in degree therefor is ,rision correccional and it is within the range of this ,enalty that the minimum should be ta0en.
Penalties; .actors to Consi"er (1991)

'magine that you are a 2udge trying a case# and based on the e idence ,resented and the a,,licable law# you ha e decided on the guilt of two $2) accused. 'ndicate the fi e $;) ste,s you would follow to determine the e5act ,enalty to be im,osed. &tated differently# what are the factors you must consider to arri e at the correct ,enalty"
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
'm,ose the ,ro,er ,rison ,enalty.

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The ,ro,er ,enalty is %4+ R%4>) W'T('4

1. the crime committed2. &tage of e5ecution and degree of ,artici,ation?. Determine the ,enaltyD. Consider the modifying circumstances;. Determine whether 'ndeterminate &entence Law is a,,licable or not.
Dondee
Circumstance (199*)
%ssume in the ,receding ,roblem that there were two mitigating circumstances and no aggra ating circumstance. 'm,ose the ,ro,er ,rison ,enalty.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Penalties; >omici"e wD 8o"ifying Circumstance (1996)

(omer was con icted of homicide. The trial court a,,reciated the following modifying circumstancesK the aggra ating circumstance of nocturnity# and the mitigating circumstances of ,assion and obfuscation# no intent to commit so gra e a wrong# illiteracy and oluntary surrender. The im,osable ,enalty for homicide is reclusion tem,oral the range of which is twel e $12) years and one $1) day to twenty $2B) years.
Ta0ing into account the attendant aggra ating and mitigating circumstances# and a,,lying the 'ndeterminate &entence Law# determine the ,ro,er ,enalty to be im,osed on the accused.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
There being two $2) mitigating circumstances without any aggra ating circumstance# the ,ro,er ,rison ,enalty is arresto mayor $in any of its ,eriods# ie. ranging from one $1) month and one $1) day to si5 $A) months) as 6'4'6@6 to ,rision correccional in its ma5imum ,eriod four $D) years# two $2) months# and one $1) day to si5 $A) years as 6%L'6@6. @nder %rt. AD# ,ar. ; of the Re ised !enal Code# when a ,enalty contains three ,eriods# each one of which forms a ,eriod in accordance with %rticle FA and FF of the same Code# and there are
't a,,ears that there is one aggra ating circumstance $nocturnity)# and four mitigating circumstances $,assion and obfuscation# no intent to commit so gra e a wrong as that committed and oluntary surrender). !ar. D# %rt. AD should be a,,lied. (ence there will be offJsetting of modifying circumstances# which will now result in the e5cess of three mitigating circumstances. This will therefore /ustify in reducing the ,enalty to the minimum ,eriod.
The e5istence of an aggra ating circumstance# albeit there are four aggra ating# will not /ustify the lowering of the ,enalty to the ne5t lower degree under ,aragra,h ; of said %rticle# as this is a,,licable only if T()R) '& 4* %>>R%.%T'4> C'RC@6&T%4C) ,resent. &ince the crime committed is (omicide and the ,enalty therefor is reclusion tem,oral# the 6%L'6@6 sentence under the 'ndeterminate &entence Law should be the minimum of the ,enalty# which is 12 years and 1 day to 1D years and C months. The 6'4'6@6 ,enalty will thus be the ,enalty ne5t lower in degree# which is ,rision mayor in its full e5tent $A years and 1 day to 12 years). )rgo# the ,ro,er ,enalty would be A years and 1 day# as minimum# to 12 years and 1 day# as ma5imum. ' belie e that because of the remaining mitigating circumstances after the offJsetting it would be ery logical to im,ose the minimum of the 6'4'6@6 sentence under the '&L and the minimum of the 6%L'6@6 sentence.
Penalties; 8itigating Circumstances wDout (ggra#ating
34 of 86
two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggra ating circumstances# the ,enalty ne5t lower in degree should be im,osed. 9or ,ur,oses of the 'ndeterminate &entence Law# the ,enalty ne5t lower in degree should be determined without regard as to whether the basic ,enalty ,ro ided by the Re ised !enal Code should be a,,lied in its ma5imum or minimum ,eriod as circumstances modifying liability may re1uire. The ,enalty ne5t lower in degree to ,rision correccional. Therefore# as ,re iously stated# the minimum should be within the range of arresto mayor and the ma5imum is within the range of ,rision correctional in its ma5imum ,eriod. Penalties; Parrici"e wD 8itigating Circumstance (199*)
% and 8 ,leaded guilty to the crime of ,arricide. The court found three mitigating circumstances# namely# ,lea of guilty# lac0 of 'nstruction and lac0 of intent to commit so gra e a wrong as that committed. The ,rescribed ,enalty for ,arricide is reclusion ,er,etua to death.
of illiteracy and lac0 of intention to commit so gra e a wrong# and with no aggra ating circumstance# the &u,reme Court held that the ,ro,er# ,enalty to be im,osed is reclusion ,er,etua.
Penalties; Pre#enti#e 2mprisonment (199 ) 1) When is there ,re enti e im,risonment" 2) When is the accused credited with the full time of his ,re enti e im,risonment# and when is he credited with D:; thereof"
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1) There is ,re enti e im,risonment when Ha) an offender is detained while the criminal case against him is being heard# either because the crime committed is a ca,ital offense and not bailable# or e en if the crime committed was bailable# the offender could not ,ost the re1uired bail for his ,ro isional liberty. 2) %n accused is credited with the full time of his ,re enti e im,risonment if he oluntarily agreed in writing to abide by the rules of the institution im,osed u,on its ,risoners# ,ro ided thatK a) the ,enalty im,osed on him for the crime committed consists of a de,ri ation of libertyb) he is not dis1ualified from such credit for being a recidi ist# or for ha ing been ,re iously con icted for two or more times of any crime# or for ha ing failed to surrender oluntarily for the e5ecution of the sentence u,on being so summoned $%rt. 2E# R!C).
'm,ose the ,ro,er ,rinci,al ,enalty.

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The ,ro,er ,enalty is reclusion ,er,etua. ) en if there are two or more mitigating circumstances# a court cannot lower the ,enalty by one degree $%rt. A?. ,ar. ?# Re ised !enal Code- !eo,le s. 9ormigones# CF !hil. AC;). 'n @.&. s. Relador AB !hil. ;E?# where the crime committed was ,arricide with the two $2) mitigating circumstances
Dondee
Where the accused howe er did not agree he would only be credited with D:; of the time he had undergone ,re enti e im,risonment. Penalties; 0eclusion Perpetua (0() <o9 *969 (%&&6) @nder %rticle 2F of the Re ised !enal Code# as amended by Re,ublic %ct $R%) 4o. FE;E# reclusion ,er,etua shall be from 2B years and 1 day to DB years. Does this mean that reclusion ,er,etua is now a di isible ,enalty" )5,lain. $2<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
RTC found 8en/amin >arcia guilty of 6urder# the ictim ha ing sustained se eral bullet wounds in his body so that he died des,ite medical assistance gi en in the *s,ital ng 6anila. 8ecause the wea,on used by 8en/amin was unlicensed and the 1ualifying circumstance of treachery was found to be ,resent. 2udge Laya rendered his decision con icting 8en/amin and sentencing him to 7reclusion ,er,etua or life im,risonment7.
4o# because the &u,reme Court has re,eatedly called the attention of the 8ench and the 8ar to the fact that the ,enalties of reclusion ,er,etua and life im,risonment are not synonymous and should be a,,lied correctly and as may be s,ecified by the a,,licable law. Reclusion ,er,etua has a s,ecific duration of 2B years and 1 day to DB years $%rt. 2F) and accessory ,enalties $%rt. D1)# while life im,risonment has no definite term or accessory ,enalties. %lso# life im,risonment is im,osable on crimes ,unished by s,ecial laws# and not on felonies in the Code
(People vs. De )&1man, ).#. os. (138(<86, ,an. ++, 1!!3% People vs. >strella, ).#. os. !+(*6<*2, $pril +8, 1!!3% People vs. $lvero, ).#. o. 2+31!, ,&ne 3*,1!!3% People vs. 7apiroso, ).#. o. 1++(*2, Fe8. +(, 1!!!).?see "riminal 7aw "onspe6t&s, pa3e 1(6=
%re 7reclusion ,er,etua7 and life im,risonment the same and can be im,osed interchangeably as in the foregoing sentence" *r are they totally different" &tate your reasons. $?<)
Penalties; 0eclusion Perpetua #s9 Life 2mprisonment (199 ) Differentiate reclusion ,er,etua from life im,risonment.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
R)CL@&'*4 !)R!)T@% is that ,enalty ,ro ided for in the Re ised !enal Code for crimes defined in and ,enali3ed therein e5ce,t for some crimes defined by s,ecial laws which im,ose reclusion ,er,etua# such as iolations of Re,ublic %ct AD2;# as amended by Re,ublic %ct FA;E or of !D 1CAB- while L'9) '6!R'&*46)4T is a ,enalty usually ,ro ided for in s,ecial laws. Reclusion ,er,etua has a duration of twenty $2B) years and one $1) day to forty HDBI years under Re,ublic %ct FA;E# while life im,risonment has no duration- reclusion ,er,etua may be reduced by one or two degrees- reclusion ,er,etuates accessory ,enalties while life im,risonment does not ha e any accessory ,enalties (People vs. ;a3&io, 1!6 S"#$ 4(!,
People vs. Panellos, +*( S"#$ (46).
Penalties; 0eclusion Perpetua #s9 Life 2mprisonment (%&&1)

%fter trial# 2udge 2uan Laya of the 6anila
35 of 86
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The ,enalty of reclusion ,er,etua and the ,enalty of life 'm,risonment are totally different from each other and therefore# should not be used interchangeably. Reclusion ,er,etua is a ,enalty ,rescribed by the Re ised !enal Code# with a fi5ed duration of im,risonment from 2B years and 1 day to DB years# and carries it with accessory ,enalties. Life im,risonment# on the other hand# is a ,enalty ,rescribed by s,ecial laws# with no fi5ed duration of im,risonment and without any accessory ,enalty. Pro3ation Law4 Proper Perio" (%&&6)
6aganda was charged with iolation of the 8ouncing Chec0s Law $8! 22) ,unishable by im,risonment of not less than ?B days but not more than 1 year or a fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the chec0# which fine shall not e5ceed !2BB#BBB.BB# or both. The court con icted her of the crime and sentenced her to ,ay a fine of !;B#BBB.BB with subsidiary im,risonment in case of insol ency# and to ,ay the ,ri ate com,lainant the amount of the chec0. 6aganda was unable to ,ay the fine but filed a ,etition for ,robation. The court granted the ,etition sub/ect to the condition# among others# that she should not change her residence without the courtQs ,rior a,,ro al.
The ,eriod shall not be less than twice the total number of days of subsidiary im,risonment. @nder %ct 4o. 1F?2# subsidiary im,risonment for iolations of s,ecial laws shall not e5ceed A months at the rate of one day of im,risonment for e ery 92.;B. (ence# the ,ro,er ,eriod of ,robation should not be less than $A months nor more than 12 months. &ince !;B#BBB.BB fine is more than the ma5imum subsidiary im,risonment of A months at !2.;B a day. b) &u,,osing before the *rder of Discharge was issued by the court but after the la,se of the ,eriod of ,robation# 6aganda transferred residence without ,rior a,,ro al of the court. 6ay the court re o0e the *rder of !robation and order her to ser e the subsidiary im,risonment" )5,lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
+es. The Court may re o0e her ,robation. !robation is not coterminous with its ,eriod. There must first be issued by the court an order of final discharge based on the re,ort and recommendation of the ,robation officer. *nly then can the case of the ,robationer be terminated.
(;ala v. 'artine1, ).#. o. 623*1, ,an&ar4 +!, 1!!*, 6itin3 Se6. 16 o/ P.D. o. !68)
Pro3ation Law; Aarre" 3y (ppeal (199 )

*n 9ebruary ?# 1ECA# Roberto was con icted of arson through rec0less im,rudence and sentenced to ,ay a fine of !1;#BBB.BB# with subsidiary im,risonment in case of insol ency by the Regional Trial Court of =ue3on City.
a) What is the ,ro,er ,eriod of ,robation"

Dondee
*n 9ebruary 1B# 1ECA# he a,,ealed to the Court of %,,eals. &e eral months later# he filed a motion to withdraw the a,,eal on the ground that he is a,,lying for ,robation. *n 6ay F# 1ECF# the Court of %,,eals granted the motion and considered the a,,eal withdrawn.
*n 2une 1B# 1ECF# the records of the case were remanded to the trial court. Roberto filed a 76otion for !robation7 ,raying that e5ecution of his sentence be sus,ended# and that a ,robation officer be ordered to conduct an 'n estigation and to submit a re,ort on his ,robation. The /udge denied the motion on the ground that ,ursuant to !residential Decree 4o. 1EEB# which too0 effect on 2uly 1A#1ECA# no a,,lication for ,robation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has ,erfected an a,,eal from the /udgment of con iction.
defamation in si5teen $1A) informations which were tried /ointly and was sentenced in one decision to suffer in each case a ,rison term of one $1) year and one $1) day to one $1) year and eight $C) months of ,rision correccional. Within the ,eriod to a,,eal# he filed an a,,lication for ,robation under the !robation Law of 1EFA# as amended. Could he ,ossibly 1ualify for ,robation"
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
+es. 'n Fran6is6o vs. "o&rt o/ $ppeals, +43 S"#$ 384# the &u,reme Court held that in case of one decision im,osing multi,le ,rison terms# the totality of the ,rison terms should not be ta0en into account for the ,ur,oses of determining the eligibility of the accused for the
's the denial of RobertoGs motion correct"

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
+es. ) en if at the time of his con iction Roberto was 1ualified for ,robation but that at the time of his a,,lication for ,robation# he is no longer 1ualified# he is not entitled to ,robation. The 1ualification for ,robation must be determined as of the time the a,,lication is filed in Court (;ernardo vs.
,&d3e, etal. )# o. 786(61, ov, 1*. 1!!+% >dwin de la "r&1 vs. ,&d3e "alle@o. et al, SP<1!6((, $pril 18, 1!!*, 6itin3 7lamado vs. "$, et al, )# o. 848(!, ,&ne +8, 1!8!% ;ernardo &s. ,&d3e ;ala3ot, etal, )# 86(61, ov. 1*, 1!!+).
Pro3ation Law; Aarre" 3y (ppeal (%&&1)

%# a subdi ision de elo,er# was con icted by the RTC of 6a0ati for failure to issue the subdi ision title to a lot buyer des,ite full ,ayment of the lot# and sentenced to suffer one year 'm,risonment. % a,,ealed the decision of the RTC to the Court of %,,eals but his a,,eal was dismissed. 6ay % still a,,ly for ,robation" )5,lain. $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
4o# % is no longer 1ualified to a,,ly for ,robation after he a,,ealed from the /udgment of con iction by the RTC. The ,robation law $!D EAC# as amended by !D1EEB) now ,ro ides that no a,,lication for ,robation shall be entertained or granted if the accused has ,erfected an a,,eal from the /udgment of con iction $&ec. D# !D EAC). Pro3ation Law; 8a/imum Term #s9 Total Term (199*)
The accused was found guilty of gra e oral
36 of 86
,robation. The law uses the word 7ma5imum term7# and not total term. 't is enough that each of the ,rison terms does not e5ceed si5 years. The number of offenses is immaterial for as long as the ,enalties im,osed# when ta0en indi idually and se,arately# are within the ,robationable ,eriod. Pro3ation Law; =r"er 5enying Pro3ation; <ot (ppeala3le (%&&%) % was charged with homicide. %fter trial# he was found guilty and sentenced to si5 $A) years and one $1) day in ,rision mayor# as minimum# to twel e $12) years and one $1) day of reclusion tem,oral# as ma5imum. !rior to his con iction# he had been found guilty of agrancy and im,risoned for ten $1B) days of arresto manor and fined fifty ,esos $!;B.BB). 's he eligible for ,robation" Why" $?<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
thereof" $2<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
4o. @nder &ection D of the !robation Law# as amended# an order granting or denying ,robation is not a,,ealable. Pro3ation Law; Perio" Co#ere" (%&& )
!L was con icted and sentenced to im,risonment of thirty days and a fine of one hundred ,esos. !re iously# !L was con icted of another crime for which the ,enalty im,osed on him was thirty days only. 's !L entitled to ,robation" )5,lain briefly. $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
4o# he is not entitled to the benefits of the !robation Law $!D EAC# as amended) does not e5tend to those sentenced to ser e a ma5imum term of im,risonment of more than si5 years $&ec. Ea). 't is of no moment that in his ,re ious con iction % was gi en a ,enalty of only ten $1B) days of arresto mayor and a fine of !;B.BB. 8. 6ay a ,robationer a,,eal from the decision re o0ing the grant of ,robation or modifying the terms and conditions
+es# !L may a,,ly for ,robation. (is ,re ious con iction for another crime with a ,enalty of thirty days im,risonment or not e5ceeding one $1) month does not dis1ualify him from a,,lying for ,robation- the ,enalty for his ,resent con iction does not dis1ualify him either from a,,lying for ,robation# since the im,risonment does not e5ceed si5 $A) years (Se6. !, Pres. De6ree o.
!68).
Pro3ation Law; 0ight; Aarre" 3y (ppeal (1996)

'n a case for iolation of &ec. C# R% AD2;# otherwise 0nown as the Dangerous Drugs %ct# accused .incent was gi en the benefit of the mitigating circumstances of oluntary ,lea of guilt and drun0enness not otherwise habitual. (e was sentenced to suffer a ,enalty of si5 $A) years and one $1) day and to ,ay a fine of !A#BBB.BB with the accessory ,enalties ,ro ided by law# ,lus costs. .incent a,,lied for ,robation. The ,robation officer fa orably recommended his a,,lication.
Dondee
sho&ld 8e 6redited with some points. Pro3ation Law; 0ight; Aarre" 3y (ppeal (%&&1) 2uan was con icted of the Regional Trial Court of a crime and sentenced to suffer the ,enalty of im,risonment for a minimum of eight years. (e a,,ealed both his con iction and the ,enalty im,osed u,on him to the Court of %,,eals. The a,,ellate court ultimately sustained 2uanGs con iction but reduced his sentence to a ma5imum of four years and eight months im,risonment. Could 2uan forthwith file an a,,lication for ,robation" )5,lain. C<
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1. 'f you were the 2udge# what action will you ta0e on the a,,lication" Discuss fully.
2. &u,,ose that .incent was con icted of a crime for which he was sentenced to a ma5imum ,enalty of ten $1B) years. @nder the law# he is not eligible for ,robation. (e seasonably a,,ealed his con iction. While affirming the /udgment of con iction# the a,,ellate court reduced the ,enalty to a ma5imum of four $D) years and four $D) months ta0ing into consideration certain modifying circumstances. .incent now a,,lies for ,robation. (ow will you
rule on his a,,lication" Discuss fully.

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1. 'f ' were the /udge# ' will deny the a,,lication for ,robation. The accused is not entitled to ,robation as &ec. E of the !robation Law# !D 4*. EAC# as amended# s,ecifically mentions that those who 7are sentenced to ser e a ma5imum term of im,risonment of more than si5 years7 are not entitled to the benefits of the law.
4o# 2uan can no longer a ail of the ,robation because he a,,ealed from the /udgment of con iction of the trial court# and therefore# cannot a,,ly for ,robation anymore. &ection D of the !robation Law# as amended#
2. The law and /uris,rudence are to

the effect that a,,eal by the accused from a sentence of con iction forfeits his right to ,robation.(Se6. 4, PD o. !68. as
amended 84 PD 1!!*% ;ernardo &s. ;ala3ot% Fran6is6o vs. "$A 7lamado vs. "$% De la "r&1 vs. ,&d3e "alle@o, "$ 6ase). This is the se6ond 6onse6&tive 4ear that this :&estion was asBed. .t is the sin6ere 8elie/ o/ the "ommittee that there is a need to re<eCamine the do6trine. Firstl4, m&6h as the a66&sed wanted to appl4 /or pro8ation he is pros6ri8ed /rom doin3 so as the maCim&m penalt4 is 5T P#5;$T.5 $;7>. Se6ondl4, when the maCim&m penalt4 was red&6ed to one whi6h allows pro8ation it is 8&t /air and @&st to 3rant him that ri3ht 8e6a&se it is apparent that the trial @&d3e 6ommitted an error and /or whi6h the a66&sed sho&ld not 8e made to s&//er. ,&di6ial tri8&nals in this @&risdi6tion are not onl4 6o&rts o/ law 8&t also o/ e:&it4. Thirdl4, the @&d3ment o/ the appellate 6o&rt sho&ld 8e 6onsidered a new de6ision as the trial 6o&rt9s de6ision was va6ated% hen6e, he 6o&ld taBe advanta3e o/ the law when the de6ision is remanded to the trial 6o&rt /or eCe6&tion (Please see Dissentin3 opinion in Fran6is6o vs. "$).
.t is s&33ested, there/ore, that an eCaminee answerin3 in this tenor
37 of 86
mandates that no a,,lication for ,robation shall be entertained or granted if the accused has ,erfected an a,,eal from the /udgment of con iction. Suspension of Sentence; ("ultsD8inors (%&&6)
There are at least F instances or situations in criminal cases wherein the accused# either as an adult or as a minor# can a,,ly for and:or be granted a sus,ended sentence. )numerate at least ; of them. $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
was charged with the crime ? months later. (e was 2? when he was finally con icted and sentenced. 'nstead of ,re,aring to ser e a /ail term# he sought a sus,ension of the sentence on the ground that he was a /u enile offender &hould he be entitled to a sus,ension of sentence" Reasons. D<
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1. 2. ?.
D. ;. A. F.
&us,ension of sentence of minor under !.D. AB? as amended by R.%. E?DD. &us,ension of sentence of minor abo e 1; but below 1C years of age at the time of trial under R.%. E?DD. &us,ension of sentence of minor abo e 1; but below 1C years of age at the commission of the offense# while acting with discernment. &us,ension of sentence by reason of insanity $%rt. FE# Re ised !enal Code). &us,ension of sentence for first offense of a minor iolating R2.. E1A;. $&ec. ?2) &us,ension of sentence under the ,robation law. $!.D. EAC) &us,ension of death sentence of a ,regnant woman. $%rt. C?# Re ised !enal Code)
( 5T$ ;> >A #.$. !344 is o&tside the 6overa3e o/ the eCamination)
4o# % is not entitled to a sus,ension of the sentence because he is no longer a minor at the time of ,romulgation of the sentence. 9or ,ur,oses of sus,ension of sentence# the offenderGs age at the time of ,romulgation of the sentence is the one considered# not his age when he committed the crime. &o although % was below 1C years old when he committed the crime# but he was already 2? years old when sentenced# he is no longer eligible for sus,ension of the sentence. Can 6uvenile offen ers) who are reci ivists) vali ly as8 for suspension of sentence* Explain1 74
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Suspension of Sentence; 8inors (%&&1) % was 2 months below 1C years of age when he committed the crime. (e
+es# so long as the offender is still a minor at the time of the ,romulgation of the sentence. The law establishing 9amily Courts# Re,. %ct C?AE# ,ro ides to this effectK that if the minor is found guilty# the court should ,romulgate the sentence and ascertain any ci il liability which the accused may ha e incurred. (owe er# the sentence shall be sus,ended without the need of a,,lication ,ursuant to !D AB?# otherwise 0nown as the 7Child and +outh Welfare Code7 $R% C?AE# &ec. ;a)# 't is under !D AB? that an a,,lication for sus,ension of the
Dondee
$2.;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
sentence is re1uired and thereunder it is one of the conditions for sus,ension of sentence that the offender be a first time con ictK this has been dis,laced by R% C?AE. Suspension of Sentence; Eouthful =ffen"er (1996)
.ictor# Ric0y# Rod and Ronnie went to the store of 6ang !andoy. .ictor and Ric0y entered the store while Rod and Ronnie ,osted themsel es at the door. %fter ordering beer Ric0y com,lained that he was shortchanged although 6ang !andoy ehemently denied it. &uddenly Ric0y whi,,ed out a 0nife as he announced 7(oldJ u, itoR7 and stabbed 6ang !andoy to death. Rod bo5ed the storeGs salesgirl Lucy to ,re ent her from hel,ing 6ang !andoy. When Lucy ran out of the store to see0 hel, from ,eo,le ne5t door she was chased by Ronnie. %s soon as Ric0y had stabbed 6ang !andoy# .ictor scoo,ed u, the money from the cash bo5. Then .ictor and Ric0y dashed to the street and shouted# 7Tuma0bo na 0ayoR7 Rod was 1D and Ronnie was 1F. The money and other articles looted from the store of 6ang !andoy were later found in the houses of .ictor and Ric0y.
!roclamation 11AB# which amended !roclamation F2D# a,,lies only to offenses committed ,rior to 1EEE. Thus# their a,,lications shall be ineffectual and useless.
>eneral Lim and >eneral =uerubin of the &cout Rangers and !hili,,ine 6arines# res,ecti ely# were changed with conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman under the %rticles of War. Can they a,,ly for amnesty" $2.;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1. Discuss fully the criminal liability of .ictor# Ric0y# Rod and Ronnie. 2. %re the minors Rod and Ronnie entitled to sus,ended sentence under The Child and +outh Welfare Code" )5,lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1 . %ll are liable for the s,ecial com,le5 crime of robbery with homicide.... 2. 4o# because the benefits of sus,ension of sentence is not a ailable where the youthful offender has been con icted of an offense ,unishable by life im,risonment or death# ,ursuant to !.D. 4o. AB?# %rt. 1E2# The com,le5 crime of robbery with homicide is ,unishable by reclusion ,er,etua to death under %rt. 2ED $1)# R9C HPeople vs. )alit. +3* S"#$ 486).
EXTINCTION O6 CRIMINAL LIABILITY

(mnesty #s9 P5 116& (%&&6) Can former D&WD &ecretary Din0y &oliman a,,ly for amnesty" (ow about columnist Randy Da id" $+ou are su,,osed to 0now the crimes or offenses ascribed to them as ,ublished in almost all news,a,ers for the ,ast se eral months.)
38 of 86
!roclamation 11AB# which amended !roclamation F2D# a,,lies only to offenses committed ,rior to 1EEE. Thus# their a,,lications shall be ineffectual and useless. (mnesty; Crimes Co#ere" (%&&6) @nder !residential !roclamation 4o. F2D# amending !residential !roclamation 4o. ?DF# certain crimes are co ered by the grant of amnesty. 4ame at least ; of these crimes. $2.;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
and unlawful utterrances1F. %larm and scandal1C. 'llegal !ossession of firearms. +/tinction; Criminal @ Ci#il Lia3ilities; +ffects; 5eath of accuse" pen"ing appeal (%&& ) %L was con icted of rec0less im,rudence resulting in homicide. The trial court sentenced him to a ,rison term as well as to ,ay !1;B#BBB as ci il indemnity and damages. While his a,,eal was ,ending# %L met a fatal accident. (e left a young widow# 2 children# and a millionJ,eso estate. What is the effect# if any# of his death on his criminal as well as ci il liability" )5,lain briefly. $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Crimes co ered under !residential !roclamation 4o. F2DK 1. Cou, dGetat# 2. Rebellion or insurrection?. Disloyalty of ,ublic officers or em,loyeesD. 'nciting to rebellion or insurrection;. Cons,iracy to commit rebellion or insurrectionA. !ro,osal to commit rebellion or insurrectionF. &editionC. Cons,iracy to commit seditionE. 'nciting to sedition1B. 'llegal %ssembly11. 'llegal %ssociation12. Direct %ssault1?. 'ndirect %ssault1D.Resistance and disobedience to a ,erson in authority1;. Tumults and other disturbances1A. @nlawful use of means of ,ublications
The death of %L while his a,,eal from the /udgment of the trial court is ,ending# e5tinguishes his criminal liability. The ci il liability insofar as it arises from the crime and reco erable under the Re ised !enal Code is also e5tinguished- but indemnity and damages may be reco ered in a ci il action if ,redicated on a source of obligation under %rt. 11;F# Ci il Code# such as law# contracts# 1uasiJcontracts and 1uasiJdelicts# but not on the basis of delicts.
(People v. ;a4otas, +36 S"#$ +3! ).
Ci il indemnity and damages under the Re ised !enal Code are reco erable only if the accused had been con icted with finality before he died. +/tinction; Criminal @ Ci#il Lia3ilities; +ffects; 5eath of =ffen"e" Party (%&&&)
Dondee
9or defrauding Lorna# %lma was charged before the 6unici,al Trial Court of 6alolos# 8ulacan. %fter a ,rotracted trial# %lma was con icted. While the case was ,ending a,,eal in the Regional Trial Court of the same ,ro ince# Lorna who was then suffering from breast cancer# died. %lma manifested to the court that with LornaGs death# her $%lmaGs) criminal and ci il liabilities are now e5tinguished. 's %lmaGs contention correct" What if it were %lma who died# would it affect her criminal and ci il liabilities" )5,lain. $?<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
bac0ward and abolishes the offense and its effects# as if the ,erson had committed no offense.
d) !%RD*4 does not alter the fact that the accused is criminally liable as it ,roduces only the e5tinction of the ,enalty# while %64)&T+ remo es the criminal liability of the offender because it obliterates e ery estige of the crime. !%RD*4 being a ,ri ate act by the !resident# must be ,leaded and ,ro ed by the ,erson ,ardoned# while %64)&T+ which is a !roclamation of the Chief )5ecuti e with the concurrence of Congress is a ,ublic act of which the courts should ta0e /udicial notice.
e)
4o. %lmaGs contention is not correct. The death of the offended ,arty does not e5tinguish the criminal liability of the offender# because the offense is committed against the &tate ?People vs. 'isola, 82 Phil. 83*, 833). (ence# it follows that the ci il liability of %lma based on the offense committed by her is not e5tinguished. The estate of Lorna can continue the case. *n the other hand# if it were %lma who died ,ending a,,eal of her con iction# her criminal liability shall be e5tinguished and therewith the ci il liability under the Re ised !enal Code $%rt. CE# ,ar. 1# R!C). (owe er# the claim for ci il indemnity may be instituted under the Ci il Code $%rt. 11;F) if ,redicated on a source of obligation other than delict# such as law# contracts# 1uasiJcontracts and 1uasiJdelicts (People vs. ;a4otas +36
S"#$ +3!, ).#. 1(+**2, Septem8er +. 1!!4)
Par"on #s9 (mnesty (%&&6) )numerate the differences between ,ardon and amnesty. $2.;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
a)
b)
c)
!%RD*4 includes any crime and is e5ercised indi idually by the !resident# while %64)&T+ a,,lies to classes of ,ersons or communities who may be guilty of ,olitical offenses. !%RD*4 is e5ercised when the ,erson is already con icted# while %64)&T+ may be e5ercised e en before trial or in estigation. !%RD*4 loo0s forward and relie es the offender of the ,enalty of the offense for which he has been con icted- it does not wor0 for the restoration of the rights to hold ,ublic office# or the right of suffrage# unless such rights are e5,ressly restored by means of ,ardon# while %64)&T+ loo0s
39 of 86
Par"on; +ffect; Ci#il 2nter"iction (%&& )
TR+ was sentenced to death by final /udgment. 8ut subse1uently he was granted ,ardon by the !resident. The ,ardon was silent on the ,er,etual dis1ualification of TR+ to hold any ,ublic office. %fter his ,ardon# TR+ ran for office as 6ayor of %!!# his hometown. (is o,,onent sought to dis1ualify him. TR+ contended he is not dis1ualified because he was already ,ardoned by the !resident unconditionally. 's TR+G& contention correct" Reason briefly. $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
amount defrauded. The case reached the &u,reme Court which affirmed the /udgment of con iction. During the ,endency of LindaGs motion for reconsideration in the said Court# the !resident e5tended to her an absolute ,ardon which she acce,ted.
8y reason of such ,ardon# she wrote the De,artment of 9inance re1uesting that she be restored to her former ,ost as assistant treasurer# which is still acant. The De,artment ruled that Linda may be reinstated to her former ,osition without the necessity of a new a,,ointment and directed the City Treasurer to see to it that the sum of !;#BBB.BB be satisfied.
4o# TR+Gs contention is not correct. %rticle DB of the Re ised !enal Code e5,ressly ,ro ides that when the death ,enalty is not e5ecuted by reason of commutation or ,ardon# the accessory ,enalties of ,er,etual absolute dis1ualification and ci il interdiction during thirty $?B) years from the date of the sentence shall remain as effects thereof# unless such accessory ,enalties ha e been e5,ressly remitted in the ,ardon. This is because ,ardon only e5cuses the con ict from ser ing the sentence but does not relie e him of the effects of the con iction unless e5,ressly remitted in the ,ardon.
Claiming that she should not be made to ,ay !;#BBB.BB# Linda a,,ealed to the *ffice of the !resident. The *ffice of the !resident dismissed the a,,eal and held that ac1uittal# not absolute ,ardon. 's the only ground for reinstatement to oneGs former ,osition and that the absolute ,ardon does not e5em,t the cul,rit from ,ayment of ci il liability. 's Linda entitled to reinstatement"
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Par"on; +ffect; 0einstatement (199 ) Linda was con icted by the &andiganbayan of estafa# through falsification of ,ublic document. &he was sentenced accordingly and ordered to ,ay# among others# !;#BBB.BB re,resenting the balance of the
4o# Linda is not entitled to reinstatement to her former ,osition inasmuch as her right thereto had been relin1uished or forfeited by reason of her con iction. The absolute ,ardon merely e5tinguished her criminal liability# remo ed her dis1ualification# and restored her eligibility for a,,ointment to that office. &he has to reJa,,ly for
Dondee
Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006) such
,osition and under the usual ,rocedure re1uired for a new a,,ointment. 6oreo er# the ,ardon does not e5tinguish the ci il liability arising from the crime.
('onsanto vs.Fa6toran, ,r., 12* S"#$ 1!1)% see $rt. 36, #P")
Prescription of Crimes; Aigamy (1996)

2oe and 6arcy were married in 8atanes in 1E;;. %fter two years# 2oe left 6arcy and settled in 6indanao where he later met and married Linda on 12 2une 1EAB. The second marriage was registered in the ci il registry of Da ao City three days after its celebration. *n 1B *ctober 1EF; 6arcy who remained in 8atanes disco ered the marriage of 2oe to Linda. *n 1 6arch 1EFA 6arcy filed a com,laint for bigamy against 2oe. The crime of bigamy ,rescribed in fifteen years com,uted from the day the crime is disco ered by the offended ,arty# the authorities or their agents. 2oe raised the defense of ,rescri,tion of the crime# more than fifteen years ha ing ela,sed from the celebration of the bigamous marriage u, to the filing of 6arcyGs com,laint. (e contended that the registration of his second marriage in the ci il registry of Da ao City was constructi e notice to the whole world of the celebration thereof thus binding u,on 6arcy.
%lbert saw 6ina carry the dead body of %ra# ,lace it inside the trun0 of her car and dri e away. The dead body of %ra was ne er found. 6ina s,read the news in the neighborhood that %ra went to li e with her grand,arents in *rmoc City. 9or fear of his life# %lbert did not tell anyone# e en his ,arents and relati es# about what he witnessed. Twenty and a half $2B O 1:2) years after the incident# and right after his graduation in Criminology# %lbert re,orted the crime to 48' authorities. The crime of homicide ,rescribes in 2B years. Can the state still ,rosecute 6ina for the death of %ra des,ite the la,se of 2B O 1:2 years" )5,lain# $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
(as the crime of bigamy charged against 2oe already ,rescribed" Discuss fully#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
4o. The ,rescri,ti e ,eriod for the crime of bigamy is com,uted from the time the crime was disco ered by the offended ,arty# the authorities or their agents. The ,rinci,le of constructi e notice which ordinarily a,,lies to land or ,ro,erty dis,utes should not be a,,lied to the crime of bigamy# as marriage is not ,ro,erty. Thus when 6arcy filed a com,laint for bigamy on F 6arch 1EFA# it was well within the reglamentary ,eriod as it was barely a few months from the time of disco ery on 1B *ctober 1EF;. (Sermonia vs. "$, +33 S"#$ 1(()
Prescription of Crimes; Commencement (%&&&)

*ne fateful night in 2anuary 1EEB# while ;J year old %lbert was urinating at the bac0 of their house# he heard a strange noise coming from the 0itchen of their neighbor and ,laymate# %ra. When he ,ee,ed inside# he saw 6ina# %raGs ste,mother# ery angry and strangling the ;Jyear old %ra to death.
40 of 86
+es# the &tate can still ,rosecute 6ina for the death of %ra des,ite the la,se of 2B O 1:2 years. @nder %rticle E1# R!C# the ,eriod of ,rescri,tion commences to run from the day on which the crime is disco ered by the offended ,arty# the authorities or their agents. 'n the case at bar# the commission of the crime was 0nown only to %lbert# who was not the offended ,arty nor an authority or an agent of an authority. 't was disco ered by the 48' authorities only when %lbert re ealed to them the commission of the crime. (ence# the ,eriod of ,rescri,tion of 2B years for homicide commenced to run only from the time %lbert re ealed the same to the 48' authorities.
The ,eriod of ,rescri,tion of a crime shall commence to run only from the day on which the crime has been disco ered by the offended ,arty# the authorities or their agents $%rt. E1# Re ised !enal Code). *W# a ,ri ate ,erson who saw the 0illing but ne er disclosed it# is not the offended ,arty nor has the crime been disco ered by the authorities or their agents. Prescription of Crimes; Concu3inage (%&&1)
*n 2une 1# 1ECC# a com,laint for concubinage committed in 9ebruary 1ECF was filed against Roberto in the 6unici,al Trial Court of Tan3a# Ca ite for ,ur,oses of ,reliminary in estigation. 9or arious reasons# it was only on 2uly ?# 1EEC when the 2udge of said court decided the case by dismissing it for lac0 of /urisdiction since the crime was committed in 6anila. The case was subse1uently filed with the City 9iscal of 6anila but it was dismissed on the ground that the crime had already ,rescribed. The law ,ro ides that the crime of concubinage ,rescribes in ten $1B) years.
Prescription of Crimes; Commencement (%&& ) *W is a ,ri ate ,erson engaged in cattle ranching. *ne night# he saw %6 stab C. treacherously# then throw the dead manGs body into a ra ine. 9or 2; years# C.s body was ne er seen nor found- and *W told no one what he had witnessed. +esterday after consulting the ,arish ,riest# *W decided to tell the authorities what he witnessed# and re ealed that %6 had 0illed C. 2; years ago. Can %6 be ,rosecuted for murder des,ite the la,se of 2; years" Reason briefly. $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Was the dismissal by the fiscal correct" )5,lain# $;<)

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
+es# %6 can be ,rosecuted for murder des,ite the la,se of 2; years# because the crime has not yet ,rescribed and legally# its ,rescri,ti e ,eriod has not e en commenced to run.
4o# the 9iscalGs dismissal of the case on alleged ,rescri,tion is not correct. The filing of the com,laint with the 6unici,al Trial Court# although only for ,reliminary in estigation# interru,ted and sus,ended the ,eriod of ,rescri,tion in as much as the /urisdiction of a court in a criminal case is determined by the allegations in the com,laint or information# not by the result of ,roof.
(People vs. )alano. 2( S"#$ 1!3)
Dondee
Prescription of Crimes; .alse Testimony (199 )

!aolo was charged with homicide before the Regional Trial Court of 6anila. %ndrew# a ,rosecution witness# testified that he saw !aolo shoot %bby during their heated argument. While the case is still ,ending# the City (all of 6anila burned down and the entire records of the case were destroyed. Later# the records were reconstituted. %ndrew was again called to the witness stand. This time he testified that his first testimony was false and the truth was he was abroad when the crime too0 ,lace.
than four months after the alleged commission of the crime# the same had already ,rescribed. The &olicitor >eneral o,,osed the motion on two groundsK first# in determining the ,rescri,ti e ,eriod# the nature of the offense charged in the 'nformation should be considered# not the crime ,ro ed- second# assuming that the offense had already ,rescribed# the defense was wai ed by the failure of % to raise it in a motion to 1uash. Resol e the motion for reconsideration.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The /udge immediately ordered the ,rosecution of %ndrew for gi ing a false testimony fa orable to the defendant in a criminal case. 1. Will the case against %ndrew ,ros,er"
The motion for reconsideration should be granted.J
2. !aolo was ac1uitted. The decision became final on 2anuary 1B# 1ECF. *n 2une 1C# 1EED a case of gi ing false testimony was filed against %ndrew. %s his
lawyer# what legal ste, will you ta0e"

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1) +es. ... 2) %s lawyer of %ndrew# ' will file a motion to 1uash the 'nformation on the ground of ,rescri,tion. The crime of false testimony under %rt. 1CB has ,rescribed because !aolo# the accused in the ,rinci,al case# was ac1uitted on 2anuary 1B# 1ECF and therefore the ,enalty ,rescribed for such crime is arresto mayor under %rt. 1CB# ,ar. D# R!C. Crimes ,unishable by arresto mayor ,rescribes in fi e $;) years $%rt. EB# ,ar. ?# R!C). 8ut the case against %ndrew was filed only on 2une 1C# 1EED# whereas the ,rinci,al criminal case was decided with finality on 2anuary 1B# 1ECF and# thence the ,rescri,ti e ,eriod of the crime commenced to run. 9rom 2anuary 1B# 1ECF to 2une 1C# 1EED is more than fi e $;) years. Prescription of Crimes; Simple Slan"er (199*) % was charged in an information with the crime of gra e oral defamation but after trial# the court found him guilty only of the offense of sim,le slander. (e filed a motion for reconsideration contending that# under the law# the crime of sim,le slander would ha e ,rescribed in two months from commission# and since the information against him was filed more
41 of 86
a) The accused cannot be con icted of the offense of sim,le slander although it is necessarily included in the offense of gra e slander charged in the information# because# the lesser offense had already ,rescribed at the time the information was filed (People &s. #aran3,
("$) 6+ 5.). 6468% Fran6is6o vs. "$, 1++ S"#$ (38% 'a3at vs. People. +*1 S"#$ +1) otherwise
,rosecutors can easily circum ent the rule of ,rescri,tion in light offenses by the sim,le e5,ediment of filing a gra er offense which includes such light offense.
b) While the general rule is the failure of an accused to file a motion to 1uash before he ,leads to the com,laint or information# shall be deemed a wai er of the grounds of a motion to 1uash# the e5ce,tions to this areK $1) no offense was charged in the com,laint or information- $2) lac0 of 2urisdiction- $?) e5tinction of the offense or ,enalty- and $D) double /eo,ardy. &ince the ground in o0ed by the accused in his motion for reconsideration is e5tinction of the offense# then it can be raised e en after ,lea. 'n fact# it may e en be in o0ed on a,,eal
criminal case e5tinguishes ci il liability# areK 1) When the ci il action is based on obligations not arising from the act com,lained of as a felony2) When ac1uittal is based on reasonable doubt or ac1uittal is on the ground that guilt has not been ,ro en beyond reasonable doubt $%rt. 2E# 4ew Ci il Code)?) %c1uittal due to an e5em,ting circumstance# li0e 'nsanityD) Where the court states in its 2udgment that the case merely in ol es a ci il obligation;) Where there was a ,ro,er reser ation for the filing of a se,arate ci il actionA) 'n cases of inde,endent ci il actions ,ro ided for in %rts. ?1# ?2# ?? and ?D of the 4ew Ci il CodeF) When the /udgment of ac1uittal includes a declaration that the fact from which the ci il liability
might arise did not e5ist

S"#$ 32*)%
(Sapiera vs. "$, 314
(People vs. ;ala3tas)
C) Where the ci il liability is not deri ed or based on the criminal act of which the accused is ac1uitted
(Sapiera vs. "$. 314 S"#$ 32*).
CI8IL LIABILITY
Ci#il lia3ility; +ffect of (c;uittal (%&&&) 4ame at least two e5ce,tions to the general rule that in case of ac1uittal of the accused in a criminal case# his ci il liability is li0ewise e5tinguished. $2<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Ci#il lia3ility; +ffect of (c;uittal (%&&&)

% was a 1FJyear old wor0ing student who was earning his 0ee, as a cigarette endor. 8 was dri ing a car along busy )s,ana &treet at about FKBB ,.m. 8eside 8 was C. The car sto,,ed at an intersection because of the red signal of the traffic light. While waiting for the green signal# C bec0oned % to buy some cigarettes. % a,,roached the
)5ce,tions to the rule that ac1uittal from a

Dondee
Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006) car
and handed two stic0s of cigarettes to C. While the transaction was ta0ing ,lace# the traffic light changed to green and the car immediately s,ed off. %s the car continued to s,eed towards =uia,o# % clung to the window of the car but lost his gri, and fell down on the ,a ement. The car did not sto,. % suffered serious in/uries which e entually caused his death. C was charged with R*88)R+ with (*6'C'D). 'n the end# the Court was not con inced with moral certainty that the guilt of C has been established beyond reasonable doubt and# thus# ac1uitted him on the ground of reasonable doubt. Can the family of the ictim still reco er ci il damages in iew of the ac1uittal of C" )5,lain. $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Demy mo ed for a subsidiary writ of e5ecution against 6a5. The latter o,,osed the motion onJthe ground that the decision made no mention of his subsidiary liability and that he was not im,leaded in the case. (ow will you resol e the motion" H;<I
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The motion is to be granted. 6a5 as an em,loyer of >uy and engaged in an industry $trans,ortation business) where said em,loyee is utili3ed# is subsidiarily ci illy liable under %rticle 1B? of the Re ised !enal Code. ) en though the decision made no mention of his subsidiary liability# the law iolated $Re ised !enal Code) itself
+es# as against C# %Gs family can still reco er ci il damages des,ite CGs ac1uittal. When the accused in a criminal ,rosecution is ac1uitted on the ground that his guilt has not been ,ro ed beyond reasonable doubt# a ci il action for damages for the same act or omission may be instituted. &uch action re1uires only a ,re,onderance of e idence S%rt. 2E# CC). 'f %Gs family can ,ro e the negligence of 8 by ,re,onderance of e idence# the ci il action for damages against 8 will ,ros,er based on 1uasiJdelict. Whoe er by act or omission causes damage to another# there being fault or negligence# is obliged to ,ay for the damage done. &uch fault or negligence# about ,reJe5isting contractual relation between the ,arties# is called a 1uasiJ delict H%rt. 21FA# CC). This is entirely se,arate and distinct from ci il liability arising from negligence under the !enal Code H%rts# ?1# 21FA# 21FF# CC}.
Ci#il Lia3ility; Su3si"iary; +mployers (199-)

>uy# while dri ing a ,assenger /ee,ney owned and o,erated by 6a5# bum,ed Demy# a ,edestrian crossing the street. Demy sustained in/uries which re1uired medical attendance for three months. >uy was charged with rec0less im,rudence resulting to ,hysical in/uries. Con icted by the 6etro,olitan Trial Court. >uy was sentenced to suffer a straight ,enalty of three months of arresto mayor and ordered to indemnify Demy in the sum of !;#BBB and to ,ay !1#BBB as attorneyGs fees.
@,on finality of the decision# a writ of e5ecution was ser ed u,on >uy# but was returned unsatisfied due to his insol ency.
42 of 86
mandates for such liability and 6a5 is deemed to 0now it because ignorance of the law is ne er e5cused. %nd since his liability is not ,rimary but only subsidiary in case his em,loyee cannot ,ay- he need not be im,leaded in the in the criminal case. 't suffices that he was duly notified of the motion for issuance of a subsidiary writ of e5ecution and thus gi en the o,,ortunity to be heard. Ci#il Lia3ility; )hen 8an"atory; Criminal Lia3ility (%&&6) The accused was found guilty of 1B counts of ra,e for ha ing carnal 0nowledge with the same woman. 'n addition to the ,enalty of im,risonment# he was ordered to ,ay indemnity in the amount of !;B#BBB.BB for each count. *n a,,eal# the accused 1uestions the award of ci il indemnity for each count# considering that the ictim is the same woman. (ow would you rule on the contention of the accused" )5,lain. $?<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5amages; >omici"e; Temperate 5amages (%&&6) 'n a crime of homicide# the ,rosecution failed to ,resent any recei,t to substantiate the heirsG claim for an award of actual damages# such as e5,enses for the wa0e and burial. What 0ind of damages may the trial court award to them and how much" $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The court may award tem,erate damages in the amount of twentyJfi e $!2;#BBB.BB) thousand ,esos. @nder /uris,rudence# tem,erate damages is awarded in homicide when no sufficient ,roof of actual damages is offered or if the actual damages ,ro en is less than twentyJfi e thousand $!2;#BBB) (People v.
Salona, ).#. o. 1(1+(1, 'a4 1!, +**4).
C-&:"5 A$ &!5# N #&)! + S"(%-&#2 !* #;" L . )4 N #&)!5

Piracy in the >igh Seas @ ?ualifie" Piracy (%&&6)
While the &.&. 4agoya 6aru was negotiating the sea route from (ong0ong towards 6anila# and while still ?BB miles from %,arri# Cagayan# its engines malfunctioned. The Ca,tain ordered the shi, to sto, for emergency re,airs lasting for almost 1; hours. Due to e5haustion# the officers and crew fell aslee,. While the shi, was anchored# a motorboat manned by renegade +banags from Cla eria# Cagayan# ,assed by and too0 ad antage of the situation. They cut the shi,Gs engines and too0 away se eral hea y crates of electrical e1ui,ment and loaded them in their motorboat. Then they left hurriedly
The contention is unmeritorious. @nder the law# e ery ,erson criminally liable is ci illy liable. $%rt. 1BB# Re ised !enal Code) &ince each count charges different felonious acts and ought to be ,unished differently# the concomitant ci il indemnity e5 delicto for e ery criminal act should be ad/udged. &aid ci il indemnity is mandatory u,on a finding of the fact of ra,e- it is distinct from and should not be denominated as moral damages which are based on different /ural foundations.
(People v. ,alos@os, ovem8er 16, +**1)
).#.
os.
13+82(<26,
Dondee
3y <P( 8em3ers (199-)

*n 6ay ;# 1EE2# at about AKBB a.m.# while >o ernor %legre of Laguna was on board his car tra eling along the 4ational (ighway of Laguna# 2oselito and .icente shot him on the head resulting in his instant death. %t that time# 2oselito and .icente were members of the li1uidation s1uad of the 4ew !eo,leGs %rmy and they 0illed the go ernor u,on orders of their senior officer. Commander Tiago. %ccording to 2oselito and .icente#
towards %,arri. %t daybrea0# the crew found that a robbery too0 ,lace. They radioed the %,arri !ort %uthorities resulting in the a,,rehension of the cul,rits.
9hat crime was committe * Explain1 20134+

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
!iracy in the high seas was committed by the renegade +banags. The cul,rits# who are neither members of the com,lement nor ,assengers of the shi,# sei3ed ,art of the e1ui,ment of the essel while it was three hundred miles away from %,arri# Cagayan $%rt. 122# Re ised !enal Code). Supposing that while the robbery was ta8ing place) the culprits stabbe a member of the crew while sleeping1 9hat crime was committe * Explain1 20134+
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The crime committed is 1ualified ,iracy# because it was accom,anied by ,hysical in/uries:homicide. The cul,rits stabbed a member of the crew while slee,ing $%rt. 12?# Re ised !enal Code).
C-&:"5 A$ &!5# #;" 6%!* :"!# + L . )4 #;" S# #"

$iolation of 5omicile #s9 Trespass to 5welling (%&&%) What is the difference between iolation of domicile and tres,ass to dwelling" $2<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The differences between iolation of domicile and tres,ass to dwelling are-
1) The offender in iolation of domicile is a ,ublic officer acting under color of authority- in tres,ass to dwelling# the offender is a ,ri ate ,erson or ,ublic officer acting in a ,ri ate ca,acity. 2) .iolation of domicile is committed in ? different waysK $1) by entering the dwelling of another against the will of the latter- $2) searching ,a,ers and other effects inside the dwelling without the ,re ious consent of the owner- or $?) refusing to lea e the ,remises which he entered surre,titiously# after being re1uired to lea e the ,remises.
?) Tres,ass to dwelling is committed only in one way- that is# by entering the dwelling of another against the e5,ress or im,lied will of the latter.
C-&:"5 A$ &!5# P%1+&( O-*"(rt 11 ; 0e3ellion; Politically 8oti#ate"; Committe"
43 of 86 they
were ordered to 0ill >o ernor %legre because of his corru,t ,ractices. 'f you were the ,rosecutor# what crime will you charge 2oselito and .icente" H;<2
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
'f ' were the ,rosecutor# ' would charge 2oselito and .icente with the crime of rebellion# considering that the 0illers were members of the li1uidation s1uad of the 4ew !eo,leGs %rmy and the 0illing was u,on orders of their commanderhence# ,oliticallyJmoti ated. This was the ruling in People vs. $vila, +*2 S"#$ 1(68 in ol ing identical facts which is a mo ement ta0en /udicial notice of as engaged in rebellion against the >o ernment.
ALTERNATI8E ANSWER3
'f ' were the ,rosecutor# ' would charge 2oselito and .icente for the crime of murder as the ,ur,ose of the 0illing was because of his 7corru,t ,ractices 7# which does not a,,ear to be ,olitically moti ated. There is no indication as to how the 0illing would ,romote or further the ob/ecti e of the 4ew !eo,les %rmy. The 0illing is murder because it was committed with treachery.
ALTERNATI8E ANSWER3
in %rt. 1?; together with the rebellion# with one ,enalty and %rt. DC of the Re . !enal Code cannot be a,,lied. %rt. 1?; of said Code remained e5actly the same when the case of )nrile s# &ala3ar# 1CA &CR% 21F $1EEB) was resol ed. !recisely for the reason that %rt. DC cannot a,,ly because the common crimes were ,unished as ,art of rebellion in %rt. 1?;# that this %rticle was amended# deleting the common crimes therefrom. That the common crimes were deleted from said %rticle# demonstrates a clear legislati e intention to treat the common crimes as distinct from rebellion and remo e the legal im,ediment to the a,,lication of %rt. DC. 't is noteworthy that in >nrile vs. Sala1ar (s&pra) the &u,reme Court said theseK
The crime should be rebellion with murder considering that %rt. 1?; of the Re ised !enal Code has already been amended by Re,. %ct 4o. AEAC# deleting from said %rticle# common crimes which used to be ,unished as ,art and ,arcel of the crime of rebellion. The ruling in
People vs. Dernande1, !! Phil. (1( (1!!4), that rebellion may not be com,leted with common crimes committed in furtherance thereof# was because the common crimes were then ,enali3ed
7There is an a,,arent need to restructure the law on rebellion# either to raise the ,enalty therefor or to clearly define and delimit the other offenses to be considered as absorbed thereby# so that if it cannot be con eniently utili3ed as the umbrella for e ery sort of illegal acti ity underta0en in its name. The Court has no ,ower to effect such change# for it can only inter,ret the law as it stands at any gi en time# and what is needed lies beyond inter,retation. (o,efully# Congress will ,ercei e the need for ,rom,tly sei3ing the initiati e in this matter# which is ,urely with in its ,ro ince#7 %nd significantly the said amendment to %rt. 1?; of the Re . !enal Code was made at around the time the ruling in &ala3ar was handled down# ob iously to
Dondee
neutrali3e the (ernande3 and the &ala3ar rulings. The amendment was sort of a rider to the cou, dGetat law# Re,. %ct 4o AEAC. (rt 11 ,(4 Coup "C etat @ 0ape; .rustrate" (%&&6) Ta0ing into account the nature and elements of the felonies of cou, dQ etat and ra,e# may one be criminally liable for frustrated cou, dQ etat or frustrated ra,e" )5,lain. $2<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
installations which are essential to the continued ,ossession and e5ercise of go ernmental ,owers# and their ,ur,ose is to sei3e ,ower by ta0ing o er such installations.
:1 If the attac8 is !uelle but the lea er is un8nown) who shall be eeme the lea er thereof* 204+
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
4o# one cannot be criminally liable for frustrated cou, dQ etat or frustrated ra,e because in cou, dQ etat the mere attac0 directed against the duly constituted authorities of the Re,ublic of the !hili,,ines# or any military cam, or installation# communication networ0s# ,ublic utilities or other facilities needed for the e5ercise and continued ,ossession of ,ower would consummate the crime. The ob/ecti e may not be to o erthrow the go ernment but only to destabili3e or ,araly3e the go ernment through the sei3ure of facilities and utilities essential to the continued ,ossession and e5ercise of go ernmental ,owers.
*n the other hand# in the crime of ra,e there is no frustrated ra,e it is either attem,ted or consummated ra,e. 'f the accused who ,laced himself on to, of a woman# raising her s0irt and unbuttoning his ,ants# the endea or to ha e se5 with her ery a,,arent# is guilty of %ttem,ted ra,e. *n the other hand# entry on the labia or li,s of the female organ by the ,enis# e en without ru,ture of the hymen or laceration of the agina# consummates the crime of ra,e. 6ore so# it has long abandoned its TstrayU decision in People vs. >rina (* Phil !!8 where the accused was found guilty of 9rustrated ra,e.
The leader being un0nown# any ,erson who in fact directed the others# s,o0e for them# signed recei,ts and other documents issued in their name# or ,erformed similar acts# on behalf of the grou, shall be deemed the leader of said cou, dGetat $%rt 1?;# R.!.C.)
(rt 11 ,(; Coup "Cetat (%&&%)

'f a grou, of ,ersons belonging to the armed forces ma0es a swift attac0# accom,anied by iolence# intimidation and threat against a ital military installation for the ,ur,ose of sei3ing ,ower and ta0ing o er such installation# what crime or crimes are they guilty of" $?<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The ,er,etrators# being ,ersons belonging to the %rmed 9orces# would be guilty of the crime of cou, dGetat# under %rticle 1?DJ% of the Re ised !enal Code# as amended# because their attac0 was against ital military
44 of 86
(rt 11 ,(; Coup "Cetat; <ew .irearms Law (199-) 1. (ow is the crime of cou, dGetat committed" H?<I 2. &u,,osing a ,ublic school teacher ,artici,ated in a cou, dGetat using an unlicensed firearm. What crime or crimes did he commit" H2<I
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
%braham that he# .># 2> and >> ha e cons,ired to o erthrow the go ernment. 9ather %braham did not re,ort this information to the ,ro,er authorities. Did 9ather %braham commit a crime" 'f so# what crime was committed" What is his criminal liability"
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1. The crime of cou, dGetat is committed by a swift attac0# accom,anied by iolence# intimidation# threat# strategy or stealth against the duly constituted authorities of the Re,ublic of the !hili,,ines# military cam,s and installations# communication networ0s# ,ublic utilities and facilities needed for the e5ercise and continued ,ossession of ,ower# carried out singly or simultaneously anywhere in the !hili,,ines by ,ersons belonging to the military or ,olice or holding ,ublic office# with or without ci ilian su,,ort or ,artici,ation# for the ,ur,ose of sei3ing or diminishing state ,ower. $%rt 1?DJ%# R!C).
4o# 9ather %braham did not commit a crime because the cons,iracy in ol ed is one to commit rebellion# not a cons,iracy to commit treason which ma0es a ,erson criminally liable under %rt 11A# R9C. %nd e en assuming that it will fall as mis,rision of treason# 9ather %braham is e5em,ted from criminal liability under %rt. 12# ,ar. F# as his failure to re,ort can be considered as due to 7insu,erable cause7# as this in ol es the sanctity and in iolability of a confession.
Cons,iracy to commit rebellion results in criminal liability to the coJcons,irators# but not to a ,erson who learned of such and did not re,ort to the ,ro,er
authorities
2. The ,ublic school teacher committed only cou, dGetat for his ,artici,ation therein. (is use of an unlicensed firearm is absorbed in the cou, dGetat under the new firearms law $Re,. %ct 4o. C2ED). (rt 116; Conspiracy to Commit 0e3ellion (199 ) .C# 2>. >> and 2> cons,ired to o erthrow the !hili,,ine >o ernment. .> was recogni3ed as the titular head of the cons,iracy. &e eral meetings were held and the ,lan was finali3ed. 22# bothered by his conscience# confessed to 9ather
(US vs. 0er3ara, 3 Phil. 43+% People vs. $tien1a. (6 Phil. 3(3).
(rt 1 -; 5irect (ssault #s9 0esistance @ 5iso3e"ience (%&&1)

%# a teacher at 6a,a (igh &chool# ha ing gotten mad at L# one of his ,u,ils# because of the latterGs throwing ,a,er cli,s at his classmates# twisted his right ear. L went out of the classroom crying and ,roceeded home located at the bac0 of the school. (e re,orted to his ,arents + and M what % had done to him. + and M immediately ,roceeded to the school building and because they were running and tal0ing in loud oices# they were seen by the
Dondee
barangay chairman# 8# who followed them as he sus,ected that an untoward incident might ha,,en. @,on seeing % inside the classroom# L ,ointed him out to his father# +# who administered a fist blow on %# causing him to fall down. When + was about to 0ic0 %# 8 rushed towards + and ,inned both of the latterGs arms. &eeing his father being held by 8# L went near and ,unched 8 on the face# which caused him to lose his gri, on +. Throughout this incident# M shouted words of encouragement at +# her husband# and also threatened to sla, %. &ome security guards of the school arri ed# inter ened and surrounded L# + and M so that they could be in estigated in the ,rinci,alGs office. 8efore lea ing# M ,assed near % and threw a small flower ,ot at him but it was deflected by 8.
constitute the crime of Resistance and Disobedience under %rticle 1;1# since L# a high school ,u,il# could not be considered as ha ing acted out of contem,t for authority but more of hel,ing his father get free from the gri, of 8. Laying hand on an agent of a ,erson in authority is not i,so facto direct assault# while it would always be direct assault if done to a ,erson in authority in defiance to the latter is e5ercise of authority.
(rt 1 -; 5irect (ssault; Teachers @ Professors (%&&%)

%# a lady ,rofessor# was gi ing an e5amination. &he noticed 8# one of the students# cheating. &he called the studentGs attention and confiscated his e5amination boo0let# causing embarrassment to him. The following
a) What# if any# are the res,ecti e criminal liability of L + and M" $A<)
b) Would your answer be the same if 8 were a barangay
tanod only" $D<)

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
a) L is liable for Direct %ssault only# assuming the ,hysical in/uries inflicted on 8# the 8arangay Chairman# to be only slight and hence# would be absorbed in the direct assault. % 8arangay Chairman is a ,erson in authority $%rt. 1;2# R!C) and in this case# was ,erforming his duty of maintaining ,eace and order when attac0ed. + is liable for the com,le5 crimes of Direct %ssault With Less &erious !hysical 'n/uries for the fist blow on %# the teacher# which caused the latter to fall down. 9or ,ur,oses of the crimes in %rts. 1DC and 1;1 of the Re ised !enal Code# a teacher is considered a ,erson in authority# and ha ing been attac0ed by + by reason of his ,erformance of official duty# direct assault is committed with the resulting less serious ,hysical in/uries com,leted. M# the mother of L and wife of + may only be liable as an accom,lice to the com,le5 crimes of direct assault with less serious ,hysical in/uries committed by +. (er ,artici,ation should not be considered as that of a coJ ,rinci,al# since her reactions were only incited by her relationshi, to L and +. as the mother of L and the wife of +.
b) 'f 8 were a 8arangay Tanod only# the act of L of laying hand on him# being an agent of a ,erson in authority only# would
45 of 86 day#
while the class was going on# the student# 8# a,,roached % and# without any warning# sla,,ed her. 8 would ha e inflicted further in/uries on % had not C# another student# come to %Gs rescue and ,re ented 8 from continuing his attac0. 8 turned his ire on C and ,unched the latter. What crime or crimes# if any# did 8 commit" Why" $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
in (uthority (%&&&) Who are deemed to be ,ersons in authority and agents of ,ersons in authority" $?<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
%ersons in authority are ,ersons directly ested with /urisdiction# whether as an indi idual or as a member of some court or go ernment cor,oration# board# or commission. 8arrio ca,tains and barangay chairmen are also deemed ,ersons in authority. $%rticle 1;2# R!C) Agents of persons in authority are ,ersons who by direct ,ro ision of law or by election or by a,,ointment by com,etent authority# are charged with maintenance of ,ublic order# the ,rotection and security of life and ,ro,erty# such as barrio councilman# barrio ,oliceman# barangay leader and any ,erson who comes to the aid of ,ersons in authority $%rt. 1;2# R!C)#
8 committed two $2) counts of direct assaultK one for sla,,ing the ,rofessor# %# who was then conducting classes and thus e5ercising authority- and another one for the iolence on the student C# who came to the aid of the said ,rofessor. 8y e5,ress ,ro ision of %rticle 1;2# in relation to %rticle 1DC of the Re ised !enal Code# teachers and ,rofessors of ,ublic or duly recogni3ed ,ri ate schools# colleges and uni ersities in the actual ,erformance of their ,rofessional duties or on the occasion of such ,erformance are deemed ,ersons in authority for ,ur,oses of the crimes of direct assault and of resistance and disobedience in %rticles 1DC and 1;1 of said Code. %nd any ,erson who comes to the aid of ,ersons in authority shall be deemed an agent of a ,erson in authority. %ccordingly# the attac0 on C is# in the eyes of the law# an attac0 on an agent of a ,erson in authority# not /ust an attac0 on a student. (rt 1 -; Persons in (uthorityD(gents of Persons
'n a,,lying the ,ro isions of %rticles 1DC and 1;1 of the Re . !enal Code# teachers# ,rofessors and ,ersons charged with the su,er ision of ,ublic or duly recogni3ed ,ri ate schools# colleges and uni ersities# and lawyers in the actual ,erformance of their ,rofessional duties or on the occasion of such ,erformance# shall be deemed ,ersons in authority. $!.D. 4o. 2EE# and 8atas !ambansa 8lg. CF?). (rt 166; 5eli#ery of Prisoners from !ail (%&&%)
%# a detention ,risoner# was ta0en to a hos,ital for emergency medical treatment. (is followers# all of whom were armed# went to the hos,ital to ta0e him away or
Dondee
Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006) hel,
him esca,e. The ,rison guards# seeing that they were outnumbered and that resistance would endanger the li es of other ,atients# dec0led to allow the ,risoner to be ta0en by his followers. What crime# if any# was committed by %Gs followers" Why" $?<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
rebellion and cou, dGetat# their constituti e elements offenses.

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
based on as criminal
%Gs followers shall be liable as ,rinci,als in the crime of deli ery of ,risoner from 2ail $%rt. 1;A# Re ised !enal Code). The felony is committed not only by remo ing from any /ail or ,enal establishment any ,erson confined therein but also by hel,ing in the esca,e of such ,erson outside of said establishments by means of iolence# intimidation# bribery# or any other means. (rt 16*; +#asion of Ser#ice of Sentence (199-) 6anny 0illed his wife under e5ce,tional circumstances and was sentenced by the Regional Trial Court of Dagu,an City to suffer the ,enalty of destierro during which he was not to enter the city. While ser ing sentence# 6anny went to Dagu,an City to isit his mother. Later# he was arrested in 6anila. 1. Did 6anny commit any crime" H?<I 2. 'f so# where should he be ,rosecuted" H2<I
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
R)8)LL'*4 is committed when a multitude of ,ersons rise ,ublicly in arms for the ,ur,ose of o erthrowing the duly constituted go ernment# to be re,laced by a go ernment of the rebels. 't is carried out by force and iolence# but need not be ,artici,ated in by any member of the military# national ,olice or any ,ublic officer. C*@! DG)T%T is committed when members of the military# !hili,,ine 4ational !olice# or ,ublic officer#
1. +es. 6anny committed the crime of e asion of ser ice of sentence when he went to Dagu,an City# which he was ,rohibited from entering under his sentence of destierro.
% sentence im,osing the ,enalty of destierro is e aded when the con ict enters any of the ,lace:,laces he is ,rohibited from entering under the sentence or come within the ,rohibited radius. %lthough destierro does not in ol e im,risonment# it is nonetheless a de,ri ation of liberty. $!eo,le s. %bilong. C2 !hil. 1F2).
2. 6anny may be ,rosecuted in Dagu,an City or in 6anila where he was arrested. This is so because e asion of ser ice of sentence is a continuing offense# as the con ict is a fugiti e from /ustice in such case. (Par&lan vs. Dir. o/
Prisons, 7<+8(1!, 12 Fe8. 1!68)

(rt9 11 ; 0e3ellion #s9 Coup "Fetat (%&& ) Distinguish clearly but brieflyK 8etween
46 of 86
acting as ,rinci,al offenders# launched a swift attac0 thru strategy# stealth# threat# iolence or intimidation against duly constituted authorities of the Re,ublic of the !hili,,ines# military cam, or installation# communication networ0s# ,ublic facilities or utilities needed for the e5ercise and continued ,ossession of go ernmental ,owers# for the ,ur,ose of sei3ing or diminishing state ,owers. @nli0e rebellion which re1uires a ,ublic u,rising# cou, dGetat may be carried out singly or simultaneously and the ,rinci,al offenders must be members of the military# national ,olice or ,ublic officer# with or without ci ilian su,,ort. The criminal ob/ecti e need not be to o erthrow the e5isting go ernment but only to destabili3e or ,araly3e the e5isting go ernment. Comple/ Crime; 5irect (ssault with mur"er (%&&&)
8ecause of the a,,roaching town fiesta in &an 6iguel# 8ulacan# a dance was held in 8arangay Camias. %# the 8arangay Ca,tain# was in ited to deli er a s,eech to start the dance. While % was deli ering his s,eech. 8# one of the guests# went to the middle of the dance floor ma0ing obscene dance mo ements# brandishing a 0nife and challenging e eryone ,resent to a fight. % a,,roached 8 and admonished him to 0ee, 1uiet and not to disturb the dance and ,eace of the occasion. 8# instead of heeding the ad ice of %# stabbed the latter at his bac0 twice when % turned his bac0 to ,roceed to the micro,hone to continue his
s,eech. % fell to the ground and died. %t the time of the incident % was not armed. What crime was committed" )5,lain. $2<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The com,le5 crime of direct assault with murder was committed. %# as a 8arangay Ca,tain# is a ,erson in authority and was acting in an official ca,acity when he tried to maintain ,eace and order during the ,ublic dance in the 8arangay# by admonishing 8 to 0ee, 1uiet and not to disturb the dance and ,eace of the occasion. When 8# instead of heeding %Gs ad ice# attac0ed the latter# 8 acted in contem,t and lawless defiance of authority constituting the crime of direct assault# which characteri3ed the stabbing of %. %nd since % was stabbed at the bac0 when he was not in a ,osition to defend himself nor retaliate# there was treachery in the stabbing. (ence# the death caused by such stabbing was murder and ha ing been committed with direct assault# a com,le5 crime of direct assault with murder was committed by 8. (rt 1 -; 5irect (ssault with mur"er (1996)
!ascual o,erated a rice thresher in 8arangay 4a,nud where he resided. Renato# a resident of the neighboring 8arangay >uihaman# also o,erated a mobile rice thresher which he often brought to 8arangay 4a,nud to thresh the ,alay of the farmers there. This was bitterly resented by !ascual# one afternoon !ascual# and his two sons confronted Renato and his men who were o,erating their mobile rice thresher along a feeder road in 4a,nud. % heated argument ensued. % barangay ca,tain who was
Dondee
fetched by one of !ascualGs men tried to a,,ease !ascual and Renato to ,re ent a iolent confrontation. (owe er# !ascual resented the inter ention of the barangay ca,tain and hac0ed him to death. What crime was committed by !ascual" Discuss fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
!ascual committed the com,le5 crime of homicide with assault u,on a ,erson in authority $%rts. 1DC and 2DE in relation to %rt# DC# R!C). % barangay chairman# is in law $%rt. 1;2)# a ,erson in authority and if he is attac0ed while in the ,erformance of his official duties or on the occasion thereof the felony of direct assault is committed. %rt. DC# R!C# on the other hand# ,ro ides that if a single act ,roduces two or more gra e or less gra e felonies# a com,le5 crime is committed. (ere# the single act of the offender in hac0ing the ictim to death resulted in two felonies# homicide which is gra e and direct assault which is less gra e.
!aolo was charged with homicide before the Regional Trial Court of 6anila. %ndrew# a ,rosecution witness# testified that he saw !aolo shoot %bby during their heated argument. While the case is still ,ending# the City (all of 6anila burned down and the entire records of the case were destroyed. Later# the records were reconstituted. %ndrew was again called to the witness stand. This time he testified that his first testimony was false and the truth was he was abroad when the crime too0 ,lace.
C-&:"5 $ &!5# P%1+&( I!#"-"5#

.alse <otes; 2llegal Possession (1999) 1. 's mere ,ossession of false money bills ,unishable under %rticle 1AC of the Re ised !enal Code" )5,lain. $?<)
2. The accused was caught in ,ossession of 1BB counterfeit !2B bills. (e could not e5,lain how and why he ,ossessed the said bills. 4either could he e5,lain what he intended to do with the fa0e bills. Can he be held criminally liable for such ,ossession"
Decide. $?<}
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1. 4o. !ossession of false treasury or ban0 note alone without an intent to use it# is not ,unishable. 8ut the circumstances of such ,ossession may indicate intent to utter# sufficient to consummate the crime of illegal ,ossession of false notes. 2. +es. Nnowledge that the note is counterfeit and intent to use it may be shown by the conduct of the accused. &o# ,ossession of 1BB false bills re ealK $a) 0nowledge that the bills are fa0eand $b) intent to utter the same. .alse Testimony (199 )
47 of 86
The /udge immediately ordered the ,rosecution of %ndrew for gi ing a false testimony fa orable to the defendant in a criminal case. 1.I Will the case against %ndrew ,ros,er" 2.I !aolo was ac1uitted. The decision became final on 2anuary 1B# 1ECF. *n 2une 1C# 1EED a case of gi ing false testimony was filed against %ndrew. %s his lawyer# what legal ste, will you ta0e"
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
with finality on 2anuary 1B# 1ECF and# thence the ,rescri,ti e ,eriod of the crime commenced to run. 9rom 2anuary 1B# 1ECF to 2une 1C# 1EED is more than fi e $;) years. .alsification; Presumption of .alsification (1999)
% falsified official or ,ublic document was found in the ,ossession of the accused. 4o e idence was introduced to show that the accused was the author of the falsification. %s a matter of fact# the trial court con icted the accused of falsification of official or ,ublic document mainly on the ,ro,osition that 7the only ,erson who could ha e made the erasures and the su,erim,osition mentioned is the one who will be benefited by the alterations thus made7 and that 7he alone could ha e the moti e for ma0ing such alterations7.
1) +es. 9or one to be criminally liable under %rt. 1C1# R9C# it is not necessary that the criminal case where %ndrew testified is terminated first. 't is not e en re1uired of the ,rosecution to ,ro e which of the two statements of the witness is false and to ,ro e the statement to be false by e idence other than the contradictory statements (People vs. $ra1ola, 13 "o&rt o/
$ppeals #eport, +nd series, p. 8*8).
2) %s lawyer of %ndrew# ' will file a motion to 1uash the 'nformation on the ground of ,rescri,tion. The crime of false testimony under %rt. 1CB has ,rescribed because !aolo# the accused in the ,rinci,al case# was ac1uitted on 2anuary 1B# 1ECF and therefore the ,enalty ,rescribed for such crime is arresto mayor under %rt. 1CB# ,ar. D# R!C. Crimes ,unishable by arresto mayor ,rescribes in fi e $;) years $%rt. EB# ,ar. ?# R!C). 8ut the case against %ndrew was filed only on 2une 1C# 1EED# whereas the ,rinci,al criminal case was decided
Was the con iction of the accused ,ro,er although the con iction was ,remised merely on the aforesaid ratiocination" )5,lain your answer. $?<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
+es# the con iction is ,ro,er because there is a ,resum,tion in law that the ,ossessor and user of a falsified document is the one who falsified the same. .orgery @ .alsification (1999) (ow are 7forging7 and 7falsification7 committed" $?<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
9*R>'4> or forgery is committed by gi ing to a treasury or ban0 note or any instrument ,ayable to bearer or to order the a,,earance of a true and genuine
Dondee
!ia sunbathing in the nude.

2) The business e5ecuti es did not commit any crime. Their acts could not be acts of lasci iousness Has there was no o ert lustful act)# or slander# as the e entual tal0 of the town# resulting from her sunbathing# is not directly im,uted to the business e5ecuti es# and besides such to,ic is not intended to defame or ,ut !ia to ridicule.
document- or by erasing# substituting# counterfeiting# or altering by any means the figures# letters# words or signs contained therein. 9%L&'9'C%T'*4# on the other hand# is committed byK 1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting# signature or rubric2. Causing it to a,,ear that ,ersons ha e ,artici,ated in any act or ,roceeding when they did not in fact so ,artici,ate?. %ttributing to ,ersons who ha e ,artici,ated in an act or ,roceeding statements other than those in fact made by themD. 6a0ing untruthful statements in a narration of facts;. %ltering true datesA. 6a0ing any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaningF. 'ssuing in an authenticated form a document ,ur,orting to be a co,y of an original document when no such original e5ists# or including in such co,y a statement contrary to# or different from# that of the genuine original- or C. 'ntercalating any instrument or note relati e to the issuance thereof in a ,rotocol# registry# or official boo0. Gra#e Scan"al (1996)
!ia# a bold actress li ing on to, floor of a ,lush condominium in 6a0ati City sunbathed na0ed at its ,enthouse e ery &unday morning. &he was unaware that the business e5ecuti es holding office at the ad/oining tall buildings re,orted to office e ery &unday morning and# with the use of ,owerful binoculars# 0e,t on ga3ing at her while she sunbathed. ) entually# her sunbathing became the tal0 of the town.
Per:ury (1996)
1) What crime# if any# did !ia commit" )5,lain# 2) What crime# if any# did the business e5ecuti es commit" )5,lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1) !ia did not commit a crime# the felony closest to ma0ing !ia criminally liable is >ra e &candal# but then such act is not to be considered as highly scandalous and offensi e against decency and good customs. 'n the first ,lace# it was not done in a ,ublic ,lace and within ,ublic 0nowledge or iew. %s a matter of fact it was disco ered by the e5ecuti es accidentally and they ha e to use binoculars to ha e ,ublic and full iew of
48 of 86
&isenando ,urchased the share of the stoc0holders of )strella Cor,oration in two installments# ma0ing him the ma/ority stoc0holder thereof and e entually# its ,resident. 8ecause the stoc0holders who sold their stoc0s failed to com,ly with their warranties attendant to the sale# &isenando withheld ,ayment of the second installment due on the shares and de,osited the money in escrow instead# sub/ect to release once said stoc0holders com,ly with their warranties. The stoc0holders concerned# in turn# rescinded the sale in 1uestion and remo ed &isenando from the !residency of the )strella Cor,oration# &isenando then filed a erified com,laint for damages against said stoc0holders in his ca,acity as ,resident and ,rinci,al stoc0holder of )strella Cor,oration. 'n retaliation# the stoc0holders concerned# after ,etitioning the &ecurities and )5change Commission to declare the rescission alid# further filed a criminal case for ,er/ury against &isenando# claiming that the latter ,er/ured himself when he stated under oath in the erification of his com,laint for damages that he is the !resident of the )strella Cor,oration when in fact he had already been remo ed as such.
falsehood when he alleged in the com,laint that he is the !resident of the Cor,oration# ob iously# he made the allegation on the ,remise that his remo al from the ,residency is not alid and that is ,recisely the issue brought about by his com,laint to the &)C. 't is a fact that &isenando has been the !resident of the cor,oration and it is from that ,osition that the stoc0holders concerned ,ur,ortedly remo ed him# whereu,on he filed the com,laint 1uestioning his remo al. There is no willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood which is a re1uisite of ,er/ury. Per:ury (199*)
%# a go ernment em,loyee# was administrati ely charged with immorality for ha ing an affair with 8# a coJ em,loyee in the same office who belie ed him to be single. To e5cul,ate himself# % testified that he was single and was willing to marry 8# (e induced C to testify and C did testify that 8 was single. The truth# howe er# was that % had earlier married D# now a neighbor of C.
's % guilty of ,er/ury" %re % and C guilty of subordination of ,er/ury"

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
@nder the facts of the case# could &isenando be held liable for ,er/ury" )5,lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
4o# &isenando may not be held liable for ,er/ury because 't cannot be reasonably maintained that he willfully and deliberately made an assertion of a
4o. % is not guilty of ,er/ury because the willful falsehood asserted by him is not material to the charge of immorality. Whether % is single or married# the charge of immorality against him as a go ernment em,loyee could ,roceed or ,ros,er. 'n other words# %Gs ci il status is not a defense to the charge of immorality# hence# not a material matter that could influence the charge.
Dondee
There is no crime of subornation of ,er/ury. The crime is now treated as ,lain ,er/ury with the one inducing another as the ,rinci,al inducement# and the latter# as ,rinci,al by direct ,artici,ation (People vs. Podol 66 Phil. 36(). &ince in this case % cannot be held liable for ,er/ury# the matter that he testified to being immaterial# he cannot therefore be held res,onsible as a ,rinci,al by inducement when he induced C to testify on his status. Conse1uently# C is not liable as ,rinci,al by direct ,artici,ation in ,er/ury# ha ing testified on matters not material to an administrati e case.
!;;B.BB# aside from !2#BBB.BB in consideration of ,rom,t enforcement of the writ from )strada and her lawyer. The writ was successfully enforced. a) What crime# if any# did the sheriff commit" $?<) b) Was there any crime committed by )strada and her lawyer and if so# what crime" $2<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
a) The sheriff committed the crime of Direct 8ribery under the second ,aragra,h of %rticle 21B# Re ised !enal Code# since the !2#BBB was recei ed by him 7in
Per:ury (%&&6)
%l Chua# a Chinese national# filed a ,etition under oath for naturali3ation# with the Regional Trial Court of 6anila. 'n his ,etition# he stated that he is married to Leni Chua- that he is li ing with her in &am,aloc# 6anila- that he is of good moral character- and that he has conducted himself in an irre,roachable manner during his stay in the !hili,,ines. (owe er# at the time of the filing of the ,etition# Leni Chua was already li ing in Cebu# while %l was li ing with 8abes Toh in 6anila# with whom he has an amorous relationshi,. %fter his direct testimony# %l Chua withdrew his ,etition for naturali3ation.
What crime or crimes# if any# did %l Chua commit" )5,lain. $;<)

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
%l Chua committed ,er/ury. (is declaration under oath for naturali3ation that he is of good moral character and residing at &am,aloc# 6anila are false. This information is material to his ,etition for naturali3ation. (e committed ,er/ury for this willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood which is contained in a erified ,etition made for a legal ,ur,ose. ("hoa v. People, ).#. o. 14+*11,
'ar6h 14, +**3)
C-&:"5 C)::&##"* 12 P%1+&( O44&("-5

Ari3ery @ Corruption of Pu3lic =fficial (%&&1) De,uty &heriff 8en Ri as recei ed from the RTC Cler0 of Court a Writ of )5ecution in the case of )/ectment filed by 6rs. 6aria )strada s. Luis %blan. The /udgment being in fa or of )strada# Ri as went to her lawyerGs office where he was gi en the necessary amounts constituting the sheriffs fees and e5,enses for e5ecution in the total amount of
49 of 86
consideration7 of the ,rom,t enforcement of the writ of e5ecution which is an official duty of the sheriff to do.
ALTERNATI8E ANSWER<
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
a) *n the ,remise that e en without the !2#BBB# &heriff 8en Ri as had to carry out the writ of e5ecution and not that he would be im,lementing the writ only because of the !2#BBB.BB# the recei,t of the amount by said sheriff may be regarded as a gift recei ed by reason of his office and not as a 7consideration7 for the ,erformance of an official dutyhence# only indirect 8ribery would be committed by said sheriff. b) *n the ,art of the ,laintiff and her lawyer as gi er of the bribeJmoney# the crime is Corru,tion of !ublic *fficials under %rticle 212# Re ised !enal Code. 5irect Ari3ery4 2nfi"elity in the Custo"y of 5ocuments (%&&6) During a !4! buyJbust o,eration# Cao &hih was arrested for selling 2B grams of metham,hetamine hydrochloride $shabu) to a ,oseurJbuyer. Cao &hih# through an intermediary# ,aid !atric0# the ) idence Custodian of the !4! 9orensic Chemistry &ection# the amount of !;BB#BBB.BB in consideration for the destruction by !atric0 of the drug. !atric0 managed to destroy the drug. &tate with reasons whether !atric0 committed the following crimesK $F<) 1.I ;irect :riberyVersion 1994-2006 Updated by
!atric0 committed the crimes of Direct 8ribery and 'nfidelity in the Custody of Documents. When a ,ublic officer is called u,on to ,erform or refrain from ,erforming an official act in e5change for a gift# ,resent or consideration gi en to him $%rt. 21B# Re ised !enal Code)# the crime committed is direct bribery. &econdly# he destroyed the shabu which is an e idence in his official custody# thus# constituting infidelity in the custody of documents under %rt. 22A of the Re ised !enal Code.
01< In irect bribery.

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
'ndirect bribery was not committed because he did not recei e the bribe because of his office but in consideration of a crime in connection with his official duty.
=1< Section =2e+ of >A =-,? 2Anti"

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Graft an
Corrupt %ractices Act+.
&ee. ?$e)# R.%. 4o. CB1E was not committed because there was no actual in/ury to the go ernment. When there is no s,ecific 1uantified in/ury# iolation is not committed. ()ar6ia<#&eda vs $mor,
et al., ).#. o. 116!38, Septem8er +*, +**1)
71< $bstruction of Justice un er %;

,@0?.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
!atric0 committed the crime of obstruction of /ustice although the feigner ,enalty im,osable on direct bribery
Dondee
Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006) or
infidelity in the custody of documents shall be im,osed. &ec. 1 of !.D. 4o. 1C2E refers merely to the im,osition of the higher ,enalty and does not ,reclude ,rosecution for obstruction of /ustice# e en if the same not constitute another offense.
ALTERNATI8E ANSWER3
Randy ,ut u, the defense that he did not a,,ro,riate the armalite rifle and the re ol er for his own use# that the delay in accounting for them does not constitute con ersion and that actually the firearms were stolen by his friend# Chiting. Decide the case.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
*bstruction of 2ustice is not committed in this case# because the act of destroying the e idence in his custody is already ,enali3ed by another law which im,oses a higher ,enalty. $&ec. 1# !.'). 4o. 1C2E) !uris"iction; 2mpeacha3le Pu3lic =fficers (%&&6) 2udge Rod Reyes was a,,ointed by former !resident 9idel Ramos as De,uty *mbudsman for the .isayas for a term of F years commencing on 2uly ;#1EE;. &i5 months thereafter# a lady stenogra,her filed with the *ffice of the *mbudsman a com,laint for acts of lasci iousness and with the &u,reme Court a ,etition for disbarment against him. 9orthwith# he filed se,arate motions to dismiss the com,laint for acts of lasci iousness and ,etition for disbarment# claiming lac0 of /urisdiction o er his ,erson and office. %re both motions meritorious" $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Randy is guilty as charged under %rt. 21F# R!C. (e is accountable for the firearms they issued to him in his official ca,acity. The failure of Randy to submit the firearms u,on demand created the ,resum,tion that he con erted them for his own use. ) en if there is no direct e idence of misa,,ro,riation# his failure to
The motion to dismiss the com,laint of the De,uty *mbudsman for the acts of lasci iousness should be denied as only the *mbudsman is included in the list of im,eachable officers found in %rticle L' of the 1ECF Constitution. Therefore# the &andiganbayan has /urisdiction o er his ,rosecution (5//i6e o/ the 5m8&dsman vs. "$, ).#. 146486, 'ar6h 4, +**(). Li0ewise# the &u,reme Court has /urisdiction o er the ,etition for disbarment# as he is a member of the bar. (is motion to dismiss should be denied $&ee Rule 1?E and 1?E of the Rules of Court). 8al#ersation (199 )
Randy# an 48' agent# was issued by the 48' an armalite rifle $6lA) and a &mith and Wesson Re ol er. Cal. ?C. %fter a year# the 48' Director made an ins,ection of all the firearms issued. Randy# who re,orted for wor0 that morning# did not show u, during the ins,ection. (e went on absence without lea e $%W*L). %fter two years# he surrendered to the 48' the two firearms issued to him. (e was charged with mal ersation of go ernment ,ro,erty before the &andiganbayan.
50 of 86 account
for the go ernment ,ro,erty is enough factual basis for a finding of mal ersation. 'ndeed# e en his e5,lanation that the guns were stolen is incredible. 9or if the firearms were actually stolen# he should ha e re,orted the matter immediately to the authorities.
(People vs. ;a3&iran , +* S"#$ 4(3% Feli6ilda &s. )rospe, )# o. 1*+!4, ,&l4 3, 1!!+)
ne ertheless be criminally liable" What crime did he commit" )5,lain. $2<)

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
8al#ersation (1999) What constitutes the crime of mal ersation of ,ublic funds or ,ro,erty" $2<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
6al ersation of ,ublic funds or ,ro,erty is committed by any ,ublic officer who# by reason of the duties of his office# is accountable for ,ublic funds or ,ro,erty# shall ta0e or misa,,ro,riate or shall consent# or through abandonment or negligence# shall ,ermit any other ,erson to ta0e such ,ublic funds or ,ro,erty# wholly or ,artially# or shall otherwise be guilty of the misa,,ro,riation or mal ersation of such funds or ,ro,erty# $%rt# 21F# R!C)
+es# notwithstanding the restitution of the amount of the chec0# the 6unici,al Treasurer will be criminally liable as restitution does not negate criminal liability although it may be considered as a mitigating circumstance similar or analogous to oluntary surrender. (People vs. 0elas:&e1, 23 Phil !8)# (e will be criminally liable for mal ersation. (owe er# if the restitution was made immediately# under ehement ,rotest against an im,utation of mal ersation and without lea ing the office# he may not be criminally liable. 8al#ersation (%&&1)
%le5 Reyes# together with 2ose &antos# were former warehousemen of the Rustan De,artment &tore. 'n 1ECA# the !C>> se1uestered the assets# fund and ,ro,erties of the ownersJincor,orators of the store# alleging that they constitute 7'llJgotten wealth7 of the 6arcos family. @,on their a,,lication# Reyes and &antos were a,,ointed as fiscal agents of the se1uestered firm and they were gi en custody and ,ossession of the se1uestered building and its contents# including arious ehicles used in the firmGs o,erations. %fter a few months# an in entory was conducted and it was disco ered that two $2) deli ery ans were missing. %fter demand was made u,on them# Reyes and &antos failed to gi e any satisfactory e5,lanation why the ans were missing or to turn them o er to the !C>>- hence# they were charged with 6al ersation of !ublic !ro,erty. During the trial# the two
8al#ersation (1999)
% 6unici,al Treasurer# accountable for ,ublic funds or ,ro,erty# encashed with ,ublic funds ,ri ate chec0s drawn in fa or of his wife. The chec0s bounced# the drawer not ha ing enough cash in the drawee ban0. The 6unici,al Treasurer# in encashing ,ri ate chec0s from ,ublic funds# iolated regulations of his office. 4otwithstanding restitution of the amount of the chec0s# can the 6unici,al Treasurer
Dondee
accused claimed that they are not ,ublic accountable officers and# if any crime was committed# it should only be )stafa under %rt. ?1;# ,ar. l$b) of the Re ised !enal Code. What is the ,ro,er offense committed" &tate the reason$s) for your answer. $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
commission of the offense# !48 was a go ernment owned and controlled cor,oration and therefore# any crime committed by the Regional 8an0 %uditor# who is a ,ublic officer# is sub/ect to the /urisdiction of the &andiganbayan $&ee R.%. FEF; as amended by R%. C2DE).
The ,ro,er offense committed was 6al ersation of !ublic !ro,erty# not estafa# considering that Reyes and &antos# u,on their a,,lication# were constituted as 7fiscal agents7 of the se1uestered firm and were 7gi en custody and ,ossession7 of the se1uestered ,ro,erties# including the deli ery ans which later they could not account for. They were thus made the de,ositary and administrator of ,ro,erties de,osited by ,ublic authority and hence# by the duties of their office:,osition# they are accountable for such ,ro,erties. &uch ,ro,erties# ha ing been se1uestered by the >o ernment through the !C>># are in custodia legis and therefore im,ressed with the character of ,ublic ,ro,erty# e en though the ,ro,erties belong to a ,ri ate indi idual $%rt. 222# R!C). The failure of Reyes and &antos to gi e any satisfactory e5,lanation why the ans were missing# is ,rima facie e idence that they had ,ut the same to their ,ersonal use.
2. %fter his arraignment# the ,rosecution filed a motion for his sus,ension ,endente lite# to which he filed an o,,osition claiming that he can no longer be sus,ended as he is no longer an em,loyee of the !48 but that of the !D'C. )5,lain whether he may or may not be sus,ended. $2.;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
8al#ersation (%&&6)
1. 'n 1EC2# the !hili,,ine 4ational 8an0 $!48)# then a go ernment ban0ing institution# hired (enry dela Renta# a C!%# as Regional 8an0 %uditor. 'n 1EE2# he resigned and was em,loyed by the !hili,,ine De,osit 'nsurance Cor,oration $!D'C)# another go ernmentJowned and controlled cor,oration. 'n 1EE;# after the !48 management unearthed many irregularities and iolations of the ban0Gs rules and regulations# dela Renta was found to ha e mani,ulated certain accounts in ol ing trust funds and time de,osits of de,ositors. %fter in estigation# he was charged with mal ersation of ,ublic funds before the &andiganbayan. (e filed a motion to dismiss contending he was no longer an em,loyee of the !48 but of the !D'C.
's dela RentaGs contention tenable" $2.;<)

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The contention of (enry dela Renta is not tenable. Dela Renta may be ,rosecuted for mal ersation e en if he had ceased to be an em,loyee of the !48. %t the time of the
51 of 86
Dela Renta may still be sus,ended ,endente lite des,ite holding a different ,ublic office# the !D'C# when he was charged. The term 7office7 in &ec. 1? of R.%. ?B1E a,,lies to any office which the officer might currently be holding and not necessarily the office or ,osition in relation to which he is charged (Se3ovia v.
Sandi3an8a4an, 3*,1!!8). ).#. o. 1++24*, 'ar6h
the car was worth !CBB#BBB.BB.
9hat are the respective crimes) if any) committe by Allan) ;anny an Jules* Explain1
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
8al#ersation #s9 +stafa (1999) (ow is mal ersation distinguished from estafa"
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
%llan# the munici,al treasurer is liable for mal ersation committed through negligence or cul,a. The go ernment car which was assigned to him is ,ublic ,ro,erty under his accountability by reason of his duties. 8y his act of negligence# he ,ermitted the ta0ing of the car by another ,erson# resulting in mal ersation# consistent with the language of %rt. 21F of the Re ised !enal Code.
6al ersation differs from estafa in that mal ersation is committed by an accountable ,ublic officer in ol ing ,ublic funds or ,ro,erty under his custody and accountabilitywhile estafa is committed by nonJ accountable ,ublic officer or ,ri ate indi idual in ol ing funds or ,ro,erty for which he is not accountable to the go ernment.
6al ersationK %ntiJ9encingK Carna,,ing $2BB;) %llan# the 6unici,al Treasurer of the 6unici,ality of >erona# was in a hurry to return to his office after a dayJ long official conference. (e alighted from the go ernment car which was officially assigned to him# lea ing the ignition 0ey and the car unloc0ed# and rushed to his office. 2ules# a bystander# dro e off with the car and later sold the same to his brother# Danny for !2B#BBB.BB# although
Danny iolated the %ntiJ9encing Law. (e is in ,ossession of an item which is the sub/ect of thie ery. !.D. 4o. 1A12 $%ntiJ9encing Law) under &ection ; ,ro ides that mere ,ossession of any good# article# item# ob/ect or any thing of alue which has been the sub/ect of robbery or thie ery shall be ,rima facie# e idence of fencing. 2ules is guilty of carna,,ing. (e too0 the motor ehicle belonging to another without the latterGs consent. $R.%. 4o. A;?E) 9hat) if any) are their respective civil liabilities* Explain1 234+
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
%llan is under obligation to restitute the ehicle or ma0e re,aration if not ,ossible. 2ules must ,ay the amount he gained from the sale of the car which is !2B#BBB.BB.
Dondee
his accountability therefor. 'f 2uan &antos was no longer the ,ublic officer who should be accountable for the ,ro,erties le ied u,on and found in his house# his ta0ing of such ,ro,erties would no longer constitute 6al ersation but Theft# as there was ta0ing with intent to gain# of ,ersonal ,ro,erty of another without the consent of the latter. 8al#ersation; Technical 8al#ersation (1996)
)li3abeth is the munici,al treasurer of 6asinloc# Mambales. *n 2anuary 1B# 1EED# she recei ed# as munici,al treasurer# from the De,artment of !ublic
Danny must ma0e re,aration corres,onding to the alue of the car which is !CBB#BBB.BB. 8al#ersation; Properties; Custo"ia Legis (%&&1)
%ccused 2uan &antos# a de,uty sheriff in a Regional Trial Court# le ied on the ,ersonal ,ro,erties of a defendant in a ci il case before said court# ,ursuant to a writ of e5ecution duly issued by the court. %mong the ,ro,erties le ied u,on and de,osited inside the 7e idence room7 of the Cler0 of Court for 6ulti,le RTC &alas were a refrigerator# a stoc0 of cassette ta,es# a dining table set of chairs and se eral lam,shades. @,on the defendantGs ,aying off the /udgment creditor# he tried to claim his ,ro,erties but found out that se eral items were missing# such as the cassette ta,es# chairs and lam,shades. %fter due and diligent sleuthing by the ,olice detecti es assigned to the case# these missing items were found in the house of accused &antos# who reasoned out that he only borrowed them tem,orarily.
'f you were the fiscal :,rosecutor# what would be the nature of the information to be filed against the accused" Why" $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
'f ' were the fiscal:,rosecutor# ' would file an information for 6al ersation against 2uan &antos for the cassette ta,es# chain and lam,shades which he# as de,uty sheriff# le ied u,on and thus under his accountability as a ,ublic officer. &aid ,ro,erties being under le y# are in custodia legis and thus im,ressed with the character of ,ublic ,ro,erty# misa,,ro,riation of which constitutes the crime of mal ersation although said ,ro,erties belonged to a ,ri ate indi idual $%rt. 222# R!C).
2uan &antos misa,,ro,riated such ,ro,erties when# in breach of trust# he a,,lied them to his own ,ri ate use and benefit. (is allegation that he only borrowed such ,ro,erties is a lame e5cuse# de oid of merit as there is no one from whom he borrowed the same. The fact that it was only 7after due and diligent sleuthing by the ,olice detecti es assigned to the case7# that the missing items were found in the house of &antos# negates his ,retension.
ALTERNATI8E ANSWER3
%n information for Theft may be filed# considering that the sheriff had already de,osited the ,ro,erties le ied u,on in the 7e idence room7 of the Cler0 of Court and may ha e already been relie ed of
52 of 86
Wor0s and (ighways# the amount of !1BB#BBB.BB 0nown as the fund for construction# rehabilitation# betterment# and 'm,ro ement $CR8') for the concreting of 8arangay !hani5 Road located in 6asinloc# Mambales# a ,ro/ect underta0en on ,ro,osal of the 8arangay Ca,tain. 'nformed that the fund was already e5hausted while the concreting of 8arangay !hani5 Road remained unfinished# a re,resentati e of the Commission on %udit conducted a s,ot audit of )li3abeth who failed to account for the !lBB#BBB CR8' fund. )li3abeth# who was charged with mal ersation of ,ublic funds# was ac1uitted by the &andiganbayan of that charge but was ne ertheless con icted# in the same criminal case# for illegal use of ,ublic funds. *n a,,eal# )li3abeth argued that her con iction was erroneous as she a,,lied the amount of !;B#BBB.BB for a ,ublic ,ur,ose without iolating any law or ordinance a,,ro,riating the said amount for any s,ecific ,ur,ose. The absence of such law or ordinance was# in fact# established.
crime is not necessarily included nor does it necessarily include the crime of mal ersation. The &andiganbayan should ha e followed the ,rocedure ,ro ided in &ec. 11# Rule 11E of the Rules of Court and order the filing of the ,ro,er 'nformation. (Par&n3ao &s. Sandi3an8a4an. 1!2 S"#$ 123.) 9rom the facts# there is no showing that there is a law or ordinance a,,ro,riating the amount to a s,ecific ,ublic ,ur,ose. %s a matter of fact# the ,roblem categorically states that the absence of such law or ordinance was# in fact# established.7 &o# ,rocedurally and substantially # the &andiganbayanGs decision suffers from serious 'nfirmity.
Pu3lic =fficers; "efinition (1999) Who are ,ublic officers" $2<)

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
's the contention of )li3abeth legally tenable" )5,lain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
)li3abethGs contention that her con iction for illegal use of ,ublic funds $technical mal ersation) was erroneous# is legally tenable because she was charged for mal ersation of ,ublic funds under %rt. 21F of the Re ised !enal Code but was con icted for 'llegal use of ,ublic funds which is defined and ,unished under %rt. 22B of said Code. % ,ublic officer charged with mal ersation may not be alidly con icted of illegal use of ,ublic funds $technical mal ersation) because the latter
!ublic *fficers are ,ersons who# by direct ,ro ision of the law# ,o,ular election or a,,ointment by com,etent authority# ta0es ,art in the ,erformance of ,ublic functions in the >o ernment of the !hili,,ines# or ,erforms in said >o ernment or in any of its branches ,ublic duties as an em,loyee# agent or subordinate official# of any ran0 or class $%rt. 2B?# R!C)
Pu3lic =fficers; 2nfi"elity in Custo"y of Prisoners (1996)

% chief of ,olice of a munici,ality# belie ing in good faith that a ,risoner ser ing a tenJday sentence in the munici,al /ail# would not esca,e# allowed said ,risoner to slee, at the latterGs house because the munici,al 2ail was so congested and there was no bed s,ace a ailable. %ccordingly# the ,risoner went home to slee, e ery night
Dondee
Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006) but
returned to /ail early each morning# until the tenJday sentence had been fully ser ed. Did the Chief of !olice commit any crime" )5,lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The Chief of !olice is guilty of iolation of %rt. 22?# R!C# consenting or conni ing to e asion# the elements of which are $a) he is a ,ublic officer# $b) he is in charge or custody of a ,risoner# detention or ,risoner by final /udgment# $c) that the ,risoner esca,ed# and $d) there must be conni ance.
Rela5ation of a ,risoner is considered infidelity# thus ma0ing the ,enalty ineffectual- although the con ict may not ha e fled (US vs. ;andino, ! Phil. 4(!) it is still iolati e of the ,ro ision. 't also includes a case when the guard allowed the ,risoner# who is ser ing a si5Jday sentence in the munici,al 2ail# to slee, in his house and eat there
(People vs. #evilla).
a resident of the neighboring 8arangay >uihaman# also o,erated a mobile rice thresher which he often brought to 8arangay 4a,nud to thresh the ,alay of the farmers there. This was bitterly resented by !ascual# *ne afternoon !ascual# and his two sons confronted Renato and his men who were o,erating their mobile rice thresher along a feeder road in 4a,nud. % heated argument ensued. % barangay ca,tain who was fetched by one of !ascualGs men tried to a,,ease !ascual and Renato to ,re ent a iolent confrontation. (owe er# !ascual resented the inter ention of the barangay ca,tain and hac0ed him to death.
What crime was committed by !ascual" Discuss fully.
Pu3lic =fficers; 2nfi"elity in Custo"y of Prisoners (199*) During a town fiesta. %# the chief of ,olice# ,ermitted 8# a detention ,risoner and his com,adre# to lea e the munici,al /ail and entertain isitors in his house from 1BKBB a.m. to CKBB ,.m. 8 returned to the munici,al /ail at CK?B ,.m. Was there any crime committed by %"
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
+es# % committed the crime of infidelity in the custody of a ,risoner. &ince 8 is a detention ,risoner. %s Chief of !olice# % has custody o er 8. ) en if 8 returned to the munici,al 2ail at CK?B ,.m. %# as custodian of the ,risoner# has maliciously failed to ,erform the duties of his office# and when he ,ermits said ,risoner to obtain a rela5ation of his im,risonment# he consents to the ,risoner esca,ing the ,unishment of being de,ri ed of his liberty which can be considered real and actual e asion of ser ice under %rticle 22? of the Re ised !enal Code (People vs. 7eon ;andino +! Phil. 4(!).
ALTERNATI8E ANSWER3
4o crime was committed by the Chief of !olice. 't was only an act of leniency or la5ity in the ,erformance of his duty and not in e5cess of his duty (People vs.
>van3elista ("$) 38 5.). 1(8).
C-&:"5 A$ &!5# P"-5)!5

Comple/ Crime; >omici"e wD (ssault,(uthority (1996)
!ascual o,erated a rice thresher in 8arangay 4a,nud where he resided. Renato#
53 of 86
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
!ascual committed the com,le5 crime of homicide with assault u,on a ,erson in authority $%rts. 1DC and 2DE in relation to %rt# DC# R!C). % barangay chairman# is in law $%rt. 1;2)# a ,erson in authority and if he is attac0ed while in the ,erformance of his official duties or on the occasion thereof the felony of direct assault is committed. %rt. DC# R!C# on the other hand# ,ro ides that if a single act ,roduces two or more gra e or less gra e felonies# a com,le5 crime is committed. (ere# the single act of the offender in hac0ing the ictim to death resulted in two felonies# homicide which is gra e and direct assault which is less gra e. Comple/ Crime; Parrici"e wD unintentional a3ortion (199 )
%ldrich was dismissed from his 2ob by his em,loyer. @,on reaching home# his ,regnant wife# Carmi# nagged him about money for her medicines. De,ressed by his dismissal and angered by the nagging of his wife# %ldrich struc0 Carmi with his fist. &he fell to the ground. %s a result# she and her unborn baby died.
maltreatment under %rt# 2AA# ,ar. ? of the Re ised !enal Code# &ince Carmi died because of the felonious act of %ldrich# he is criminally liable of ,arricide under %rt. 2DA# R!C in relation to %rt. D# ,ar. 1 of the same Code. &ince the unborn baby of Carmi died in the ,rocess# but %ldrich had no intention to cause the abortion of his wife# %ldrich committed unintentional abortion as defined in %rt. 2;F# R!C. 'nasmuch as the single act of %ldrich ,roduced two gra e or less gra e felonies# he falls under %rt# DC# R!C# ie. a com,le5 crime (People vs.
Sal&/ran6ia, 1(! S"#$ 4*1).
Criminal Lia3ilities; 0ape; >omici"e @ Theft (199- <o) Ning went to the house of Laura who was alone. Laura offered him a drin0 and after consuming three bottles of beer. Ning made ad ances to her and with force and iolence# ra ished her. Then Ning 0illed Laura and too0 her /ewelry.
Doming# NingGs ado,ted brother# learned about the incident. (e went to LauraGs house# hid her body# cleaned e erything and washed the bloodstains inside the room.
What crime was committed by %ldrich"

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
%ldrich committed the crime of ,arricide with unintentional abortion. When %ldrich struc0 his wife# Carmi# with his fist# he committed the crime of
Later# Ning ga e 2ose# his legitimate brother# one ,iece of /ewelry belonging to Laura. 2ose 0new that the /ewelry was ta0en from Laura but nonetheless he sold it for !2#BBB. What crime or crimes did Ning# Doming and 2ose commit" Discuss their criminal liabilities. H1B<I
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Dondee
Ning committed the com,osite crime of Ra,e with homicide as a single indi isible offense# not a com,le5 crime# and Theft. The ta0ing of LauraGs /ewelry when she is already dead is only theft. Criminal Lia3ility; Tumultous (ffray (199*) During a town fiesta# a freeJforJall fight eru,ted in the ,ublic ,la3a. %s a result of the tumultuous affray# % sustained one fatal and three su,erficial stab wounds. (e died a day after. 8# C# D and ) were ,ro en to be ,artici,ants in the 7rumble7# each using a 0nife against %# but it could not be ascertained who among them inflicted the mortal in/ury. Who shall be held criminally liable for the death of % and for what"
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
gun only to ,acify the unruly customers of the night club and therefore# without intent to 0ill. 8Gs gunshot that inflicted a fatal wound on the deceased may not be im,uted to % because cons,iracy cannot e5ist when there is a freeJforJall brawl or tumultuous affray. % and 8 are liable only for their res,ecti e act
5eath un"er +/ceptional Circumstances (%&&1)

% and 8 are husband and wife. % is em,loyed as a security guard at Landmar0# his shift being from 11KBB ,.m. to FKBB a.m. *ne night# he felt sic0 and cold# hence# he decided to go home around midnight after getting
8# C# D# and ) being ,artici,ants in the tumultuous affray and ha ing been ,ro en to ha e inflicted serious ,hysical in/uries# or at least# em,loyed iolence u,on %# are criminally liable for the latterGs death. %nd because it cannot be ascertained who among them inflicted the mortal in/ury on %# there being a freeJforJall fight or tumultuous affray. 8# C# D# and ) are all liable for the crime of death caused in a tumultuous affray under %rticle 2;1 of the Re ised !enal Code.
Criminal Lia3ility; Tumultuous (ffray (%&&1) 'n a freeJforJall brawl that ensued after some customers inside a night club became unruly# guns were fired by a grou,# among them % and 8# that finally ,ut the customers bac0 to their senses. @nfortunately# one customer died. &ubse1uent in estigation re ealed that %Gs gunshot had inflicted on the ictim a slight wound that did not cause the deceasedGs death nor materially contribute to it. 't was 8Gs gunshot that inflicted a fatal wound on the deceased. % contended that his liability should# if at all# be limited to slight ,hysical in/ury. Would you agree" Why" A<
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
4o# ' beg to disagree with %Gs contention that his liability should be limited to slight ,hysical in/ury only. (e should be held liable for attem,ted homicide because he inflicted said in/ury with the use of a firearm which is a lethal wea,on. 'ntent to 0ill is inherent in the use of a firearm. ($raneta, ,r. v. "o&rt o/
$ppeals, 182 S"#$ 1+3 ?1!!*=)
ALTERNATI8E ANSWER3
+es# ' would agree to %Gs contention that his criminal liability should be for slight ,hysical in/ury only# because he fired his
54 of 86
,ermission from his duty officer. @,on reaching the front yard of his home# he noticed that the light in the master bedroom was on and that the bedroom window was o,en. %,,roaching the front door# he was sur,rised to hear sighs and giggles inside the bedroom. (e o,ened the door ery carefully and ,ee,ed inside where he saw his wife 8 ha ing se5ual intercourse with their neighbor C. % rushed inside and grabbed C but the latter managed to wrest himself free and /um,ed out of the window# % followed suit and managed to catch C again and after a furious struggle# managed also to strangle him to death. % then rushed bac0 to his bedroom where his wife 8 was cowering under the bed co ers. &till enraged# % hit 8 with fist blows and rendered her unconscious. The ,olice arri ed after being summoned by their neighbors and arrested % who was detained# in1uested and charged for the death of C and serious ,hysical 'n/uries of 8.
,hysical in/uries he inflicted on his wife 8 but under the same e5ce,tional circumstances in %rticle 2DF of the Re ised !enal Code# for the same reasons. 5eath un"er +/ceptional Circumstances (%&&6) !ete# a security guard# arri ed home late one night after rendering o ertime. (e was shoc0ed to see 9lor# his wife# and 8en/ie# his best friend# com,letely na0ed ha ing se5ual intercourse. !ete ,ulled out his ser ice gun and shot and 0illed 8en/ie. !ete was charged with murder for the death of 8en/ie. !ete contended that he acted in defense of his honor and that# therefore# he should be ac1uitted of the crime. The court found that 8en/ie died under e5ce,tional circumstances and e5onerated !ete of the crime# but sentenced him to destierro# conformably with %rticle 2DF of the Re ised !enal Code. The court also ordered !ete to ,ay indemnity to the heirs of the ictim in the amount of !;B#BBB.BB. $;<) Is the efense of %ete meritorious* Explain1
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
a) 's % liable for CGs death" Why" $;<) b) 's % liable for 8Gs in/uries" Why" $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
a) +es# % is liable for CGs death but under the e5ce,tional circumstances in %rticle 2DF of the Re ised !enal Code# where only destierro is ,rescribed. %rticle 2DF go erns since % sur,rised his wife 8 in the act of ha ing se5ual intercourse with C# and the 0illing of C was 7'mmediately thereafter7 as the disco ery# esca,e# ,ursuit and 0illing of C form one continuous act. (U.S.
vs. 0ar3as,
+ Phil. 1!4)
b)
Li0ewise# % is liable for the serious
4o. % ,erson who commits acts ,enali3ed under %rticle 2DF of the Re ised !enal Code for death or serious ,hysical in/uries inflicted under e5ce,tional circumstances is still criminally liable. (owe er# this is merely an e5em,ting circumstance when the ictim suffers any other 0ind of ,hysical in/ury. 'n the case at bar# !ete will suffer the ,enalty of destierro for the death of 8en/ie.
Dondee

ALTERNATI8E ANSWER3
death. 6amerto sustained 'n/uries inca,acitated him for 2; days.

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
that
4o. !ete did not act in defense of his honor. 9or this defense to a,,ly under %rt. 11# there must be an unlawful aggression which is defined as an attac0 or material aggression that ,oses a danger to his life or ,ersonal safely. 't must be a real aggression characteri3ed by a ,hysical force or with a wea,on to cause in/ury or damage to oneGs life. (People v.
aha4ra, ).#. os. !6368<6!, 56to8er 12, 1!!1% People v. Do&sin3, ).#. o. 64!6(, ,&l4 18, 1!!1)
What crime or crimes did Dante commit" Dante committed 1ualified tres,ass to dwelling# frustrated homicide for the stabbing of 2ay# and less serious ,hysical in/uries for the assault on 6amerto. The crime of 1ualified tres,ass to dwelling should not be com,le5ed with frustrated homicide ... Dante committed frustrated homicide for the stabbing of 2ay because he had already ,erformed all the acts of
(n er Article 07A of the >evise %enal Co e) is estierro a penalty* Explain1

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
'n the case of People v. $8ar6a, ).#. o. 24433, Septem8er 14, 1!82# the Court ruled that %rticle 2DF does not define a felony. (owe er# it went on to state that the ,enalty is merely banishment of the accused# intended for his ,rotection. !unishment# therefore# is not inflicted on the accused.
ALTERNATI8E ANSWER3
+es. %rticle 2DF of the Re ised !enal Code does not define and ,ro ide for a s,ecific crime but grants a ,ri ilege or benefit to the accused for the 0illing of another or the infliction of &erious !hysical 'n/uries. Destierro is a ,unishment whereby a con ict is banished to a certain ,lace and is ,rohibited from entering or coming near that ,lace designated in the sentence# not less than 2; 0ms.
(People v. $ra:&el, De6em8er !, 1!(!) ).#. o. 7<1+6+!,
;i the court correctly or er %ete to pay in emnity espite his exoneration un er Article 07A of the >evise %enal Co e* Explain1
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
+es# because the ,ri ilege defined under this %rticle e5em,ts the offender from criminal liability but not from ci il liability.
(People v. $8ar6a, ).#, o. 7<24483, Septem8er 14, 1!82% $rt. 1+, #evised Penal "ode)
>omici"e; .raustrate"; Physical 2n:uries (199 )

%t about 11KBB in the e ening# Dante forced his way inside the house of 6amerto. 2ay# 6amertoGs son# saw Dante and accosted him# Dante ,ulled a 0nife and stabbed 2ay on his abdomen. 6amerto heard the commotion and went out of his room. Dante# who was about to esca,e# assaulted 6amerto. 2ay suffered in/uries which# were it not for the timely medical attendance# would ha e caused his
55 of 86 e5ecution which would ha e ,roduced the intended felony of homicide were it not for causes inde,endent of the act of Dante. Dante had the intent to 0ill /udging from the wea,on used# the manner of committing the crime and the ,art of the body stabbed. Dante is guilty of less serious ,hysical in/uries for the wounds sustained by 6amerto. There a,,ears to be no intent to 0ill because Dante merely assaulted 6amerto without using the 0nife.
2nfantici"e (%&&6)
%na has been a bar girl:>R* at a beer house for more than 2 years. &he fell in lo e with *nio0# the bartender# who im,regnated her. 8ut %na did not inform him about her condition and instead# went home to Cebu to conceal her shame. (owe er# her ,arents dro e her away. &o she returned to 6anila and stayed with *nio0 in his boarding house. @,on learning of her ,regnancy# already in an ad anced state# *nio0 tried to ,ersuade her to undergo an abortion# but she refused. 8ecause of their constant and bitter 1uarrels# she suffered birth ,angs and ga e birth ,rematurely to a li e baby girl while *nio0 was at his ,lace of wor0. @,on coming home and learning what ha,,ened# he ,re ailed u,on %na to conceal her dishonor. (ence# they ,laced the infant in a shoe bo5 and threw it into a nearby cree0. (owe er# an in1uisiti e neighbor saw them and with the hel, of others# retrie ed the infant who was already dead from drowning. The incident was re,orted to the ,olice who arrested %na
and *nio0. The 2 were charged with ,arricide under %rticle 2DA of the Re ised !enal Code. %fter trial# they were con icted of the crime charged.
Was the con iction correct"

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The con iction of %na and *nio0 is not correct. They are liable for infanticide because they 0illed a child less than three days of age $%rt. 2;;# Re ised !enal Code).
8ur"er @ Sec9 %6B 09(9 <o9 9166 (%&&6) Candido stabbed an innocent bystander who accidentally bum,ed him. The innocent bystander died as a result of the stabbing. Candido was arrested and was tested to be ,ositi e for the use of TshabuU at the time he committed the stabbing. What should be the ,ro,er charge against Candido" )5,lain. $?<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The 0illing was not attended by any of the 1ualifying circumstances enumerated under %rticle 2DC of the Re ised !enal Code. The 0illing# howe er# constitutes murder because the commission of a crime under the influence of ,rohibited drugs is a 1ualifying# aggra ating circumstance. $&ec. 2;# R.%. 4o. E1A;)
8ur"er (1999)
The accused# not intending to 0ill the ictim# treacherously shot the ictim while the ictim was turning his bac0 to him. (e aimed at and hit the ictim only on the leg. The ictim# howe er# died because of loss of blood. Can the accused be liable for homicide or murder# considering that treachery was clearly in ol ed
Dondee
Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006) but
there was no attem,t to 0ill" )5,lain your answer. $?<)

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
A. With cruelty# by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the ictim# or outraging or scoffing at his ,erson or cor,se.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The accused is liable for the death of the ictim e en though he merely aimed and fired at the latterGs leg# 7not intending to 0ill the ictim7# considering that the gunshot was felonious and was the ,ro5imate cause of death. %n offender is liable for all the direct# natural# and logical conse1uences of his felonious act although different from what he intended. (owe er# since s,ecific intent to 0ill is absent# the crime for said death is only homicide and not murder (People vs. P&3a4 and Samson, 162 S"#$ 43!)
ALTERNATI8E ANSWER3
$b) The elements of murder areK $1) that a ,erson was unlawfully 0illed- $2) that such a 0illing was attended by any of the abo eJmentioned circumstances- $?) that the 0illing is not ,arricide nor infanticide- and $D) that the accused 0illed the ictim. 8ur"er; +#i"ent Preme"itation (1996)
9idel and 9red harbored a long standing grudge against 2orge who refused to marry their sister Lorna# after the latter got ,regnant by 2orge. %fter wee0s of sur eillance# they finally cornered 2orge in )rmita# 6anila# when the latter was wal0ing home late at night. 9idel and 9red
The accused is liable for the death of the ictim in as much as his act of shooting the ictim at the leg is felonious and is the ,ro5imate cause of death. % ,erson ,erforming a felonious act is criminally liable for all the direct# natural# and logical conse1uences of such act although different from what he intended. %nd since such death was attended by treachery# the same will constitute murder but the accused should be gi en the benefit of the mitigating circumstance that he did not intend to commit so gra e a wrong as that which was committed $%rt. 1?$?)# R!C) 8ur"er; 5efinition @ +lements (1999)
Define murder. What are the elements of the crime" H?<I
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
$a) 6urder is the unlawful 0illing of a ,erson which otherwise would constitute only homicide# had it not been attended by any of the following circumstancesK 1. With treachery or ta0ing ad antage of su,erior strength# or with the aid of armed men# or em,loying means to wea0en the defense or of means or ,ersons to insure or afford im,unity2. 'n consideration of a ,rice# reward or ,romise?. 8y means or on the occasion of inundation# fire# ,oison# e5,losion# shi,wrec0# stranding of a essel# derailment or assault u,on a railroad# fall of an airshi,# or by means of motor ehicles# or with the use of any other means in ol ing great waste and ruinD. *n occasion of an earth1ua0e# eru,tion of a olcano# destructi e cyclone# e,idemic or other ,ublic calamity;. With e ident ,remeditation-
56 of 86 forcibly
brought 2orge to Mambales where they 0e,t him hogJtied in a small ni,a house located in the middle of a rice field. Two days later# they 0illed 2orge and dum,ed his body into the ri er. What crime or crimes did 9idel and 9red commit" )5,lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1.I (*6'C'D) or murder as the case may
2.I '49%4T'C'D) for the 0illing of the child
be# for the 0illing of his commonJlaw wife who is not legally considered a 7s,ouse7
as said child is less than three $?) days old. $%rt. 2;;# R!C) (owe er# the ,enalty corres,onding to ,arricide shall be im,osed since % is related to the child within the degree defined in the crime of ,arricide.
9idel and 9red committed the crime of 6urder under %rt 2DC# R!C# the 0illing being 1ualified by e ident ,remeditation. This is due to the long standing grudge entertained by the two accused occasioned by the ictimGs refusal to marry their sister after im,regnating her.
?.I !%RR'C'D) for the 0illing of their
'n People vs. $l/e6he. +1! S"#$ 8( # the intention of the accused is determinati e of the crime committed. Where the intention is to 0ill the ictim and the latter is forcibly ta0en to another ,lace and later 0illed# it is murder. There is no indication that the offenders intended to de,ri e the ictim of his liberty. Whereas# if the ictim is 0idna,,ed# and ta0en to another situs and 0illed as an afterthought# it is 0idna,,ing with homicide under %rt. 2AF# R!C. 8ur"er; >omici"e; 2nfantici"e; Parrici"e (1999) % 0illedK $1) a woman with whom he li ed without benefit of clergy# $2) their child who was only two days old# $?) their daughter# and $D) their ado,ted son. What crime or crimes did % commit" $?<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
daughter# whether legitimate or illegitimate# as long as she is not less than three $?) days old at the time of the 0illing. D.I 6@RD)R for the 0illing of their ado,ted son as the relationshi, between % and the said son must be by blood in order for ,arricide to arise. 8ur"er; 0ecGles 2mpru"ence (%&&1)
6ang 2ose# a se,tuagenarian# was wal0ing with his tenJ year old grandson along !aseo de Ro5as and decided to cross at the intersection of 6a0ati % enue but both were hit by a s,eeding CR. (onda an and were sent s,rawling on the ,a ement a meter a,art. The dri er# a Chinese mesti3o# sto,,ed his car after hitting the two ictims but then re ersed his gears and ran o er 6ang 2oseGs ,rostrate body anew and third time by ad ancing his car forward. The grandson suffered bro0en legs only and sur i ed but 6ang 2ose suffered multi,le fractures and bro0en ribs# causing his instant death. The dri er was arrested and charged with 6urder for the death of 6ang
% committed the following crimesK

Dondee
2ose and &erious !hysical 'n/uries through Rec0less 'm,rudence with res,ect to the grandson. %re the charges correct" )5,lain. $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
8ur"er; 'se of 2llegal .irearms (%&& )

!( 0illed *2# his ,olitical ri al in the election cam,aign for 6ayor of their town. The 'nformation against !( alleged that he used an unlicensed firearm in the 0illing of the ictim# and this was ,ro ed beyond reasonable doubt by the ,rosecution. The trial court con icted !( of two crimesK murder and illegal ,ossession of firearms. 's the con iction correct" Reason briefly. $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
+es# the charges are correct. 9or deliberately running o er 6ang 2oseGs ,rostrate body after ha ing bum,ed him and his grandson# the dri er indeed committed 6urder# 1ualified by treachery. &aid dri erGs deliberate intent to 0ill 6ang 2ose was demonstrated by his running o er the latterGs body twice# by bac0ing u, the an and dri ing it forward# whereas the ictim was hel,less and not in a ,osition to defend himself or to retaliate. %s to the serious ,hysical in/uries sustained by 6ang 2oseGs 1BJyear old grandson# as a result of ha ing been hit by the s,eeding ehicle of said dri er# the same were the result of rec0less im,rudence which is ,unishable as a 1uasiJoffense in %rticle ?A; of the Re ised !enal Code. The charge of Rec0less 'm,rudence Resulting to &erious !hysical 'n/uries is correct. The ,enalty ne5t higher in degree to what ordinarily should be im,osed is called for# since the dri er did not lend hel, on the s,ot# which hel, he could ha e gi en to the ictims.
4o# the con iction of !( for two crimes# murder and illegal ,ossession of firearm is not correct. @nder the new law on illegal ,ossession of firearms and e5,losi es# Re,. %ct 4o. C2ED# a ,erson may only be criminally liable for illegal ,ossession of firearm if no other crime is committed therewith- if a homicide or murder is
8ur"er; Treachery (1996)

*n his way to buy a lotto tic0et# a ,oliceman suddenly found himself surrounded by four men. *ne of them wrestled the ,olice officer to the ground and disarmed him while the other three com,anions who were armed with a hunting 0nife# an ice ,ic0# and a balisong# re,eatedly stabbed him. The ,oliceman died as a result of the multi,le stab wounds inflicted by his assailants.
What crime or crimes were committed" Discuss fully.

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
%ll the assailants are liable for the crime of murder# 1ualified by treachery# $which absorbed abuse of su,erior strength) as the attac0 was sudden and une5,ected and the ictim was totally defenseless. Cons,iracy is ob ious from the concerted acts of the assailants. Direct assault would not com,le5 the crime# as there is no showing that the assailants 0new that the ictim was a ,olicemane en if there was 0nowledge# the fact is that he was not in the ,erformance of his official duties# and therefore there is no direct assault.
57 of 86
committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm# such use shall be considered as an aggra ating circumstance. !( therefore may only be con icted of murder and the use of an unlicensed firearm in its commission may only be a,,reciated as a s,ecial aggra ating circumstance# ,ro ided that such use is alleged s,ecifically in the information for 6urder. Parrici"e (1999) Who may be guilty of the crime of ,arricide" $?<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
2) &u,,ose Ric0y 0new before the 0illing that !edro is his father# but he ne ertheless 0illed him out of bitterness for ha ing abandoned him and his mother# what crime did Ric0y commit" )5,lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1) Ric0y committed ,arricide because the ,erson 0illed was his own father# and the law ,unishing the crime $%rt. 2DA# R!C) does not re1uire that the crime be 70nowingly7 committed. &hould Ric0y be ,rosecuted and found guilty of ,arricide# the ,enalty to be im,osed is %rt. DE of the Re ised !enal Code for (omicide $the crime he intended to commit) but in its ma5imum ,eriod.
ALTERNATI8E ANSWER3
%ny ,erson who 0ills his father# mother# or child# whether legitimate or illegitimate# or his ascendants or descendants# or s,ouse# shall be guilty of ,arricide. $%rt. 2DA# R!C) Parrici"e (1999) 'n 1EF;# !edro# then a resident of 6anila# abandoned his wife and their son# Ric0y# who was then only three years old. Twenty years later# an affray too0 ,lace in a bar in *longa,o City between !edro and his com,anions# on one hand# and Ric0y and his friends# u,on the other# without the father and son 0nowing each other. Ric0y stabbed and 0illed !edro in the fight# only to find out# a wee0 later# when his mother arri ed from 6anila to isit him in /ail# that the man whom he 0illed was his own father. 1) What crime did Ric0y commit" )5,lain.
Ric0y should be held criminally liable only for homicide not ,arricide because the relationshi, which 1ualified the 0illing to ,arricide is irtually absent for a ,eriod of twenty years already# such that Ric0y could not ,ossibly be aware that his ad ersary was his father. 'n other words# the moral basis for im,osing the higher ,enalty for ,arricide is absent.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
2) The crime committed should be ,arricide if Ric0y 0new before the 0illing that !edro is his father# because the moral basis for ,unishing the crime already e5ists. (is ha ing acted out of bitterness for ha ing been abandoned by his father may be considered mitigating.
Parrici"e; 8ultiple Parrici"e; >omici"e (199*) %# a young housewife# and 8# her ,aramour# cons,ired to 0ill C. her husband# to whom she was lawfully married# %
Dondee
and 8 bought ,ancit and mi5ed it with ,oison. % ga e the food with ,oison to C# but before C could eat it. D# her illegitimate father# and )# her legitimate son# arri ed. C. D and ) shared the food in the ,resence of % who merely watched them eating. C# D and ) died because of ha ing ,arta0en of the ,oisoned food. What crime or crimes did % and 8 commit"
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
$c)4o# my answer will not be the same. 'f >a ino# and %lma were legally se,arated at the time of the incident# then >a ino could be held liable for ra,e. % legal se,aration is a se,aration of the s,ouses from bed and board (U.S. vs.
,ohnson, +2 Phil. 422, 6ited in .. #e4es, #F", p. 8(3. 1!81 edition),
% committed the crime of multi,le ,arricide for the 0illing of C# her lawful husband# D# her illegitimate father# and )# her legitimate son. %ll these 0illings constitute ,arricide under %rticle 2DA of the Re ised !enal Code because of her relationshi, with the ictims.
'n the crime of ra,e# any crime resulting from the infliction of ,hysical in/uries suffered by the ictim on the occasion of the ra,e# is absorbed by the crime of ra,e. The in/uries suffered by the ictim may# howe er# be considered in determining the ,ro,er ,enalty which
8 committed the crime of murder as a coJ cons,irator of % in the 0illing of C because the 0illing was carried out by means of ,oison $%rt. 2DC. ,ar. ?# Re ised !enal Code). 8ut for feloniously causing the death of D and )# 8 committed two counts of homicide. The ,lan was only to 0ill C. 0ape (1996) >a ino bo5ed his wife %lma for refusing to slee, with him. (e then iolently threw her on the floor and forced her to ha e se5ual intercourse with him. %s a result %lma suffered serious ,hysical in/uries. $a) Can >a ino be charged with ra,e" )5,lain. $b) Can >a ino be charged with serious ,hysical in/uries" )5,lain
$c) Will your answers to $a) and $b) be the same if before the incident >a ino and %lma were legally se,arated"
)5,lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
$a)
4o. % husband cannot be charged with the ra,e of his wife because of the matrimonial consent which she ga e when she assumed the marriage relation# and the law will not ,ermit her to retract in order to charge her husband with the offense (Sate vs. Daines, 11 7a. $nn. 231
So. 32+% 441 #$ 832).
$b) +es# he may be guilty of serious ,hysical in/uries. This offense is s,ecially mentioned in %rt. 2A? HDI# ,aragra,h 2 which im,oses a higher ,enalty for the crime of ,hysical in/uries in cases where the offense shall ha e been committed against any of the ,ersons enumerated in %rt 2DA $the crime of ,arricide).
58 of 86
shall be im,osed on the offender. &erious ,hysical in/uries cannot be absorbed in ra,e- it can be so if the in/ury is slight. 0ape; (3sence of .orce @ 2ntimi"ation (1996)
Three ,olicemen conducting routine sur eillance of a cogonal area in %nti,ole chanced u,on Ruben# a 1;Jyear old tricycle dri er# on to, of Rowena who was 0nown to be a child ,rostitute. 8oth were na0ed from the waist down and a,,eared to be en/oying the se5ual acti ity. Ruben was arrested by the ,olicemen des,ite his ,rotestations that Rowena enticed him to ha e se5 with her in ad ance celebration of her twelfth birthday. The town ,hysician found no semen nor any bleeding on RowenaGs hymen but for a healed scar. (er hymenal o,ening easily admitted two fingers showing that no e5ternal force had been em,loyed on her.
&imilarly# the absence of s,ermato3oa does not dis,ro e the consummation as the im,ortant consideration is not the emission but the ,enetration of the female body by the male organ (People vs. ,ose 32
S"#$ +(!). 4(*% People vs. "arandan3. (+ S"#$
0ape; (nti,0ape Law of 199* (%&&%) What other acts are considered ra,e under the %ntiJRa,e Law of 1EEF# amending the Re ised !enal Code" $?<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The other acts considered ra,e under the %ntiJRa,e Law of 1EEF areK 1.I ha ing carnal 0nowledge of a woman by a man by means of fraudulent machination or gra e abuse of authority# 2.I ha ing carnal 0nowledge of a demented woman by a man e en if none of the circumstances re1uired in ra,e be ,resent- and
's Ruben liable for any offense" Discuss fully. %nswerSUGGESTED ANSWER3
?.I committing an act of se5ual assault
Ruben is liable for ra,e# e en if force or intimidation is not ,resent. The gra amen of the offense is the carnal 0nowledge of a woman below twel e years of age (People vs. Dela "r&1, (6 S"#$ 84) since the law doesnGt consider the consent oluntary and ,resumes that a girl below twel e years old does not and cannot ha e a will of her own. 'n People &s. Pere1, "$ 32 5) 126+ # it was held that se5ual intercourse with a ,rostitute below twel e years old is ra,e.
by inserting a ,ersonGs ,enis into the ictimGs mouth or anal orifice# or by inserting any instrument or ob/ect# into the genital or anal orifice of another ,erson.
0ape; (nti,0ape Law of 199* (%&&%) The %ntiJRa,e Law of 1EEF reclassified ra,e from a crime against honor# a ,ri ate offense# to that of a crime against ,ersons. Will the subse1uent marriage of the offender and the offended ,arty e5tinguish the criminal action or the ,enalty im,osed" )5,lain. $2<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Dondee
+es. 8y e5,ress ,ro ision of %rticle 2AAJC of the Re ised !enal Code# as amended# the subse1uent alid marriage between the offender and offended ,arty shall e5tinguish the criminal action or the ,enalty im,osed# although ra,e has been reclassified from a crime against chastity# to that of a crime against ,ersons.
affida it of desistance e5ecuted by Rachel and her mother stating that they are no longer interested in ,rosecuting the case and that they ha e ,ardoned %riel.
What effect would this affida it of desistance ha e on the criminal and ci il as,ects of the case" )5,lain
fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
0ape; Consente" (3"uction (%&&%)

% with lewd designs# too0 a 1?Jyear old girl to a ni,a hut in his farm and there had se5ual intercourse with her. The girl did not offer any resistance because she was infatuated with the man# who was goodJ loo0ing and belonged to a rich and ,rominent family in the town. What crime# if any# was committed by %" Why" $2<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1) The case should not be dismissed. ... 2) The affida it of desistance will only amount to the condonation of ci il liability but not criminal liability hence the case should still ,roceed.
% committed the crime of consented abduction under %rticle ?D? of the Re ised !enal Code# as amended. The said %rticle ,unishes the abduction of a irgin o er 12 and under 1C years of age# carried out with her consent and with lewd designs. %lthough the ,roblem did not indicate the ictim to be irgin# irginity should not be understood in its material sense# as to e5clude a irtuous woman of good re,utation# since the essence of the crime is not the in/ury to the woman but the outrage and alarm to her family
(0aldepenas ?1!66=). vs. People,16 S"#$ 821
ALTERNATI8E ANSWER3
% committed 7Child %buse7 under Re,. %ct 4o. FA1B. %s defined in said law# 7child abuse7 includes se5ual abuse or any act which debases# degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being# whose age is below eighteen $1C) years. 0ape; +ffect; (ffi"a#it of 5esistance (1991)
1. %riel intimidated Rachel# a mental retardate# with a bolo into ha ing se5ual 'ntercourse with him. RachelGs mother immediately filed a com,laint# su,,orted by her sworn statement# before the City !rosecutorGs *ffice. %fter the necessary ,reliminary in estigation# an information was signed by the ,rosecutor but did not contain the signature of Rachel nor of her mother. Citing %rt. ?DD of the R!C $,rosecution of the crimes of ra,e# etc.)# %riel mo es for the dismissal of the case. Resol e with reasons.
2. %fter the ,rosecution had rested its case# %riel ,resented a sworn
59 of 86
0ape; 8ale $ictim (%&&%) %# a male# ta0es 8# another male# to a motel and there# through threat and intimidation# succeeds in inserting his ,enis into the anus of 8. What# if any# is %Qs criminal liability" Why"
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
distinct offense and should be ,unished se,arately. ) idently# his ,rinci,al intention was to abuse 9lordeluna- the detention was only incidental to the ra,e.
ALTERNATI8E ANSWER3
% shall be criminally liable for ra,e by committing an act of se5ual assault against 8# by inserting his ,enis into the anus of the latter. ) en a man may be a ictim of ra,e by se5ual assault under ,ar. 2 of %rticle 2AAJ% of the Re ised !enal Code# as amended# 7when the offenderGs ,enis is inserted into his mouth or anal orifice.7 0ape; 8ultiple 0apes; .orci3le (3"uction (%&&&)
9lordeluna boarded a ta5i on her way home to =ue3on City which was dri en by Roger# 9lordeluna noticed that Roger was always ,lacing his car freshener in front of the car aircon entilation but did not bother as0ing Roger why. &uddenly# 9lordeluna felt di33y and became unconscious. 'nstead of bringing her to =ue3on City# Roger brought 9lordeluna to his house in Ca ite where she was detained for two $2) wee0s. &he was ra,ed for the entire duration of her detention. 6ay Roger be charged and con icted of the crime of ra,e with serious illegal detention" )5,lain. $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
4o# Roger may not be charged and con icted of the crime of ra,e with serious illegal detention# since the detention was incurred in ra,ing the ictim during the days she was held. %t most# Roger may be ,rosecuted for forcible abduction for ta0ing 9lordeluna to Ca ite against the latterGs will and with lewd designs. The forcible abduction should be com,le5ed with one of the multi,le ra,es committed# and the other ra,es should be ,rosecuted and ,unished se,arately# in as many ra,es were charged and ,ro ed. 0ape; Proper Party (1991) %riel intimidated Rachel# a mental retardate# with a bolo into ha ing se5ual 'ntercourse with him. RachelGs mother immediately filed a com,laint# su,,orted by her sworn statement# before the City !rosecutorGs *ffice. %fter the necessary ,reliminary in estigation# an information was signed by the ,rosecutor but did not contain the signature of Rachel nor of her mother. Citing %rt. ?DD of the R!C $,rosecution of the crimes of ra,e# etc.)# %riel mo es for the dismissal of the case. Resol e with reasons.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
4o# Roger may not be charged and con icted of the crime of ra,e with serious illegal detention. Roger may be charged and con icted of multi,le ra,es. )ach ra,e is a
The case should not be dismissed. This is allowed by law (People &s. .larde, 1+( S"#$ 11). 't is enough that a
Dondee
com,laint was filed by the offended ,arty or the ,arents in the 9iscalGs *ffice. 0ape; Statutory 0ape; 8ental 0etar"ate $ictim (1996) The com,lainant# an eighteenJyear old mental retardate with an intellectual ca,acity between the ages of nine and twel e years# when as0ed during the trial how she felt when she was ra,ed by the accused# re,lied 76asara,# it ga e me much ,leasure.7 With the claim of the accused that the com,lainant consented for a fee to the se5ual intercourse# and with the foregoing answer of the com,lainant# would you con ict the accused of ra,e if you were the /udge trying the case" )5,lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
authorities within the ,eriod ofK twel e $12) hours# for crimes or offense ,unishable by light ,enalties# or their e1ui alent- eighteen hours $1C)# for crimes or offenses ,unishable by correctional facilities# or their e1ui alent- and thirtyJsi5 $?A) hours for crimes or offenses ,unishable by afflicti e or ca,ital ,enalties# or their e1ui alent $%rt. 12;# Re ised !enal Code). c) Delaying release is committed by any ,ublic officer or em,loyee who delays the release for the ,eriod of time s,ecified therein the ,erformance of any /udicial or e5ecuti e order for the release of the ,risoner# or unduly delays
+es# ' would con ict the accused of ra,e. &ince the ictim is a mental retardate with an intellectual ca,acity of a child less than 12 years old# she is legally inca,able of gi ing a alid consent to the se5ual 'ntercourse. The se5ual intercourse is tantamount to a statutory ra,e because the le el of intelligence is that of a child less than twel e years of age. Where the ictim of ra,e is a mental retardate# iolence or 'ntimidation is not essential to constitute ra,e. (People &s. Trimor, ),#. 1*6(41<4+, 31 'ar !() %s a matter of fact# R% 4o. FA;E# the (einous Crimes Law# amended %rt. ??;# R!C# by adding the ,hrase 7or is demented.7
C-&:"5 $ &!5# P"-5)! + L&1"-#2 !* S"(%-&#2

(r3itrary 5etention; +lements; Groun"s (%&&6) ,1 9hat are the = ways of committing arbitrary etention* Explain each1 201314+
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The ? ways of arbitrary detention areK
a) %rbitrary detention by detaining a ,erson without legal ground committed by any ,ublic officer or em,loyee who# without legal grounds# detains a ,erson $%rt. 12D# Re ised !enal Code). b) Delay in the deli ery of detained ,ersons to the ,ro,er /udicial authorities which is committed by a ,ublic officer or em,loyee who shall detain any ,erson for some legal ground and shall fail to deli er such ,erson to the ,ro,er /udicial
60 of 86 the
ser ice of the notice of such order to said ,risoner or the ,roceedings u,on any ,etition for the liberation of such ,erson $%rt. 12A# Re ised !enal Code). 01 9hat are the legal groun s for etention* 20134+
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
has esca,ed from ,enal establishment or ,lace where he is ser ing final /udgment or tem,orarily confined while his case is ,ending# or has esca,ed while being transferred from one confinement to another $&ec. ;# Rule 11?#1EC; Rules on Criminal !rocedure).
The commission of a crime# or iolent insanity or any other ailment re1uiring the com,ulsory confinement of the ,atient in a hos,ital shall be considered legal grounds for the detention of any ,erson $%rt. 12DH2I# Re ised !enal Code). =1 9hen is an arrest by a peace officer or by a private person consi ere lawful* Explain1 234+ 1. When the arrest by a ,eace officer is made ,ursuant to a alid warrant. 2. % ,eace officer or a ,ri ate ,erson may# without a warrant# arrest a ,ersonK i. When# in his ,resence# the ,erson to be arrested has committed# is actually committing# or is attem,ting to commit an offense# ii. When an offense has in fact /ust been committed# and he has ,ersonal 0nowledge of facts indicating that the ,erson to be arrested has committed it# and
iii. When the arrested is
Gra#e Coercion (199-) 'sagani lost his gold nec0lace bearing his initials. (e saw Roy wearing the said nec0lace. 'sagani as0ed Roy to return to him the nec0lace as it belongs to him# but Roy refused. 'sagani then drew his gun and told Roy# 7'f you will not gi e bac0 the nec0lace to me# ' will 0ill youR7 *ut of fear for his life and against his will# Roy ga e the nec0lace to 'sagani# What offense did 'sagani commit" $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
'sagani committed the crime of gra e coercion $%rt. 2CA# R!C) for com,elling Roy# by means of serious threats or intimidation# to do something against the latterGs will# whether it be right or wrong. &erious threats or intimidation a,,ro5imating iolence constitute gra e coercion# not gra e threats. &uch is the nature of the threat in this case because it was committed with a gun# is a deadly wea,on. The crime is not robbery because intent to gain# which is an essential element of robbery# is absent since the nec0lace belongs to 'sagani.
,erson to a ,risoner
be who
Dondee
Gra#e Coercion #s9 8altreatment of Prisoner (1999) 9orcibly brought to the ,olice head1uarters# a ,erson was tortured and maltreated by agents of the law in order to com,el him to confess a crime im,uted to him. The agents failed# howe er# to draw from him a confession which was their intention to obtain through the em,loyment of such means. What crime was committed by the agents of the law" )5,lain your answer. $?<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
without authority of law. 'f there was no intent to loc0 u, or detain the offended ,arty unlawfully# the crime of illegal detention is not committed.
7i"napping (%&&%)
% and 8 were legally se,arated. Their child C# a minor# was ,laced in the custody of % the mother# sub/ect to monthly isitations by 8# his father. *n one occasion# when 8 had C in his com,any# 8 decided not to return C to his mother. 'nstead# 8 too0 C with him to the @nited &tates where he intended for them to reside ,ermanently. What crime# if any# did 8 commit" Why" $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
) idently# the ,erson tortured and maltreated by the agents of the law is a sus,ect and may ha e been detained by them. 'f so and he had already been boo0ed and ,ut in /ail# the crime is maltreatment of ,risoner and the fact that the sus,ect was sub/ected to torture to e5tort a confession would bring about a higher ,enalty. 'n addition to the offenderGs liability for the ,hysical in/uries inflicted. 8ut if the sus,ect was forcibly brought to the ,olice head1uarters to ma0e him admit the crime and tortured: maltreated to ma0e him confess to such crime# but later released because the agents failed to draw such confession# the crime is gra e coercion because of the iolence em,loyed to com,el such confession without the offended ,arty being confined in /ail. (US vs. "&si, 1* Phil
143)
8 committed the crime of 0idna,,ing and failure to return a minor under %rticle 2F1# in relation to %rticle
't is noted that the offended ,arty was merely 7brought7 to the ,olice head1uarters and is thus not a detention ,risoner. (ad he been alidly arrested# the crime committed would be maltreatment of ,risoners.
2llegal 5etention #s9 Gra#e Coercion (1999) Distinguish coercion from illegal detention. $?<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Coercion may be distinguished from illegal detention as followsK in coercion# the basis of criminal liability is the em,loyment of iolence or serious intimidation a,,ro5imating iolence# without authority of law# to ,re ent a ,erson from doing something not ,rohibited by law or to com,el him to do something against his will# whether it be right or wrong- while in 'llegal detention# the basis of liability is the actual restraint or loc0ing u, of a ,erson# thereby de,ri ing him of his liberty
61 of 86
2FB# of the Re ised !enal Code# as amended. %rticle 2F1 e5,ressly ,enali3es any ,arent who shall ta0e from and deliberately fail to restore his or her minor child to the ,arent or guardian to whom custody of the minor has been ,laced. &ince the custody of C# the minor# has been gi en to the mother and 8 has only the right of monthly isitation# the latterGs act of ta0ing C to the @nited &lates# to reside there ,ermanently# constitutes a iolation of said ,ro isions of law. 7i"napping (%&&6)
2aime# %ndy and 2immy# laborers in the noodles factory of Lu0e Tan# agreed to 0ill him due to his arrogance and miserliness. *ne afternoon# they sei3ed him and loaded him in a ta5i dri en by 6ario. They told 6ario they will only teach Lu0e a lesson in Christian humility. 6ario dro e them to a fish,ond in 4a otas where Lu0e was entrusted to )mil and Louie# the fish,ond careta0ers# as0ing them to hide Lu0e in their shac0 because he was running from the 48'. The trio then left in 6arioGs car for 6anila where they called u, Lu0eGs family and threatened them to 0ill Lu0e unless they gi e a ransom within 2D hours. @n0nown to them# because of a lea0# the 0idna,,ing was announced o er the radio and T.. )mil and Louie heard the broadcast and ,anic0ed# es,ecially when the announcer stated that there is a shootJtoJ0ill order for the 0idna,,ers. )mil and Louie too0 Lu0e to the seashore of DagatJdagatan where they smashed his head with a sho el and buried him in the sand. (owe er# they were seen by a
barangay 0agawad who arrested them and brought them to the ,olice station. @,on interrogation# they confessed and ,ointed to 2aime# %ndy# 2immy and 6ario as those res,onsible for the 0idna,,ing. Later# the D were arrested and charged.
What crime or crimes did the A sus,ects commit" $;<)

ALTERNATI8E ANSWER3
a)
2aime# %ndy and 2immy committed 0idna,,ing with homicide. The original intention was to demand ransom from the family with the threat of 0illing. %s a conse1uence of the 0idna,,ing# howe er# Lu0e was 0illed. Thus# the ictim was de,ri ed of his freedom and the subse1uent 0illing# though committed by another ,erson# was a conse1uence of the detention. (ence# this ,ro,erly 1ualified the crime as the s,ecial com,le5 crime of 0idna,,ing for ransom with homicide
(People v. 'amarion, ).#. o. 132((4, 56to8er 1, +**3% $rt. +62, #evised Penal "ode).
b)
)mil and Louie who smashed the head of the ictim and buried the latter in the sand committed murder 1ualified by treachery or abuse of su,erior strength. They are not liable for 0idna,,ing because they did not cons,ire# nor are they aware of the intention to detain Lu0e whom they were informed was hiding from the 48' $%rt. 2DC# ReJ ised !enal Code).
6ario has no liability since he was not aware of the criminal intent and design of 2aime# %ndy and 2immy. (is act of bringing Lu0e to 4a otas for 7a
c)
Dondee
lesson in Christian humility7 does not constitute a crime.

A+#"-! #&=" A!5."-3
liberty and the ictim dies as a conse1uence is liable for 0idna,,ing with homicide and shall be ,enali3ed with the ma5imum ,enalty.
'n this case# notwithstanding the fact that the oneJwee0 old child was merely 0e,t in the attic of his house# gagged with stoc0ings and ,laced in a bo5 sealed with ta,e# the de,ri ation of liberty and the intention to 0ill becomes a,,arent. Though it may a,,ear that the means em,loyed by !a3 was attended by treachery $0illing of an infant)# ne ertheless# a se,arate charge of murder will not be ,ro,er in iew of the amendment. (ere# the term 7homicide7 is used in its generic sense and co ers all forms of 0illing whether in the nature of murder or
a) 2aime# %ndy and 2immy committed 0idna,,ing with ransom. %fter 0idna,,ing Lu0e# they demanded ransom with the threat of 0illing him. (owe er# the 0illing of Lu0e is se,arate from the 0idna,,ing ha ing been committed by other ,ersons# who had nothing to do with the 0idna,,ing# and who will be liable for a different crime $!enultimate ,ar. of %rt. 2AF# Re ised !enal Code). b) )mil and Louie who smashed the head of the ictim and buried the latter in the sand committed murder 1ualified by treachery or abuse of su,erior strength. They are not liable for 0idna,,ing because they did not cons,ire# nor are they aware of the intention to detain Lu0e whom they were informed was hiding from the 48' $%rt. 2DC# Re ised !enal Code).
c) 6ario has no liability since he was not aware of the criminal intent and design of 2aime# %ndy and 2immy. (is act of bringing Lu0e to 4a otas for 7a lesson in Christian humility7 does not constitute a crime. 7i"napping wD >omici"e (%&&6)
!a3 6asi,ag wor0ed as a housemaid and yaya of the oneJ wee0 old son of the s,ouses 6artin and !o,s Nuri,ot. When !a3 learned that her FB yearJold mother was seriously ill# she as0ed 6artin for a cash ad ance of !1#BBB.BB but 6artin refused. *ne morning# !a3 gagged the mouth of 6artinQs son with stoc0ings- ,laced the child in a bo5- sealed it with mas0ing ta,e and ,laced the bo5 in the attic. Later in the afternoon# she demanded !;#BBB.BB as ransom for the release of his son. 6artin did not ,ay the ransom. &ubse1uently# !a3 disa,,eared.
%fter a cou,le of days# 6artin disco ered the bo5 in the attic with his child already dead. %ccording to the auto,sy re,ort# the child died of as,hy5iation barely three minutes after the bo5 was sealed. What crime or crimes did !a3 commit" )5,lain. $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
!a3 committed the com,osite crime of 0idna,,ing with homicide under %rt. 2AF# R9C as amended by R.%. 4o. FA;E. @nder the law# any ,erson who shall detain another or in any manner de,ri e him of
62 of 86
otherwise. 't is of no moment that the e idence shows the death of the child too0 ,lace three minutes after the bo5 was sealed and the demand for the ransom too0 ,lace in the afternoon. The intention is controlling here# that is# ransom was demanded.
ALTERNATI8E ANSWER3
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
6urder 1ualified by treachery because the ictim was only one wee0 old. The offense was attended with the aggra ating circumstance of lac0 of res,ect due to the age of the ictim# cruelty and abuse of confidence. 'n
People v. 7ora ().#. o, 7<4!43*, 'ar6h 3*, 1!8+), the Court found that a child
4o. D%4Gs defense will not ,ros,er. .oluntary release by the offender of the offended ,arty in 0idna,,ing is not absolutory. 8esides# such release is irrele ant and immaterial in this case because the ictim being a minor# the crime committed is 0idna,,ing and serious illegal detention under %rt. 2AF# Re ised !enal Code# to which such circumstance does not a,,ly. The circumstance may be a,,reciated only in the crime of &light 'llegal Detention in %rt. 2AC ($sistio v. San
Die3o, 1* S"#$ 623 ?1!64=)
7i"napping; 2llegal 5etention; 8inority (%&&6)

Dang was a beauty 1ueen in a uni ersity. 2ob# a rich classmate# was so enamored with her that he ,ersistently wooed and ,ursued her. Dang# being in lo e with another man# re/ected him. This angered 2ob# &ometime in &e,tember 2BB?# while Dang and her sister Lyn were on their way home# 2ob and his minor friend 4onoy grabbed them and ,ushed them inside a white an. They brought them to an abandoned warehouse where they forced them to dance na0ed. Thereafter# they brought them to a hill in a nearby barangay where they too0 turns ra,ing them. %fter satisfying their lust# 2ob ordered 4onoy to ,ush Dang down a ra ine# resulting in her death. Lyn ran away but 2ob and 4onoy chased her and ,ushed her inside the an. Then the duo dro e away. Lyn was ne er seen again.
sub/ected to similar treatment as the infant in this case would ha e died instantly# negating any intent to 0idna, or detain when ransom was sought. Demand for ransom did not con ert the offense into 0idna,,ing with murder because the demand was merely a scheme by the offender $!a3) to conceal the body of her ictim. 7i"napping; +ffects; $oluntary 0elease (%&& ) D%4# a ,ri ate indi idual# 0idna,,ed C(@# a minor. *n the second day# D%4 released C(@ e en before any criminal information was filed against him. %t the trial of his case# D%4 raised the defense that he did not incur any criminal liability since he released the child before the la,se of the ?Jday ,eriod and before criminal ,roceedings for 0idna,,ing were instituted. Will D%4Gs defense ,ros,er" Reason briefly. $;<)
,1 9hat crime or crimes were committe by Job an #onoy* 20134+

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Dondee
Lyn has been duly ,ro en.

ALTERNATI8E ANSWER3
2ob and 4onoy committed 1) 0idna,,ing and serious illegal detention with homicide and ra,e for the subJ se1uent death of Dang# and 2) 0idna,,ing with ra,e against her sister# Lyn. The ictims# who were 0idna,,ed and detained# were subse1uently ra,ed and 0illed $as regards Dang) in the course of their detention. The com,osite crime is committed regardless of whether the subse1uent crimes were ,ur,osely sought or merely an afterthought (People
v. 7arrana3a, ).#. +**4). os. 138824<(, Fe8r&ar4s,
ALTERNATI8E ANSWER3
The nonJreco ery of LynGs body is not material to the criminal liability of 2ob and 4onoy# because the cor,us delicti of the crime which is forcible abduction with ra,e of Lyn has been duly ,ro en. 7i"napping; Proposal to 7i"nap (1996) )dgardo induced his friend .icente# in consideration of money# to 0idna, a girl he is courting so that he may succeed to ra,ing her and e entually ma0ing her accede to marry him. .icente as0ed for more money which )dgardo failed to ,ut u,. %ngered because )dgardo did not ,ut u, the money he re1uired# he re,orted )dgardo to the ,olice.
2ob and 4onoy committed 2 counts of the com,le5 crime of forcible abduction with ra,e $%rt. ?D2# Re ised !enal Code) and the se,arate offense of murder against Dang. The crime committed is abduction because there was lewd design when they too0 the ictims away and subse1uently ra,ed them. The 0illing thereafter# constitutes the se,arate offense of murder 1ualified by treachery. 01 9hat penalties shoul impose on them* 20134+
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
be
&ince the death ,enalty has already been ,rohibited# reclusion ,er,etua is the a,,ro,riate ,enalty $R%. E?DA). 'n the case of the minor 4onoy# his ,enalty shall be one degree lower $%rt. AC# Re ised !enal Code). =1 9ill #onoyBs minority exculpate him* 20134+
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
@nder R%. E?DD# the 2u enile 2ustice and Reform %ct# which retroacts to the date that the crime was committed# 4onoy will be e5cul,ated if he was 1; years old or below. (owe er# if he was abo e 1; years old but below 1C years of age# he will be liable if he acted with discernment. %s the ,roblem shows that 4onoy acted with discernment# he will be entitled to a sus,ension of sentence.
( 5T$;> >A #.$. !344 is 6overa3e o/ the eCamination) o&tside the
71 Is the non"recovery of 'ynBs bo y material to the criminal liability of Job an #onoy* 20134+
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The nonJreco ery of LynGs body is not material to the criminal liability of 2ob and 4onoy# because the cor,us delicti of the crime which is 0idna,,ing with ra,e of
63 of 86
6ay )dgardo be charged with attem,ted 0idna,,ing" )5,lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
ransom demanded and before the institution of criminal ,roceedings against them# the crime committed was only slight illegal detention ,rescribed in %rticle 2AC# R!C.
4o# )dgardo may not be charged with attem,ted 0idna,,ing inasmuch as no o ert act to 0idna, or restrain the liberty of the girl had been commenced. %t most# what )dgardo has done in the ,remises was a ,ro,osal to .icente to 0idna, the girl# which is only a ,re,aratory act and not an o ert act. The attem,t to commit a felony commences with the commission of o ert act# not ,re,aratory act. !ro,osal to commit 0idna,,ing is not a crime.
%fter hearing# the trial court found the e idence of guilt to be strong and therefore denied the ,etition for bail. *n a,,eal# the only issue wasK Was the crime committed 0idna,,ing and serious detention or slight 'llegal detention" Decide.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
7i"napping; Serious 2llegal 5etention (199*) % and 8 cons,iring with each other# 0idna,,ed C and detained him. The duo then called u, CGs wife informing her that they had her husband and would release him only if she ,aid a ransom in the amount of !1B#BBB#BBB and that# if she were to fail# they would 0ill him. The ne5t day# C# who had /ust reco ered from an illness had a rela,se. 9earing he might die if not treated at once by a doctor# % and 8 released C during the early morning of the third day of detention.
Charged with 0idna,,ing and serious illegal detention ,ro ided in %rticle 2AF# R!C# % and 8 filed a ,etition for bail. They contended that since they had oluntarily released C within three days from commencement of the detention# without ha ing been ,aid any amount of the
The crime committed by % and 8 is 0idna,,ing and serious illegal detention because they made a demand for ransom and threatened to 0ill C if the latterGs wife did not ,ay the same. Without the demand for ransom# the crime could ha e been slight illegal detention only. The contention of % and 8 that they had oluntary released C within three days from the commencement of the detention is immaterial as they are charged with a crime where the ,enalty ,rescribed is death ($sistio vs. San Die3o. 1*S"#$623).
They were ,ro,erly denied bail because the trial court found that the e idence of guilt in the information for 0idna,,ing and serious 'llegal detention is strong.
Trespass to 5welling; Pri#ate Persons (%&&6) @nder what situations may a ,ri ate ,erson enter any dwelling# residence# or other establishments without being liable for tres,ass to dwelling" $2.;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Dondee
%ny ,erson who shall enter cafes# ta erns# inns# and other ,ublic houses# while the same are o,en will li0ewise not be liable $%rt. 2CB# Re ised !enal Code). Tresspass to 5welling; 0ule of (3sorption (199 )
%t about 11KBB in the e ening# Dante forced his way inside the house of 6amerto. 2ay. 6amertoGs son# saw Dante and accosted him# Dante ,ulled a 0nife and stabbed 2ay on his abdomen. 6amerto heard the commotion and went out of his room. Dante# who was about to esca,e# assaulted 6amerto. 2ay suffered 'n/uries which# were it not for the timely medical attendance# would ha e caused his death. 6amerto sustained 'n/uries that inca,acitated him for 2; days.
What crime or crimes did Dante commit"

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Dante committed 1ualified tres,ass to dwelling# frustrated homicide for the stabbing of 2ay# and less serious ,hysical in/uries for the assault on 6amerto.
The crime of 1ualified tres,ass to dwelling should not be com,le5ed with frustrated homicide because when the tres,ass is committed as a means to commit a more serious offense# tres,ass to dwelling is absorbed by the greater crime# and the former constitutes an aggra ating circumstance of dwelling (People vs. $8edo1a,
(3 Phil.288).
Dante committed frustrated homicide for the stabbing of 2ay.... Dante is guilty of less serious ,hysical in/uries for the wounds sustained by 6amerto... 'n:ust $e/ation #s (cts of Lasci#iousness (199 ) When is embracing# 0issing and touching a girlGs breast considered only un/ust e5ation instead of acts of lasci iousness"
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
.3na6io. "$ )# o. (11!<#, Septem8er 3*, 1!(*).

(People vs. Per6ival )ilo, 1*
The acts of embracing# 0issing of a woman arising either out of ,assion or other moti e and the touching of her breast as a mere incident of the embrace without lewd design constitutes merely un/ust e5ation (People vs,
Tres,ass to dwelling is not a,,licable to any ,erson who shall enter anotherGs dwelling for the ,ur,ose ofK a) !re enting some serious harm to himself# its occu,ants# or a third ,ersonand b) Rendering ser ice to humanity or /ustice-
(owe er#
where the 0issing# embracing and the touching of the breast of a woman are done with lewd design# the same constitute acts of lasci iousness
S"#$ 2(3).
C-&:"5 A$ &!5# P-)0"-#2
(rson; 5estructi#e (rson (199 )

Tata owns a threeJstorey building located at 4o. ? (erran &treet. !aco# 6anila. &he wanted to construct a new building but had no money to finance the construction. &o# she insured the building for !?#BBB#BBB.BB. &he then urged +oboy and +ongsi# for
64 of 86
monetary consideration# to bum her building so she could collect the insurance ,roceeds. +oboy and +ongsi burned the said building resulting to its total loss. What crime did Tata# +oboy and +ongsi commit"
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Tata# +oboy and +ongsi committed the crime of destructi e arson because they collecti ely caused the destruction of ,ro,erty by means of fire under the circumstances which e5,osed to danger the life or ,ro,erty of others
($rt, 3+*, par. (, #P". as amended 84 #$ o. 26(!).
(rson; 5estructi#e (rson (%&&&) *ne early e ening# there was a fight between )ddie >utierre3 and 6ario Corte3. Later that e ening# at about 11 oGcloc0# )ddie ,assed by the house of 6ario carrying a ,lastic bag containing gasoline# threw the bag at the house of 6ario who was inside the house watching tele ision# and then lit it. The front wall of the house started bla3ing and some neighbors yelled and shouted. 9orthwith# 6ario ,oured water on the burning ,ortion of the house. 4eighbors also rushed in to hel, ,ut the fire under control before any great damage could be inflicted and before the flames ha e e5tensi ely s,read. *nly a ,ortion of the house was burned. Discuss )ddieGs liability# $?<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
)ddie is liable for destructi e arson in the consummated stage. 't is destructi e arson because fire was resorted to in destroying the house of 6ario which is 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 re1uired that the ,remises be totally burned for the crime to be consummated. 't is enough that the ,remises suffer destruction by burning.
(rson; <ew (rson Law (%&& ) CD is the ste,father of 9)L. *ne day# CD got ery mad at 9)L for failing in his college courses. 'n his fury# CD got the leather suitcase of 9)L and burned it together with all its contents. 1. What crime was committed by CD" 2. 's CD criminally liable" )5,lain briefly. $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The crime committed by CD is arson under !res. Decree 4o. 1A1? $the new %rson Law) which ,unishes any ,erson who burns or sets fire to the ,ro,erty of another
$&ection 1 of !res. Decree 4o. 1A1?).

CD is criminally liable although he is the ste,father of 9)L whose ,ro,erty he burnt# because such relationshi, is not e5em,ting from criminal liability in the crime of arson but only in crimes of theft# swindling or estafa# and malicious mischief $%rticle ??2#
Re ised !enal Code). The ,ro ision $%rt. ?2?) of the Code to the effect that burning ,ro,erty of small alue should be ,unished as malicious mischief has long been re,ealed by !res. Decree 1A1?hence# there is no more legal basis to consider burning ,ro,erty of small alue as malicious mischief.
Dondee
AP %%; 8emoran"um ChecG (199 ) 1. What is a memorandum chec0" 2. 's the 7bouncing7 thereof within the ,ur iew of 8! 8lg. 22"
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
engages to ,ay its holder absolutely thus ,arta0ing the nature of a ,romissory note. 't is drawn on a ban0 and is a bill of e5change within the ,ur iew of &ection 1C; of the 4egotiable 'nstruments Law.
(People vs. ita/an, +1( S"#$ 2!)
1. % 76emorandum Chec07 is an ordinary

chec0# with the word 76emorandum7# 76emo7 or 76em7 written across its face# signifying that the ma0er or drawer engages to ,ay its holder absolutely thus ,arta0ing the nature of a ,romissory note. 't is drawn on a ban0 and is a bill of e5change within the ,ur iew of &ection 1C; of the 4egotiable 'nstruments Law (People vs. ,&d3e David
ita/an, ).#. o. 2(!(4, 56to8er ++, 1!!+).
2. +es#
a ,erson who issued a memorandum chec0 without sufficient funds is guilty of iolating 8.!. 8lg. 22 as said law co ers all chec0s whether it is an e idence of indebtedness# or in ,ayment of a ,reJ e5isting obligation# or as de,osit or guarantee.
(People vs. ita/an)
2. +es#
a memorandum chec0 is co ered by 8atas !ambansa 4o. 22 because the law co ers any chec0 whether it is an e idence of 'ndebtedness# or in ,ayment of a ,reJ e5isting obligation or as a de,osit or guarantee (People vers&s ita</an).
AP %%; 8emoran"um ChecG (1996) 1. What is a memorandum chec0 " 2. 's a ,erson who issues a memorandum chec0 without sufficient funds necessarily guilty of iolating 8.!. 8lg. 22" )5,lain.
?. 2ane is a money lender. )dmund is a businessman who has been borrowing money from 2ane by rediscounting his ,ersonal chec0s to ,ay his loans. 'n 6arch 1ECE# he borrowed !1BB#BBB from 2ane and issued to her a chec0 for the same amount. The chec0 was dishonored by the drawee ban0 for ha ing been drawn against a closed account. When )dmund was notified of the dishonor of his chec0 he ,romised to raise the amount within fi e days. (e failed. Conse1uently# 2ane sued )dmund for iolation of the 8ouncing Chec0s Law $8!. 8lg. 22). The defense of )dmund was that he ga e the chec0 to 2ane to ser e as a memorandum of his indebtedness to her and was not su,,osed to be encashed. 's the defense of )dmund alid" Discuss
fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1. % memorandum chec0 is an ordinary chec0 with the word 76emorandum7# 76emo7# or 76em7 written across the face# signifying that the ma0er or drawer
65 of 86
?. The defense of )dmund is 4*T alid. % memorandum chec0 u,on ,resentment is generally acce,ted by the ban0. 't does not matter whether the chec0 is in the nature of a memorandum as e idence of indebtedness. What the law ,unishes is the mere issuance of a bouncing chec0 and not the ,ur,ose for which it was issued nor the terms and conditions relating thereto. The mere act of issuing a worthless chec0 is a malum ,rohibitum. The understanding that the chec0 will not be ,resented at the ban0 but will be redeemed by the ma0er when the loan falls due is a mere ,ri ate arrangement which may not ,re ail to e5em,t it from the ,enal sanction of 8.!. 8lg. 22. $!eo,le s. 4itafan)
+es# % 's liable for iolation of 8!. 8lg. 22 $8ouncing Chec0s Law)# %lthough 0nowledge by the drawer of insufficiency or lac0 of funds at the time of the issuance of the chec0 is an essential element of the iolation# the law ,resumes ,rima facie such 0nowledge# unless within fi e $;) ban0ing days of notice of dishonor or nonJ ,ayment# the drawer ,ays the holder thereof the amount due thereon or ma0es arrangements for ,ayment in full by the drawee of such chec0s.
% mere notice by the drawer % to the ,ayee 8 before the maturity date of the chec0 will not defeat the ,resum,tion of 0nowledge created by the law- otherwise# the ,ur,ose and s,irit of 8.!. 22 will be rendered useless.
AP %%; Presumption of 7nowle"ge (%&&%)

% a businessman# borrowed !;BB#BBB.BB from 8# a friend. To ,ay the loan# % issued a ,ostdated chec0 to be ,resented for ,ayment ?B days after the transaction. Two days before the maturity date of the chec0# % called u, 8 and told him not to de,osit the chec0 on the date stated on the face thereof# as % had not de,osited in the drawee ban0 the amount needed to co er the chec0. 4e ertheless# 8 de,osited the chec0 in 1uestion and the same was dishonored of insufficiency of funds. % failed to settle the amount with 8 in s,ite of the latterGs demands. 's % guilty of iolating 8.!. 8lg. 22# otherwise 0nown as the 8ouncing Chec0s Law" )5,lain. $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
+stafa @ Trust 0eceipt Law (1996) 2ulio obtained a letter of credit from a local ban0 in order to im,ort auto tires from 2a,an. To secure ,ayment of his letter of credit# 2ulio e5ecuted a trust recei,t in fa or of the ban0. @,on arri al of the tires# 2ulio sold them but did not deli er the ,roceeds to the ban0. 2ulio was charged with estafa under !.D. 4o. 11; which ma0es the iolation of a trust recei,t agreement ,unishable as estafa under %rt. ?1;# ,ar. $1)# sub,ar. $b)# of the Re ised !enal Code. 2ulio contended that !.D. 4o. 11; was unconstitutional because it iolated the 8ill of Rights ,ro ision against im,risonment for nonJ ,ayment of debt. Rule on the contention of 2ulio# Discuss fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Dondee
&uch contention is in alid. % trust recei,t arrangement doesnGt in ol e merely a sim,le loan transaction but includes li0ewise a security feature where the creditor ban0 e5tends financial assistance to the debtorJim,orter in return for the collateral or security title as to the goods or merchandise being ,urchased or im,orted. The title of the ban0 to the security is the one sought to be ,rotected and not the loan which is a se,arate and distinct agreement. What is being ,enali3ed under !#D. 4o. 11; is the misuse or misa,,ro,riation of the goods or ,roceeds reali3ed from the sale of the goods# documents or 'nstruments which are being held in trust for the entrusteeJban0s. 'n other words# the law ,unishes the dishonesty and abuse of confidence in the handling of money or goods to the ,re/udice of the other# and hence there is no iolation of the right against im,risonment for nonJ ,ayment of debt. (People vs. ita/an, +*2 S"#$
2+()
mere negligence in allowing another to ta0e ad antage of or benefit from the entrusted chattel cannot constitute estafa. (People v. epom&6eno, "$, 465)
613()
$b) 4o# Rosa cannot be held criminally liable for estafa. %lthough she recei ed the /ewelry from .ictoria under an obligation to return the same or deli er the ,roceeds thereof# she did not misa,,ro,riate it. 'n fact# she ga e them to %urelia s,ecifically to be returned to .ictoria. The misa,,ro,riation was done by %urelia# and absent the showing of any cons,iracy between %urelia and Rosa# the latter cannot be held criminally liable for %meliaGs acts. 9urthermore# as e5,lained abo e# RosaGs negligence which may ha e allowed %urelia to
+stafa (1999) 's there such a crime as estafa through negligence" )5,lain. $2<)
%urelia introduced Rosa to .ictoria# a dealer in /ewelry who does business in Timog# =ue3on City. Rosa# a resident of Cebu City# agreed to sell a diamond ring and bracelet to .ictoria on a commission basis# on condition that# if these items can not be sold# they may be returned to .ictoria forthwith.
@nable to sell the ring and bracelet# Rosa deli ered both items to %urelia in Cebu City with the understanding that %urelia shall# in turn# return the items to .ictoria in Timog# =ue3on City. %urelia dutifully returned the bracelet to .ictoria but sold the ring# 0e,t the cash ,roceeds thereof to herself# and issued a chec0 to .ictoria which bounced. .ictoria sued Rosa for estafa under %rticle ?1;# R.!.C.# .ictoria insisting that deli ery to a third ,erson of the thing held in trust is not a defense in estafa. 's Rosa criminally liable for estafa under the circumstances" )5,lain# HD<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
$a)
There is no such crime as estafa through negligence. 'n estafa# the ,rofit or gain must be obtained by the accused ,ersonally# through his own acts# and his
66 of 86
misa,,ro,riate the /ewelry does not ma0e her criminally liable for estafa. +stafa #s9 AP %% (1996)
The accused was con icted under 8.!# 8lg. 22 for ha ing issued se eral chec0s which were dishonored by the drawee ban0 on their due date because the accused closed her account after the issuance of chec0s. *n a,,eal# she argued that she could not be con icted under 8.!. 8lg. 22 by reason of the closing of her account because said law a,,lies solely to chec0s dishonored by reason of insufficiency of funds and that at the time she issued the chec0s concerned# she had ade1uate funds in the ban0. While she admits that she may be held liable for estafa under %rticle 21; of the Re ised !enal Code# she cannot howe er be found guilty of ha ing iolated 8.!. 8lg. 22. 's her contention correct" )5,lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
+stafa #s9 AP %% (%&&1) % and 8 agreed to meet at the latterGs house to discuss 8Gs financial ,roblems. *n his way# one of %Gs car tires blew u,. 8efore % left following the meeting# he as0ed 8 to lend him $%) money to buy a new s,are tire. 8 had tem,orarily e5hausted his ban0 de,osits# lea ing a 3ero balance. %ntici,ating# howe er# a re,lenishment of his account soon# 8 issued % a ,ostdated chec0 with which % negotiated for a new tire. When ,resented# the chec0 bounced for lac0 of funds. The tire com,any filed a criminal case against % and 8. What would be the criminal liability# if any# of each of the two accused" )5,lain. C<
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
4o# the contention of the accused is not correct. %s long as the chec0s issued were issued to a,,ly on account or for alue# and was dishonored u,on ,resentation for ,ayment to the drawee ban0 for lac0 of insufficient funds on their due date# such act falls within the ambit of 8.!. 8lg. 22. &aid law e5,ressly ,unishes any ,erson who may ha e insufficient funds in the drawee ban0 when he issues the chec0# but fails to 0ee, sufficient funds to co er the full amount of the chec0 when ,resented to the drawee ban0 within ninety $EB) days from the date a,,earing thereon.
% who negotiated the unfunded chec0 of 8 in buying a new tire for his car may only be ,rosecuted for estafa if he was aware at the time of such negotiation that the chec0 has no sufficient funds in the drawee ban0otherwise# he is not criminally liable.
8 who accommodated % with his chec0 may ne ertheless be ,rosecuted under 8! 22 for ha ing issued the chec0# 0nowing at the time of issuance that it has no funds in the ban0 and that % will negotiate it to buy a new tire# i.e.# for alue. 8 may not be ,rosecuted for estafa because the facts indicate that he is not actuated by intent to defraud in issuing the chec0 which % negotiated. *b iously# 8 issued the ,ostdated chec0 only to hel, %K criminal intent or dolo is absent.
Dondee
on the motions with reasons. $;<)

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
+stafa #s9 8oney 8arGet Placement (1996)

*n 6arch ?1# 1EE;# *r,heus 9inancing Cor,oration recei ed from 6aricar the sum of !;BB#BBB as money mar0et ,lacement for si5ty days at fifteen $1;) ,er cent interest# and the !resident of said Cor,oration issued a chec0 co ering the amount including the interest due thereon# ,ostdated 6ay ?B# 1EE;. *n the maturity date# howe er# *r,heus 9inancing Cor,oration failed to deli er bac0 6aricarGs money ,lacement with the corres,onding interest earned# notwithstanding re,eated demands u,on said Cor,oration to com,ly with its commitment. Did the !resident of *r,heus 9inancing Cor,oration incur any criminal liability for estafa for reason of the non,ayment of the money mar0et ,lacement" )5,lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The motion for reconsideration should be granted. 8y de,ositing the merchandise in his warehouse# he transferred not merely ,hysical but also /uridical ,ossession. The element of ta0ing in the crime of theft is wanting. %t the most# he could be held liable for estafa for misa,,ro,riation of the merchandise de,osited.
*n the other hand# the motion of .R must also be denied. (is ac1uittal is of no moment because the thing# sub/ect matter of the offense# shall be restored to the owner e en though it is found in the ,ossession of a third ,erson who ac1uired it by lawful means. $%rt. 1B;# R9C)
4o# the !resident of the financing cor,oration does not incur criminal liability for estafa because a money mar0et transaction ,arta0es of the nature of a loan# such that non,ayment thereof would not gi e rise to estafa through misa,,ro,riation or con ersion. 'n money mar0et ,lacement# there is transfer of ownershi, of the money to be in ested and therefore the liability for its return is ci il in nature (Pere1 vs. "o&rt o/ $ppeals, 1+2 S"#$ 636%
Se8reno vs. "o&rt o/ $ppeals etal, ).#. 84*!6, +6 ,an !().
+stafa #s9 Theft (%&&6)

DD was engaged in the warehouse business. &ometime in 4o ember 2BBD# he was in dire need of money. (e# thus# sold merchandise de,osited in his warehouse to .R for !;BB#BBB.BB. DD was charged with theft# as ,rinci,al# while .R as accessory. The court con icted DD of theft but ac1uitted .R on the ground that he ,urchased the merchandise in good faith. (owe er# the court ordered .R to return the merchandise to the owner thereof and ordered DD to refund the !;BB#BBB.BB to .R. DD mo ed for the reconsideration of the decision insisting that he should be ac1uitted of theft because being the de,ositary# he had /uridical ,ossession of the merchandise. .R also mo ed for the reconsideration of the decision insisting that since he was ac1uitted of the crime charged# and that he ,urchased the merchandise in good faith# he is not obligated to return the merchandise to its owner. Rule
67 of 86
+stafa; +lements (%&&6) DD ,urchased a tele ision set for !;B#BBB.BB with the use of a counterfeit credit card. The owner of the establishment had no in0ling that the credit card used by DD was counterfeit. What crime or crimes did DD commit" )5,lain. $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
DD committed the crime of estafa under %rt. ?1;# ,ar. 2$a) of the Re ised !enal Code by falsely ,retending to ,osses credit. The elements of estafa under this ,enal ,ro ision are- $1) the accused defrauded another by means of deceit- and $2) damage or ,re/udice ca,able of ,ecuniary estimation is caused to the offended ,arty or third ,arty. The accused also iolated R.%. 4o. CDCD# which ,unishes the use or ,ossession of fa0e or counterfeit credit card. +stafa; .alsification of Commercial 5ocument (%&&&)
6r. Carlos >abisi# a customs guard# and 6r# Rico +to# a ,ri ate 'ndi idual# went to the office of 6r. Diether *cuarto# a customs bro0er# and re,resented themsel es as agents of 6oonglow Commercial Trading# an 'm,orter of childrenGs clothes and toys. 6r. >abisi and 6r. +to engaged 6r. *cuarto to ,re,are and file with the 8ureau of Customs the necessary 'm,ort )ntry and 'nternal Re enue Declaration co ering 6oonglowGs shi,ment. 6r. >abisi and 6r. +to submitted to 6r. *cuarto a
,ac0ing list# a commercial in oice# a bill of lading and a &worn 'm,ort Duty Declaration which declared the shi,ment as childrenGs toys# the ta5es and duties of which were com,uted at !AB#BBB.BB. 6r. *cuarto filed the aforementioned documents with the 6anila 'nternational Container !ort. (owe er# before the shi,ment was released# a s,ot chec0 was conducted by Customs &enior %gent 2ames 8andido# who disco ered that the contents of the an $shi,ment) were not childrenGs toys as declared in the shi,,ing documents but 1#BBB units of ideo cassette recorders with ta5es and duties com,uted at !ABB#BBB.BB. % hold order and warrant of sei3ure and detention were then issued by the District Collector of Customs. 9urther in estigation showed that 6oonglow is nonJe5istent. Conse1uently# 6r# >abisi and 6r. +to were charged with and con icted for iolation of &ection ?$e) of R.%. ?B1E which ma0es it unlawful among others# for ,ublic officers to cause any undue 'n/ury to any ,arty# including the >o ernment. 'n the discharge of official functions through manifest ,artiality# e ident bad faith or gross ine5cusable negligence. 'n their motion for reconsideration# the accused alleged that the decision was erroneous because the crime was not consummated but was only at an attem,ted stage# and that in fact the >o ernment did not suffer any undue in/ury.
%ssuming that the attem,ted or frustrated stage of the iolation charged is not ,unishable# may the accused be ne ertheless con icted for an offense ,unished by the Re ised !enal Code under the facts of the case" )5,lain. $?<)
Dondee

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
+es# both are liable for attem,ted estafa thru falsification of commercial documents# a com,le5 crime. They tried to defraud the >o ernment with the use of false commercial and ,ublic documents. Damage is not necessary. +stafa; .alsification of Commercial 5ocuments (199*)
The accused o,ened a sa ing account with 8an0 % with an initial de,osit of !2#BBB.BB. % few days later# he de,osited in the sa ings account a 8an0 8 chec0 for ! 1B#BBB.BB drawn and endorsed ,ur,ortedly by C. Ten days later# he withdrew ! 1B#BBB.BB from his sa ings account. C com,lained to 8an0 8 when the chec0 was deducted from his account. Two days thereafter# the accused de,osited another 8an0 8 chec0 of ! 1B#BBB.BB signed and endorsed allegedly by C. % wee0 later# the accused went to 8an0 % to withdraw !1B#BBB.BB. While withdrawing the amount# he was arrested.
is not /ust an entrustee of the washing machine which he sold- he is the owner thereof by irtue of the sale of the washing machine to him. The sale being on credit# 8 as buyer is only liable for the un,aid ,rice of the washing machine- his obligation is only a ci il obligation. There is no felonious misa,,ro,riation that could constitute estafa.
+stafa; Swin"ling (199-)

Di ina# is the owner of a ;BBJs1uare meter residential lot in 6a0ati City co ered by TCT 4o. 1EEC. %s her son needed money for his tri, abroad# Di ina mortgaged her
Con icted under two informations of estafa and attem,ted estafa both through falsification of commercial documents# he set u, the defenses that# e5ce,t for the showing that the signature of C had been forged# no further e idence was ,resented to establish $a) that he was the forger of the signature of C nor $b)# that as to the second charge C suffered any damage.
Rule on the defense.

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The defense is not tenable- $a) the ,ossessor of a falsified document is ,resumed to be the author of the falsification (People
vs. Senda4dte3o, 81 S"#$ 1+*% Eoh TieB vs. People, et al, De6. +1, 1!!*) - $b) 'n estafa# a
mere disturbance of ,ro,erty rights# e en if tem,orary# would be sufficient to# cause damage. 6oreo er# in a crime of falsification of a commercial document# damage or intent to cause damage is not necessary because the ,rinci,al thing ,unished is the iolation of the ,ublic faith and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly ,roclaimed.
)stafa- Defense of *wnershi, $2BB2)

% sold a washing machine to 8 on credit# with the understanding that 8 could return the a,,liance within two wee0s if# after testing the same# 8 decided not to buy it. Two wee0s la,sed without 8 returning the a,,liance. % found out that 8 had sold the washing machine to a third ,artyJ 's 8 liable for estafa" Why" $;<)
&@>>)&T)D %4&W)RK
4o# 8 is not liable for estafa because he
68 of 86
lot to her neighbor Dino for !1#BBB#BBB. Later Di ina sold the same lot to %ngel for !2#BBB#BBB. 'n the Deed of &ale# she e5,ressly stated that the ,ro,erty is free from any lien or encumbrance. What crime# if any# did Di ina commit" H;<I
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
0o33ery un"er 0PC (%&&&)

%# 8# C# D and 8 were in a beerhouse along 6ac%rthur (ighway ha ing a drin0ing s,ree. %t about 1 oGcloc0 in the morning# they decided to lea e and so as0ed for the bill. They ,ooled their money together but they were still short of !2#BBB.BB. ) then orchestrated a ,lan whereby %# 8# C and D would go out# flag a ta5icab and rob the ta5i dri er of all his money while ) would wait for them in the beerhouse. %. 8# C and D agreed. %ll armed with balisongs# %# 8# C and D hailed the first ta5icab they encountered. %fter robbing L# the dri er# of his earnings# which amounted to !1#BBB.BB only# they needed !1 #BBB.BB more to meet their bill. &o# they decided to hail another ta5icab and they again robbed dri er T of his hardJ earned money amounting to !1#BBB. *n their way bac0 to the beerhouse# they were a,,rehended by a ,olice team u,on the com,laint of L# the dri er of the first cab. They ,ointed to ) as the mastermind. What crime or crimes# if any# did %# 8# C# D and 8 commit" )5,lain fully. $?<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Di ina committed estafa or swindling under %rt. ?1A# ,ar. 2 of the Re ised !enal Code because# 0nowing that the real ,ro,erty being sold is encumbered# she still made a misre,resentation in the Deed of &ale that the same is free from any lien or encumbrance. There is thus a deceit or fraud causing damage to the buyer of the lot. 0o33ery (1996) 9i e robbers robbed# one after the other fi e houses occu,ied by different families located inside a com,ound enclosed by a si5Jfeet high hollow bloc0 fence. (ow many robberies did the fi e commit" )5,lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The offenders committed only one robbery in the eyes of the law because when they entered the com,ound# they were im,elled only by a single indi isible criminal resolution to commit a robbery as they were not aware that there were fi e families inside said com,ound# considering that the same was enclosed by a si5Jfeet high hollowJbloc0 fence. The series of robbery committed in the same com,ound at about the same time constitutes one continued crime# moti ated by one criminal im,ulse.
%. 8# C# D and ) are liable for two $2) counts of robbery under %rticle 2ED of the Re . !enal Code- not for highway Robbery under !D ;?2. The offenders are not brigands but only committed the robbery to raise money to ,ay their bill because it ha,,ened that they were short of money to ,ay the same. 0o33ery un"er 0PC (%&&1)
% and 8 are neighbors in 8arangay 4ue o '# &ilang# Ca ite. % is a barangay Nagawad and 0nown to be a
Dondee
Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006) bully#
while 8 is re,uted to be gay but noted for his industry and economic sa y which allowed him to amass wealth in lea,s and bounds# including registered and unregistered lands in se eral barangays. Resenting 8Gs riches and relying on his ,olitical influence# % decided to harass and intimidate 8 into sharing with him some of his lands# considering that the latter was single and li ing alone. *ne night# % bro0e into 8Gs house# forced him to bring out some titles and after ,ic0ing out a title co ering 2BB s1uare meters in their barangay# com,elled 8 to ty,e out a Deed of &ale con eying the said lot to him for !1.BB and other aluable considerations. %ll the while# % carried a ,alti0 caliber .D; in full iew of 8# who signed the deed out of fear. When % later on tried to register the deed# 8 summoned enough courage and had % arrested and charged in court after ,reliminary in estigation.
(ighway Robbery under !res. Decree ;?2 differs from ordinary Robbery committed on a highway in these res,ectsK 1. 'n (ighway Robbery under !D ;?2# the robbery is committed indiscriminately against ,ersons who commute in such highways# regardless of the ,otentiality they offerwhile in ordinary Robbery committed on a highway# the robbery is committed only against ,redetermined ictims2. 't is (ighway Robbery under !D ;?2# when the offender is a brigand or one who roams in ,ublic
What charge or charges should be filed against %" )5,lain. $;<)

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The charge for Robbery under %rticle 2EC of the Re ised !enal Code should be filed against %. &aid %rticle ,ro ides that any ,erson who# with intent to defraud another# by means of iolence or intimidation# shall com,el him to sign# e5ecute and deli er any ,ublic instrument or document shall be held guilty of robbery.
The ,alti0 caliber .D; firearm carried by % was ob iously intended to intimidate 8 and thus# used in the commission of the robbery. 'f it could be established that % had no license or ,ermit to ,ossess and carry such firearm# it should be ta0en only as s,ecial aggra ating circumstance to the crime of robbery# not sub/ect of a se,arate ,rosecution.
ALTERNATI8E ANSWER3
*n the ,remise that the Deed of &ale which % com,elled 8 to sign# had not attained the character of a 7,ublic7 instrument or document# % should be charged for the crime of =ualified Tres,ass to Dwelling under %rticle 2CB of the Re ised !enal Code for ha ing intruded into 8Qs house# and for the crime of >ra e Coercion under %rticle 2CA of same Code# for com,elling 8 to sign such deed of sale against his will.
0o33ery #s9 >ighway 0o33ery (%&&&) Distinguish (ighway Robbery under !residential Decree 4o. ;?2 from Robbery committed on a highway. $?<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
69 of 86
highways and carries out his robbery in ,ublic highways as enue# whene er the o,,ortunity to do so arises. 't is ordinary Robbery under the Re ised !enal Code when the commission thereof in a ,ublic highway is only incidental and the offender is not a brigandK and
?. 'n (ighway Robbery under !D ;?2# there is fre1uency in the commission of the robbery in ,ublic highways and against ,ersons tra elling thereatwhereas ordinary Robbery in ,ublic highways is only occasional against a ,redetermined ictim# without fre1uency in ,ublic highways.
with intent to gain and bro0en outside of their home# $%rt. 2EE $b) $2). R!C). b) 4o# % is not e5em,t from criminal liability under %rt. ??2 because said %rticle a,,lies only to theft# swindling or malicious mischief. (ere# the crime committed is robbery. 0o33ery wD >omici"e , 09(9 <o9 *669 (%&&6)
2ose em,loyed 6ario as gardener and (enry as coo0. They learned that 2ose won !;BB#BBB.BB in the lotto# and decided to rob him. 6ario ,ositioned himself about ?B meters away from 2oseQs house and acted as loo0out. 9or his ,art# (enry surre,titiously gained entry into the house and 0illed 2ose who was then ha ing his dinner. (enry found the !;BB#BBB.BB and too0 it. (enry then too0 a can of gasoline from the garage and burned the house to conceal the acts. 6ario and (enry fled# but were arrested around 2BB meters away from the house by alert barangay tanods. The tanods reco ered the !;BB#BBB.BB. 6ario and (enry were charged with and con icted of robbery with homicide# with the aggra ating circumstances of arson# dwelling# and nighttime. 6ario mo ed to reconsider the decision maintaining that he was not at the scene of the crime and was not aware that (enry 0illed the ictim- hence# he was guilty only of robbery# as an accom,lice. 6ario also claimed that he cons,ired with (enry to commit robbery but not to 0ill
0o33ery wD force upon things (%&&&) %# brother of 8# with the intention of ha ing a night out with his friends# too0 the coconut shell which is being used by 8 as a ban0 for coins from inside their loc0ed cabinet using their common 0ey. 9orthwith# % bro0e the coconut shell outside of their home in the ,resence of his friends. What is the criminal liability of %# if any" )5,lain. $?<) 's % e5em,ted from criminal liability under %rticle ??2 of the Re ised !enal Code for being a brother of 8" )5,lain. $2<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
a) % is criminally liable for Robbery with force u,on things# because the coconut shell with the coins inside# was ta0en
Dondee
held liable for the criminal deed$s) e5ecuted by another or others. %s a cons,irator# 6ario casts his lot with his fellow cons,irators and becomes liable to any third ,erson who may get 0illed in the course of im,lementing the criminal design. (People v. P&n1alan, et al.. ).#. o.
288(3, ovem8er 8, 1!!1)
(enry is incorrect# since he ac1uired ,ossession of the money. The crime of robbery with force and intimidation is consummated when the robber ac1uires ,ossession of the ,ro,erty# e en if for a short time. 't is no defense that they had no o,,ortunity to dis,ose of or benefit from the money ta0en. (People v.
Salvilia, et al., ).#. o. 88163, $pril +6, 1!!*)
&ince the crime in intimidation against homicide)# dwelling which accom,anied
robbery with force and ,ersons $robbery with is aggra ating. %rson# the crime of
robbery with homicide is absorbed
and is not aggra ating because the R!C does not ,ro ide that such crime is an
amended 84 #.$. 26(!) $pril (, +***)
o.
($rt. +!4, #F" as

(People v. #e3ala, ).#. 13*(*8, o.
aggra ating circumstance. 4ighttime# li0ewise# is not aggra ating. There is no showing that the same was ,ur,osely sought by the offenders to facilitate the commission of the crime or im,unity. 0o33ery wD >omici"e (1996) 2ose# Domingo# 6anolo# and 9ernando# armed with bolos# at about one oGcloc0 in the morning# robbed a house at a desolate ,lace where Danilo# his wife# and three daughters were li ing. While the four were in the ,rocess of ransac0ing DaniloGs house# 9ernando# noticing that one of DaniloGs daughters was trying to get away# ran after her and finally caught u, with her in a thic0et somewhat distant from the house. 9ernando# before bringing bac0 the daughter to the house# ra,ed her first. Thereafter# the four carted away the belongings of Danilo and his family. a) What crime did 2ose# Domingo# 6anolo and 9ernando commit" )5,lain.
2ose. (enry# li0ewise# mo ed to reconsider the decision# asserting that he is liable only for attem,ted robbery with homicide with no aggra ating circumstance# considering that he and 6ario did not benefit from the !;BB#BBB.BB. (e further alleged that arson is a felony and not an aggra ating circumstance- dwelling is not aggra ating in attem,ted robbery with homicideand nighttime is not aggra ating because the house of 2ose was lighted at the time he was 0illed. Resol e with reasons the res,ecti e motions of 6ario and (enry. $F<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
6ario is not correct. 6ario cons,ired and acted in concert with (enry to commit robbery. (ence# the act of one is the act of all and the e5tent of the s,ecific ,artici,ation of each indi idual cons,irator becomes secondary# each being
b) &u,,ose# after the robbery# the four too0 turns in ra,ing the three daughters of Danilo inside the latterGs house# but before they left# they 0illed the whole family
70 of 86 to
,re ent identification# what crime did the four commit" )5,lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
$a) 2ose# Domingo# and 6anolo committed Robbery# while 9ernando committed com,le5 crime of Robbery with Ra,e. Cons,iracy can be inferred from the manner the offenders committed the robbery but the ra,e was committed by 9ernando at a ,lace 7distant from the house7 where the robbery was committed# not in the ,resence of the other cons,irators. (ence# 9ernando alone should answer for the ra,e# rendering him liable for the s,ecial com,le5 crime. (People vs. "ant&ria et. al,
).#. 1*84!*, ++ ,&ne 1!!(-
1. &u,,ose a ban0 em,loyee was 0illed and the bullet which 0illed him came from the firearm of the ,olice officers# with what crime shall you charge %# 8. C and D" H?<I 2. &u,,ose it was robber D who was 0illed by the ,olicemen and the ,rosecutor charged %# 8 and C with Robbery and (omicide. They demurred arguing that they $%# 8 and C) were not the ones who 0illed robber D# hence# the charge should only be Robbery. (ow would you resol e their argument" $2<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
b) The crime would be Robbery with (omicide because the 0illings were by reason $to ,re ent identification) and on the occasion of the robbery. The multi,le ra,es committed and the fact that se eral ,ersons were 0illed Hhomicide)# would be considered as aggra ating circumstances. The ra,es are synonymous with 'gnominy and the additional 0illing synonymous with cruelty# (People vs. Solis, 18+ S"#$%
People vs. Pla3a, +*+ S"#$ (31)
1. %# 8# C and D should be charged with the crime of robbery with homicide because the death of the ban0 em,loyee was brought about by the acts of said offenders on the occasion of the robbery. They shot it out with the ,oliceman# thereby causing such death by reason or on the occasion of a robbery- hence# the com,osite crime of robbery with homicide. 2. The argument is alid# considering that a se,arate charge for (omicide was filed. 't would be different if the charge filed was for the com,osite crime of robbery with homicide which is a single# indi isible offense.
ALTERNATI8E ANSWER3
0o33ery wD >omici"e (199-) %# 8# C and D all armed# robbed a ban0# and when they were about to get out of the ban0# ,olicemen came and ordered them to surrender but they fired on the ,olice officers who fired bac0 and shot it out with them.
2. The argument raised by %# 8 and C is not correct because their liability is not only for Robbery but for the s,ecial com,le5 crime of Robbery with homicide. 8ut the facts stated im,resses that se,arate crimes of Robbery 7and7 (omicide were charged# which is not correct. What was committed was a single indi isible offense of Robbery with homicide# not two crimes.
Dondee
.ictor# Ric0y# Rod and Ronnie.

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
0o33ery wD >omici"e (%&&1) % learned two days ago that 8 had recei ed dollar bills amounting to V1B#BBB from his daughter wor0ing in the @nited &tates. With the intention of robbing 8 of those dollars# % entered 8Gs house at midnight# armed with a 0nife which he used to gain entry# and began 1uietly searching the drawers# shel es# and other li0ely rece,tacles of the cash. While doing that# 8 awo0e# rushed out from the bedroom# and gra,,led with % for the ,ossession of the 0nife which % was then holding. %fter stabbing 8 to death# % turned o er 8Gs ,illow and found the latterGs wallet underneath the ,illow# which was bulging with the dollar bills he was loo0ing for. % too0 the bills and left the house. What crime or crimes were committed" C<
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
%ll are liable for the s,ecial com,le5 crime of robbery with homicide. The acts of Ric0y in stabbing 6ang !andoy to death# of Rod in bo5ing the salesgirl to ,re ent her from hel,ing 6ang !andoy# of Ronnie in chasing the salesgirl to ,re ent her in see0ing hel,# of .ictor in scoo,ing u, money from the cash bo5# and of Ric0y and .ictor in dashing to the street and announcing the esca,e# are all indicati e of cons,iracy. The rule is settled that when homicide ta0es ,lace as a conse1uence or on the occasion of a robbery# all those
The crime committed is robbery with homicide# a com,osite crime. This is so because %Gs ,rimordial criminal intent is to commit a robbery and in the course of the robbery# the 0illing of 8 too0 ,lace. 8oth the robbery and the 0illing were consummated# thus gi ing rise to the s,ecial com,le5 crime of robbery with homicide. The ,rimary criminal intent being to commit a robbery# any 0illing on the 7occasion7 of the robbery# though not by reason thereof# is considered a com,onent of the crime of robbery with homicide as a single indi isible offense.
0o33ery wD >omici"e; Special Comple/ Crime (1996)

.ictor# Ric0y# Rod and Ronnie went to the store of 6ang !andoy. .ictor and Ric0y entered the store while Rod and Ronnie ,osted themsel es at the door. %fter ordering beer Ric0y com,lained that he was shortchanged although 6ang !andoy ehemently denied it. &uddenly Ric0y whi,,ed out a 0nife as he announced 7(oldJ u, itoR7 and stabbed 6ang !andoy to death. Rod bo5ed the storeGs salesgirl Lucy to ,re ent her from hel,ing 6ang !andoy. When Lucy ran out of the store to see0 hel, from ,eo,le ne5t door she was chased by Ronnie. %s soon as Ric0y had stabbed 6ang !andoy# .ictor scoo,ed u, the money from the cash bo5. Then .ictor and Ric0y dashed to the street and shouted# 7Tuma0bo na 0ayoR7 Rod was 1D and Ronnie was 1F. The money and other articles looted from the store of 6ang !andoy were later found in the houses of .ictor and Ric0y.
Discuss fully the criminal liability of
71 of 86 who
too0 ,art in the robbery are guilty as ,rinci,als of the crime of robbery with homicide# unless the accused tried to ,re ent the 0illing (People vs. ;aello, ++4 S"#$ +18). 9urther# the aggra ating circumstance of craft could be assessed against the accused for ,retending to be customers of 6ang !andoy. 0o33ery wD 2ntimi"ation #s9 Theft (%&&%) % entered the house of another without em,loying force or iolence u,on things. (e was seen by a maid who wanted to scream but was ,re ented from doing so because % threatened her with a gun. % then too0 money and other aluables and left. 's % guilty of theft or of robbery" )5,lain. $?<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
howe er# was se5ually aroused when he saw the lady owner of the house and so# ra,ed her. The lady ictim testified that 8 did not in any way ,artici,ate in the ra,e but 8 watched the ha,,ening from a window and did nothing to sto, the ra,e. 's 8 as criminally liable as % for robbery with ra,e" )5,lain. $D<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
% is liable for robbery because of the intimidation he em,loyed on the maid before the ta0ing of the money and other aluables. 't is the intimidation of ,erson relati e to the ta0ing that 1ualifies the crime as robbery# instead of sim,ly theft. The nonJem,loyment of force u,on things is of no moment because robbery is committed not only by em,loying force u,on things but also by em,loying iolence against or intimidation of ,ersons. 0o33ery wD 0ape (1999) Two young men# % and 8# cons,ired to rob a residential house of things of alue. They succeeded in the commission of their original ,lan to sim,ly rob. %#
+es# 8 is as criminally liable as % for the com,osite crime of robbery with ra,e under %rt. 2ED $1). %lthough the cons,iracy of % and 8 was only to rob# 8 was ,resent when the ra,e was being committed which ga e rise to a com,osite crime# a single indi isible offense of robbery with ra,e. 8 would not ha e been liable had he endea ored to ,re ent the commission of the ra,e. 8ut since he did not when he could ha e done so# he in effect ac1uiesced with the ra,e as a com,onent of the robbery and so he is also liable for robbery with ra,e.
0o33ery wD 0ape; Conspiracy (%&& ) Together L%# +8 and MC ,lanned to rob 6iss *D. They entered her house by brea0ing one of the windows in her house. %fter ta0ing her ,ersonal ,ro,erties and as they were about to lea e# L% decided on im,ulse to ra,e *D. %s L% was molesting her# +8 and MC stood outside the door of her bedroom and did nothing to ,re ent L% from ra,ing *D. What crime or crimes did L%# +8 and MC commit# and what is the criminal liability of each" )5,lain briefly. $;<)
Dondee

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
se,arate crimes# and arson.
namelyK
murder# theft
The crime committed by L%# +8 and MC is the com,osite crime of Robbery with Ra,e# a single# indi isible offense under %rt. 2ED$1) of the Re ised !enal Code. %lthough the cons,iracy among the offenders was only to commit robbery and only L% ra,ed CD# the other robbers# +8 and MC# were ,resent and aware of the ra,e being committed by their coJcons,irator. (a ing done nothing to sto, L% from committing the ra,e# +8 and MC thereby concurred in the commission of the ra,e by their coJ cons,irator L%. The criminal liability of all# L%# +M and MC# shall be the same# as ,rinci,als in the s,ecial com,le5 crime of robbery with ra,e which is a single# indi isible offense where the ra,e accom,anying the robbery is /ust a com,onent. 0o33ery; >omici"e; (rson (1996)
(arry# an o erseas contract wor0er# arri ed from &audi %rabia with considerable sa ings. Nnowing him to be 7loaded7# his friends 2ason# 6anuel and Da e in ited him to ,o0er session at a rented beach cottage. When he was losing almost all his money which to him was his sa ings of a lifetime# he disco ered that he was being cheated by his friends. %ngered by the betrayal he decided to ta0e re enge on the three cheats. (arry ordered se eral bottles of Tanduay Rhum and ga e them to his com,anions to drin0# as they did# until they all fell aslee,. When (arry saw his com,anions already sound aslee, he hac0ed all of them to death. Then he remembered his losses. (e rifled through the ,oc0ets of his ictims and got bac0 all the money he lost. (e then ran away but not before burning the cottage to hide his misdeed. The following day ,olice in estigators found among the debris the charred bodies of 2ason# 6anuel# Da e and the careta0er of the resort.
(arry 0illed 2ason# 6anuel and Da e with e ident ,remeditation# as there was considerable la,se of time before he decided to commit the crime and the actual commission of the crime. 'n addition# (arry em,loyed means which wea0ened the defense of 2ason# 6anuel and Da e. (arry ga e them the li1uor to drin0 until they were drun0 and fell aslee,. This ga e (arry the o,,ortunity to carry out his ,lan of murder with im,unity.
%fter ,reliminary in estigation# the !ro incial !rosecutor charged (arry with the com,le5 crime of arson with 1uadru,le homicide and robbery. Was (arry ,ro,erly charged" Discuss fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
4o# (arry was net ,ro,erly charged. (arry should ha e been charged with three $?)
72 of 86
The ta0ing of the money from the ictims was a mere afterthought of the 0illings. (ence# (arry committed the se,arate crime of theft and not the com,le5 crime of robbery with homicide. %lthough theft was committed against dead ,ersons# it is still legally ,ossible as the offended ,arty are the estates of the ictims.
'n burning the cottage to hide his misdeed. (arry became liable for another se,arate crime# arson. This act of burning was not necessary for the consummation of the two $2) ,re ious offenses he committed. The fact that the careta0er died from the bla3e did not 1ualify (arryGs crime into a com,le5 crime of arson with homicide for there is no such crime. (ence# (arry was im,ro,erly charged with the com,le5 crime of arson with 1uadru,le homicide and robbery. (arry should ha e been charged with three $?) se,arate crimes# murder# theft and arson. 0o33ery; 0ape (199*) %fter ra,ing the com,lainant in her house# the accused struc0 a match to smo0e a cigarette before de,arting from the scene. The brief light from the match allowed him to notice a watch in her wrist. (e demanded that she hand o er the watch. When she refused# he forcibly grabbed it from her. The accused was charged with and con icted of the s,ecial com,le5 crime of robbery with ra,e. Was the court correct"
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
4o. the court erred in con icting the accused of the s,ecial com,le5 crime of robbery with ra,e. The accused should instead be held liable for two $2) se,arate crimes of robbery and ra,e# since the ,rimary intent or ob/ecti e of the accused was only to ra,e the com,lainant# and his commission of the robbery was merely an afterthought. The robbery must ,recede the ra,e. 'n order to gi e rise to the s,ecial com,le5 crime for which the court con icted the accused. Theft (199-) 6ario found a watch in a /ee, he was riding# and since it did not belong to him# he a,,roached ,oliceman ! and deli ered the watch with instruction to return the same to whoe er may be found to be the owner. ! failed to return the watch to the owner and# instead# sold it and a,,ro,riated for himself the ,roceeds of the sale. Charged with theft# ! reasoned out that he cannot be found guilty because it was not he who found the watch and# moreo er# the watch turned out to be stolen ,ro,erty. 's !Gs defense alid" H;<I
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
4o# !Gs defense is not alid. 'n a charge for theft# it is enough that the ,ersonal ,ro,erty sub/ect thereof belongs to another and not to the offender $!). 't is irrele ant whether the ,erson de,ri ed of the ,ossession of the watch has or has no right to the watch. Theft is
Dondee
committed by one who# with intent to gain# a,,ro,riates ,ro,erty of another without the consent of its owner. %nd the crime is committed e en when the offender recei es ,ro,erty of another but ac1uires only ,hysical ,ossession to hold the same. Theft (%&&1) 9rancis >arcia# a 2ollibee waiter# found a gold bracelet in front of his wor0ing ,lace in 6a0ati and# u,on ins,ecting it# saw the name and address of the owner engra ed on the inside. Remembering his ,arentsG admonition that he should not ta0e anything which does not belong to him# he deli ered the bracelet to !*1 2esus Reyes of the 6a0ati =uad ,recinct with the instruction to locate the owner and return it to him. !*1 Reyes# instead# sold the bracelet and misa,,ro,riated the ,roceeds. &ubse1uent e ents brought out the fact that the bracelet was dro,,ed by a snatcher who had grabbed it from the owner a bloc0 away from where 9rancis had found it and further in estigation traced the last ,ossessor as !*1 Reyes. Charged with theft# !*1 Reyes reasoned out that he had not committed any crime because it was not he who had found the bracelet and# moreo er# it turned out to ha e been stolen. Resol e the case with reasons. $1B<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
% fire bro0e out in a de,artment store# %# ta0ing ad antage of the confusion# entered the store and carried away goods which he later sold. What crime# if any# did he commit" Why" $2<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
% committed the crime of 1ualified theft because he too0 the goods on the occasion of and ta0ing ad antage of the fire which bro0e out in the de,artment store. The occasion of a calamity such as fire# when the theft was committed# 1ualifies the crime under %rticle ?1B of the Re ised !enal Code# as amended. Theft; ?ualifie" Theft (%&&%)
Charged with theft# !*1 Reyes is criminally liable. (is contention that he has not committed any crime because he was not the one who found the bracelet and it turned out to be stolen also# is de oid of merit. 't is enough that the bracelet belonged to another and the failure to restore the same to its owner is characteri3ed by intent to gain. The act of !*1 Reyes of selling the bracelet which does not belong to him and which he only held to be deli ered to its owner# is furti e misa,,ro,riation with intent to gain.
Where a finder of lost or mislaid ,ro,erty entrusts it to another for deli ery to the owner# the ,erson to whom such ,ro,erty is entrusted and who acce,ts the same# assumes the relation of the finder to the owner as if he was the actual finderK if he would misa,,ro,riate it# he is guilty of theft
(People vs. $vila, 44 Phil. 2+*).
Theft; ?ualifie" Theft (%&&%)
73 of 86
% ehicular accident occurred on the national highway in 8ulacan. %mong the first to arri e at the scene of the accident was %# who found one of the ictims already dead and the others unconscious. 8efore rescuers could come# %# ta0ing ad antage of the hel,less condition of the ictims# too0 their wallets and /ewelry. (owe er# the ,olice# who res,onded to the re,ort of the accident# caught %. What crime or crimes did % commit" Why" $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The offense is =ualified Theft under &ec. AC of !.D. FB;# amending !.D. 4o. ??B# which ,enali3es any ,erson who directly or indirectly cuts# gathers# remo es# or smuggles timber# or other forest ,roducts from any of the ,ublic forest. The 8alara Watershed is ,rotected by the cited laws. 2. During the ,reliminary in estigation and u, to the trial ,ro,er# Rene and Dante contended that if they were to be held liable# their liability should be limited only to the newlyJcut logs found in their ,ossession but not to those found outside the gate. 'f you were the /udge# what will be your ruling" $2.;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
% committed the crime of 1ualified theft because he too0 the wallets and /ewelry of the ictims with e ident intent to gain and on the occasion of a ehicular accident wherein he too0 ad antage of the hel,less condition of the ictims. 8ut only one crime of 1ualified theft was committed although there were more than one ictim di ested of their aluables# because all the ta0ing of the aluables were made on one and the same occasion# thus constituting a continued crime. Theft; ?ualifie" Theft (%&&6) 1. 9orest Ranger 2ay .elasco was ,atrolling the 8alara Watershed and Reser oir when he noticed a big ,ile of cut logs outside the gate of the watershed. Curious# he scouted around and after a few minutes# he saw Rene and Dante coming out of the gate with some more newlyJcut logs. (e a,,rehended and charged them with the ,ro,er offense. What is that offense" )5,lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The contention is untenable# the ,resence of the newly cut logs outside the gate is circumstantial e idence# which# if unrebutted# establishes that they are the offenders who gathered the same. Theft; Stages of +/ecution (199-)
'n the /ewelry section of a big de,artment store# 2ulia snatched a cou,le of bracelets and ,ut these in her ,urse. %t the storeGs e5it# howe er# she was arrested by the guard after being radioed by the store ,ersonnel who caught the act in the storeGs mo ing camera. 's the crime consummated# frustrated# or attem,ted" H;<I
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The crime is consummated theft because the ta0ing of the bracelets was com,lete after 2ulia succeeded in ,utting them in her ,urse. 2ulia ac1uired com,lete control of the bracelets after ,utting them in her ,urse-
Dondee
hence# the ta0ing with intent to gain is com,lete and thus the crime is consummated. Theft; Stages of +/ecution (%&&&)
&unshine# a beauteous 7colegiala7 but a sho,lifter# went to the ) er De,artment &tore and ,roceeded to the womenGs wear section. The saleslady was of the im,ression that she brought to the fitting room three $?) ,ieces of swimsuits of different colors. When she came out of the fitting room# she returned only two $2I ,ieces to the clothes rac0. The saleslady became sus,icious and alerted the store detecti e. &unshine was sto,,ed by the detecti e before she could lea e the store and brought to the office of the store manager. The detecti e and the manager searched her and found her wearing the third swimsuit under her blouse and ,ants. Was the theft of the swimsuit consummated# frustrated or attem,ted" )5,lain. $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,lowed# culti ated and a,,ro,riated the har est for themsel es to the e5clusion of Teresita.
1) What crime or crimes did and Teofilo commit" )5,lain.
6anuel
2) &u,,ose 6anuel and Teofilo 0illed 2uliana when the latter refused to surrender ,ossession of the land# what crime or crimes did the two commit" )5,lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1) 6anuel and Teofilo committed the crime of usur,ation of real rights under %rt. ?12 of the Re ised !enal Code for em,loying iolence against or intimidation of ,ersons. The threats to 0ill em,loyed by them in forcibly entering the land is the means of committing the crime and therefore absorbed in the
The theft was consummated because the ta0ing or as,ortation was com,lete. The as,ortation is com,lete when the offender ac1uired e5clusi e control of the ,ersonal ,ro,erty being ta0enK in this case# when &unshine wore the swimsuit under her blouse and ,ants and was on her way out of the store. With e ident intent to gain# the ta0ing constitutes theft and being com,lete# it is consummated. 't is not necessary that the offender is in a ,osition to dis,ose of the ,ro,erty#
ALTERNATI8E ANSWER<
.3na6io. "$ )# o. (11!<#, Septem8er 3*, 1!(*).

(People vs. Per6ival )ilo, 1*
The crime of theft was only frustrated because &unshine has not yet left the store when the offense was o,,ortunely disco ered and the article sei3ed from her. &he does not ha e yet the freedom to dis,ose of the swimsuit she was ta0ing (People vs. Dino, "$ 4( 5.). 3446) . 6oreo er# in case of doubt as to whether it is consummated or frustrated# the doubt must be resol ed in fa or of the milder criminal res,onsibility.
'surpation of 0eal 0ights (1996)

Teresita is the owner of a twoJhectare land in 8ulacan which she ,lanted to rice and corn. @,on her arri al from a threeJ month acation in the @nited &tates# she was sur,rised to disco er that her land had been ta0en o er by 6anuel and Teofilo who forcibly e icted her tenantJ careta0er 2uliana# after threatening to 0ill the latter if she would resist their ta0ing of the land. Thereafter# 6anuel and Teofilo
74 of 86 felony#
unless the intimidation resulted in a more serious felony.
2} The crime would still be usur,ation of real rights under %rt. ?12# R!C# e en if the said offenders 0illed the careta0er because the 0illing is the .iolence against ,ersons7 which is the means for committing the crime and as such# determinati e only. (owe er# this gi es way to the ,ro iso that the ,enalty ,ro ided for therein is 7in addition to the ,enalty incurred in the acts of iolence $murder or homicideI e5ecuted by them. The crime is similar to a robbery where a 0illing is committed by reason thereof# gi ing rise only to one indi isible offense
(People vs. ,&d3e $l/e6he, pl&s the /ine mentioned therein.
with lewd design# the same constitute acts of lasci iousness

S"#$ 2(3).
("ultery (%&&%) %# a married woman# had se5ual intercourse with a man who was not her husband. The man did not 0now she was married. What crime# if any# did each of them commit" Why" $2<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
%# the married woman# committed the crime of adultery under %rticle ??? of the Re ised !enal Code# as amended# for ha ing se5ual intercourse with a man not her husband while her marriage is still subsisting. 8ut the man who had carnal 0nowledge of her# not 0nowing her to be married# shall not be liable for adultery.
C-&:"5 A$ &!5# C; 5#&#2

(cts of Lasci#iousness #s9 'n:ust $e/ation (199 ) When is embracing# 0issing and touching a girlGs breast considered only un/ust e5ation instead of acts of lasci iousness"
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Concu3inage (199 ) %be# married to Li3a# contracted another marriage with Connie in &inga,ore. Thereafter# %be and Connie returned to the !hili,,ines and li ed as husband and wife in the hometown of %be in Calamba# Laguna. 1) Can %be be ,rosecuted for bigamy" 2) 'f not# can he be ,rosecuted for any other crime"
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The acts of embracing# 0issing of a woman arising either out of ,assion or other moti e and the touching of her breast as a mere incident of the embrace without lewd design constitutes merely un/ust e5ation (People &s,
1) 4o# %be may not be ,rosecuted for bigamy ...

2) +es# %be# together with Connie# may be ,rosecuted for concubinage under %rt. ??D of the Re ised !enal Code for ha ing cohabited as husband and wife. 8ut concubinage being a ,ri ate crime re1uires the sworn com,laint of Li3a# the offended s,ouse in accordance
(owe er#
where the 0issing# embracing and the touching of the breast of a woman are done
Dondee
with Rule 11B of the Re ised Rules on Criminal !rocedure. Concu3inage (%&&%) % is married. (e has a ,aramour with whom he has se5ual relations on a more or less regular basis. They meet at least once a wee0 in hotels# motels and other ,laces where they can be alone. 's % guilty of any crime" Why" $?<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
committed is only un/ust e5ation for causing annoyance# irritation or disturbance to the ictim $%rt. 2CF# Re ised !enal Code)# not acts of lasci iousness $%rt. ??A# Re ised !enal Code).
ALTERNATI8E ANSWER3
% is guilty of the crime of concubinage by ha ing se5ual intercourse under scandalous circumstances# with a woman who is not his wife. (a ing se5ual relations on a more or less regular basis in hotels# motels and other ,laces may be considered a scandalous circumstance that offends ,ublic conscience# gi ing rise to criticism and general ,rotest such acts being im,rudent and wanton and setting a bad e5am,le
(People vs. Santos, 86 S"#$ 2*( ?1!28=).
ALTERNATI8E ANSWER3
The crime should be *ther %cts of Child %buse under &ection 1B of R%. FA1B# ,ar. b of &ection ? that refers to child abuse committed by any act# deeds or words which debases# degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being. 'n relation thereto# &ection 1B ,ro ides criminal liability for other acts of child abuse# cruelty or e5,loitation# or for other condiJ
% is not guilty of any crime because a married man does not incur the crime of concubinage by merely ha ing a ,aramour# unless under scandalous circumstances# or he 0ee,s her in the con/ugal dwelling as a mistress# or cohabits with her in any other ,lace. (is wee0ly meetings with his ,aramour does not ,er se constitute scandalous circumstance. 'n:ust $e/ation #s9 (ct of Lasci#iousness (%&&6)
)duardo =uintos# a widower for the ,ast 1B years# felt that his retirement at the age of FB ga e him the o,,ortunity to engage in his fa orite ,astime W oyeurism. 'f not using his highJ,owered binoculars to ,ee, at his neighborGs homes and domestic acti ities# his second choice was to follow sweet young girls. *ne day# he trailed a teenage girl u, to the LRT station at )D&%J 8uendia. While ascending the stairs# he stayed one ste, behind her and in a moment of bra ado# ,laced his hand on her left hi, and gently massaged it. &he screamed and shouted for hel,. )duardo was arrested and charged with acts of lasci iousness. 's the designation of the crime correct" $;<)
ALTERNATI8E ANSWER3
The designation of the crime as acts of lasci iousness is not correct. There is no lewd design e5hibited by )duardo when he ,laced his hand on the left hi, of the ictim and gently massaging it. The act does not clearly show an e5clusi ely se5ual moti ation. The crime he
75 of 86 tions
,re/udicial to the childGs de elo,ment. The reaction of the ictim# screaming for hel, u,on the occurrence of the touching indicates that she ,ercei ed her dignity was being debased or iolated.
+11 S"#$ 6).
C-&:"5 A$ &!5# #;" C&=&+ S# #%5 )4 P"-5)!5

Aigamy (199 ) 'ssa and 8obby# who were first cousins# were married in 1EF;. 'n 1EE?# 8obby was told that his marriage to 'ssa was incestous under the law then in force and therefore oid ab initio. (e married Caring. Charged with bigamy# 8obby raised the defense that his first marriage is oid ab initio and therefore# there is no ,re ious marriage to s,ea0 of. Will you sustain 8obbyGs defense"
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Aigamy (1996) 2oselito married Ramona in 2uly# 1EE;# only to learn later on that Ramona was ,re iously married to Da id# from whom Ramona had been se,arated for more than ten years. 8elie ing that his marriage to Ramona was an absolute nullity# 2oselito contracted a subse1uent marriage with %nabelle. Can 2oselito be ,rosecuted for bigamy" )5,lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
+es# 2oselito can be ,rosecuted for bigamy for his subse1uent marriage with %nabelle e en though his marriage with Ramona was an absolute nullity.
Des,ite the nullity of the first marriage# 2oselito should ha e filed a case of dissolution of such marriage under %rt. DB# 9amily Code# before contracting a second marriage with %nabelle. Aigamy (%&& )
C8! is legally married to *)6. Without obtaining a marriage license# C8! contracted a second marriage to R&T. 's C8! liable for bigamy" Reason briefly. $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
4o. ' will not sustain 8obbyGs defense# 8obby remarried in 1EE?# or after the 9amily Code too0 effect on %ugust ?# 1ECC# and therefore his ca,acity to marry in 1EE? shall be go erned by said Code. 'n %rt. DB of the 9amily Code# it is mandated that the absolute nullity of a ,re ious marriage maybe in o0ed for ,ur,oses of remarriage on the basis solely of a final /udgment declaring such ,re ious marriage oid. In short) there is a nee of a 6u icial eclaration of such nullity before :obby may vali ly remarry (Doroth4 Terre vs. ,ordan Terre,
Whether C8! could be held liable for bigamy or not# de,ends on whether the second marriage is in alid or alid e en without a marriage license. %lthough as a general rule# marriages solemni3ed without license are null and oid ob initio# there are marriages e5em,ted from license re1uirement under Cha,ter 2# Title 1 of the
Dondee
9amily Code# such as in %rticle 2F which is a marriage in articulo mortis. 'f the second marriage was alid e en without a marriage license# then C8! would be liable for bigamy. *therwise# C8! is not liable for bigamy but for 'llegal 6arriage in %rt. ?;B for the Re ised !enal Code# s,ecifically designated as 76arriage contracted against ,ro isions of laws.7 Aigamy; Prescripti#e Perio" (1996)
2oe and 6arcy were married in 8atanes in 1E;;. %fter two years# 2oe left 6arcy and settled in 6indanao where he later met and married Linda on 12 2une 1EAB. The second marriage was registered in the ci il registry of Da ao City three days after its celebration. *n 1B *ctober 1EF; 6arcy who remained in 8atanes disco ered the marriage of 2oe to Linda. *n 1 6arch 1EFA 6arcy filed a com,laint for bigamy against 2oe. The crime of bigamy ,rescribed in fifteen years com,uted from the day the crime is disco ered by the offended ,arty# the authorities or their agents. 2oe raised the defense of ,rescri,tion of the crime# more than fifteen years ha ing ela,sed from the celebration of the bigamous marriage u, to the filing of 6arcyGs com,laint. (e contended that the registration of his second marriage in the ci il registry of Da ao City was constructi e notice to the whole world of the celebration thereof thus binding u,on 6arcy.
unwed mother# sold her newborn baby to them. Thereafter# % and 8 caused their names to be stated in the birth certificate of the child as his ,arents. This was done in conni ance with the doctor who assisted in the deli ery of C. What are the criminal liabilities# if any# of the cou,le % and 8# C and the doctor"
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The cou,le % and 8# and the doctor shall be liable for the crime of simulation of birth# ,enali3ed under %rticle ?DF of the Re ised !enal Code# as amended. The act of ma0ing it a,,ear in the birth certificate of a child that the ,ersons named therein are the ,arents of the child when
(as the crime of bigamy charged against 2oe already ,rescribed" Discuss fully#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
4o. The ,rescri,ti e ,eriod for the crime of bigamy is com,uted from the time the crime was disco ered by the offended ,arty# the authorities or their agents. The ,rinci,le of constructi e notice which ordinarily a,,lies to land or ,ro,erty dis,utes should not be a,,lied to the crime of bigamy# as marriage is not ,ro,erty. Thus when 6arcy filed a com,laint for bigamy on F 6arch 1EFA# it was well within the reglamentary ,eriod as it was barely a few months from the time of disco ery on 1B *ctober 1EF;. (Sermonia vs. "$, +33 S"#$ 1(()
Simulation of Airth @ Chil" TrafficGing (%&&%) % childless cou,le# % and 8# wanted to ha e a child they could call their own. C# an
76 of 86
they are not really the biological ,arents of said child constitutes the crime of simulation of birth. C# the unwed mother is liable for 7child traffic0ing7# a %rticle '.# &ec. F of Re,. %ct 4o. law ,unishes inter alia the act and selling of a child.
ALTERNATI8E ANSWER3
criminally iolation of FA1B. The of buying
the nomination was not confirmed by the Commission on %,,ointments. The official sued the concerned citi3ens and the news,a,ers for libel and damages on account of his nonJconfirmation. (ow will you decide the case" $?<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The cou,le % and 8# the unwed mother C# and the doctor being all in ol ed in the simulation of birth of the newborn child# iolate Re,. %ct 4o. FA1B. Their acts constitute child traffic0ing which are ,enali3ed under %rticle '. of said law.
' will ac1uit the concerned citi3ens and the news,a,ers in ol ed# from the crime of libel# because ob iously they made the denunciation out of a moral or social duty and thus there is absence of malice.
&ince % was a candidate for a ery im,ortant ,ublic ,osition of a De,artment &ecretary# his moral# mental and ,hysical fitness for the ,ublic trust in such ,osition becomes a ,ublic concern as the interest of the ,ublic is at sta0e. 't is ,ursuant to such concern that the denunciation was made- hence# bereft of malice.
C-&:"5 A$ &!5# 9)!)Li3el (%&&%)

%. % was nominated &ecretary of a De,artment in the )5ecuti e 8ranch of the go ernment. (is nomination was thereafter submitted to the Commission on %,,ointments for confirmation. While the Commission was considering the nomination# a grou, of concerned citi3ens caused to be ,ublished in the news,a,ers a fullJ ,age statement ob/ecting to %Gs a,,ointment They alleged that % was a drug de,endent# that he had se eral mistresses# and that he was corru,t# ha ing acce,ted bribes or fa ors from ,arties transacting business in his ,re ious office# and therefore he was unfit for the ,osition to which he had been nominated. %s a result of the ,ublication#
8. 'f defamatory im,utations are made not by ,ublication in the news,a,ers but by broadcast o er the radio# do they constitute libel" Why" $2<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
+es# because libel may be committed by radio broadcast %rticle ?;; of the Re ised !enal Code ,unishes libel committed by means# among others# of radio broadcast# inasmuch as the broadcast made by radio is ,ublic and may be defamatory. Li3el (%&&1) During a seminar wor0sho, attended by go ernment em,loyees from the 8ureau of Customs and the 8ureau
Dondee
Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006) of
'nternal Re enue# %# the s,ea0er# in the course of his lecture# lamented the fact that a great ma/ority of those ser ing in said agencies were utterly dishonest and corru,t. The following morning# the whole grou, of em,loyees in the two bureaus who attended the seminar# as com,lainants# filed a criminal com,laint against % for uttering what the grou, claimed to be defamatory statements of the lecturer. 'n court# % filed a motion to 1uash the information# reciting fully the abo e facts# on the ground that no crime were committed. 'f you were the /udge# how would you resol e the motion" C<
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
in court. 6ariaGs mother also filed an administrati e com,laint against the /udge which was howe er dismissed. The Ra3ons also felt intimidated by the ,osition and alleged influence of their neighbor. 9anning fire to the situation was the ,ractice of the >adiomas of throwing garbage and animal e5crement into the Ra3onGs ,remises. 'n an e5,losion of anger# 6aria called 2udge >adioma 7land grabber7# 7shameless7# and 7hy,ocrite.7 What crime was committed by 6aria# if any" )5,lain briefly.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
' would grant the motion to 1uash on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense# since there is no definite ,erson or ,ersons dishonored. The crime of libel or slander# is a crime against honor such that the ,erson or ,ersons dishonored must be identifiable e en by innuendoesK otherwise the crime against honor is not committed. 6oreo er# % was not ma0ing a malicious im,utation# but merely stating an o,inion- he was deli ering a lecture with no malice at all during a seminar wor0sho,. 6alice being inherently absent in the utterance# the statement is not actionable as defamatory.
6aria committed the crime of slander or slight defamation only because she was under the influence of anger. When 6aria called 2udge >adioma a hy,ocrite and
Li3el (%&&6) 'n an inter iew aired on tele ision# Cindee uttered defamatory statements against )ri0a# a successful and re,utable businesswoman. What crime or crimes did Cindee commit" )5,lain. $?<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Cindee committed libel for uttering defamatory remar0s tending to cause dishonor or discredit to )ri0a. Libel can be committed in tele ision ,rograms or broadcasts# though it was not s,ecifically mentioned in the article since it was not yet in e5istence then# but is included as 7any similar means.7 Defamatory statements aired on tele ision is similar to radio# theatrical e5hibition or cinematogra,hic e5hibition# which are among the modes for the commission of libel. $%rts. ?;? and ?;;# R!C)
Slan"er (19--) 9or some time# bad blood had e5isted between the two families of 6aria Ra3on and 2udge >adioma who were neighbors. 9irst# there was a boundary dis,ute between them which was still ,ending
77 of 86 land
grabber she im,uted to him the commission of crimes. Slan"er (1996)
!ia# a bold actress li ing on to, floor of a ,lush condominium in 6a0ati City sunbathed na0ed at its ,enthouse e ery &unday morning. &he was unaware that the business e5ecuti es holding office at the ad/oining tall buildings re,orted to office e ery &unday morning and# with the use of ,owerful binoculars# 0e,t on ga3ing at her while she sunbathed. ) entually# her sunbathing became the tal0 of the town.
town# resulting from her sunbathing# is not directly im,uted to the business e5ecuti es# and besides such to,ic is not intended to defame or ,ut !ia to ridicule.
Slan"er 3y 5ee" #s9 8altreatment (199 ) Distinguish slander by deed from maltreatment.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1) What crime# if any# did !ia commit" )5,lain# 2) What crime# if any# did the business e5ecuti es commit" )5,lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
&L%4D)R 8+ D))D is a crime committed when a ,erson ,ublicly sub/ects another to an act intended or calculated to cast dishonor# discredit or contem,t u,on the latter. %bsent the intent to cast dishonor# discredit# contem,t# or insult to the offended ,arty# the crime is only 6%LTR)%T6)4T under %rt# 2AA. ,ar. ?# where# by deed# an offender illJtreats another without causing in/ury. Slan"er #s9 Criminal Con#ersation (%&& ) Distinguish clearly but briefly between oral defamation and criminal con ersation.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1) !ia did not commit a crime# The felony closest to ma0ing !ia criminally liable is >ra e &candal# but then such act is not to be considered as highly scandalous and offensi e against decency and good customs. 'n the first ,lace# it was not done in a ,ublic ,lace and within ,ublic 0nowledge or iew. %s a matter of fact it was disco ered by the e5ecuti es accidentally and they ha e to use binoculars to ha e ,ublic and full iew of !ia sunbathing in the nude.
2) The business e5ecuti es did not commit any crime. Their acts could not be acts of lasci iousness Has there was no o ert lustful act)# or slander# as the e entual tal0 of the
*ral defamation# 0nown as &L%4D)R# is a malicious im,utation of any act# omission# condition or circumstance against a ,erson# done orally in ,ublic# tending to cause dishonor# discredit# contem,t# embarassment or ridicule to the latter. This is a crime against honor ,enali3ed in %rt. ?;C of the Re ised !enal Code.
CR'6'4%L C*4.)R&%T'*4. The term is used in ma0ing a ,olite reference to se5ual intercourse as in
Dondee
committed it. (People vs. Pas6&al 44 5) +28!). Elements of corpus elicti: The actual commission by someone of the ,articular crime charged. 't is a com,ound fact made u, of two thingsK 1. The e5istence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal charge- and 2. The e5istence of a criminal agency as the cause of the act or result ?. The identity of the offender is not a necessary element of cor,us delicti
certain crimes# li0e ra,e# seduction and adultery. 't has no definite conce,t as a crime.
M&5("++ !")%5
Corpus 5elicti (%&&1)
%t a birthday ,arty in 8ogo# Cebu# % got into5icated and started 1uarrelling with 8 and C. %t the height of their arguments# % left and too0 a bolo from his house# after which he returned to the ,arty and threatened to stab e erybody. 8 got scared and ran towards the seashore# with % chasing him# 8 ran u, a stee, incline along the shore and was cornered on to, of a cliff. *ut of fear# 8 /um,ed from the cliff into the sea# % returned to the scene of their confrontation and seeing that nobody was there# went home to slee,. The ne5t day# 8Gs wife re,orted to the ,olice station that her husband had not yet come home. % search was conducted by the residents of the barangay but after almost two days# 8 or his body could not be located and his disa,,earance continued for the ne5t few days. 8ased on the testimony of C and other guests# who had seen % and 8 on to, of the cliff# % was arrested and charged with 6urder. 'n his defense# he claimed that since 8Gs body has not been found# there was no e idence of 7cor,us delictiG and therefore# he should be ac1uitted.
's the defense of % tenable or not" &tate the reason$s) for your answer. $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The defense of % is not tenable. 7Cor,us delicti7 does not refer to the body of the ,ur,orted ictim which had not been found. ) en without the body of the ,ur,orted ictim being found# the offender can be con icted when the facts and circumstances of a crime# the body of the crime or 7cor,us delicti7 is established. 'n other words# the nonJreco ery of the body of the ictim is not a bar to the ,rosecution of % for 6urder# but the fact of death and identity of the ictim must be established beyond reasonable doubt. Corpus 5elicti; 5efinition @ +lements (%&&&) a) Define 7cor,us delicti7. $2<) b) What are the elements of delicti7" $?<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
7cor,us
Corpus ;elicti literally means 7the body or substance of the crime7 or the fact that a crime has been committed# but does not include the identity of the ,erson who
78 of 86
+ntrapment #s9 2nstigation (1996) Distinguished entra,ment from 'nstigation.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
cigarettes# &!*2 6ercado ,ractically induced and ,rodded 2uan to commit the offense of illegal ,ossession of mari/uana. &et against the facts instigation is a alid defense a ailable to 2uan. +ntrapment #s9 2nstigation (%&&1) Distinguish fully between entra,ment and instigation in Criminal Law# )5em,lify each. D<
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
'n '4&T'>%T'*4# the instigator ,ractically induces the ,ros,ecti e accused into commission of the offense and himself becomes coJ,rinci,al. 'n )4TR%!6)4T# ways and means are resorted to for the ,ur,ose of tra,,ing and ca,turing the lawbrea0er while e5ecuting his criminal ,lan. 'nstigation $1EE;)
&us,ecting that 2uan was a drug ,usher# &!*2 6ercado# leader of the 4arcom team# ga e 2uan a !lBBJbill and as0ed him to buy some mari/uana cigarettes. Desirous of ,leasing &!*2 6ercado# 2uan went inside the sho,,ing mall while the officer waited at the corner of the mall. %fter fifteen minutes# 2uan returned with ten stic0s of mari/uana cigarettes which he ga e to &!*2 6ercado who thereu,on ,laced 2uan under arrest and charged him with iolation of The Dangerous Drugs Law by selling mari/uana cigarettes.
'n )4TR%!6)4T J 1. the criminal design originates from and is already in the mind of the lawbrea0er e en before entra,ment2. the law enforcers resort to ways and means for the ,ur,ose of ca,turing the lawbrea0er in flagrante delictoJ and ?. this circumstance is no bar to ,rosecution and con iction of the lawbrea0er. 'n '4&T'>%T'*4J
1. the idea and design to bring about the commission of the crime originated and de elo,ed in the mind of the law enforcers-
's 2uan guilty of any offense ,unishable under The Dangerous Drugs %ct" Discuss fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
2uan cannot be charged of any offense ,unishable under The Dangerous Drugs %ct. %lthough 2uan is a sus,ected drug ,usher# he cannot be charged on the basis of a mere sus,icion. 8y ,ro iding the money with which to buy mari/uana
2. the law enforcers induce# lure# or incite a ,erson who is not minded to commit a crime and would not otherwise commit it# into committing the crime- and ?. this circumstance absol es the accused from criminal liability
(People v. Dante 'ar6os, 18( S"#$ 1(4. ?1!!*=).
Dondee
reclusion ,er,etua to death.

ALTERNATI8E ANSWER3
Example of Entrapment: %# an antiJnarcotic agent of the >o ernment acted as a ,oseur buyer of shabu and negotiated with 8# a sus,ected drug ,usher who is unaware that % is a ,olice officer. % then issued mar0ed money to 8 who handed a sachet of shabu to 8. Thereu,on# % signaled his antiJnarcotic team to closeJin and arrest 8. This is a case of entra,ment because the criminal mind is in 8 already when % transacted with him. Example of Instigation: 8ecause the members of an antiJnarcotic team are already 0nown to drug ,ushers. %# the team leader# a,,roached and ,ersuaded 8 to act as a buyer of shabu and transact with C# the sus,ected drug ,usher. 9or the ,ur,ose# % ga e 8 mar0ed money to be used in buying shabu from C. %fter C handed the sachet of shabu to 8 and the latter handed the mar0ed money to C# the team closedJin and ,laced 8 and C under arrest. @nder the facts# 8 is not criminally liable for his ,artici,ation in the transaction because he was acting only under instigation by the law enforcers.
The crime committed by Raul is carna,,ing# ,unished by &ection 1D of Re,. %ct 4o. A;?E. The 0illing of &amuel is not a se,arate crime but only an aggra ating circumstance. (nti,Graft @ Corrupt Practices , 0( 1&19 (199*) % is charged with the crime defined in &ection ?$e) of the %ntiJ>raft and Corru,t !ractices %ct in an 'nformation that readsK
That from B1 to ?B 2anuary 1EE;# in the City of !asig and within the /urisdiction of this (onorable Court# the accused# being then em,loyed in the *ffice of the District )ngineer# De,artment of !ublic Wor0s and
S0"(& + P"! + L .5
(nti,Carnapping (ct; Carnapping wD >omici"e (199-)
&amuel# a tricycle dri er# ,lied his usual route using a (onda motorcycle with a sidecar. *ne e ening# Raul rode on the sidecar# ,o0ed a 0nife at &amuel and instructed him to go near the bridge. @,on reaching the bridge# Raul alighted from the motorcycle and suddenly stabbed &amuel se eral times until he was dead. Raul fled from the scene ta0ing the motorcycle with him.
What crime or crimes did Raul commit" X ;<I

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Raul committed the com,osite crime of Carna,,ing with homicide under &ec. 1D of Re,. %ct 4o. A;?E# as amended# considering that the 0illing 7in the course or 7on the occasion of a carna,,ing (People vs. De la "r&1, et al. 183 S"#$ 263). % motorcycle is included in the definition of a 7motor ehicle7 in said Re,. %ct# also 0nown as the G%ntiJCarna,,ing %ct of 1EF2G. There is no a,,arent moti e for the 0illing of the tricycle dri er but for Raul to be able to ta0e the motorcycle. The fact that the tricycle dri er was 0illed brings about the ,enalty of
79 of 86
(ighways and in the discharge of his official administrati e functions# did then and there willfully and unlawfully wor0 for and facilitate the a,,ro al of 8Gs claim for the ,ayment of the ,rice of his land which the go ernment had e5,ro,riated# and after the claim was a,,ro ed# the accused ga e 8 only !1#BBB.BB of the a,,ro ed claim of !;#BBB and willfully and unlawfully a,,ro,riated for himself the balance of !D#BBB# thus causing undue in/ury to 8 and the >o ernment.7
,ayment for 8Gs land which the >o ernment has already a,,ro,riated# and that the accused e entually withheld for himself from the ,rice of the said land# the amount of !D#BBB for his ser ices. 4o iolation of &ection ?$e) of the %ntiJ>raft and Corru,t %ct a,,ears. %t most# the accused should be merely charged administrati ely
ALTERNATI8E ANSWERS3
% has filed a motion to 1uash the information# contending that it does not charge an offense. 's he correct"
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1. +es# % is correct in filing a motion to 1uash the information because &ection ?$e) of Re,ublic %ct ?B1E a,,lies only to officers and em,loyees of go ernment cor,orations charged with the grant of licenses or ,ermits or other concessions# and not to D!W(# which is not a go ernment cor,oration.
2. % is not correct. 'n the case of 6eforda s. &andiganbayan. 1;1 &CR% ?EE# which in ol es a substantially identical information as the 'nformation 1uoted in the 1uestion# the &u,reme Court held that the 'nformation was alid. While it is true that the information 1uoted 'n the 1uestion# failed to allege e ident bad faith# gross ine5cusable negligence or manifest ,artiality# said 'nformation 's ne ertheless ade1uate because it a erred the three $?) elements for the iolation of &ection ?$c) of R%. ?B12 when it stated $1) that the accused is a ,ublic officer at the time of the commission of the crime# being em,loyed in the *ffice of the District )ngineer# D!W(- $2) that the accused caused undue 'n/ury to 8 and the >o ernment# with the statement that 8T the owner of the land# recei ed only !1#BBB.BB instead of the full alue of !;#BBB.BB- and $?)
+es# the contention of % is correct. The information failed to allege that the undue in/ury to 8 and the go ernment was caused by the accusedGs manifest ,artiality# e ident bad faith# or gross 'ne5cusable negligence# which are necessary elements of the offense charged# ie.# iolation of &ection ?$e) of the %ntiJ>raft and Corru,t !ractices %ct. The accused is em,loyed in the *ffice of the District )ngineer of the D!W( which has nothing to do with the determination and fi5ing of the ,rice of the land e5,ro,riated# and for which e5,ro,riated land the >o ernment is legally obligated to ,ay. There is no allegation in the information that the land was o er,riced or that the ,ayment of the amount was disad antageous to the >o ernment. 't a,,ears that the charge was solely based on the accused ha ing followed u, the
Dondee
Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006) that
in the discharge of %Gs official administrati e functions# he 7did then and there willfully and unlawfully wor0 for and facilitate the a,,ro al of his claim 555 and 7willfully and unlawfully a,,ro,riate for himself the balance of !D#BBB.BB 5 5 57. %n information need not em,loy or use the ery words or language of the statute. 't may also use words or language of similar im,ort.
maltreated her ado,ted child habitually. &he added that the accident was caused by her dri erGs negligence. &he did ,unish her ward for naughtiness or carelessness# but only mildly. 's her motion meritorious" Reason briefly. $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
(nti,>aHing law I 0( -& 9 (%&&%) 9hat is haCing as efine

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
by law* 204+
(a3ing# as defined by law# is an initiation rite or ,ractice as a ,rere1uisite for admission into membershi, in a fraternity# sorority or organi3ation by ,lacing the recruit# neo,hyte or a,,licant in some embarrassing or humiliating situations such as forcing him to do menial# silly# foolish and similar tas0s or acti ities or otherwise sub/ecting him to ,hysical or ,sychological suffering or in/ury. 9hat oes the law re!uire before initiation rites may be performe * 2=4+
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
4o# the motion to 1uash is not meritorious. 't is not necessary that mo antGs maltreatment of a child be 7habitual7 to constitute child abuse. The wrongful acts ,enali3ed as 7Child %buse7 under Re,. %ct 4o. FA1B refers to the maltreatment of the child# 7whether habitual or not7K this is e5,ressly stated in &ec. 2$b) of the said Law. 6rs. 64% should be liable for child abuse.
&ection 2 of Re,. %ct 4o. CBDE $%ntiJ (a3ing Law) re1uires that before ha3ing or initiation rites may be ,erformed# notice to the school authorities or head of organi3ations shall be gi en se en $F) days before the conduct of such rites. The written notice shall indicate $a) the ,eriod of the initiation acti ities# not e5ceeding three $?) days- $b) the names of those to be sub/ected to such acti ities# and $c) an underta0ing that no ,hysical iolence shall be em,loyed by anybody during such initiation rites.
C>2L5 (A'S+; 0( *61& (%&& )

6rs. 64% was charged of child abuse. 't a,,ears from the e idence that she failed to gi e immediately the re1uired medical attention to her ado,ted child# 8!*# when he was accidentally bum,ed by her car# resulting in his head in/uries and im,aired ision that could lead to night blindness. The accused# according to the social wor0er on the case# used to whi, him when he failed to come home on time from school. %lso# to ,unish him for carelessness in washing dishes# she sometimes sent him to bed without su,,er.
&he mo ed to 1uash the charge on the ground that there is no e idence she
80 of 86
Chil" (3use; 0( *61& (%&&6)
)duardo =uintos# a widower for the ,ast 1B years# felt that his retirement at the age of FB ga e him the o,,ortunity to engage in his fa orite ,astime W oyeurism. 'f not using his highJ,owered binoculars to ,ee, at his neighborGs homes and domestic acti ities# his second choice was to follow sweet young girls. *ne day# he trailed a teenage girl u, to the LRT station at )D&%J 8uendia. While ascending the stairs# he stayed one ste, behind her and in a moment of bra ado# ,laced his hand on her left hi, and gently massaged it. &he screamed and shouted for hel,. )duardo was arrested and charged with acts of lasci iousness. 's the designation of the crime correct" $;<)
ALTERNATI8E ANSWER3
metham,hetamine hydrochloride or TshabuU. %n entra,ment o,eration was conducted by ,olice officers# resulting in his arrest following the disco ery of 1BB grams of the said dangerous drug in his ,ossession. (e was sub/ected to a drug test and was found ,ositi e for the use of mari/uana# another dangerous drug. (e was subse1uently charged with two crimesK .iolation of &ection 11# %rticle '' of R% E1A; for the ,ossession of TshabuU and iolation of &ection 1;# %rticle '' of R% E1A; for the use of mari/uana. $;<) a+ Are the charges proper* Explain1
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
4o. The use of dangerous drugs is not committed when *bie 2uan was also found to ha e in his ,ossession such 1uantity of any dangerous drug. (See s. 11 and 16, #$.
o. !16()
The crime should be *ther %cts of Child %buse under &ection 1B of R%. FA1B# ,ar. b of &ection ? that refers to child abuse committed by any act# deeds or words which debases# degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being. 'n relation thereto# &ection 1B ,ro ides criminal liability for other acts of child abuse# cruelty or e5,loitation# or for other condiJ tions ,re/udicial to the childGs de elo,ment. The reaction of the ictim# screaming for hel, u,on the occurrence of the touching indicates that she ,ercei ed her dignity was being debased or iolated.
b+ So as not to be sentence to eath) $bie Juan offers to plea guilty to a lesser offense1 Can he o so* 9hy*
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
4o. *bie 2uan cannot ,lead guilty to a lower offense as it is ,rohibited under the law. $&ection 2?# R%. 4o. E1A;) %ny ,erson charged under any ,ro ision of this %ct regardless of the im,osable ,enalty shall not be allowed to a ail of the ,ro ision on ,leaJbargaining. 5angerous 5rugs (ct (199-)
&u,erintendent %l &antiago# Chief of the 4arcotics Di ision# Western !olice District# recei ed information that a certain Lee Lay ofJ4o. C Tindalo &treet# Tondo#
5angerous 5rug (ct4 Plea,Aargaining (%&&6) *bie 2uan is sus,ected to ha e in his ,ossession an uns,ecified amount of
Dondee
6anila is a member of the 1DN >ang selling shabu and mari/uana. &!*l Loren3o and &!*? !eralta were instructed to conduct sur eillance and buyJbust o,erations against Lay. Their informant contacted Lay and a meeting was arranged at T. !in,in Restaurant at 2KBB in the afternoon on 9ebruary 1D# 1EE?. &!*1 Loren3o and &!*? !eralta# acting as ,oseurJbuyers# ,urchased from Lay 1B stic0s of mari/uana and ,aid !;BB. Later# Lay agreed to sell to them one 0ilo of dried mari/uana fruiting to,s which he ga e them at his residence. The ,olicemen arrested Lay and a search was conducted. 9ound were ?;A grams of mari/uana seeds# E?2 grams of mari/uana fruiting to,s and ;B stic0s of mari/uana cigarettes. What offense or offenses did Lay commit" H;<I
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
brought out the drugs from the case in the trun0 and got ? ,lastic sac0s of heroin. They then told *ng to alight from the car. *ng left with the 2 remaining ,lastic sac0s of heroin. Chief 'ns,ector >amboa ad ised him to 0ee, silent and go home which the latter did. @n0nown to them# an 48' team of agents had been following them and witnessed the transaction. They arrested Chief 'ns,ector >amboa and !*? Lorbes. 6eanwhile# another 48' team followed *ng and li0ewise arrested him. %ll of them were later charged.
What are their res,ecti e criminal liabilities" $;<)

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Lay committed the offenses of illegal selling of dangerous drugs and illegal ,ossession of dangerous drugs which should be made sub/ect of se,arate informations.
The crime of illegal selling of dangerous drugs is committed as regards the 1B stic0s of mari/uana and as regards the one $1) 0ilo of dried mari/uana fruiting to,s# which should be sub/ect of two $2) se,arate informations because the acts were committed at different times and in different ,laces. The crime of 'llegal ,ossession of dangerous drugs is committed as regards the mari/uana seeds# mari/uana fruiting to,s and mari/uana cigarettes which are not the sub/ect of the sale. %nother information shall be filed for this. 5angerous 5rugs (ct (%&&6)
%fter recei ing reliable information that Dante *ng# a notorious drug smuggler# was arri ing on !%L 9light 4*. !R 1C1# !4! Chief 'ns,ector &amuel >amboa formed a grou, of antiJdrug agents. When *ng arri ed at the air,ort# the grou, arrested him and sei3ed his attache case. @,on ins,ection inside the 'mmigration holding area# the attache case yielded ; ,lastic bags of heroin weighing ;BB grams. Chief 'ns,ector >amboa too0 the attache case and boarded him in an unmar0ed car dri en by !*? !e,ito Lorbes. *n the way to Cam, Crame and u,on nearing White !lains corner )D&%# Chief 'ns,ector >amboa ordered !*? Lorbes to sto, the car. They
81 of 86
Chief 'ns,ector >amboa and !*? !e,ito Lorbes who cons,ired in ta0ing the attache case are liable for the following crimes defined under R%. E1A;K a) &ec. 2F for misa,,ro,riation or failure to account for the confiscated or sei3ed dangerous drugs. b) &ec. D in relation to &ec. ?$ee) for their acts as ,rotector:coddler of Dante *ng who im,orted drugs 'n addition# by allowing *ng to esca,e ,rosecution for illegal im,ortation or illegal trans,ortation of dangerous drugs# where the ,enalty is life im,risonment to death# they are also liable for 1ualified bribery under %rt. 211J% of the Re ised !enal Code.
With res,ect to Dante *ng# he is guilty of illegal im,ortation of dangerous drugs under &ec. D# R.%. E1A;# if !R 1C1 is an international flight. 'f !R 1C1 is a domestic flight# he is liable for iolation of &ec. ;# R%. E1A; for illegal trans,ortation of dangerous drugs.
in but e idently were not swift enough since % and 8 were able to run away. Two days later# % was arrested in connection with another incident. 't a,,ears that during the o,erations# the ,olice officers were not able to sei3e the mar0ed money but were able to get ,ossession of the mari/uana tea bag. % was subse1uently ,rosecuted for iolation of &ection D# %rticle '' of Re,ublic %ct 4o. AD2;# otherwise 0nown as the Dangerous Drugs %ct# During the trial# the mar0ed money was not ,resented. Can % be held liable" )5,lain. $2<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
+es. % can be held liable. The absence of the mar0ed money will not create a hiatus in the ,rosecutionGs e idence as long as the sale of the dangerous drugs is ade1uately ,ro en and the drug sub/ect of the transaction is ,resented before the court. There was a ,erfected contract of sale of the drug (People vs. 5n3 "o, +4(
S"#$ 233% People vs. Fervo&laBos, +41 S"#$ 6+().
5angerous 5rugs (ct (6 %6); 8arGe" 8oney (%&&&)

%t about E oGcloc0 in the morning# a 4arcom >rou, laid a ,lan to entra, and a,,rehend %# a long sus,ected drug dealer# through a 7buyJbust7 o,eration. %t the a,,ointed time# the ,oseurJbuyer a,,roached % who was then with 8. % mar0ed !1BB bill was handed o er to % who in turn# ga e the ,oseurJ buyer one $1) tea bag of mari/uana lea es. The members of the team# who were then ,ositioned behind thic0 lea es# closed
5angerous 5rugs (ct (6 %6); Plea Aargaining (199-) )dgardo was charged with im,ortation of ,rohibited drugs in an information filed with the Regional Trial Court of Naloo0an City on 2une D# 1EED. The offense is ,unishable by reclusion ,er,etua to death. Can )dgardo a ail of ,leaJ bargaining" H2<I
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
4o# )dgardo cannot a ail of ,leaJbargaining because the im,osable ,enalty for his iolation of the Dangerous Drugs %ct $R.%. 4o. AD2;. as amended) is reclusion ,er,etua to death. &ection 2BJ% e5,ressly ,ro ides that ,leaJbargaining shall not be allowed where the im,osable
Dondee
,enalty for the iolation of said law is reclusion ,er,etua to death. $&ec. 2BJ%# R.%. 4o. AD2;# as amended). 5angerous 5rugs (ct; Consummation of Sale (1996) !at. 8uensuceso# ,osing as a buyer# a,,roached Ronnie# a sus,ected drug ,usher# and offered to buy !?BB worth of shabu. Ronnie then left# came bac0 fi e minutes later and handed !at# 8uensuceso an aluminum foil containing the shabu. (owe er# before !at# 8uensuceso was able to deli er the mar0ed money to Ronnie# the latter s,otted a ,oliceman at a distance# whom Ronnie 0new to be connected with the 4arcotics Command of the !olice. @,on seeing the latter# Ronnie ran away but was arrested thirty minutes later by other ,olicemen who ,ursued him. @nder the circumstances# would you consider the crime of sale of a ,rohibited drug already consummated" )5,lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
criminal liability to her in absence of animus ,ossidendi.
the
5angerous 5rugs (ct; Plea,Aargaining (%&& ) 64*# who is ?B years old# was charged as a drug ,usher under the Com,rehensi e Dangerous Drugs %ct of 2BB2. During ,reJ trial# he offered to ,lead guilty to the lesser offense concerning use of dangerous drugs. &hould the 2udge allow 64*Gs ,lea to the lesser offense" )5,lain briefly. $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
4o# the 2udge should not allow 64*Gs ,lea to a lesser offense# because ,leaJ bargaining in ,rosecutions of drugJ related cases is no longer allowed by Re,. %ct 4o. E1A;#
+es# the sale of ,rohibited drug is already consummated although the mar0ed money was not yet deli ered. When Ronnie handed the aluminum foil containing the shabu to !at. 8uensuceso ,ursuant to their agreed sale# the crime was consummated. !ayment of the consideration is not an element of re1uisite of the crime. 'f e er# the mar0ed money is only e identiary to strengthen the case of the ,rosecution. 5angerous 5rugs (ct; Criminal 2ntent to Posses (%&&%)
% and his fiancee 8 were wal0ing in the ,la3a when they met a grou, of ,olicemen who had earlier been ti,,ed off that % was in ,ossession of ,rohibited drugs. @,on seeing the ,olicemen and sensing that they were after him# % handed a sachet containing shabu to his fiancee 8# telling her to hide it in her handbag. The ,olicemen saw 8 ,lacing the sachet inside her handbag. 'f 8 was unaware that % was a drug user or ,usher or that what was inside the sachet gi en to her was shabu# is she nonetheless liable under the Dangerous Drugs %ct" $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
4o# 8 will not be criminally liable because she is unaware that % was a drug user or ,usher or of the content of the sachet handed to her by %# and therefore the criminal intent to ,ossess the drug in iolation of the Dangerous Drugs %ct is absent. There would be no basis to im,ute
82 of 86 the
Com,rehensi e Dangerous Drugs %ct of 2BB2# regardless of the im,osable ,enalty. >ighway 0o33ery (%&&1)
!olice &gt. Diego Chan# being a member of the Theft and Robbery Di ision of the Western !olice District and assigned to the &outh (arbor# 6anila# was ,ri y to and more or less familiar with the schedules# routes and hours of the mo ements of container ans# as well as the mobile ,olice ,atrols# from the ,ier area to the different e5,ort ,rocessing 3ones outside 6etro 6anila. 9rom time to time# he ga e aluable and detailed information on these matters to a grou, interested in those shi,ments in said container ans. *n se eral instances# using the said information as their basis# the gang hi/ac0ed and ,ilfered the contents of the ans. !rior to their sale to 7fences7 in 8anawe# =ue3on City and 8ang0al# 6a0ati City# the gang 'nforms &gt# Chan who then ins,ects the ,ilfered goods# ma0es his choice of the aluable items and dis,oses of them through his own sources or 7fences7. When the high/ac0ers were traced on one occasion and arrested# u,on custodial in estigation# they im,licated &gt. Chan and the fiscal charged them all# including &gt. Chan as coJ,rinci,als. &gt. Chan# in his defense# claimed that he should not be charged as a ,rinci,al but only as an accessory after the fact under !.D. ;?2# otherwise 0nown as the %ntiJ!iracy and %ntiJ (ighway Robbery %ct of 1EF2.
and tenable" )5,lain# $;<)

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
4o# the contention of &gt. Chan is not alid or tenable because by e5,ress ,ro ision of !.D. ;?2# &ection D# a ,erson who 0nowingly and in any manner# aids or ,rotects highway robbers:brigands# such as gi ing them information about the mo ement of ,olice officers or ac1uires or recei es ,ro,erty ta0en by brigands# or who directly or indirectly abets the commission of highway robbery:brigandage# shall be considered as accom,lice of the ,rinci,al offenders and ,unished in accordance with the rules in the Re ised !enal Code.
ALTERNATI8E ANSWER3
4o# the contention of &gt. Chan that he should be charged only as accessory after the fact is not tenable because he was a ,rinci,al ,artici,ant in the commission of the crime and in ,ursuing the criminal design.
%n accessory after the fact in ol es himself in the commission of a crime only after the crime had already been consummated# not before# 9or his criminal ,artici,ation in the e5ecution of the high/ac0ing of the container ans# &gt. Chan is a coJ,rinci,al by indis,ensable coo,eration. 2llegal .ishing , P5 *& (1996)
@,on a laboratory e5amination of the fish sei3ed by the ,olice and agents of the 9isheries Commission# it was indubitably determined that the fish they were selling were caught with the use of e5,losi es. %ccordingly# the three endors were criminally charged with the iolation
's the contention of &gt. Chan

alid
Dondee
Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006) of
&ection ?? of !.D. FBD which ma0es it unlawful for any ,erson to 0nowingly ,ossess# deal in# or sell for ,rofit any fish which ha e been illegally caught. During the trial# the three endors claimed that they bought the fish from a fishing boat which they duly identified. The ,rosecution howe er claimed that the three endors should ne ertheless be held liable for the offense as they were the ones caught in ,ossession of the fish illegally caught.
*n the basis of the abo e facts# if you were the /udge# would you con ict the three fish endors" )5,lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
4o# ' would not con ict the three fish endors if ' were the /udge. 6ere ,ossession of such fish without 0nowledge of the fact that the same were caught with the use of e5,losi es does not by itself render the sellerJ ,ossessor criminally liable under !.D. FBD. %lthough the act ,enali3ed in said Decree may be a malum ,rohibitum# the law ,unishes the ,ossession# dealing in or selling of such fish only when 70nowingly7 done that the fish were caught with the use of e5,losi es- hence criminal intent is essential. The claim by the fish endors that they only bought the fish from fishing boats which they 7duly identified7# renders their ,ossession of such fish innocent unless the ,rosecution could ,ro e that they ha e 0nowledge that e5,losi es were used in catching such fish# and the accused had 0nowledge thereof.
ti,ster also warned the ,olicemen that % was always armed. %t the gi en address# a lady who introduced herself as the elder sister of %# o,ened the door and let the ,olicemen in inside# the team found % slee,ing on the floor. 'mmediately beside him was a clutch bag which# when o,ened# contained a .?C caliber ,alti0 re ol er and a hand grenade. %fter erification# the authorities disco ered that % was not a licensed holder of the .?C caliber ,alti0 re ol er. %s for the hand grenade# it was established that only military ,ersonnel are authori3ed to carry hand grenades. &ubse1uently# % was charged with the crime of 'llegal !ossession of 9irearms and %mmunition. During trial# % maintained that the bag containing the unlicensed firearm and hand grenade belonged to %# his friend# and
2llegal Possession of .irearms I 0( -%9 (199-) &u,,osing a ,ublic school teacher ,artici,ated in a cou, dGetat using an unlicensed firearm. What crime or crimes did he commit" H2<I
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The ,ublic school teacher committed only cou, dGetat for his ,artici,ation therein. (is use of an unlicensed firearm is absorbed in the cou, dGetat under the new firearms law $Re,. %ct 4o. C2ED). % ,rosecution for illegal ,ossession of firearm under the new law is allowed only if the unlicensed firearm was not used in the commission of another crime. 2llegal Possession of .irearms @ (mmunitions (%&&&)
% has long been wanted by the ,olice authorities for arious crimes committed by him. %cting on an information by a ti,ster# the ,olice ,roceeded to an a,artment where % was often seen. The
83 of 86
that he was not in actual ,ossession thereof at the time he was arrested. %re the allegations meritorious" )5,lain. $?<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
%Gs allegations are not meritorious. *wnershi, is not an essential element of the crime of illegal ,ossession of firearms and ammunition. What the law re1uires is merely ,ossession# which includes not only actual ,hysical ,ossession but also constructi e ,ossession where the firearm and e5,losi e are sub/ect to oneGs control and management. (People &s. De )re6ia, +33
S"#$ 216% U.S. vs. ,&an, +3 Phil. 1*(A People vs. So4a3, 11* Phil. (6().
followingK 1. R%. AF1? W Code of Conduct and )thical &tandards for !ublic *fficials and )m,loyees when he solicited and acce,t gifts $&ec. FHdI). 2. !.D. DA W 6a0ing it ,unishable for ,ublic officials and em,loyees to recei e# and for ,ri ate ,ersons to gi e# gifts on any occasion# including Christmas. ?. 'ndirect 8ribery $%rt. 211# Re ised !enal Code) for recei ing gifts offered by reason of office. P5 6 (199 ) >ino was a,,ointed Collector of Customs and was assigned at the 4inoy %1uino 'nternational %ir,ort# >erry# an im,orter# hosted a dinner for 1BB ,ersons at the Westin !hili,,ine !la3a in honor of >ino. What are the offense or offenses committed by >ino and >erry"
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
P5 6 @ 0( 6*11 @ 2n"irect Ari3ery (%&&6)

Commissioner 6arian Torres of the 8ureau of internal Re enue $8'R) wrote solicitation letters addressed to the 9ili,inoJChinese Chamber of Commerce and 'ndustry and to certain C)*s of arious multinational cor,orations re1uesting donations of gifts for her office Christmas ,arty. &he used the 8ureauGs official stationery. The res,onse was ,rom,t and o erwhelming so much so that Commissioner TorresG office was o ercrowded with rice coo0ers# radio sets# free3ers# electric sto es and toasters. (er staff also recei ed se eral en elo,es containing cash money for the em,loyeesG Christmas luncheon.
(as Commissioner Torres committed any im,ro,riety or irregularity" What laws or decrees did she iolate" $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
+es# Commissioner Torres iolated the

8oth >ino and >erry are liable for iolation of !residential Decree 4o. DA# which ,unishes any ,ublic official or em,loyee who recei es# directly or indirectly# and for ,ri ate ,ersons who gi e# offer any gift# ,resent or aluable thing on any occasion# including Christmas# when such gift or aluable thing is gi en by reason of his official ,osition# regardless of whether or not the same is for ,ast fa or or fa ors# or the gi er ho,es or e5,ects to recei e a fa or or better treatment in the future. 8eing an im,orter# >erry reasonably e5,ects future fa or from >ino. 'ncluded within the ,rohibition is the throwing of ,arties or entertainment in honor of the official or em,loyee or of his immediate relati es.
Dondee
P5 6 (199*) %# who is the ,ri ate com,lainant in a murder case ,ending before a Regional Trial Court 2udge# ga e a /udge a Christmas gift# consisting of big bas0et of assorted canned goods and bottles of e5,ensi e wines# easily worth !1B.BBB.BB. The /udge acce,ted the gift 0nowing it came from %. What crime or crimes# if any# were committed"
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
fund se eral ,ro/ects of the 6ayor. (e o,ened an account in the 6ayorQs name and regularly de,osited arious amounts ranging from !;BB#BBB.BB to !1 6illion. 9rom this account# the 6ayor withdrew and used the money for constructing feeder roads# barangay clinics# re,airing schools and for all other munici,al ,ro/ects. 't was subse1uently disco ered that Don >abito was actually a /ueteng o,erator and the amounts he de,osited were ,roceeds from his /ueteng o,erations.
What crime:s were committed" Who are criminally liable" )5,lain. $A<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The 2udge committed the crime of 'ndirect bribery under %rt. 211 of the Re ised !enal Code. The gift was offered to the 2udge by reason of his office. 'n addition# the 2udge will be liable for the iolation of !.D. DA which ,unishes the recei ing of gifts by ,ubic officials and em,loyees on occasions li0e Christmas. Plun"er un"er 0( *&-&; Prescripti#e Perio" (1991) Through 0ic0bac0s# ,ercentages or commissions and other fraudulent schemes :con eyances and ta0ing ad antage of his ,osition# %ndy# a former mayor of a suburban town# ac1uired assets amounting to !1B billion which is grossly dis,ro,ortionate to his lawful income. Due to his influence and connections and des,ite 0nowledge by the authorities of his 'llJ gotten wealth# he was charged with the crime of ,lunder only after twenty $2B) years from his defeat in the last elections he ,artici,ated in. 1) 6ay %ndy still be held criminally liable" Why" 2) Can the &tate still reco er the ,ro,erties and assets that he illegally ac1uired# the bul0 of which is in the name of his wife and children" Reason out.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Don >abito iolated the %ntiJ6oney Laundering %ct $&ec. D# R.%. 4o. E1AB) for 0nowingly transacting money
1) %ndy will not be criminally liable because &ection A of R% FBCB ,ro ides that the crime ,unishable under this %ct shall ,rescribe in twenty years and the ,roblem as0ed whether %ndy can still be charged with the crime of ,lunder after 2B years. 2) +es# because &ection A ,ro ides that reco ery of ,ro,erties unlawfully ac1uired by ,ublic officers from them or their nominees or transferees shall not be barred by ,rescri,tion# laches or esto,,el. 09(9 <o9 916& (nti,8oney Laun"ering (ct (%&&6)
Don >abito# a ,hilanthro,ist# offered to
84 of 86 as
,ro,erty which in ol es or relates to the ,roceeds of an unlawful acti ity such as /ueteng. 'n addition# he may be ,rosecuted for liability as a/ueteng o,erator. $R.%. 4o. E2CF) The mayor who allowed the o,ening of an account in his name is li0ewise guilty for iolation of the %6L%. (e# 0nowing that the money instrument or ,ro,erty in ol es the ,roceeds of an unlawful acti ity# ,erforms or fails to ,erform any act which results in the facilitation of money laundering. 0a 1&19; Pre#enti#e Suspension (1999)
% ,ublic officer was accused before the &andiganbayan of a iolation of &ection ? $e) of R% 4o. ?B1E# the %ntiJ >raft and Corru,t !ractices %ct. 2ust after arraignment and e en before e idence was ,resented# the &andiganbayan issued an order for his sus,ension ,endente lite. The accused 1uestioned the said *rder contending that it is iolati e of the constitutional ,ro ision against an e5 ,ost facto law. Will you sustain the ob/ection of the accused" Why" H2<I
,unishable. $c) The ,reJconditions necessary to be met or satisfied before a sus,ension may be ordered areK $1) there must be ,ro,er notice re1uiring the accused to show cause at a s,ecific date of hearing why he should not be ordered sus,ended from office ,ursuant to R% ?B1E# as amended- and $2) there must be a determination of a alid information against the accused that warrants his sus,ension. 0( 1&19; Pre#enti#e Suspension (%&&&)
% month after the arraignment of 8rad Nit Commissioner of the (ousing and Land @se Regulatory 8oard# who was charged with iolation of &ection ? $h) of Re,ublic %ct ?B1E H%ntiJ>raft and Corru,t !ractices %ct) before the &andiganbayan# the *ffice of the &,ecial !rosecutor filed a 6otion to &us,end %ccused !endente Lite ,ursuant to &ection 1? of the %ntiJ>raft Law. The Court granted the motion and sus,ended accused 8rad Nit for a ,eriod of EB days. %ccused assailed the constitutional alidity of the sus,ension order on the ground that it ,arta0es of a ,enalty before 2udgment of con iction is reached and is thus iolati e of his constitutional right to be ,resumed innocent. (e also claimed that this ,ro ision of the law on sus,ension ,endente lite a,,lies only to electi e officials and not to a,,ointed ones li0e him. Rule with reasons. $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
$c) What ,reJconditions are necessary to be met or satisfied before ,re enti e sus,ension may be ordered" $2<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
$b) 4o# ' will not sustain the ob/ection of the accused. &us,ension of the accused ,endente lite is not iolati e of the constitutional ,ro ision against e5J,ost facto law. )5J,ost facto law means ma0ing an innocent act a crime before it is made
The sus,ension order does not ,arta0e of a ,enalty and is thus not iolati e of 8rad NitGs constitutional right to
Dondee
Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006) be
,resumed innocent. @nder the law# the accused ,ublic officers shall be sus,ended from office while the criminal ,rosecution is ,ending in court $&ec. 1?# R%. ?B1E). &uch ,re enti e sus,ension is mandatory to ,re ent the accused from ham,ering the normal course of the in estigation $Rios s. &andiganbayan#2FE &CR% ;C1 $1EEF)- 8unye s. )scareal 22A &CR% ??2 $1EE?)). 4either is there merit in 8rad NitGs claim that the ,ro ision on sus,ension ,endente lite a,,lies only to electi e officials and not to a,,ointed ones li0e him. 't a,,lies to all ,ublic officials 'ndicted u,on a alid information under R%. 4o. ?B1E# whether they be a,,ointi e or electi e officials- or ,ermanent or tem,orary em,loyees# or ,ertaining to the career or nonJ career ser ice $&ego ia s. &andiganbayan# 2CC &CR% ?2C H1EECI).
a ,arty who has a transaction with the >o ernment is wrong# more so when the giftJgi er is under in estigation by the go ernment office to which the ,ublic officer is connected. 0a 6*11; Co#erage (%&&1)
Robert &y# a well 0nown businessman and a founding member of the 6a0ati 8usiness Club# aside from being a classmate of the newlyJelected !resident of the !hili,,ines# had 'n estments consisting of shares of stoc0s in the @rban 8an0# the !48# the Rural 8an0 of Caloocan City and his ,ri atelyJowned cor,oration# the R& 8uilders Cor,oration and TransJ!acific %ir. %fter the
0( 1&19; Pu3lic =fficer (%&&1) The Central 8an0 $8ang0o &entral ng !ili,inas}# by a resolution of the monetary board# hires Theof &to Tomas# a retired manager of a leading ban0 as a consultant. Theof later recei es a aluable gift from a ban0 under in estigation by the Central 8an0. 6ay Theof be ,rosecuted under Re,ublic %ct 4o. ?B1E $%ntiJ>raft and Corru,t !ractices %ct) for acce,ting such a gift" )5,lain. C<
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
4o# Theof may not be ,rosecuted under Re,. %ct ?B1E# but may be ,rosecuted for iolation of !res# Decree 4o. DA# under which such act of recei ing a aluable gift is ,unished.
%lthough Theof is a 7,ublic officer7 within the a,,lication of the %ntiJ>raft and Corru,t !ractices %ct $R% ?B1E)# yet his act of recei ing such gift does not a,,ear to be included among the ,unishable acts under Re,. %ct ?B1E since he is not to inter ene in his official ca,acity in the in estigation of the ban0 which ga e the gift. !enal laws must be strictly construed against the &tate. 'n any case# Theof is administrati ely liable.
ALTERNATI8E ANSWER
+es# Theof may be ,rosecuted under Re,. %ct ?B1E because he is a 7,ublic officer7 within the ,ur iew of said law# and Theof recei ed the aluable gift from a ban0 which is under in estigation by the Central 8an0 where he is em,loyed as a 7,ublic officer7. Recei ing gift# directly or indirectly by a ,ublic officer from
85 of 86
!resident had ta0en his oath and assumed his office# he a,,ointed Robert as (onorary Consul to the Re,ublic of .ietnam. Robert too0 his oath before the !resident and after furnishing the De,artment of 9oreign %ffairs with his a,,ointment ,a,ers# flew to &aigon# now (o Chi 6in City# where he organi3ed his staff# ,ut u, an office and stayed there for three months attending to trade o,,ortunities and relations with local businessman. *n the fourth month# he returned to the !hili,,ines to ma0e his re,ort to the !resident. (owe er# the %ntiJ>raft League of the !hili,,ines filed a com,laint against Robert for $1) falling to file his &tatement of %ssets and Liabilities within thirty $?B) days from assum,tion of office- $2) failing to resign from his businesses# and $?) falling to di est his shares and in estments in the ban0s and cor,orations owned by him# as re1uired by the Code of Conduct and )thical &tandards for !ublic *fficials and )m,loyees. Will the com,laint ,ros,er" )5,lain. $;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
$Re,. %ct 4o. ?B1E# as amendedI# which re1uires all ,ublic officers within ?B days from assuming ,ublic office to file a true# detailed sworn statement of assets and liabilities. .iolations of this law are mala ,rohibita which admits of no e5cuses.
0( * 1-,+conomic Sa3otage; 2llegal 0ecruitment (%&& )

RR re,resented to %%# 88# CC and DD that she could send them to London to wor0 there as sales ladies and waitresses. &he collected and recei ed from them arious amounts of money for recruitment and ,lacement fees totalling !DBB#BBB. %fter their dates of de,arture were ,ost,oned se eral times# the four ,ros,ects got sus,icious and went to !*)% $!hil. * erseas )m,loyment %uthority). There they found out that RR was not authori3ed nor licensed to recruit wor0ers for em,loyment abroad. They sought refund to no a ail.
's RR guilty of any gra e offense" )5,lain briefly. $;<)

SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The com,laint will not ,ros,er because the Code of Conduct and )thical &tandards for !ublic *fficials and )m,loyees $Re,. %ct. 4o. AF1?)# e5,ressly e5em,ts those who ser e the >o ernment in an honorary ca,acity from filing &tatements of %ssets and Liabilities# and from resigning and di esting themsel es of interest from any ,ri ate enter,rise $&ecs. C% and E).
ALTERNATI8E ANSWER3
+es. RR is guilty of a gra e offense# ha ing engaged in illegal recruitment constituting the offense of economic sabotage which is ,unishable with life im,risonment and a fine of !1BB.BBB.BB.
)C*4*6'C &%8*T%>) is an offense defined in ?C$b) of the Labor Code# as amended by !res. Decree 4o. 2B1C# which is incurred when the illegal recruitment is carried out in large scale or by a syndicate. 't is in a large scale when there are three or more aggrie ed ,arties# indi idually or as a grou,. %nd it is committed by a syndicate when three or more ,ersons cons,ire or
+es# the com,laint will ,ros,er under &ec. F of the %ntiJ >raft and Corru,t !ractices %ct
Dondee
86 of 86
coo,erate with one another in carrying out the illegal transaction# scheme or acti ity. 0( *61& I Chil" +/ploitation (%&&6)
%ling 6aria recei ed an urgent tele,hone call from 2unior# her eldest son# as0ing for !2#BBB.BB to com,lete his semestral tuition fees ,re,aratory to his final e5ams in Commerce. Distressed and disturbed# she borrowed money from her com,adre 6ang 2uan with the assurance to ,ay him within 2 months. Two months la,sed but %ling 6aria failed to settle her obligation. 6ang 2uan told %ling 6aria that she does not ha e to ,ay the loan if she will allow her youngest 1BJyear old daughter %nnie to wor0 as a housemaid in his house for 2 months at !l#BBB.BB a month. Des,ite %ling 6ariaGs ob/ection# 6ang 2uan insisted and brought %nnie to his house to wor0 as a maid.
1. Was a crime committed by 6ang 2uan when he brought %nnie to his house as maid for the ,ur,ose of re,aying her motherGs loan" $2.;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
+es. 6ang 2uan committed the crime of e5,loitation of child labor which is committed by any ,ersons who unJ der the ,rete5t of reimbursing himself of a debt incurred by an ascendant# guardian or ,erson entrusted with the custody of a minor# shall# against the latterGs will# retainh im in his ser ice $%rt. 2F?# Re ised !enal Code). (e can also be liable as an em,loyer for the em,loyment of a minor below 1; yrs. old# under &ec. 12# %rt. C of R%. FA1B. 2. 'f %ling 6aria herself was made to wor0 as a houseJ maid in 6ang 2uanGs household to ,ay her loan# did he commit a crime" $2.;<)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
+es. 6ang 2uan committed the crime of in oluntary ser itude for rendering ser ices under com,ulsion and ,ayment of debts. This is committed by any ,erson who# in order to re1uire or enforce the ,ayment of a debt# shall com,el the debtor to wor0 for him# against his will# as household ser ant or farm laborer $%rt. 2FD# Re ised !enal Code)
Dondee

Criminal Law: Answers To Bar Examination Questions in

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law: Answers To Bar Examination Questions in

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006)

ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS IN

U0* #"* 123

Version 1994-2006 Updated by

Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006)

The 'uthors (uly )*, )++,

Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006)

JUSTI6YING 7 EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES

Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006)

?ualifying; +lements of a Crime (%&&1)

PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE 6OR 6ELONIES

Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006)

EXTINCTION O6 CRIMINAL LIABILITY

CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND T9E LAW O6 NATIONS

CRIMES AGAINST T9E 6UNDAMENTAL LAW O6 T9E STATE

CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER

Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006)

CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST

CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC O66ICERS

CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS

Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006)

CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY

CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY

Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006)

CRIMES AGAINST C9ASTITY

CRIMES AGAINST T9E CI8IL STATUS O6 PERSONS

CRIMES AGAINST 9ONOR

SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006)

Version 1994-2006 Updated by

Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006)

Certificate of )lection Code).

Version 1994-2006 Updated by

Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006)

Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006)

did the four commit" )5,lain.

Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006)

Criminal Lia3ility4 .elonious (ct; Pro/imate Cause (1996)

Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006)

such tetanus infection the not ha e died with it.

Criminal Lia3ility; .elonious (ct of Scaring (%&&1)

vs. 0alde1, 41 Phil, 14!2% People vs. $pra, +2 S"#$ 1*32.)

Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006)

Criminal Lia3ility; .elonious (ct; Pro/imate Cause (%&&1)

Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006)

Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006) was

Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006)

a) 's the contention correct" )5,lain. $?<)

Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006)

of 8" )5,lain. $2<)

JUSTI6YING 7 EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES

the in/ury. !om,ing lost his right eye.

a) 's Natreena criminally liable" Why" $?<)

Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006)

Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006)

!ustifying; S5; 5efense of >onor; 0e;uisites (199-)

8ut if the aggression that was begun by

!ustifying; S5; 5efense of Property; 0e;uisites (%&&1)

Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006)

case" )5,lain. $1<)

,ro en during the trial.

8itigating; Plea of Guilty (1999)

considerable efforts and loo0ing for the accused.