You are on page 1of 117

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)

Source: UP Suggested Answers

imposition of sanction, instead the

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

underlying
GENERAL PRINCIPLES; SCHOOLS OF

reasons

would

be

inquired into.

THOUGHT IN CRIMINAL LAW (1996)


1) What are the different schools of
thought or theories in Criminal Law and
describe each briefly.

2.

We follow the classical school of thought


although some provisions of eminently
positivist in tendencies, like punishment
of

impossible

crime,

Juvenile

2) To what theory does our Revised Penal

circumstances, are incorporated in our

Code belong?

Code.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

GENERAL

PRINCIPLES;

TERRITORIALITY (1994)
1.

There are two schools of thought in


Abe, married to Liza, contracted another

Criminal Law, and these are

marriage

with

Connie

in

Singapore.

(a) the CLASSICAL THEORY, which

Thereafter, Abe and Connie returned to

simply means that the basis of

the Philippines and lived as husband and

criminal liabilities is human free

wife in the hometown of Abe in Calamba,

will, and the purpose of the penalty

Laguna.

is

retribution

which

must

be

proportional to the gravity of the


offense; and
(b) the POSITIVIST THEORY, which
considers man as a social being
and his acts are attributable not
just to his will but to other forces of
society. As such, punishment is not
the solution, as he is not entirely to
be blamed; law and jurisprudence
should not be the yardstick in the

1) Can Abe be prosecuted for bigamy?


SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) No, Abe may not be prosecuted for
bigamy since the bigamous marriage was
contracted or solemnized in Singapore,
hence such violation is not one of those
where the Revised Penal Code, under Art.
2

thereof,

may

be

applied

extraterritorially. The general rule on


territoriality of criminal law governs the
Prepared by: LJC

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

situation.

high seas or outside of Philippine territory

GENERAL

PRINCIPLES;

TERRITORIALITY; JURISDICTION OVER


VESSEL (2000)
After drinking one (1) case of San Miguel
beer and taking two plates of "pulutan",
Binoy, a Filipino seaman, stabbed to
death Sio My, a Singaporean seaman,
aboard M/V "Princess of the Pacific", an
overseas vessel which was sailing in the
South China Sea. The vessel, although
Panamanian

registered,

is

owned

by

Lucio Sy, a rich Filipino businessman.


When

M/V

"Princess

of

the

Pacific"

reached a Philippine Port at Cebu City,


the Captain of the vessel turned over the
assailant

Binoy

to

the

Philippine

authorities. An information for homicide

and on board a vessel not registered or


licensed in the Philippines (US vs. Fowler,
1 Phil 614)
It is the registration of the vessel in
accordance

with

the

laws

of

the

Philippines, not the citizenship of her


owner, which makes it a Philippine ship.
The vessel being registered in Panama,
the laws of Panama govern while it is in
the high seas.
USE OF ALIASES; WHEN ALLOWED
(2006)
When can a Filipino citizen residing in this
country use an alias legally? Give 3
instances. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

was filed against Binoy in the Regional


Trial Court of Cebu City. He moved to
quash

the

information

for

lack

of

jurisdiction. If you were the Judge, will


you grant the motion? Why? (5%)

1. Pseudonym for literary purposes.


2. Use of aliases in cinema and
television entertainment.
3. In athletics and sports activities
(RA. 6085).
4. Under the

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

witness

protection

program a person may adopt a

Yes, the Motion to Quash the Information


should be granted. The Philippine court

different identity (RA. 6981).


5. When he has been baptized or

crime

customarily known by such alias.


6. When authorized by a competent

committed since it was committed on the

court (CA. No. 142, as amended by

has

no

jurisdiction

over

the

RA. 6085).
Prepared by: LJC

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

7. When

properly

indicated

in

Certificate of Candidacy (Omnibus


Election Code).

ethics and morality (3%)? (10% total


points)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE (2013)

I would advice Senator Salcedo to forgo

Assume that you are a member of the

and permanently abandon his proposed

legal staff of Senator Salcedo who wants

bill, as it will result in economic inequality

to file a bill about imprisonment at the

in the field of criminal justice. The bill

National Penitentiary in Muntinlupa. He

runs afoul with the equal protection

wants to make the State prison revenue

clause of the 1987 Constitution. The

earner for the country through a law


providing for premium accommodations
for prisoners (other than those under
maximum security status) whose wives
are allowed conjugal weekend visits, and

equal

protection

clause

in

the

Constitution does not merely bar the


creation of inequalities but commands as
well

the

elimination

of

existing

inequalities.

for those who want long-term premium

Additionally, the purpose of imposing

accommodations.

penalties, which is to secure justice,

For conjugal weekenders, he plans to


rent out rooms with hotel-like amenities
at rates equivalent to those charged by
4-star hotels; for long-term occupants, he

retribution

and

reformation,

will

be

defeated and put to naught if the bills


program/scheme

should

eventually

become a law.

is prepared to offer room and board with


special meals in air conditioned singleoccupancy rooms, at rates equivalent to
those charged by 3-star hotels.
What advice will you give the Senator
from the point of view of criminal law,
taking

into

account

the

purpose

of

imprisonment (7%) and considerations of

GENERAL

PRINCIPLES;

TERRITORIALITY (2008)
No. VI. Hubert and Eunice were married
in the Philippines. Hubert took graduate
studies in New York and met his former
girlfriend

Eula.

They

renewed
Prepared by: LJC

their
3

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

friendship and finally decided to get

LIMITING THE POWER OF CONGRESS

married. The first wife, Eunice, heard

TO ENACT PENAL LAWS (2012)

about the marriage and secures a copy of


the

marriage

contract

in

New

York.

Eunice filed a case of Bigamy against


Hubert in the Philippines.

What are the constitutional provisions


limiting the power of Congress to enact
penal laws? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) Will the case prosper? Explain.


The constitutional provision limiting the

(4%)

power of Congress to enact penal laws


SUGGESTED ANSWER:

are the following:

No, because the Philippine Courts have

1. The law must not be an ex post

no jurisdiction over a crime committed

facto law or it should not be given

outside of the Philippine territory. Under

a retroactive effect.

the principle of territoriality, penal laws,


specifically the RPC, are enforceable only

2. The law must not be a bill of

within the bounds of our territory (Art. 2,

attainder,

RPC).

provide punishment without judicial

unusual or degrading punishment.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
answer

will

be

cannot

2. The law must not impose cruel,

your answer be? Explain. (3%)

The

it

proceedings.

(b) If Eunice gave her consent to


the second marriage, what will

meaning

No person shall be held to answer for a


the

same.

The

consent of Eunice would not confer


jurisdiction on Philippine Courts.

criminal offense without due process of


law.
FELONIES
CONSPIRACY (1997)

GENERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL

PRINCIPLES;

A had a grudge against F. Deciding to kill

PROVISION
Prepared by: LJC

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

F, A and his friends, B, C, and D, armed

held liable for the death of G since the

themselves with knives and proceeded to

former was completely unaware of said

the house of F, taking a taxicab for the

killing.

purpose. About 20 meters from their


destination, the group alighted and after
instructing E, the driver, to wait, traveled
on foot to the house of F. B positioned
himself at a distance as the group's
lookout. C and D stood guard outside the
house. Before A could enter the house, D
left the scene without the knowledge of
the others. A stealthily entered the house
and stabbed F. F ran to the street but was
blocked by C, forcing him to flee towards
another direction. Immediately after A
had stabbed F, A also stabbed G who was
visiting F. Thereafter, A exiled from the
house and, together with B and C,
returned to the waiting taxicab and
motored away. G died. F survived.

For the physical injuries of F, A, B and C.


should be held liable therefore. Even if it
was only A who actually stabbed and
caused physical injuries to G, B and C are
nonetheless liable for conspiring with A
and for contributing positive acts which
led to the realization of a common
criminal intent. B positioned himself as a
lookout, while C blocked F's escape. D,
however,
conspiracy,

although
cannot

part
be

of

held

the
liable

because he left the scene before A could


enter the house where the stabbing
occurred. Although he was earlier part of
the conspiracy, he did not personally
participate in the execution of the crime
by acts which directly tended toward the

Who are liable for the death of G and the

same end (People vs. Tomoro, et al 44

physical injuries of F?

Phil. 38),

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

In the same breath, E, the driver, cannot

A alone should be held liable for the


death of G. The object of the conspiracy
of A, B, C, and D was to kill F only. Since
B, C, and D did not know of the stabbing

be also held liable for the infliction of


physical injuries upon F because there is
no showing that he had knowledge of the
plan to kill F.

of G by A, they cannot be held criminally

CONSPIRACY;

AVOIDANCE

therefor. E, the driver, cannot be also

GREATER EVIL (2004)


Prepared by: LJC

OF

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

BB and CC, both armed with knives,


attacked FT. The victim's son, ST, upon
seeing the attack, drew his gun but was
prevented from shooting the attackers by
AA, who grappled with him for possession
of the gun. FT died from knife wounds.
AA,

BB

and CC

were charged with

the eyes of the law, a lawful act.


What AA did was to stop a lawful
defense, not greater evil, to allow BB and
CC achieve their criminal objective of
stabbing FT.
CONSPIRACY;

CO-CONSPIRATOR

murder.

(1998)

In his defense, AA invoked the justifying

Juan and Arturo devised a plan to murder

circumstance of avoidance of greater evil

Joel. In a narrow alley near Joel's house,

or injury, contending that by preventing

Juan will hide behind the big lamppost

ST from shooting BB and CC, he merely

and shoot Joel when the latter passes

avoided a greater evil.

through on his way to work. Arturo will

Will AA's defense prosper? Reason briefly.


(5%)

simultaneously shoot Joel from behind.


On

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No,

come from the other end of the alley and

AA's

because

defense
obviously

will

not

there

prosper
was

that the principle that when there is a


conspiracy, the act of one is the act of
all, shall govern. The act of ST, the
victim's son, appears to be a legitimate
defense of relatives; hence, justified as a
defense of his father against the unlawful
aggression by BB and CC. ST's act to
his

father's

life,

appointed

day,

Arturo

was

apprehended by the authorities before

conspiracy among BB, CC and AA, such

defend

the

cannot

be

regarded as an evil inasmuch as it is, in

reaching the alley. When Juan shot Joel as


planned, he was unaware that Arturo was
arrested earlier. Discuss the criminal
liability of Arturo, if any. [5%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Arturo, being one of the two who devised
the plan to murder Joel, thereby becomes
a co-principal by direct conspiracy. What
is needed only is an overt act and both
will

incur

criminal

liability.

Arturo's

liability as a conspirator arose from his


participation

in

jointly

devising
Prepared by: LJC

the
6

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

criminal plan with Juan, to kill Jose. And it

Street, Manila. Johnny hit them with a

was pursuant to that conspiracy that Juan

rock injuring Dino at the back. Raffy

killed Joel. The conspiracy here is actual,

approached Dino, but suddenly, Bobby,

not by inference only. The overt act was

Steve, Danny and Nonoy surrounded the

done

conspiracy

duo. Then Bobby stabbed Dino. Steve,

whereof Arturo is co-conspirator. There

Danny, Nonoy and Johnny kept on hitting

being a conspiracy, the act of one is the

Dino and Raffy with rocks. As a result.

act of all. Arturo, therefore, should be

Dino died, Bobby, Steve, Danny, Nonoy

liable as a co-conspirator but the penalty

and Johnny were charged with homicide.

pursuant

to

that

on him may be that of an accomplice


only (People vs. Nierra, 96 SCRA 1;
People us. Medrano, 114 SCRA 335)

Is there conspiracy in this case?


SUGGESTED ANSWER:

because he was not able to actually


participate in the shooting of Joel, having

Yes,

there

is

been apprehended before reaching the

offenders,

place where the crime was committed.

concerted actions against the victims,

as

demonstrating
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

able to participate in the killing of Joel.


Conspiracy itself is not punishable unless
expressly provided by law and this is not
in

the

case

of

Murder.

among

manifested
a

by

common

the
their

felonious

purpose of assaulting the victims. The

Arturo is not liable because he was not

true

conspiracy

co-

conspirator must perform an overt act


pursuant to the conspiracy.
CONSPIRACY; COMMON FELONIOUS
PURPOSE (1994)
At about 9:30 in the evening, while Dino
and Raffy were walking along Padre Faura

existence

of

the

conspiracy

can

be

inferred or deduced from the manner the


offenders acted in commonly attacking
Dino

and

Raffy

with

rocks,

thereby

demonstrating a unity of criminal design


to inflict harm on their victims.
CONSPIRACY; COMPLEX CRIME WITH
RAPE (1996)
Jose, Domingo, Manolo, and Fernando,
armed with bolos, at about one o'clock in
the

morning,

robbed

house

at

desolate place where Danilo, his wife,


Prepared by: LJC

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

and three daughters were living. While

robbery

the

presence

four

ransacking

were

in

the

Danilo's

process

house,

of

was
of

committed,

not

the

conspirators.

other

in

the

Fernando,

Hence, Fernando alone should answer for

noticing that one of Danilo's daughters

the rape, rendering him liable for the

was trying to get away, ran after her and

special

finally caught up with her in a thicket

Canturia et. al, G.R. 108490, 22 June

somewhat

distant

1995}

Fernando,

before

from

the

bringing

house.

back

the

daughter to the house, raped her first.


Thereafter, the four carted away the
belongings of Danilo and his family.
a) What crime did Jose, Domingo, Manolo
and Fernando commit? Explain.
b) Suppose, after the robbery, the four
took turns in raping the three daughters
of Danilo inside the latter's house, but
before they left, they killed the whole
family to prevent identification, what
crime did the four commit? Explain.

Jose,

committed

and
while

Manolo
Fernando

committed complex crime of Robbery


with Rape, Conspiracy can be inferred
from

the

manner

the

offenders

committed the robbery but the rape was


committed

by

(People

vs.

b) The crime would be Robbery with


Homicide

(implied:

there

is

still

conspiracy)
CONSPIRACY;

FLIGHT

TO

EVADE

APPREHENSION (2003)
A and B, both store janitors, planned to
kill their employer C at midnight and take
the money kept in the cash register. A
and B together drew the sketch of the
store, where they knew C would be
sleeping, and planned the sequence of
and B were ready to carry out the plan.

Domingo,
Robbery,

crime.

their attack. Shortly before midnight, A

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a)

complex

Fernando

at

place

"distant from the house" where the

When A was about to lift C's mosquito


net to thrust his dagger, a police car with
sirens blaring passed by. Scared, B ran
out of the store and fled, while A went on
to stab C to death, put the money in the
bag, and ran outside to look for B. The
latter was nowhere in sight. Unknown to
him, B had already left the place. What
was the participation and corresponding
Prepared by: LJC

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

criminal liability of each, if any? Reasons.

the act of B because of their expressed

8%

conspiracy.

Both

composite

crime

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
There

was

an

are

liable

of

for

robbery

the
with

homicide.

expressed

conspiracy

between A and B to kill C and take the

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

latter's money. The planned killing and

A shall incur full criminal liability for the

taking of the money appears to be

crime of robbery with homicide, but B

intimately related as component crimes,

shall not incur criminal liability because

hence a special complex crime of robbery

he desisted. B's spontaneous desistance,

with homicide. The conspiracy being

made before all acts of execution are

expressed, not just implied, A and B are

performed, is exculpatory. Conspiracy to

bound as co-conspirators after they have

rob and kill is not per se punishable.

planned and agreed on the sequence of


their attack even before they committed
the crime. Therefore, the principle in law
that when there is a conspiracy, the act
of one is the act of all, already governs
them. In fact, A and B were already in the
store to carry out their criminal plan.

The desistance need not be actuated by


remorse or good motive. It is enough that
the

discontinuance

comes

from

the

person who has begun the commission of


the crime but before all acts of execution
are performed. A person who has began
the commission of a crime but desisted,

That B ran out of the store and fled upon

is absolved from criminal liability as a

hearing the sirens of the police car, is not

reward to one, who having set foot on

spontaneous desistance but flight to

the verge of crime, heeds the call of his

evade apprehension. It would be different

conscience and returns to the path of

if B then tried to stop A from continuing

righteousness.

with the commission of the crime; he did


not. So the act of A in pursuing the
commission of the crime which both he
and

designed,

planned,

CONSPIRACY;

FLIGHT

TO

EVADE

APPREHENSION (2003)

and

A and B, both store janitors, planned to

commenced to commit, would also be

kill their employer C at midnight and take


Prepared by: LJC

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

the money kept in the cash register. A

that when there is a conspiracy, the act

and B together drew the sketch of the

of one is the act of all, already governs

store, where they knew C would be

them. In fact, A and B were already in the

sleeping, and planned the sequence of

store to carry out their criminal plan.

their attack. Shortly before midnight, A


and B were ready to carry out the plan.
When A was about to lift C's mosquito
net to thrust his dagger, a police car with
sirens blaring passed by. Scared, B ran
out of the store and fled, while A went on
to stab C to death, put the money in the
bag, and ran outside to look for B. The
latter was nowhere in sight. Unknown to
him, B had already left the place. What
was the participation and corresponding
criminal liability of each, if any? Reasons.
8%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
There

was

an

expressed

That B ran out of the store and fled upon


hearing the sirens of the police car, is not
spontaneous desistance but flight to
evade apprehension. It would be different
if B then tried to stop A from continuing
with the commission of the crime; he did
not. So the act of A in pursuing the
commission of the crime which both he
and

designed,

planned,

and

commenced to commit, would also be


the act of B because of their expressed
conspiracy.

Both

composite

crime

are

liable

of

for

robbery

the
with

homicide.
conspiracy

between A and B to kill C and take the


latter's money. The planned killing and
taking of the money appears to be
intimately related as component crimes,
hence a special complex crime of robbery
with homicide. The conspiracy being
expressed, not just implied, A and B are
bound as co-conspirators after they have

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
A shall incur full criminal liability for the
crime of robbery with homicide, but B
shall not incur criminal liability because
he desisted. B's spontaneous desistance,
made before all acts of execution are
performed, is exculpatory. Conspiracy to
rob and kill is not per se punishable.

planned and agreed on the sequence of

The desistance need not be actuated by

their attack even before they committed

remorse or good motive. It is enough that

the crime. Therefore, the principle in law


Prepared by: LJC

10

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

the

discontinuance

comes

from

the

person who has begun the commission of


the crime but before all acts of execution
are performed. A person who has began
the commission of a crime but desisted,
is absolved from criminal liability as a

CONSPIRACY; IMPLIED CONSPIRACY;


EFFECTS (2003)
State the concept of "implied conspiracy"
and give its legal effects. 4%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

reward to one, who having set foot on


the verge of crime, heeds the call of his

An "IMPLIED CONSPIRACY" is one which is

conscience and returns to the path of

only

righteousness.

manner

inferred

or

the

deduced

participants

from

the

in

the

commission of crime carried out its


CONSPIRACY; IMPLIED CONSPIRACY

execution. Where the offenders acted in

(1998)

concert in the commission of the crime,

What

is

the

doctrine

of

implied

conspiracy? [3%]

objective, they shall be deemed to be

The doctrine of implied conspiracy holds


two or more persons participating in the
of

crime

collectively

responsible and liable as co-conspirators


although absent any agreement to that
effect,

when

they

act

in

concert,

demonstrating unity of criminal intent


and a common purpose or objective. The
existence

of

or synchronized in a way indicative that


they are pursuing a common criminal

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

commission

meaning that their acts are coordinated

conspiracy

shall

be

acting in conspiracy and their criminal


liability shall be collective, not individual.
The

legal

effects

of

an

"implied

conspiracy" are:
a) Not all those who are present at the
scene of the crime will be considered
conspirators;
b)

Only

those

who

participated

by

inferred or deduced from their criminal

criminal acts in the commission of the

participation in pursuing the crime and

crime

thus the act of one shall be deemed the

conspirators; and

will

be

considered

as

co-

act of all.
c) Mere acquiescence to or approval of
Prepared by: LJC

11

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

the commission of the crime, without any

involved are parallel to the case of Intod

act of criminal participation, shall not

vs. Court of Appeals (215 SCRA 52),

render

where it was ruled that the liability of the

one

criminally

liable

as

co-

conspirator.
CRIMINAL

offender was for an impossible crime, no


LIABILITY:

DESTRUCTIVE

ARSON (2000)

hand grenade was used in said case,


which constitutes a more serious crime
though different from what was intended,

A, B, C and D, all armed with armalites,


proceeded to the house of X. Y, a
neighbor of X, who happened to be

CRIMINAL LIABILITY: FELONIOUS ACT


OF SCARING (1996)

passing by, pointed to the four culprits

Alexander,

the room that X occupied. The four

amuck on board a Superlines Bus bound

culprits peppered the room with bullets.

for Manila from Bicol and killed ten (10)

Unsatisfied,

hand

persons. Terrified by the incident, Carol

grenade that totally destroyed X's room.

and Benjamin who are passengers of the

However, unknown to the four culprits, X

bus, jumped out of the window and while

was not inside the room and nobody was

lying

hit or injured during the Incident. Are A,

pavement of the road, were ran over and

B, C and D liable for any crime? Explain.

crushed to death by a fast moving Desert

(3%)

Fox bus tailing the Superlines Bus.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Can Alexander be held liable for the

Yes. A,

B. C

destructive

even

and D

arson

threw

are liable

because

of

for
the

destruction of the room of X with the use


of

an

explosive,

the

hand

grenade.

Liability for an impossible crime is to be


imposed only if the act committed would
not constitute any other crime under the
Revised Penal Code. Although the facts

an

escaped

unconscious

convict,

after

hitting

ran

the

death of Carol and Benjamin although he


was completely unaware that the two
jumped out of the bus? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Alexander can be held liable for the
death of Carol and Benjamin because of
felonious

act

of

running

was

the

proximate cause of the victim's death.


Prepared by: LJC

12

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

The rule is that when a person, by a

homicide for the death of Anacleto?

felonious act, generates in the mind of

Explain.

another a sense of imminent danger,


prompting the latter to escape from or

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

avoid such danger and in the process,

Yes, Vicente may be charged of homicide

sustains injuries or dies, the person

for the death of Anacleto, unless the

committing

tetanus

the

felonious

act

is

infection

which

developed

responsible for such injuries or death.

twenty five days later, was brought about

(US vs. Valdez, 41 Phil, 1497; People vs.

by

Apra, 27 SCRA 1037.)

Vicente's felonious act of causing a two-

CRIMINAL

LIABILITY:

FELONIOUS

ACT; PROXIMATE CAUSE (1996)

an

efficient

supervening

cause.

inch wound on Anacleto's right palm may


still be regarded as the proximate cause
of the latter's death because without

Vicente hacked Anacleto with a bolo but

such wound, no tetanus infection could

the latter was able to parry it with his

develop from the victim's right palm, and

hand, causing upon him a two- inch

without such tetanus infection the victim

wound on his right palm. Vicente was not

would not have died with it.

able to hack Anacleto further because


three policemen arrived and threatened
to shoot Vicente if he did not drop his

CRIMINAL

LIABILITY:

IMPOSSIBLE

CRIMES (2000)

bolo. Vicente was accordingly charged by

a. What is an impossible crime? (2%)b. Is

the police at the prosecutor's office for

an impossible crime really a crime? (2%)

attempted homicide. Twenty- five days


later, while the preliminary investigation

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

was in progress, Anacleto was rushed to

An impossible crime is an act which

the hospital because of symptoms of

would be an offense against person or

tetanus infection on the two-inch wound

property, were if not for the inherent

inflicted by Vicente. Anacleto died the

impossibility of its accomplishment or on

following day.

account

Can Vicente be eventually charged with

inadequate or ineffectual means (Art. 4,

of

the

employment

Prepared by: LJC

of

13

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

par. 2, RPC)

Homicide

No, an impossible crime is not really a


crime. It is only so-called because the act
gives

rise

to

criminal

liability.

But

actually, no felony is committed. The

for

Cesar's

death.

In

his

defense, Felipe claimed that he did not


know about Cesar's weak heart and that
he only intended to play a practical joke
on Cesar.

accused is to be punished for his criminal

Is Felipe liable for the death of Cesar or

tendency

will his defense prosper? Why? (5%}

or

propensity

although

no

crime was committed.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

CRIMINAL LIABILITY; FELONIOUS ACT


OF SCARING (2001)

Yes, Felipe is liable for the death of Cesar


but he shall be given the benefit of the

Maryjane had two suitors - Felipe and

mitigating circumstance that he did not

Cesar. She did not openly show her

intend to commit so grave a wrong as

preference

that which was committed (Art. 13, par.

but

on

two

occasions,

accepted Cesar's invitation to concerts


by Regine and Pops. Felipe was a working
student and could only ask Mary to see a
movie which was declined. Felipe felt
insulted and made plans to get even with
Cesar by scaring him off somehow. One
day, he entered Cesar's room in their
boarding house and placed a rubber
snake which appeared to be real in
Cesar's backpack. Because Cesar had a
weak heart, he suffered a heart attack

3, RPC).
When Felipe intruded into Cesar's room
without the latter's consent and took
liberty with the letter's backpack where
he placed the rubber snake. Felipe was
already committing a felony. And any act
done by him while committing a felony is
no less wrongful, considering that they
were part of "plans to get even with
Cesar".

upon opening his backpack and seeing

Felipe's claim that he intended only "to

the snake. Cesar died without regaining

play a practical joke on Cesar" does not

consciousness. The police investigation

persuade, considering that they are not

resulted in pinpointing Felipe as the

friends but in fact rivals in courting

culprit

Maryjane. This case is parallel to the case

and

he

was

charged

with

Prepared by: LJC

14

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

of People vs. Pugay, et al.

because even though Gaston has no


intent to kill Belle rather just to scare

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Belle. "To scare" does not indicate intent

No, Felipe is not liable because the act of

to kill. However, under Art. 4 of the

frightening another is not a crime. What

Revised Penal Code, provides in part that

he did may be wrong, but not all wrongs

criminal liability shall be incurred by any

amount to a crime. Because the act

person committing a felony although the

which caused the death of Cesar is not a

wrongful act done be different from that

crime, no criminal liability may arise

which he intended. In other words, the

therefrom.

rule is that when a person, by a felonious


act, generates in the mind of another a

CRIMINAL LIABILITY; FELONIOUS ACT

sense of imminent danger, prompting the

OF SCARING (2005)

latter to escape from or avoid such

Belle saw Gaston stealing the prized cock

danger and in the process, sustains

of a neighbor and reported him to the

injuries or dies, the person committing

police. Thereafter, Gaston, while driving a

the felonious act is responsible for such

car

injuries or death. (US vs. Valdez, 41 Phil,

saw

Belle

crossing

the

street.

Incensed that Belle had reported him,

1497; People vs. Apra, 27 SCRA 1037.)

Gaston decided to scare her by trying to

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

make it appear that he was about to run


her over. He revved the engine of his car

Yes, Gaston is liable for Belle's death

and drove towards her but he applied the

because by his acts of revving the engine

brakes. Since the road was slippery at

of his car and driving towards Belle is

that time, the vehicle skidded and hit

felonious, and such felonious act was the

Belle causing her death.

proximate cause of the vehicle to skid


and hit Belle, resulting in the latter's

Was Gaston criminally liable?What is the

death. Stated otherwise, the death of

liability of Gaston? Why? (4%)

Belle was the direct, natural and logical

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

consequence of Gaston's felonious act.


(People v. Arpa, 27 SCRA 1037).

Yes, Gaston is liable for Belle's death


Prepared by: LJC

15

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

CRIMINAL

LIABILITY;

FELONIOUS

ACT; IMMEDIATE CAUSE (2003)


The conduct of wife A aroused the ire of
her husband B. Incensed with anger
almost beyond his control, B could not
help but inflict physical injuries on A.
Moments after B started hitting A with his
fists, A suddenly complained of severe
chest pains. B, realizing that A was
indeed in serious trouble, immediately
brought her to the hospital. Despite
efforts to alleviate A's pains, she died of

of

hitting

her

with

his

fists.

Such

felonious act was the immediate cause of


the

heart

attack,

having

materially

contributed to and hastened A's death.


Even though B may have acted without
intent to kill his wife, lack of such intent
is of no moment when the victim dies.
However, B may be given the mitigating
circumstance of having acted without
intention to commit so grave a wrong as
that committed (Art. 13, par. 3, Revised
Penal Code).

heart attack. It turned out that she had

CRIMINAL

been suffering from a lingering heart

ACT; PROXIMATE CAUSE (1994)

ailment. What crime, if any, could B be


held guilty of? 8%

Bhey's

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

because his act of hitting his wife with


blows

and

therewith

FELONIOUS

with Scott.

father,

Robin,

Whereupon,

and

brother,

Rustom, went to Scott's house. Upon

B could be held liable for parricide


fist

Bhey eloped

LIABILITY;

inflicting

physical injuries on her, is felonious. A


person committing a felonious act incurs
criminal liability although the wrongful
consequence is different from what he
intended (Art. 4, par. 1, Revised Penal
Code).

reaching the house, Rustom inquired


from

Scott

about

his

sister's

whereabouts, while Robin shouted and


threatened to kill Scott. The latter then
went downstairs but Rustom held his
(Scott's)

waist.

Meanwhile

Olive,

the

elder sister of Scott, carrying her twomonth old child, approached Rustom and
Scott to pacify them. Olive attempted to
remove

Rustom's

hand

from

Scott's

Although A died of heart attack, the said

waist. But Rustom pulled Olive's hand

attack was generated by B's felonious act

causing her to fall over her baby. The


baby then died moments later.
Prepared by: LJC

16

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

Is Rustom criminally liable for the death

they could work best if they were not

of the child?

insulted. A took B's attitude as a display


of insubordination and, rising in a rage,

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

moved towards B wielding a big knife and

Yes, Rustom is criminally liable for the

threatening to stab B. At the instant

death of the child because his felonious

when A was only a few feet from B, the

act was the proximate cause of such

latter, apparently believing himself to be

death. It was Rustom's act of pulling

in great and immediate peril, threw

Olive's hand which caused the latter to

himself

fall on her baby. Had It not been for said

beneath the surface, and drowned.

act of Rustom, which is undoubtedly


felonious (at least slight coercion) there
was no cause for Olive to fall over her
baby. In short, Rustom's felonious act is
the cause of the evil caused. Any person
performing a felonious act is criminally
liable for the direct, natural and logical
consequence thereof although different
from what he intended (Art. 4, par. 1,
RFC; People vs, Pugay, et al, GR No.
74324, Nov. 18, 1988).
CRIMINAL

LIABILITY;

into

the

water,

disappeared

May A be held criminally liable for the


death of B?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. A can be held criminally liable for the
death of B, Article 4 of the Revised Penal
Code

provides

in

part

that

criminal

liability shall be incurred by any person


committing

felony

although

the

wrongful act done be different from that


which he intended. In U.S. vs. Valdez 41

FELONIOUS

ACT; PROXIMATE CAUSE (1997)


While the crew of a steamer prepared to
raise anchor at the Pasig River, A,
evidently impatient with the progress of
work, began to use abusive language
against the men. B, one of the members
of the crew, remonstrated saying that

Phil. 497. where the victim who was


threatened by the accused with a knife,
jumped into the river but because of the
strong current or because he did not
know how to swim, he drowned, the
Supreme Court affirmed the conviction
for homicide of the accused because, if a
person against whom a criminal assault
is directed believes himself to be in
Prepared by: LJC

17

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

danger of death or great bodily harm and

composite

crime

in order to escape jumps into the water,

homicide,

whether

impelled

intentional or accidental, as long as the

by

the

instinct

of

self-

preservation, the assailant is responsible


for the homicide in case death results by
drowning.

of
the

robbery
killing

with
was

killing was on occasion of the robbery.


CRIMINAL

LIABILITY;

FELONIOUS

ACT; PROXIMATE CAUSE (2001)

CRIMINAL

LIABILITY;

FELONIOUS

ACT; PROXIMATE CAUSE (1999)

Luis Cruz was deeply hurt when his offer


of love was rejected by his girlfriend

During the robbery in a dwelling house,

Marivella one afternoon when he visited

one of the culprits happened to fire his

her. When he left her house, he walked

gun

without

as if he was sleepwalking so much so

meaning to kill anyone. The owner of the

that a teenage snatcher was able to grab

house who was hiding thereat was hit

his cell phone and flee without being

and killed as a result.

chased by Luis. At the next LRT station,

upward

in

the

ceiling

The defense theorized that the killing


was

mere

accident

and

was

not

perpetrated in connection with, or for


purposes of, the robbery.Will you sustain
the defense? Why? (4%)

he boarded one of the coaches bound for


Baclaran. While seated, he happened to
read a newspaper left on the seat and
noticed that the headlines were about
the sinking of the Super Ferry while on its
way to Cebu. He went over the list of
missing passengers who were presumed

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

dead and came across the name of his


No, I will not sustain the defense. The act

grandfather who had raised him from

being felonious and the proximate cause

childhood after he was orphaned. He was

of the victim's death, the offender is

shocked and his mind went blank for a

liable therefore although it may not be

few minutes, after which he ran amuck

intended

and, using his balisong, started stabbing

or

different

from

what

he

intended.

at the passengers who then scampered

The offender shall be prosecuted for the

away, with three of them Jumping out of


the train and landing on the road below.
Prepared by: LJC
18

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

All the three passengers died later of

On his way home from office, ZZ rode in

their injuries at the hospital.

a jeepney. Subsequently, XX boarded the

Is Luis liable for the death of the three


passengers

who

jumped

out

of

the

moving train? State your reasons. (5%)

same jeepney. Upon reaching a secluded


spot in QC, XX pulled out a grenade from
his bag and announced a hold-up. He told
ZZ to surrender his watch, wallet and
cellphone. Fearing for his life, ZZ jumped

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

out of the vehicle. But as he fell, his head


Yes, Luis is liable for their deaths because

hit the pavement, causing his instant

he was committing a felony when he

death . Is XX liable for ZZ's death?

started stabbing at the passengers and

Explain briefly. (5%)

such wrongful act was the proximate


cause of said passengers' jumping out of
the train; hence their deaths.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, XX is liable for ZZ's death because

Under Article 4, Revised Penal Code, any

his acts of pulling out a grenade and

person committing a felony shall incur

announcing a hold-up, coupled with a

criminal liability although the wrongful

demand

act done be different from that which he

cellphone of ZZ is felonious, and such

intended. In this case, the death of the

felonious act was the proximate cause of

three passengers was the direct, natural

ZZ's

and

Luis'

resulting in the latter's death. Stated

an

otherwise, the death of ZZ was the

immediate sense of danger in the minds

direct, natural and logical consequence

of said passengers who tried to avoid or

of XX's felonious act which created an

escape from it by jumping out of the

immediate sense of danger in the mind

train. (People vs. Arpa, 27 SCRA 1O37;

of ZZ who tried to avoid such danger by

U.S. vs. Valdez, 41 Phil. 497}

jumping out of the jeepney (People v.

logical

felonious

consequence

act

which

of

created

for

the

jumping

watch,

out

of

wallet

the

and

jeepney,

Arpa, 27 SCRA 1037).


CRIMINAL

LIABILITY;

FELONIOUS

ACT; PROXIMATE CAUSE (2004)

CRIMINAL

LIABILITY;

IMPOSSIBLE

CRIME (2004)
Prepared by: LJC

19

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

OZ and YO were both courting their coemployee, SUE. Because of their bitter
rivalry, OZ decided to get rid of YO by
poisoning him. OZ poured a substance

crime was committed.


CRIMINAL

LIABILITY;

IMPOSSIBLE

CRIMES (1994)

into YO's coffee thinking it was arsenic. It

JP, Aries and Randal planned to kill Elsa,

turned out that the substance was white

a resident of Barangay Pula, Laurel,

sugar substitute known as Equal. Nothing

Batangas. They asked the assistance of

happened to YO after he drank the

Ella, who is familiar with the place.

coffee. What criminal liability did OZ


On April 3, 1992, at about 10:00 in the

incur, if any? Explain briefly. (5%)

evening, JP, Aries and Randal, all armed


SUGGESTED ANSWER:
OZ

incurred

criminal

with
liability

for

an

impossible crime of murder. Criminal


liability shall be incurred by any person
performing an act which would be an
offense against persons or property, were
it not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or on account of the

automatic

weapons,

went

to

Barangay Pula. Ella, being the guide,


directed her companions to the room in
the house of Elsa. Whereupon, JP, Aries
and Randal fired their guns at her room.
Fortunately, Elsa was not around as she
attended a prayer meeting that evening
in another barangay in Laurel.

employment of inadequate or ineffectual

JP, et al, were charged and convicted of

means (Art. 4, par. 2, RFC).

attempted murder by the Regional Trial

In the problem given, the impossibility of

Court at Tanauan, Batangas.

accomplishing the crime of murder, a

On appeal to the Court of Appeals, all the

crime against persons, was due to the

accused ascribed to the trial court the

employment of ineffectual means which

sole error of finding them guilty of

OZ thought was poison. The law imputes

attempted

criminal liability to the offender although

ponente, how will you decide the appeal?

murder.If

you

were

the

no crime resulted, only to suppress his


criminal propensity because subjectively,

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

he is a criminal though objectively, no

If I were the ponente, I will set aside the


Prepared by: LJC

20

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

judgment

convicting

the

accused

of

Buddy placed on Jun's food. However, Jun

attempted murder and instead find them

did not die because, unknown to both

guilty of impossible crime under Art. 4,

Buddy and Jerry, the poison was actually

par. 2, RPC, in relation to Art. 59, RPC.

powdered milk.

Liability for impossible crime arises not


only when the impossibility is legal, but
likewise when it is factual or physical
impossibility, as in the case at bar. Elsa's
absence from the house is a physical
impossibility which renders the crime
intended

Inherently

incapable

of

accomplishment. To convict the accused


of attempted murder would make Art. 4,
par.

practically

useless

as

1, What crime or crimes, if any, did Jerry


and Buddy commit? [3%]2. Suppose that,
because
powdered

of

his
milk,

severe
Jun

allergy

had

to

to
be

hospitalized for 10 days for ingesting it.


Would your answer to the first question
be the same? [2%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

all
the

1. Jerry and Buddy are liable for the so-

consummation of the offense will be

called "impossible crime" because, with

treated as an incident independent of the

intent to kill, they tried to poison Jun and

actor's will which is an element of

thus perpetrate Murder, a crime against

attempted or frustrated felony (Intod vs.

persons. Jun was not poisoned only

CA, 215 SCRA 52).

because

circumstances

which

prevented

the

would-be

killers

were

unaware that what they mixed with the


CRIMINAL

LIABILITY:

IMPOSSIBLE

CRIMES (1998)

poison. In short, the act done with

Buddy always resented his classmate,


Jun. One day. Buddy planned to kill Jun by
mixing poison in his lunch. Not knowing
where he can get poison, he approached
another classmate, Jerry to whom he
disclosed
himself

his

evil

harbored

food of Jun was powdered milk, not

plan.

Because

resentment

he

towards

criminal intent by Jerry and Buddy, would


have constituted a crime against persons
were it not for the inherent inefficacy of
the means employed. Criminal liability is
incurred by them although no crime
resulted, because their act of trying to
poison Jun is criminal.

Jun, Jerry gave Buddy a poison, which


Prepared by: LJC

21

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

2. No, the answer would not be the same


as above. Jerry and Buddy would be
liable instead for less serious physical
injuries for causing the hospitalization
and medical attendance for 10 days to
Jun. Their act of mixing with the food
eaten by Jun the matter which required
such

medical

attendance,

committed

with criminal intent, renders them liable


for the resulting injury.
CRIMINAL

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the prosecutor is not correct in filing
a case for "impossible crime to commit
kidnapping" against Enrique. Impossible
crimes are limited only to acts which
when

performed

against

would

persons

or

be

crime

property.

As

kidnapping is a crime against personal


security and not against persons or
property, Enrique could not have incurred

LIABILITY;

IMPOSSIBLE

CRIMES; KIDNAPPING (2000)

an

"impossible

crime"

to

commit

kidnapping. There is thus no impossible

Carla, 4 years old, was kidnapped by

crime of kidnapping.

Enrique, the tricycle driver paid by her

MALA IN SE VS. MALA PROHIBITA

parents to bring and fetch her to and

(1997)

from school. Enrique wrote a ransom


note

demanding

P500,000.00

from

Carla's parents in exchange for Carla's

1. Distinguish between crimes mala in


se and crimes mala prohibita.
2. May an act be malum in se and be,

freedom. Enrique sent the ransom note

at

by mail. However, before the ransom

prohibitum?

the

same

time,

malum

note was received by Carla's parents,


Enrique's hideout was discovered by the
police. Carla was rescued while Enrique
was

arrested

and

incarcerated.

Considering that the ransom note was


not received by Carla's parents, the
investigating prosecutor merely filed a
case of "Impossible Crime to Commit
Kidnapping"

against

Enrique.

prosecutor correct? Why? (3%)

Is

the

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Crimes mala in se are felonious acts
committed by dolo or culpa as defined in
the Revised Penal Code. Lack of criminal
intent is a valid defense, except when the
crime results from criminal negligence.
On the other hand, crimes mala prohibita
are those considered wrong only because
Prepared by: LJC

22

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

they are prohibited by statute. They

the acts constituting the crimes are not

constitute violations of mere rules of

inherently

convenience designed to secure a more

prohibited and made punishable only for

orderly regulation of the affairs of society.

public good. And because the moral trait

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

bad,

evil

or

wrong

but

of the offender is Involved in "mala in


se".

Modifying

circumstances,

the

Yes, an act may be malum in se and

offender's extent of participation in the

malum prohibitum at the same time. In

crime, and the degree of accomplishment

People v. Sunico, et aL. (CA 50 OG 5880)

of the crime are taken into account in

it was held that the omission or failure of

imposing the penalty: these are not so in

election inspectors and poll clerks to

"mala prohibita" where criminal liability

include a voter's name in the registry list

arises

of voters is wrong per se because it

consummated.

disenfranchises a voter of his right to


vote. In this regard it is considered as
malum in se. Since it is punished under a

only

when

the

acts

are

MALA IN SE VS. MALA PROHIBITA


(2001)

special law (Sec. 101 and 103, Revised

Briefly

Election Code) it is considered malum

distinguishes a crime mala prohibita from

prohibitum.

a crime mala in se. (2%)

MALA IN SE VS. MALA PROHIBITA

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(1999)

state

what

essentially

In crimes mala prohibita, the acts are not

Distinguish " mala in se" from " mala

by nature wrong, evil or bad. They are

prohibita"(3%)

punished only because there is a law

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

prohibiting them for public good, and


thus good faith or lack of criminal intent

In "mala in se", the acts constituting the

in doing the prohibited act is not a

crimes are inherently evil, bad or wrong,

defense.

and hence involves the moral traits of


the offender; while in "mala prohibita",

In crimes mala in se, the acts are by


nature

wrong,

evil

or

bad,

and

Prepared by: LJC

so
23

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

generally condemned. The moral trait of

mala prohibita, good faith or lack of

the offender is involved; thus, good faith

criminal intent or malice is not a defense;

or lack of criminal Intent on the part of

it is enough that the prohibition was

the offender is a defense, unless the

voluntarily violated.

crime is the result of criminal negligence.


Correspondingly,
circumstances

modifying
are

considered

in

punishing the offender.


MALA IN SE VS. MALA PROHIBITA
(2003)

Mala in se is incurred when the crime is


only attempted or frustrated, while in
crimes mala prohibita, criminal liability is
generally incurred only when the crime is
consummated.
Also in crimes mala in se, mitigating and

Distinguish, in their respective concepts

aggravating

and legal implications, between crimes

appreciated in imposing the penalties,

mala in se and crimes mala prohibits. 4%

while in crimes mala prohibita, such

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

circumstances

are

circumstances are not appreciated unless


the special law has adopted the scheme

In concept: Crimes mala in se are those

or scale of penalties under the Revised

where the acts or omissions penalized

Penal Code.

are inherently bad, evil, or wrong that


they are almost universally condemned.
Crimes mala prohibita are those where
the acts penalized are not inherently bad,
evil, or wrong but prohibited by law for
public good, public welfare or interest
and whoever violates the prohibition are
penalized.

MALA

PROHIBITA;

ACTUAL

INJURY

REQUIRED (2000)
Mr. Carlos Gabisi, a customs guard, and
Mr. Rico Yto, a private Individual, went to
the office of Mr. Diether Ocuarto, a
customs

broker,

themselves

as

Commercial

Trading,

and

represented

agents

of

an

Moonglow

Importer

of

In legal implications: In crimes mala in

children's clothes and toys. Mr. Gabisi

se, good faith or lack of criminal intent/

and Mr. Yto engaged Mr. Ocuarto to

negligence is a defense, while in crimes

prepare and file with the Bureau of


Prepared by: LJC

24

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

Customs the necessary Import Entry and

functions

Internal Revenue Declaration covering

evident bad faith or gross inexcusable

Moonglow's shipment. Mr. Gabisi and Mr.

negligence.

Yto submitted to Mr. Ocuarto a packing

reconsideration, the accused alleged that

list, a commercial invoice, a bill of lading

the decision was erroneous because the

and a Sworn Import Duty Declaration

crime was not consummated but was

which

as

only at an attempted stage, and that in

children's toys, the taxes and duties of

fact the Government did not suffer any

which were computed at P60,000.00. Mr.

undue injury.

declared

Ocuarto

filed

the

shipment

the

aforementioned

documents with the Manila International


Container

Port.

However,

before

the

shipment was released, a spot check was


conducted

by

Customs

Senior

Agent

James Bandido, who discovered that the


contents of the van (shipment) were not
children's

toys

as

declared

in

the

shipping documents but 1,000 units of


video cassette recorders with taxes and

through
In

manifest
their

partiality,

motion

for

a) Is the contention of both accused


correct? Explain. (3%)b) Assuming that
the attempted or frustrated stage of the
violation charged is not punishable, may
the accused be nevertheless convicted
for an offense punished by the Revised
Penal Code under the facts of the case?
Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

duties computed at P600,000.00. A hold


order

and

detention

warrant
were

then

of

seizure

issued

by

and

Yes, the contention of the accused that

the

the crime was


RA.

not consummated is

District Collector of Customs. Further

correct,

investigation showed that Moonglow is

punishing acts mala prohibita. As a rule,

non-existent. Consequently, Mr. Gabisi

attempted violation of a special law is not

and Mr. Yto were charged with and

punished. Actual injury is required.Yes,

convicted for violation of Section 3(e) of

both are liable for attempted estafa thru

R.A. 3019 which makes it unlawful among

falsification of commercial documents, a

others, for public officers to cause any

complex crime.

undue Injury to any party, including the

MALUM

IN

3019

SE

is

special

VS.

law

MALUM

Government. In the discharge of official


Prepared by: LJC

25

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

PROHIBITUM (2005)

Motive is the moving power which impels

Distinguish malum in se from malum


prohibitum. (2%)

one

to

action

for

definite

result;

whereas intent is the purpose to use a


particular means to effect such results.
Motive is not an essential element of a

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

felony and need not be proved for


In crimes malum in se, an act is by

purpose of conviction, while intent is an

nature

essential element of felonies by dolo.

wrong,

evil

or

bad,

and

so

generally condemned. The moral trait of


the offender is involved; thus, good faith

Yes, a crime may be committed without

or lack of criminal Intent on the part of

criminal intent if such is a culpable

the offender is a defense, unless the

felony, wherein Intent is substituted by

crime is the result of criminal negligence.

negligence or imprudence, and also in a

Correspondingly,

malum

circumstances

modifying
are

considered

in

prohibitum

or

if

an

act

is

punishable by special law.

punishing the offender.


In crimes mala prohibitum, an act is not
by nature wrong, evil or bad. Yet, it is
punished

because

there

is

law

prohibiting them for public good, and


thus good faith or lack of criminal intent

MOTIVE VS. INTENT (1999)


1. Distinguish
"intent".
2. When is

"motive"
motive

from

relevant

to

in doing the prohibited act is not a

prove a case? When is it not

defense.

necessary to be established?
Explain. (3%)

MOTIVE VS. INTENT (1996)


1. Distinguish intent from motive in

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Criminal Law. 2. May crime be1.

"Motive " is the moving power which

committed without criminal intent?

impels a person to do an act for a

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

definite

result;

while

"intent"

is

the

purpose for using a particular means to


Prepared by: LJC

26

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

bring about a desired result. Motive is not

an

an element of a crime but intent is an

considered when the identity of the

element of intentional crimes. Motive, if

offender is in doubt.

attending a crime, always precede the


intent.
2.

element

MOTIVE;

of

PROOF

crime

but

only

THEREOF;

NOT

ESSENTIAL; CONVICTION (2006)

Motive is relevant to prove a case when


there is doubt as to the identity of the
offender or when the act committed
gives rise to variant crimes and there is
the need to determine the proper crime
to be imputed to the offender.

Motive is essential in the determination


of the commis- sion of a crime and the
liabilities of the perpetrators. What are
the instances where proof of motive is
not

essential

or

required

to

justify

conviction of an accused? Give at least 3

It is not necessary to prove motive


when the offender is positively
identified or the criminal act did
not give rise to variant crimes.

instances. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. When there is an eyewitness or
positive

MOTIVE VS. INTENT (2004)


Distinguish clearly but briefly between
intent and motive in the commission of
an offense.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

identification

of

the

accused.
2. When the accused admitted or
confessed to the commission of the
crime.
3. In crimes mala prohibita.
4. In direct assault, when the victim,
who is a person in authority or

agent of a person in authority was

particular means to achieve the desired

attacked in the actual performance

result; while motive is the moving power

of his duty (Art. 148, Revised Penal

Intent

is

the

purpose

for

using

which impels a person to act for a


definite result. Intent is an ingredient of
dolo or malice and thus an element of
deliberate felonies; while motive is not

Code).
5. In crimes

committed

through

reckless imprudence.
CONSPIRACY (2012)
Prepared by: LJC

27

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

Define conspiracy. (5%)

killing. Ricky enjoys the presumption of


innocence.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
When two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of
a felony and decide to commit it, there is
conspiracy.
CONSPIRACY (2008)

when the commander of a vigilante


group came to him and showed him a list
of five policemen to be liquidated by
them for graft and corruption. He was
further asked if any of them is innocent.
After going over the list, Ricky pointed to
two of the policemen as honest. Later,
the vigilante group liquidated the three
policemen

commander

of

in
the

the

list.

vigilante

The
group

reported the liquidation to Ricky. Is Ricky


criminally liable? Explain. (7%)

the

Commander

REBELLION

TO
VS.

CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER


(2012)

by

way

of

illustration

conspiracy as a felony from conspiracy as


a manner of incurring liability in relation
to the crimes of rebellion and murder.
(5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Conspiracy to commit rebellion if A
and B conspired to overthrow the
government, conspiracy is punishable.
Conspiracy to commit rebellion is a
felony. Rebellion if they committed
rebellion, they are equally liable for the
crime of rebellion. However, they will not
to

commit

committed

No, there was no conspiracy between


and

CONSPIRACY

be additionally charged with conspiracy

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Ricky

VS.

COMMIT

Distinguish

Ricky was reviewing for the bar exam

other

CONSPIRACY

of

the

vigilante. Mere vouching for the honesty


of the two (2) policemen in the list
cannot make him a co-conspirator for the

rebellion.
what

Since

they

they

conspired,

conspiracy will not be considered as an


independent felony but as a manner of
incurring
Conspiracy

criminal
to

commit

responsibility.
homicide,

not

punishable if A and B conspire to kill


Prepared by: LJC

28

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

X, conspiracy is not punishable. The

powder with Brads food, done with

law provides no penalty for conspiracy to

intent to kill, would have constituted

commit homicide. Homicide if pursuant

murder which is a crime against persons,

to conspiracy to commit homicide, A

had it not been for the employment of a

embraced X and then B stabbed and

means

killed X, the conspirators are equally

ineffectual (Art. 4, par. 2, RPC).

liable

for

homicide.

Conspirators

are

which,

EXEMPTING

CRIME

OF

MURDER

(2009)
Charlie
because

is

CIRCUMSTANCES;

COVERAGE (2000)
A, brother of B, with the intention of

hated

his

the

latter

classmate,
was

Brad,

assiduously

courting Lily, Charlies girlfriend. Charlie


went to a veterinarian and asked for
some poison on the pretext that it would
be used to kill a very sick, old dog.
Actually, Charlie intended to use the
poison

him,

CIRCUMSTANCES

this case will be considered as a manner

IMPOSSIBLE

to

JUSTIFYING & EXEMPTING

equally liable for homicide. Conspiracy in


of incurring liability.

unknown

on

mistakenly

Brad.
gave

The

Charlie

having a night out with his friends, took


the coconut shell which is being used by
B as a bank for coins from inside their
locked cabinet using their common key.
Forthwith, A broke the coconut shell
outside of their home in the presence of
his friends.

veterinarian

a. What is the criminal liability of A, if

any? Explain. (3%)

non-toxic

powder which, when mixed with Brads


food, did not kill Brad.

b. Is A exempted from criminal liability


under Article 332 of the Revised Penal

Did Charlie commit any crime? If so, what

Code for being a brother of B? Explain.

and why? If not, why not? (3%)

(2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Charlie committed an impossible crime of

a) A is criminally liable for Robbery with

murder. His act of mixing the non- toxic

force upon things


Prepared by: LJC

29

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

b) No, A is not exempt from criminal

While they were standing in line awaiting

liability under Art. 332 because said

their vaccination at the school clinic,

Article applies only to theft, swindling or

Pomping repeatedly pulled the ponytail

malicious

of Katreena, his 11 years, 2 months and

mischief.

Here,

the

crime

committed is robbery.
**EXEMPTING

13 days old classmate in Grade 5 at the


CIRCUMSTANCES;

MINORITY (1998)

Sampaloc Elementary School. Irritated,


Katreena turned around and swung at
Pomping with a ball pen. The top of the

John, an eight-year old boy, is fond of

ball pen hit the right eye of Pomping

watching the television program "Zeo

which bled profusely. Realizing what she

Rangers." One evening while he was

had

engrossed

favorite

helped Pomping. When investigated, she

television show, Petra, a maid changed

freely admitted to the school principal

the channel to enable her to watch

that she was responsible for the injury to

"Home Along the Riles." This enraged

Pomping's eye. After the incident, she

John who got his father's revolver, and

executed

without warning, shot Petra at the back

culpability. Due to the injury. Pomping

of her head causing her instantaneous

lost his right eye.

watching

his

death. Is John criminally liable? [2%]

caused,

Katreena

statement

immediately

admitting

her

a) Is Katreena criminally liable? Why?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(3%)

No, John is not criminally liable for killing

b) Discuss the attendant circumstances

Petra because he is only 8 years old

and effects thereof. (2%)

when he committed the killing. A minor


below nine (9) years old is absolutely

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

exempt from criminal liability although

a) No, Katreena is not criminally liable

not from civil liability. (Art. 12, par. 2,

although she is civilly liable. Being a

RPC).

minor less than fifteen (15) years old

EXEMPTING; MINORITY; 11 YRS OLD;


ABSENCE OF DISCERNMENT (2000)

although over nine (9) years of age, she


is generally exempt from criminal liability.
Prepared by: LJC

30

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

The exception is where the prosecution

shall be imposed in accordance with

proved that the act was committed with

Article 68. paragraph 1, Rev. Penal Code.

discernment. The burden is upon the

The

prosecution to prove that the accused

automatically

acted with discernment.

accordance with Section 5(a) of Rep. Act

The presumption is that such minor acted


without

discernment,

and

this

is

sentence,

however,
be

should

suspended

in

No. 8369 otherwise known as the "Family


Courts Act of 1997";

strengthened by the fact that Katreena

Also

only reacted with a ballpen which she

ordinary mitigating circumstance of not

must be using in class at the time, and

Intending to commit so grave a wrong as

only to stop Pomping's vexatious act of

that

repeatedly pulling her ponytail. In other

paragraph 3, Rev. Penal Code; and

words, the injury was accidental.

if

found

criminally

committed,

under

liable,

Article

the

13,

The ordinary mitigating circumstance of

b) The attendant circumstances which

sufficient provocation on the part of the

may be considered are:

offended party immediately preceded the

1. Minority of the accused as an


exempting

circumstance

under

Article 12. paragraph 3, Rev. Penal

act.
JUSTIFYING

VS.

EXEMPTING

CIRCUMSTANCES (2004)

Code, where she shall be exempt


from criminal liability, unless it was
proved

that

discernment.

she
She

acted
is

with

however

civilly liable;

Distinguish clearly but briefly: Between


justifying and exempting circumstances
in criminal law.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

If found criminally liable, the minority of

Justifying circumstance affects the act,

the accused as a privileged mitigating

not

circumstance.

circumstance affects the actor, not the

discretionary

penalty

the

actor;

while

exempting

lower by at least two (2) degrees than

act.

that prescribed for the crime committed

criminal and, generally, no civil liability is

In

justifying

circumstance,

Prepared by: LJC

no

31

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

incurred;

while

in

exempting

is no criminal because the actor

circumstance, civil liability is generally

is

incurred although there is no criminal

regarded

only

as

an

instrument of the crime;


d. There being a wrong done but

liability.

no criminal.
JUSTIFYING

VS.

EXEMPTING
JUSTIFYING; DEFENSE

CIRCUMSTANCES (1998)

OF HONOR;

REQUISITES (2002)
Distinguish

between

justifying

and
When A arrived home, he found B raping

exempting circumstances. [3%]

his daughter. Upon seeing A, B ran away.


SUGGESTED ANSWER:

A took his gun and shot B, killing him.


Charged with homicide, A claimed he

1. In Justifying Circumstances:

acted in defense of his daughter's honor.

a. The circumstance affects the

Is A correct? If not, can A claim the

act, not the actor;


b. The act is done within legal

benefit of any mitigating circumstance or

bounds, hence considered as

circumstances? (3%)

not a crime;
c. Since the act is not a crime,

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

there is no criminal;
d. There being no crime

No, A cannot validly invoke defense of his


nor

daughter's honor in having killed B since

criminal, there is no criminal nor

the rape was already consummated;

civil liability.

moreover, B already ran away, hence,

Whereas,

in

an

Exempting

Circumstances:
a. The circumstance affects the
actor, not the act;
b. The act is felonious and hence a

there

was

no

aggression

to

defend

against and no defense to speak of.


A may, however, invoke the benefit of
the mitigating circumstance of having
acted in immediate vindication of a grave

acted

offense to a descendant, his daughter,

without voluntariness;
c. Although there is a crime, there

under par. 5, Article 13 of the Revised

crime

but

the

actor

Penal Code, as amended.


Prepared by: LJC

32

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

JUSTIFYING; DEFENSE OF STRANGER

a neighbor, 22-year old Jun-Jun, who had

(2002)

an unsavory reputation, came to her

A chanced upon three men who were


attacking B with fist blows. C, one of the
men, was about to stab B with a knife.
Not knowing that B was actually the
aggressor

because

he

had

earlier

challenged the three men to a fight, A


shot C as the latter was about to stab B.

store to buy bottles of beer. Lucresia


noticed her bracelet wound around the
right arm of Jun-Jun. As soon as the latter
left, Lucresia went to a nearby police
station

and

sought

the

help

of

policeman on duty, Pat. Willie Reyes. He


went with Lucresia to the house of JunJun to confront the latter. Pat. Reyes

May A invoke the defense of a stranger

introduced himself as a policeman and

as a justifying circumstance in his favor?

tried to get hold of Jun-Jun who resisted

Why? (2%)

and ran away. Pat. Reyes chased him and


fired two warning shots in the air. Jun-Jun

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

continued to run and when he was about


justifying

7 meters away, Pat. Reyes shot him in

stranger

the right leg. Jun-Jun was hit and he fell

since he was not involved in the fight and

down but he crawled towards a fence,

he shot C when the latter was about to

intending to pass through an opening

stab B. There being no indication that A

underneath. When Pat. Reyes was about

Yes.

may

circumstance

invoke
of

the

defense

of

was induced by revenge, resentment or

5 meters away, he fired another shot at

any other evil motive in shooting C, his

Jun-Jun hitting him at the right lower hip.

act is justified under par 3, Article 11 of

Pat.

the Revised Penal Code, as amended.

hospital,

Reyes

brought

but

Jun-Jun

because

to

of

the

profuse

bleeding, he eventually died. Pat Reyes


JUSTIFYING; FULFILLMENT OF DUTY;

was

REQUISITES (2000)

homicide. During the trial, Pat Reyes

Lucresia, a storeowner, was robbed of


her bracelet in her home. The following
day, at about 5 o'clock in the afternoon,

raised

subsequently
the

exoneration,

charged

defense,
that

he

by
acted

with

way
in

of
the

fulfillment of a duty.
Prepared by: LJC

33

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

Is the defense tenable? Explain. (3%)

dawned upon Lina that the man was not


Tito, her husband. Furious, Una took out

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Tito's gun and shot the man. Charged

No, the defense of Pat. Reyes is not

with homicide Una denies culpability on

tenable. The defense of having acted in

the ground of defense of honor. Is her

the fulfillment of a duty requires as a

claim tenable? [5%]

condition, inter alia, that the injury or


offense committed be the unavoidable or
necessary

consequence

due

No, Una's claim that she acted in defense

performance of the duty (People vs.

of honor, is not tenable because the

Oanis, et.al., 74 Phil. 257). It is not

unlawful aggression on her honor had

enough

already ceased. Defense of honor as

that

the

of

accused

the

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

acted

in

fulfillment of a duty.

included in self- defense, must have been

After Jun-Jun was shot in the right leg and


was already crawling, there was no need
for Pat, Reyes to shoot him further.
Clearly, Pat. Reyes acted beyond the call

done to prevent or repel an unlawful


aggression. There is no defense to speak
of where the unlawful aggression no
longer exists.

of duty which brought about the cause of

JUSTIFYING; DEFENSE

death of the victim.

ELEMENTS (2000)

JUSTIFYING;

SD;

DEFENSE

OF

HONOR; REQUISITES (1998)


One night, Una, a young married woman,
was sound asleep in her bedroom when
she felt a man on top of her. Thinking it
was her husband Tito, who came home a
day early from his business trip, Una let
him have sex with her. After the act, the
man said, "I hope you enjoyed it as much
as I did." Not recognizing the voice, it

OF HONOR;

Osang, a married woman in her early


twenties, was sleeping on a banig on the
floor

of

their

nipa

hut

beside

the

seashore when she was awakened by the


act of a man mounting her. Thinking that
it was her husband, Gardo,who had
returned from fishing in the sea, Osang
continued her sleep but allowed the man,
who was actually their neighbor, Julio, to
have sexual intercourse with her. After
Prepared by: LJC

34

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

Julio satisfied himself, he said "Salamat

Hence, Osang's act of stabbing Julio to

Osang" as he turned to leave. Only then

death after the sexual intercourse was

did Osang realize that the man was not

finished, is not defense of honor but an

her husband. Enraged, Osang grabbed a

immediate vindication of a grave offense

balisong from the wall and stabbed Julio

committed against her, which is only

to death. When tried for homicide, Osang

mitigating.

claimed defense of honor. Should the


claim be sustained? Why? (5%)

JUSTIFYING;

SD;

DEFENSE

OF

PROPERTY; REQUISITES (1996)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

A security guard, upon seeing a man

No, Osang"s claim of defense of honor

scale the wall of a factory compound

should not be sustained because the

which he was guarding, shot and killed

aggression on her honor had ceased

the latter. Upon investigation by the

when she stabbed the aggressor. In

police who thereafter arrived at the

defense of rights under paragraph 1, Art.

scene of the shooting, it was discovered

11 of the RPC, It is required inter alia that

that the victim was unarmed. When

there be (1) unlawful aggression, and (2)

prosecuted for homicide, the security

reasonable

guard claimed that he merely acted in

necessity

of

the

means

employed to prevent or repel it. The

self-defense

unlawful aggression must be continuing

performance of his duty as a security

when

guard.If you were the judge, would you

the

disabled

aggressor
by

the

was

injured

or

person

making

defense.

property

and

in

the

convict him of homicide? Explain.


SUGGESTED ANSWER:

But if the aggression that was begun by


the injured or disabled party already
ceased

of

to

exist

when

the

accused

attacked him, as in the case at bar, the


attack made is a retaliation, and not a
defense. Paragraph 1, Article 11 of the
Code does not govern.

Yes. I would convict the security guard for


Homicide if I were the Judge, because his
claim of having acted in defense of
property and in performance of a duty
cannot fully be justified. Even assuming
that the victim was scaling the wall of the
Prepared by: LJC

35

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

factory compound to commit a crime

for serious physical injuries. Should the

inside the same, shooting him is never

accused, given the circumstances, be

justifiable, even admitting that such act

convicted or acquitted? Why? 4%

is considered unlawful aggression on


property rights. In People vs. Narvaes,

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

121 SCRA 329, a person is justified to

The

defend his property rights, but all the

because, even assuming the facts to be

elements of self-defense under Art. 11,

true in his belief, his act of shooting a

must be present. In the instant case, just

burglar

like in Narvaes, the second element

aggression on his person is not justified.

(reasonable

means

Defense of property or property right

employed) is absent. Hence, he should

does not justify the act of firing a gun at

be convicted of homicide but entitled to

a burglar unless the life and limb of the

incomplete self-defense.

accused is already in imminent and

JUSTIFYING;

necessity

SD;

of

the

DEFENSE

OF

PROPERTY; REQUISITES (2003)


The accused lived with his family in a
neighborhood that often was the scene of
frequent robberies. At one time, past

accused

when

should

there

be

is

convicted

no

unlawful

immediate danger. Although the accused


acted out of a misapprehension of the
facts, he is not absolved from criminal
liability.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

midnight, the accused went downstairs

Considering

with a loaded gun to investigate what he

namely; the frequent robberies in the

thought were footsteps of an uninvited

neighborhood,

guest. After seeing what appeared to him

midnight, and the victim appeared to be

an armed stranger looking around and

an armed burglar in the dark and inside

out to rob the house, he fired his gun

his

seriously injuring the man. When the

entertained an honest belief that his life

lights were turned on, the unfortunate

and limb or those of his family are

victim turned out to be a brother-in-law

already

on his way to the kitchen to get some

danger. Hence, it may be reasonable to

house,

in

the

the

given
the

circumstances,

time

accused

immediate

was

could

and

past

have

imminent

light snacks. The accused was indicted


Prepared by: LJC

36

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

accept that he acted out of an honest

stated by law as included in the definition

mistake of fact and therefore without

of a crime, like treachery in the crime of

criminal intent. An honest mistake of fact

murder.

negatives
absolves

criminal
the

intent

accused

and

from

thus

criminal

liability.

EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES (2007)


Macky, a security guard, arrived home

QUALIFYING; ELEMENTS OF A CRIME


(2003)

late one night after rendering overtime.


He was shocked to see Joy, his wife, and
Ken, his best friend, in the act of having

When would qualifying circumstances be

sexual intercourse. Macky pulled out his

deemed, if at all, elements of a crime?

service gun and shot and killed Ken.

4%

The court found that Ken died under

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A

qualifying

exceptional

circumstance

would

be

deemed an element of a crime when -

circumstances

exonerated

Macky

of

murder

and
but

sentenced him to destierro, conformably


with Article 247 of the Revised Penal

a. it changes the nature of the

Code. The court also ordered Macky to

crime, bringing about a more

pay indemnity to the heirs of the victim

serious crime and a heavier

in the amount of P50,000.

penalty;
b. it is essential

crime

Did the court correctly order Macky to

involved, otherwise some other

pay indemnity even though he was

to

the

crime is committed; and


c. it is specifically alleged in the

exonerated

of

murder?

Explain

your

answer. (10%)

Information and proven during


the trial.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the court did not act correctly in
ordering the accused to indemnify the

A qualifying circumstance is deemed an

victim. Since the killing of ken was

element of a crime when it is specifically

committed

under

the

exceptional

Prepared by: LJC

37

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

circumstances in Article 247, revised

made criminally liable as accessories to

Penal Code, it is the consensus that no

the crime of murder? Explain. (3 %)

crime was committed in the light of the


pronouncement in People v Cosicor (79
Phil.

672

[1947])

banishment

Obviously, Jakes mother was aware of

(destierro) is intended more for the

her sons having committed a felony,

protection of the offender rather than as

such that her act of harboring and

a penalty. Since the civil liability under

concealing him renders her liable as an

the

the

accessory. But being an ascendant to

consequence of criminal liability, there

Jake, she is exempt from criminal liability

would be no legal basis for the award of

by express provision of Article 20 of the

indemnity when there is no criminal

Revised Penal Code.

Revised

that

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Penal

Code

is

liability.
On the other hand, the criminal liability
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

of Jakes aunt depends on her knowledge

Yes, because the crime punishable by


destierro was committed, which is death
under exceptional circumstances under
Art. 247 of the Revised Penal Code.
EXEMPTING

CIRCUMSTANCES;

Immediately after murdering Bob, Jake


went to his mother to seek refuge. His
mother told him to hide in the maids
quarters until she finds a better place for
to

hide.

After

two

days,

of harboring and concealing Jake would


render her criminally liable as accessory
to

the

crime

of

murder;

otherwise

without knowledge of Jakes commission

ACCESSORIES; ASCENDANTS (2010)

him

of his commission of the felony, her act

Jake

transferred to his aunts house. A week


later, Jake was apprehended by the
police. Can Jakes mother and aunt be

of the felony, she would not be liable.


EXEMPTING

CIRCUMSTANCES;

INSANITY (2010)
While

his

wife

was

on

2-year

scholarship abroad, Romeo was having


an

affair

Realizing

with
that

his
the

maid
affair

Dulcinea.
was

going

nowhere, Dulcinea told Romeo that she


was going back to the province to marry
her childhood sweetheart. Clouded by
Prepared by: LJC

38

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

anger and jealousy, Romeo strangled

an

Dulcinea to death while she was sleeping

Realizing

in the maids quarters.

nowhere, Dulcinea told Romeo that she

The following day, Romeo was found


catatonic inside the maids quarters. He
was brought to the National Center for
Mental Health (NCMH) where he was
diagnosed

to

be

mentally

unstable.

affair

with
that

his
the

maid
affair

Dulcinea.
was

going

was going back to the province to marry


her childhood sweetheart. Clouded by
anger and jealousy, Romeo strangled
Dulcinea to death while she was sleeping
in the maids quarters.

Charged with murder, Romeo pleaded

The following day, Romeo was found

insanity as a defense.

catatonic inside the maids quarters. He

Will

Romeos

defense

prosper?

Explain. (2%)

Charged with murder, Romeo pleaded

No, Romeos defense of insanity will not


prosper because, even assuming that
Romeo was insane when diagnosed
after he committed the crime, insanity as
a defense to the commission of crime
must have existed and proven to be so
existing at the precise moment when the
crime was being committed. The fact of
the case indicate that Romeo committed
the crime with discernment.

his

CIRCUMSTANCES;

wife

was

on

insanity as a defense.
What is the effect of the diagnosis
of the NCMH on the case? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The effect of the diagnosis made by
NCMH is possibly a suspension of the
proceedings

2-year

scholarship abroad, Romeo was having

Romeo

and

his

until

he

could

already

understand the proceedings.


JUSTIFYING

against

commitment to appropriate institution for


treatment

INSANITY; EFFECT (2010)


While

Mental Health (NCMH) where he was


diagnosed to be mentally unstable.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

EXEMPTING

was brought to the National Center for

BATTERED

CIRCUMSTANCES;
WOMAN

SYNDROME

(2010)
Prepared by: LJC

39

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

Jack and Jill have been married for seven

found by the courts to be suffering from

years. One night, Jack came home drunk.

battered woman syndrome do not incur

Finding no food on the table, Jack started

any

hitting Jill only to apologize the following

notwithstanding the absence of any of

day.

the elements for justifying circumstances

A week later, the same episode occurred


Jack came home drunk and started
hitting Jill.

criminal

and

civil

liability

of self-defense under the Revised Penal


Code.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

Fearing for her life, Jill left and stayed

MITIGATING;

with her sister. To woo Jill back, Jack sent

(2000)

NON-INTOXICATION

her floral arrangements of spotted lilies


and confectioneries. Two days later, Jill

Despite

returned home and decided to give Jack

campaign in media against firecrackers

another

days,

and gun-firing during the New Year's

however, Jack again came home drunk.

celebrations, Jonas and Jaja bought ten

The following day, he was found dead.

boxes of super lolo and pla-pla in Bocaue,

chance.

After

several

the

massive

advertising

Bulacan. Before midnight of December


Jill was charged with parricide but raised

31, 1999, Jonas and Jaja started their

the

celebration by having a drinking spree at

defense

of

"battered

woman

syndrome."
Would the defense prosper despite the
absence of any of the elements for
justifying circumstances of self-defense
under the Revised Penal Code? Explain.
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Section 26 of Rep. Act No. 9262
provides that victim-survivors who are

Jona's place by exploding their highpowered

firecrackers

in

their

neighborhood. In the course of their


conversation, Jonas confided to Jaja that
he has been keeping a long-time grudge
against his neighbor Jepoy in view of the
latter's refusal to lend him some money.
While under the influence of liquor, Jonas
started

throwing

lighted

super

lolos

inside Jepoy's fence to irritate him and


the same exploded inside the latter's
Prepared by: LJC

40

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

yard. Upon knowing that the throwing of

c. If you were the Judge, how would

the super lolo was deliberate, Jepoy

you decide the case? Explain. (1%)

became furious and sternly warned Jonas


to stop his malicious act or he would get

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

what he wanted. A heated argument

a) Jonas and Jaja, can be charged with

between Jonas and Jepoy ensued but Jaja

the

tried

At

MURDER WITH HOMICIDE because a

midnight, Jonas convinced Jaja to lend

single act caused a less grave and a

him his .45 caliber pistol so that he could

grave felony (Art. 48. RPC)....

to

calm

down

his

friend.

complex

crime

of

ATTEMPTED

use it to knock down Jepoy and to end his


arrogance. Jonas thought that after all,

b) If I were Jonas' and Jaja's lawyer, I will

explosions were everywhere and nobody

use the following defenses:

would know who shot Jepoy. After Jaja

That the accused had no intention to

lent his firearm to Jonas, the latter again

commit so grave a wrong as that

started throwing lighted super lolos and

committed as they merely intended to

pla-plas at Jepoy's yard in order to

frighten Jepoy;

provoke him so that he would come out


of his house. When Jepoy came out, Jonas

That Jonas committed the crime in a

immediately shot him with Jaja's .45

state of intoxication thereby impairing

caliber

his

gun

but

missed

his

target.

will

power

or

capacity

to

Instead, the bullet hit Jepoy's five year

understand the wrongfulness of his

old son who was following behind him,

act. Non-intentional intoxication is a

killing the boy instantaneously,

mitigating circumstance (People us.

a. What crime or crimes can Jonas and


Jaja be charged with? Explain. (2%)
b. If you were Jonas' and Jaja's lawyer,

Fortich, 281 SCRA 600 (1997); Art. 15,


RPC.).
MITIGATING; PLEA OF GUILTY (1999)

what possible defenses would you

An accused charged with the crime of

set up in favor of your clients?

homicide pleaded "not guilty" during the

Explain. (2%)

preliminary

investigation

before

the

Municipal Court. Upon the elevation of


Prepared by: LJC
41

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

the case to the Regional Trial Court the

SPONTANEOUSLY PLEADED guilty to

Court

the crime charged;

of

competent

jurisdiction,

he

pleaded guilty freely and voluntarily upon


arraignment. Can his plea of guilty before
the RTC be considered spontaneous and
thus

entitle

him

to

the

mitigating

circumstance of spontaneous plea of


guilty under Art. 13(7), RPC? (3%)

2. That such plea was MADE BEFORE


THE COURT COMPETENT to try the
case and render judgment; and
3. That such plea was made PRIOR TO
THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE
for the prosecution.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, his plea of guilty before the Regional

MITIGATING;

Trial

VOLUNTARY SURRENDER (1997)

Court

can

be

considered

spontaneous, for which he is entitled to


the mitigating circumstance of plea of
guilty. His plea of not guilty before the
Municipal Court is immaterial as it was
made during preliminary investigation
only and before a court not competent to
render judgment.
MITIGATING;

PLEA

OF

GUILTY;

After killing the victim, the accused


absconded. He succeeded in eluding the
police until he surfaced and surrendered
to the authorities about two years later.
Charged with murder, he pleaded not
guilty but, after the prosecution had
presented two witnesses implicating him

PLEA

OF

GUILTY;

to the crime, he changed his plea to that

REQUISITES (1999)

of guilty.

In order that the plea of guilty may be

Should the mitigating circumstances of

mitigating,

voluntary surrender and plea of guilty be

what

requisites

must

be

complied with? (2%)

considered in favor of the accused?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

For plea of guilty to be mitigating, the

Voluntary surrender should be considered

requisites are:

as a mitigating circumstance. After two


years, the police were still unaware of

1. That

the

ACCUSED

the whereabouts of the accused and the


Prepared by: LJC
42

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

latter could have continued to elude

latter. After the stabbing, he brought his

arrest. Accordingly, the surrender of the

son home. The Chief of Police of the

accused should be considered mitigating

town,

because

policemen,

it

was

done

spontaneously,

accompanied
went

to

by

several

Hilario's

house.

indicative of the remorse or repentance

Hilario, upon seeing the approaching

on

and

policemen, came down from his house to

therefore, by his surrender, the accused

meet them and voluntarily went with

saved the Government expenses, efforts,

them

and time.

investigated

the

part

of

said

accused

to

the

Police

in

Station

connection

to

with

be
the

killing. When eventually charged with

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

and convicted of homicide, Hilario, on


be

appeal, faulted the trial court for not

appreciated in favor of the accused. Two

appreciating in his favor the mitigating

years is too long a time to consider the

circumstance of voluntary surrender. Is

surrender as spontaneous (People us.

he

Ablao, 183 SCRA 658). For sure the

circumstance? Explain.

Voluntary

surrender

government

had

may

not

already

incurred

considerable efforts and expenses in


looking for the accused.
Plea

of

guilty

can

no

longer

be

because the prosecution had already


with

the

presentation

of

its

evidence (Art. 13, par. 7. Revised Penal


Code).
MITIGATING;

to

such

mitigating

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Hilario is entitled to the mitigating

appreciated as a mitigating circumstance


started

entitled

circumstance of voluntary surrender. The


crux of the issue is whether the fact that
Hilario went home after the incident, but
came down and met the police officers
and

went

with

them

is

considered

"Voluntary surrender," The voluntariness


of surrender is tested if the same is

VOLUNTARY

SURRENDER (1996)

spontaneous showing the intent of the


accused

to

submit

himself

unconditionally to the authorities. This


Hilario, upon seeing his son engaged in a

must

scuffle with Rene, stabbed and killed the

acknowledges his guilt, or (b) because he


Prepared by: LJC
43

be

either

(a)

because

he

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

wishes to save them the trouble and

expenses, time and effort in tracking

expenses

necessarily

down the offender's whereabouts; and

search

and

incurred

in

capture.

his

(Reyes'

Commentaries, p. 303). Thus, the act of


the accused in hiding after commission of

c. made to a person in authority or the


latter's agents.

the crime, but voluntarily went with the


policemen who had gone to his hiding

MITIGATING;

place to investigate, was held to be

SURRENDER (2009)

mitigating

circumstance.(People

VOLUNTARY

vs.

Dayrit, cited in Reyes' Commentaries, p.

Voluntary

299)

circumstance in all acts and omissions


punishable

MITIGATING;

VOLUNTARY

surrender
under

is

the

mitigating

Revised

Penal

Code.

SURRENDER; ELEMENTS (1999)


SUGGESTED ANSWER:
When

is

surrender

by

an

accused

considered voluntary, and constitutive of

False,

the mitigating circumstance of voluntary

appreciated

surrender? (3%)

negligence under Art. 365 since in such


cases,

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

when

indicative

of

an

it

the

surrender

in

cases

courts

are

is

spontaneous,

intent

to

submit

Art.

62

regarding

PRIVILEGE

to

What

indicative

of

and

MITIGATING

To be mitigating, the surrender must be:


i.e.,

authorized

aggravating circumstances.

CIRCUMSTANCE (2012)

spontaneous,

be

criminal

mitigating

unconditionally to the authorities.

a.

of

may

imposed a penalty without considering

A surrender by an offender is considered


voluntary

Voluntary

is

privileged

mitigating

circumstance? (5%)

acknowledgment of guilt and not for

Privileged mitigating circumstances are

convenience nor conditional;

those that mitigate criminal liability of

b. made before the government incurs

the crime being modified to one or two


Prepared by: LJC

44

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

degrees
cannot

lower.
be

These

off-

circumstance.

set

circumstance has the effect of reducing

aggravating

the penalty one or two degrees lower. (b)

by

of

Ordinary mitigating circumstances can be

exemption

off-set by the aggravating circumstances.

(when majority of the conditions are

Privileged mitigating circumstances are

present),

not subject to the off- set rule.

incomplete

The

circumstances

circumstance

justification
and

the

or

circumstance

of

minority (if the child above 15 years of


age

acted

with

discernment)

are

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

privileged mitigating circumstances.

AGGRAVATING

PRIVILEGE

(1996)

MITIGATING

CIRCUMSTANCE

VS.

ORDINARY

CIRCUMSTANCES

Jose, Domingo, Manolo, and Fernando,

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE (2012)

armed with bolos, at about one o'clock in

Distinguish

the

privileged

mitigating

morning,

robbed

house

at

circumstance from an ordinary mitigating

desolate place where Danilo, his wife,

circumstance as to reduction of penalty

and three daughters were living. While

and

the

offsetting

against

aggravating

four

ransacking

circumstance/s. (5%)

were

in

Danilo's

the

process

house,

of

Fernando,

noticing that one of Danilo's daughters


SUGGESTED ANSWER:

was trying to get away, ran after her and

The distinction between ordinary and


privilege mitigating circumstances are:
(a) Under the rules for application of
divisible penalties (Article 64 of the
Revised Penal Code), the presence of a
mitigating circumstance, has the effect of
applying

the

divisible

penalty

in

its

minimum period. Under the rules on

finally caught up with her in a thicket


somewhat

distant

Fernando,

before

from

the

bringing

house.

back

the

daughter to the house, raped her first.


Thereafter, the four carted away the
belongings of Danilo and his family.
a. What crime did Jose, Domingo, Manolo
and Fernando commit? Explain.

graduation of penalty (Articles 68 and


69), the presence of privileged mitigating

b. Suppose, after the robbery, the four


took turns in raping the three daughters
Prepared by: LJC

45

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

of Danilo inside the latter's house, but


before they left, they killed the whole
family to prevent identification, what
crime did the four commit? Explain.

offenders

took

advantage

of

because

the

nighttime;
3. dwelling; and
4. Uninhabited place
house

where

the

committed

aggravating

place" and obviously the offenders

may

be

took

appreciated against the four? Explain.

advantage

circumstance
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

"at

were

c. Under the facts of the case, what


circumstances

was

crimes

in

desolate
of

this

committing

crime.

a) Jose, Domingo, and Manolo committed

AGGRAVATING

Robbery,

GENERIS VS. QUALIFYING (1999)

while

the

Fernando

committed

CIRCUMSTANCES;

complex crime of Robbery with Rape...


Distinguish

generic

aggravating

b) The crime would be Robbery with

circumstance from qualifying aggravating

Homicide because the killings were by

circumstance.

reason (to prevent identification) and on


the occasion of the robbery. The multiple
rapes

committed

and

the

fact

that

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Generic Aggravating Circumstances:

several persons were killed [homicide),


would

be

considered

circumstances.
synonymous
additional

with
killing

The

as

aggravating
rapes

Ignominy

and

synonymous

a. affects only the imposition of the

are

penalty prescribed, but not the

the

nature of the crime committed;


b. can be offset by ordinary mitigating

with

cruelty, (People vs. Solis, 182 SCRA;


People vs. Plaga, 202 SCRA 531)
c) The aggravating circumstances which
may be considered in the premises are:

circumstances;
c. need not be
Information

as

alleged
long

as

in

the

proven

during the trial, the same shall be


considered

in

imposing

the

sentence.
1. Band because all the four offenders
are armed;
2. Noctumity because evidently the

Qualifying

Aggravating

Circumstances:
Prepared by: LJC

46

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

a. must

be

alleged

in

the

Information and proven during


trial;

cannot

circumstances;

by

mitigating

QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES or

those that change the nature of the


crime to a graver one, or brings about a

c. affects the nature of the crime


or brings about a penalty higher
in degree than that ordinarily

penalty

next

higher

cannot

be

offset

in

degree,

by

and

mitigating

circumstances;
4) INHERENT AGGRAVATING or those

prescribed.

that
AGGRAVATING

offset

circumstances:
3)

b. cannot be offset by mitigating

be

CIRCUMSTANCES;

KINDS & PENALTIES (1999)

essentially

accompany

the

commission of the crime and does not


affect the penalty whatsoever.

Name the four (4) kinds of aggravating


circumstances and state their effect on

AGGRAVATING;

CRUELTY;

RELATIONSHIP (1994)

the penalty of crimes and nature thereof.


Ben, a widower, driven by bestial desire,

(3%)

poked a gun on his daughter Zeny,


SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The

four(4)

kinds

forcibly undressed her and tied her legs


of

aggravating

to the bed. He also burned her face with


a lighted cigarette. Like a madman, he

circumstances are:

laughed

while

raping

her.

What

1) GENERIC AGGRAVATING or those

aggravating circumstances are present in

that can generally apply to all crimes,

this case?

and

can

be

offset

by

mitigating

circumstances, but if not offset, would


affect only the maximum of the penalty
prescribed by law;
2)

SPECIFIC AGGRAVATING or those

that apply only to particular crimes and

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Cruelty, for burning the victim's face
with

lighted

deliberately

cigarette,

augmenting

the

thereby
victim's

suffering by acts clearly unnecessary to


Prepared by: LJC

47

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

the rape, while the offender delighted

The circumstances of using poison, in

and enjoyed seeing the victim suffer in

consideration of a promise or reward, and

pain (People vs. Lucas, 181 SCRA 316).

cruelty which attended the killing of Rico

b) Relationship, because the offended


party is a descendant (daughter) of the
offender and considering that the crime
is one against chastity.

could only be appreciated as generic


aggravating circumstances since none of
them

have

information

been
to

alleged

qualify

the

in
killing

the
to

murder. A qualifying circumstance must

AGGRAVATING; MUST BE ALLEGED IN

be alleged in the Information and proven

THE INFORMATION (2000)

beyond reasonable doubt during the trial


to be appreciated as such.

Rico,

member

fraternity,

was

of

killed

the
by

Alpha

Rho

Pocholo,

member of the rival group, Sigma Phi


Omega.

Pocholo

was

prosecuted

for

homicide before the Regional Trial Court


in Binan, Laguna. During the trial, the
prosecution was able to prove that the
killing

was

committed

by

means

of

poison in consideration of a promise or


reward and with cruelty. If you were the
Judge, with what crime will you convict
Pocholo? Explain. (2%)

AGGRAVATING;

NIGHTTIME;

BAND

(1994)
At about 9:30 in the evening, while Dino
and Raffy were walking along Padre Faura
Street, Manila. Johnny hit them with a
rock injuring Dino at the back. Raffy
approached Dino, but suddenly, Bobby,
Steve, Danny and Nonoy surrounded the
duo. Then Bobby stabbed Dino. Steve,
Danny, Nonoy and Johnny kept on hitting
Dino and Raffy with rocks. As a result.
Dino died, Bobby, Steve, Danny, Nonoy

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

and Johnny were charged with homicide.


Pocholo should be convicted of the crime
of

homicide

only

because

the

aggravating circumstances which should


qualify the crime to murder were not
alleged in the Information.

Can the court appreciate the aggravating


circumstances of nighttime and band?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, nighttime cannot be appreciated as
Prepared by: LJC

48

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

an aggravating circumstance because

No,

there is no indication that the offenders

Recidivism and habitual delinquency are

deliberately sought the cover of darkness

correctly considered in this case because

to facilitate the commission of the crime

the basis of recidivism is different from

or that they took advantage of nighttime

that of habitual delinquency.

(People vs. De los Reyes, 203 SCRA 707).


Besides, judicial notice can be taken of
the fact that Padre Faura Street is welllighted.

the

appeal

is

not

meritorious.

Juan is a recidivist because he had been


previously convicted by final judgment
for theft and again found guilty for
Robbery with Homicide, which are both

However, band should be considered as

crimes against property, embraced under

the crime was committed by more than

the same Title (Title Ten, Book Two] of the

three armed malefactors; in a recent

Revised Penal Code. The implication is

Supreme Court decision, stones or rocks

that he is specializing in the commission

are considered deadly weapons.

of

crimes

against

property,

aggravating in the conviction for Robbery

AGGRAVATING; RECIDIVISM (2001)

with Homicide.

Juan de Castro already had three (3)


previous convictions by final judgment
for theft when he was found guilty of
Robbery with Homicide. In the last case,
the trial Judge considered against the
accused both recidivism and habitual

Habitual delinquency, which brings about


an additional penalty when an offender is
convicted a third time or more for
specified

crimes,

is

AGGRAVATING;

contended that in his last conviction, the

QUASI-RECIDIVISM (1998)

trial court cannot consider against him a


habitual

of

recidivism

delinquency.

and,
Is

again,

the

of

appeal

correctly

considered ...

delinquency. The accused appealed and

finding

hence

Distinguish

RECIDIVISM

between

recidivism

VS.

and

quasi-recidivism. [2%]

meritorious? Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

In recidivism Prepared by: LJC

49

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

1. The convictions of the offender are

afternoon, he saw the victim and his wife

for crimes embraced in the same

together on board a vehicle. In the

Title of the Revised Penal Code;

evening of that day, the accused went to

and

bed early and tried to sleep, but being so

2. This

circumstance

is

generic

aggravating and therefore can be


effect by an ordinary mitigating
circumstance.

not sleep. Later in the night, he resolved


to kill victim. He rose from bed and took
of

1. The convictions are not for crimes


embraced in the same Title of the
Revised Penal Code, provided that
it is a felony that was committed
the

between his wife and the victim, he could

hold of a knife. He entered the apartment

Whereas in quasi-recidivlsm -

by

annoyed over the suspected relation

offender

before

serving

the

window.

victim
Inside,

through
he

an

saw

unlocked

the

victim

soundly asleep. He thereupon stabbed


the victim, inflicting several wounds,
which caused his death within a few
hours.

sentence by final judgment for

Would you say that the killing was

another crime or while serving

attended by the qualifying or aggravating

sentence for another crime; and


2. This circumstance is a special

circumstances of evident premeditation,

aggravating

circumstance

cannot be offset by any mitigating


circumstance.
AGGRAVATING;

treachery, nighttime and unlawful entry?

which
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1.

TREACHERY

&

Evident

premeditation

cannot

be

considered against the accused because


he resolved to kill the victim "later in the

UNLAWFUL ENTRY (1997)

night" and there was no sufficient lapse


The accused and the victim occupied

of time between the determination and

adjacent

execution, to allow his conscience to

apartments,

each

being

separate dwelling unit of one big house.

overcome the resolution of his will.

The accused suspected his wife of having


an illicit relation with the victim. One

2. TREACHERY may be present because


Prepared by: LJC

50

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

the accused stabbed the victim while the

A was invited to a drinking spree by

latter was sound asleep. Accordingly, he

friends. After having had a drink too

employed means and methods which

many, A and B had a heated argument,

directly

the

during which A stabbed B. As a result, B

execution of the act without risk himself

suffered serious physical injuries. May

arising from the defense which the victim

the

might have made (People vs. Dequina.

aggravating or mitigating? (5%)

and

specially

insured

60 Phil. 279 People vs. Miranda, et at. 90


Phil. 91).
3.

Nighttime

cannot

be

appreciated

because there is no showing that the


accused deliberately sought or availed of
nighttime to insure the success of his act.
The Intention to commit the crime was
conceived shortly before its commission
(People vs Pardo. 79 Phil, 568). Moreover,
nighttime is absorbed in treachery.

an

aggravating

circumstance,

inasmuch as the accused entered the


is

not

the

proper

place

be

considered

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The intoxication of A may be prima facie
considered mitigating since it was merely
incidental to the commission of the
crime.

It

may

aggravating

as

not

be

there

considered

is

no

clear

indication from the facts of the case that


it was habitual or intentional on the part
of A. Aggravating circumstances are not
beyond reasonable doubt
PERSONS Criminally Liable for
FELONIES

room of the victim through the window,


which

of

to be presumed; they should be proved

4. UNLAWFUL ENTRY may be appreciated


as

intoxication

for

ANTI-FENCING LAW; FENCING (1996)

entrance into the house (Art. 14. par. 18.


Revised Penal Code, People vs. Baruga

Flora, who was engaged in the purchase

61 Phil. 318).

and sale of jewelry, was prosecuted for


the violation of P.D. 1612, otherwise

ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
ALTERNATIVE

CIRCUMSTANCES;

INTOXICATION (2002)

known

as

the

Anti-Fencing

Law,

for

having been found to be in possession of


recently

stolen

Jewelry

valued

at

P100,000.00 at her jewelry shop at


Prepared by: LJC

51

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

Zapote Road, Las Pinas, Metro Manila.

ought to know that it is the proceed from

She testified during the trial that she

robbery or theft. Besides, she should

merely bought the same from one named

have

Cecilino and even produced a receipt

procedure under the decree that of

covering the sale. Cecilino, in the past,

getting a clearance from the authorities

used to deliver to her jewelries for sale

in case the dealer is unlicensed in order

but is presently nowhere to be found.

to escape liability.

Convicted by the trial court for violation


of the Anti-Fencing Law, she argued (or
her acquittal on appeal, contending that

followed

ANTI-FENCING

the

LAW;

administrative

FENCING

VS.

THEFT OR ROBBERY (1995)

the prosecution failed to prove that she

What is the difference between a fence

knew or should have known that the

and an accessory to theft or robbery?

Jewelries recovered from her were the

Explain.Is there any similarity between

proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.

them?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, Flora's defense is not well-taken

One difference between a fence and an

because mere possession of any article

accessory to theft or robbery is the

of value which has been the subject of

penalty involved; a fence is punished as

theft or robbery shall be prima facie

a principal under P.D. No. 1612 and the

evidence of fencing (P.D.No. 1612). The

penalty is higher, whereas an accessory

burden is upon the accused to prove that

to robbery or theft under the Revised

she acquired the jewelry legitimately. Her

Penal Code is punished two degrees

defense of having bought the Jewelry

lower

from someone whose whereabouts is

bought or profited from the proceeds of

unknown,

the

theft or robbery arising from robbery in

her

Philippine highways under P.D. No. 532

(Pamintuan vs People, G.R 111426, 11

where he is punished as an accomplice,

July 1994). Buying personal property puts

hence the penalty is one degree lower.

does

presumption

of

not

overcome

fencing

against

than

the

principal,

unless

he

the buyer on caveat because of the


phrases that he should have known or

Also, fencing is a malum prohibitum and


Prepared by: LJC

52

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

therefore there is no need to prove

been derived from the proceeds of

criminal intent of the accused; this is not

said crime;
iii. the accused knows or should have

so in violations of Revised Penal Code.

known
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

all the acts of one who is an accessory to


crimes

of

robbery

said

article,

item,

object or anything of value has


been derived from the from the

Yes, there is a similarity in the sense that


the

that

or

theft

are

proceeds of the crime of robbery


or theft; and
iv. there is on

the

part

of

the

included in the acts defined as fencing. In

accused, intent to gain for himself

fact, the accessory in the crimes of

or for another.

robbery or theft could be prosecuted as


such under the Revised Penal Code or as

CRIMINAL LIABILITY; ACCESSORIES &

a fence under P.D. No. 1612. (Dizon-

FENCE (1998)

Pamintuan vs. People, 234 SCRA 63]


ANTI-FENCING

LAW;

FENCING;

King went to the house of Laura who was


alone. Laura offered him a drink and after
consuming three bottles of beer. King

ELEMENTS (1995)

made advances to her and with force and


What are the elements of fencing?

violence, ravished her. Then King killed


Laura and took her jewelry.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Doming, King's adopted brother, learned

The elements of fencing are:

about the incident. He went to Laura's

i. a crime of robbery or theft has

house, hid her body, cleaned everything

been committed;
ii. accused, who is not a principal or

and washed the bloodstains inside the

accomplice in the crime, buys,

room.

keeps,

Later, King gave Jose, his legitimate

acquires, conceals, or disposes, or

brother, one piece of jewelry belonging to

buys and sells, or in any manner

Laura. Jose knew that the jewelry was

deals in any article, item , object

taken from Laura but nonetheless he sold

or anything of value, which has

it for P2,000.

receives,

possesses,

Prepared by: LJC

53

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

What crime or crimes did King, Doming

Fencing Law of 1979 (PD No. 1612) since

and Jose commit? Discuss their criminal

the jewelry was the proceeds of theft and

liabilities. [10%]

with intent to gain, he received it from


King and sold it.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
King committed the composite crime of
Rape with homicide as a single indivisible
offense,

not

complex

crime,

and

Theft. ...

LIABILITY;

NON-

EXEMPTION AS ACCESSORY (2004)


DCB, the daughter of MCB, stole the
earrings of XYZ, a stranger. MCB pawned

Doming's acts, having been done with


knowledge of the commission of the
crime and obviously to conceal the body
of the crime to prevent its discovery,
makes him an accessory to the crime of
rape with homicide under Art. 19, par. 2
of the Rev. Penal Code, but he is exempt
from

CRIMINAL

criminal

liability

therefor

under

Article 20 of the Code, being an adopted


brother of the principal.

the earrings with TBI Pawnshop as a


pledge for P500 loan. During the trial,
MCB raised the defense that being the
mother of DCB, she cannot be held liable
as an accessory. Will MCB's defense
prosper? Reason briefly. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No,

MCB's

defense

will

not

prosper

because the exemption from criminal


liability of an accessory by virtue of

Jose incurs criminal liability either as an

relationship with the principal does not

accessory

cover

to

the

crime

of

theft

accessories

who

themselves

committed by King, or as fence. Although

profited from or assisted the offender to

he is a legitimate brother of King, the

profit by the effects or proceeds of the

exemption under Article 20 does not

crime.

include the participation he did, because

accessory, though related to the principal

he profited from the effects of such theft

of the crime, is expressly provided in Art.

by selling the jewelry knowing that the

20 of the Revised Penal Code.

same was taken from Laura. Or Jose may


be prosecuted for fencing under the Anti-

This

non-exemption

of

an

CRIMINAL LIABILITY; PRINCIPAL BY


DIRECT

PARTICIPATION;
Prepared by: LJC

CO54

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

PRINCIPAL

BY

INDISPENSABLE

COOPERATION (2000)
Despite

the

arrogance. Jonas thought that after all,

massive

advertising

campaign in media against firecrackers


and gun-firing during the New Year's
celebrations, Jonas and Jaja bought ten
boxes of super lolo and pla-pla in Bocaue,
Bulacan. Before midnight of December
31, 1999, Jonas and Jaja started their
celebration by having a drinking spree at
Jona's place by exploding their highpowered

use it to knock down Jepoy and to end his

firecrackers

in

their

neighborhood. In the course of their


conversation, Jonas confided to Jaja that

explosions were everywhere and nobody


would know who shot Jepoy. After Jaja
lent his firearm to Jonas, the latter again
started started throwing lighted super
lolos and pla-plas at Jepoy's yard in order
to provoke him so that he would come
out of his house. When Jepoy came out,
Jonas immediately shot him with Jaja's .
45 caliber gun but missed his target.
Instead, the bullet hit Jepoy's five year
old son who was following behind him,
killing the boy instantaneously,

he has been keeping a long-time grudge

If you were the Judge, how would you

against his neighbor Jepoy in view of the

decide the case? Explain. (1%)

latter's refusal to lend him some money.


While under the influence of liquor, Jonas
started

throwing

lighted

super

lolos

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I would convict Jonas as principal by

inside Jepoy's fence to irritate him and

direct

the same exploded inside the latter's

principal by Indispensable cooperation

yard. Upon knowing that the throwing of

for the complex crime of murder with

the super lolo was deliberate, Jepoy

homicide. Jaja should be held liable as

became furious and sternly warned Jonas

co-principal

to stop his malicious act or he would get

accomplice because he knew of Jonas'

what he wanted. A heated argument

criminal design even before he lent his

between Jonas and Jepoy ensued but Jaja

firearm to Jonas and still he concurred in

tried

that criminal design by providing the

to

calm

down

his

friend.

At

midnight, Jonas convinced Jaja to lend

participation

and

and

not

Jaja

only

as

as

co-

an

firearm.

him his .45 caliber pistol so that he could


Prepared by: LJC

55

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

CRIMINAL LIABILITY; PRINCIPAL BY


INDUCEMENT (2002)

(1994)
Tata owns a three-storey building located

A asked B to kill C because of a grave

at No. 3 Herran Street. Paco, Manila. She

injustice done to A by C. A promised B a

wanted to construct a new building but

reward. B was willing to kill C, not so

had

much because of the reward promised to

construction. So, she insured the building

him but because he also had his own

for P3,000,000.00. She then urged Yoboy

long-standing grudge against C, who had

and Yongsi, for monetary consideration,

wronged him in the past. If C is killed by

to burn her building so she could collect

B, would A be liable as a principal by

the insurance proceeds. Yoboy and Yongsi

inducement? (5%)

burned the said building resulting to its

no

money

to

finance

the

total loss.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. A would not be liable as a principal
by inducement because the reward he
promised B is not the sole impelling
reason which made B to kill C. To bring
about criminal liability of a co-principal,
the inducement made by the inducer
must be the sole consideration which
caused the person induced to commit the
crime and without which the crime would
not have been committed. The facts of
the case indicate that B, the killer
supposedly induced by A, had his own

What is their respective criminal liability?


SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Tata

is

principal

by

inducement

because she directly induced Yoboy and


Yongsi,

for

price

or

monetary

consideration, to commit arson which the


latter would not have committed were it
not for such reason. Yoboy and Yongsi are
principals by direct participation (Art. 17,
pars. 21 and 3, RPC).
DESTRUCTIVE ARSON (1994)

reason to kill C out of a long standing


Tata owns a three-storey building located

grudge.

at No. 3 Herran Street. Paco, Manila. She


CRIMINAL

LIABILITY;

INDUCEMENT

&

PRINCIPAL;

PARTICIPATION

wanted to construct a new building but


had

no

money

to

finance
Prepared by: LJC

the
56

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

construction. So, she insured the building

No. V. a. Ponciano borrowed Rubens gun,

for P3,000,000.00. She then urged Yoboy

saying that he would use it to kill Freddie.

and Yongsi, for monetary consideration,

Because Ruben also resented Freddie, he

to burn her building so she could collect

readily lent his gun, but told Ponciano:

the insurance proceeds. Yoboy and Yongsi

"O, pagkabaril mo kay Freddie, isauli mo

burned the said building resulting to its

kaagad,

total loss.

Freddie, but used a knife because he did

What crime did Tata, Yoboy and Yongsi


commit?

ha."

Later,

Ponciano

killed

not want Freddies neighbors to hear the


gunshot.
What, if any, is the liability of Ruben?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Explain. (3%)

Tata, Yoboy and Yongsi committed the

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

crime of destructive arson because they


collectively caused the destruction of

Rubens liability is that of an accomplice

property by means of fire under the

only because he merely cooperated in

circumstances which exposed to danger

Poncianos determination to kill Freddie.

the life or property of others (Art, 320,

Such cooperation is not indispensable to

par. 5, RPC. as amended by RA No.

the killing, as in fact the killing was

7659).

carried out without the use of Rubens


gun. Neither way Ruben may be regarded

ACCOMPLICE (2012)

as a co-conspirator since he was not a


participant in the decision-making of

Who is an accomplice? (5%)

Ponciono
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

principal,

cooperate

kill

Freddie;

he

merely

cooperated in carrying out the plan which

Accomplices are those persons who, not


being

to

in

the

was already in place (Art. 18, RPC).


ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

execution of the offense by previous or


simultaneous acts (Article 18)

Ruben cannot be held liable as an


accomplice

ACCOMPLICE (2009)

in

the

killing

of

Freddie

because his act of lending his gun to


Prepared by: LJC

57

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

Ponciano

did

not

have

the

relation

other killing. Poncianos using Rubens

between the acts done by the latter to

gun in killing a person other then Freddie

that attributed to Ruben. Even if Ruben

is beyond Rubens criminal intent and

did not lend his gun, Ponciano would

willing involvement. Only Ponciano will

have consummated the act of killing

answer for the crime against Manuel.

Freddie. In other words, Rubens act in


lending his gun was not a necessary act
to enable Ponciano to consummate the
crime.

the gun knew it would be used to kill a


particular person, but the offender used
it to kill another person, the owner of the

ACCOMPLICE (2009)

gun is not an accomplice as to the killing

Ponciano borrowed Rubens gun, saying


that he would use it to kill Freddie.
Because Ruben also resented Freddie, he
readily lent his gun, but told Ponciano:
"O, pagkabaril mo kay Freddie, isauli mo
kaagad,

It has been ruled that when the owner of

ha."

Later,

Ponciano

of the other person. While there was


community of design to kill Freddie
between Ponciano and Ruben, there was
none

with

respect

to

the

killing

of

Manuel.

killed

Freddie, but used a knife because he did


not want Freddies neighbors to hear the
gunshot.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, the answer would be the same
because Ruben lent his gun to Ponciano

Would your answer be the same if,

with knowledge that it would be used in

instead of Freddie, it was Manuel, a

killing a person, thus with knowledge that

relative of Ruben, who was killed by

the gun would be use to commit a crime.

Ponciano using Rubens gun? Explain.

It is of no moment who was killed so long

(3%)

as Ruben is aware when he lent the gun

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the answer would not be the same
because Ruben lent his gun purposely for
the killing of Freddie only, not for any

that it would be used to commit a crime.


ACCOMPLICE

VS.

CONSPIRATOR

(2012)
No. V. b. Distinguish an accomplice from
Prepared by: LJC

58

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

a conspirator as to their knowledge of

execution of the crime; while a

the criminal design of the principal, their

conspirator incurs criminal liability

participation, the penalty to be imposed

not only for his individual acts in

in relation to the penalty for the principal,

the execution of the crime but also

and

for

the

requisites/elements

to

be

the

acts

of

the

other

established by the prosecution in order to

participants in the commission of

hold them criminally responsible for their

the crime collectively. The acts of

respective roles in the commission of the

the

crime. (5%)

execution

of

considered

also

conspirator

for

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

conspirator are as follows:


VS.

as

the

crime

are

acts

of

purposes

a
of

criminal design or plan is already in

CONSPIRATOR

place;

whereas

conspirator

participates in the adoption or

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

making of the criminal design.

The distinction between an accomplice

4. An accomplice is subjected to a

and a conspirator are:


accomplice

the

in

execution of a crime when the

(2007)

1. An

participants

collective criminal responsibility.


3. An accomplice participates in the

The differences between accomplice and

ACCOMPLICE

other

penalty one degree lower than that


incurs

of

criminal

principal;

whereas

liability by merely cooperating in

conspirator incurs the penalty of a

the execution of the crime without

principal.

participating as a principal, by prior


simultaneous
conspirator

acts;

whereas

participates

ANTI-FENCING LAW; FENCING (2013)

the

Roberto bought a Toyota Fortuner from

commission of a crime as a co-

Inigo for P500,000. While driving his

principal.
2. An accomplice

incurs

in

criminal

liability in an individual capacity by


his act alone of cooperating in the

newly-bought car, Roberto met a minor


accident that made the examination of
his

vehicle's

Registration

Certificate

Prepared by: LJC

59

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

necessary. When the policeman checked

took no part in the robbery or theft,

the plate, chassis and motor numbers of

buys,

the vehicle against those reflected in the

acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or

Registration Certificate, he found the

buys and sells, or in any manner deals in

chassis

be

any article or object taken during that

Registration

robbery or theft; 3) the accused knows or

Certificate stated. The Deed of Sale

should have known of that the thing was

covering the sale of the Fortuner, signed

derived form that crime; and 4) by the

by Inigo, also bore the same chassis and

deal he makes he intends to gain for

motor numbers as Roberto's Registration

himself or for another. Here, someone

Certificate.

motor

carnapped the vehicle, old it to Roberto

numbers on the Fortuner were found,

who did not take part in the crime.

upon

Roberto should have known also that the

and

different

motor

from

numbers

what

The

the

chassis

verification

with

and
the

to

Land

receives,

keeps,

Transportation Office, to correspond to a

car was

vehicle

properly documented as the deed of sale

previously

reported

as

carnapped.

stolen

possesses,

because it was

not

and registration certificate did not reflect

Roberto claimed that he was in good


faith; Inigo sold him a carnapped vehicle
and he did not know that he was buying
a carnapped vehicle.

the correct numbers of the vehicles


engine and chassis. Apparently, he made
no effort to check the papers covering his
purchase. Lastly, Robertos defense of
good faith is flawed because Presidential

If you were the prosecutor, would you or

Decree

1612

is

special

law

and,

would you not charge Roberto with a

therefore, its violation in regarded as

crime? (7%)

malum prohibitum, requiring no proof of


criminal intent (Dimat v. People, GR No.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

181184, January 25, 2012).

I will charge Roberto with violation of

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Anti-Fencing

Law.

The

elements

of

fencing are: 1) a robbery or theft has


been committed; 2) the accused, who

The

facts

given

show

that

Roberto

bought the car form Inigo; that a deed


of sale covering the subject vehicle was
Prepared by: LJC
60

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

executed by Inigo; that there is also a

Arlene was charged with "fencing." Will

copy of the Registration Certificate;

the charge prosper? Why or why not?

that Roberto aver, too, of being a buyer

(5%)

in

good

faith

and

lacking

of

any

knowledge that the subject car is a


carnapped vehicle.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the charge of fencing will not

As against the foregoing, there is only a


certificate from the Land Transportation
Office showing that the vehicle had been
previously reported as carnapped.

prosper. Fencing is committed when a


person, with intent to gain foe himself or
for another, deals in any manner with an
article of value which he knows or should
be known to him to have been derived

Consequently, in light of the satisfactory

from the proceeds of theft or robbery

explanation of Roberto of his possession

(Sec. 2, PD 1612). Thus, for a charge of

of

of

fencing to prosper, it must first be

authorship of the theft upon a person

established that a theft or robbery of the

found

stolen

article subject of the alleged fencing has

personal property finds no application in

been committed --- fact which is wanting

the instant case.

in this case.

There is, thus, no probable cause or

It should be noted that the suspect is

evidence to warrant the prosecution of

engaged in the buy and sell of used

Riberto for any wrongdoing.

garments, which are in the nature of

the

vehicle,
in

the

possession

presumption
of

the

ANTI-FENCING LAW; FENCING (2010)

movable property carries with it a prima


facie presumption of ownership. The

No. V. Arlene is engaged in the buy and

presumption of fencing arises only

sell of used garments, more popularly

when the article or item involved is the

known as"ukay-ukay." Among the items

subject of a robbery or thievery (Sec. 5,

found by the police in a raid of her store

PD 1612).

in Baguio City were brand-new Louie


Feraud blazers.

ANTI-FENCING LAW; FENCING (2009)


No. XI. c. In a prosecution for fencing
Prepared by: LJC

61

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

under P.D. 1612, it is a complete defense

included Modesto had been engaged in

for the accused to prove that he had no

bank robberies. Abelardo, unsure of what

knowledge that the goods or articles

to do under the circumstances, kept

found in his possession had been the

quiet about the two bags in his vault.

subject of robbery.

Soon after, the police captured, and


secured a confession from, Modesto who

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
False,

fencing

is

admitted

committed

if

the

accused should have known that the


goods or articles had been the subject of
theft or robbery (P.D. No. 1612[a]). Mere
possession of the stolen goods gives rise
to

the

prima

facie

presumption

of

fencing.
LIABILITY;

ACCESSORIES

(2013)

Sometime

their

loot

had

been

deposited with Abelardo.


What is Abelardo's liability? (7%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Abelardo is not criminally liable.
To be criminally liable as an accessory

CRIMINAL

Modesto

that

under Article 19 of the Code, such person


must have knowledge of the commission
of the crime. The term knowledge

and
in

Abelardo
August,

are

brothers.

1998

while

Abelardo was in his office, Modesto,


together with two other men in police
uniform, came with two heavy bags.
Modesto asked Abelardo to keep the two
bags in his vault until he comes back to
get them. When Abelardo
later examined the two bags, he saw
bundles of money that, in his rough
count, could not be less than P5 Million.
He kept the money inside the vault and
soon he heard the news that a gang that

under the law is not synonymous with


suspicion. Mere suspicion that the crime
has been committed is not sufficient.
Moreover, the facts as given in the
problem would show lack or absent of
intent to conceal the effects of the crime
as

Abelardo

unsure

of

is
what

described
to

do

as

being

under

the

circumstances.
Even if he can be considered as an
accessory under paragraph 2 of Article
19, RPC, Abelardo is not liable, being the
Prepared by: LJC

62

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

brother of Modesto under Article 20, RPC.

Distinguish

the

following

from

each

other:

PENALTIES

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
COMPLEX

CRIME

VS.

COMPOUND
An ORDINARY COMPLEX CRIME is made

CRIME (2004)

up of two or more crimes being punished


Distinguish clearly but briefly: Between

in distinct provisions of the Revised Penal

compound

Code but alleged in one information

and

complex

crimes

as

concepts in the Penal Code.

either because they were brought about

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

by a single felonious act or because one


offense

COMPOUND

result

committed

only

when

necessary

means

for

the

committing the other offense or offenses.

single

They are alleged in one information so

felonious act from which two or more

that only one penalty shall be imposed.

crimes resulted. This is provided for in

As to penalties, ordinary complex crime,

modified form in the first part of Article

the penalty for the most serious crime

48, Revised Penal Code, limiting the

shall be imposed and in its maximum

resulting crimes to only grave and/or less

period

offender

CRIMES

is

grave felonies. Hence, light felonies are


excluded even though resulting from the

A SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME, on the other

same single act.

hand, is made up of two or more crimes


which

COMPLEX

CRIMES

result

when

the

are

components

considered
of

single

only

as

indivisible

offender has to commit an offense as a

offense being punished in one provision

necessary means for committing another

of

offense. Only one information shall be

penalties, special complex crime, only

filed and if proven, the penalty for the

one penalty is specifically prescribed for

more serious crime shall be imposed.

all the component crimes which are

COMPLEX

CRIME

COMPLEX

CRIME

CONTINUADO (2005)

VS.
VS.

SPECIAL
DELITO

the

Revised

Penal

Code.

As

to

regarded as one indivisible offense. The


component crimes are not regarded as
distinct crimes and so the penalty for the
Prepared by: LJC

63

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

most serious crime is not the penalty to

occurs when a felonious act missed the

be imposed nor in its maximum period. It

person against whom it was directed and

is the penalty specifically provided for

hit instead somebody who was not the

the special complex crime that shall be

intended victim. Error in personae, or

applied

mistake in identity occurs when the

according

to

the

rules

on

imposition of the penalty.

felonious act was directed at the person

DELITO CONTINUADO, or CONTINUOUS


CRIME, is a term used to denote as only
one crime a series of felonious acts
arising from a single criminal resolution,
not susceptible of division, which are
carried out in the same place and at
about the same time, and violating one
and the same penal provision. The acts
done must be impelled by one criminal
intent or purpose, such that each act

intended, but who turned out to be


somebody else. Aberratio ictus brings
about

at

least

two

(2)

felonious

consequence, ie. the attempted felony on


the intended victim who was not hit and
the felony on the unintended victim who
was hit. A complex crime of the first form
under Art. 48, RPC generally result. In
error in personae only one crime is
committed

merely constitutes a partial execution of

COMPLEX CRIME; ABERRATIO ICTUS,

a particular crime, violating one and the

ERROR IN PERSONAE & PRAETER

same

INTENTIONEM (1999)

penal

provision.

It

involves

concurrence of felonious acts violating a


common

right,

common

penal

provision, and Impelled by a single cri


COMPLEX CRIME; ABERRATIO ICTUS
VS. ERROR IN PERSONAE (1994)
Distinguish aberratio ictus from error in
personae.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Aberratio ictus or mistake in the blow

What do you understand by aberratio


ictus: error in personae; and praeter
intentionem? Do they alter the criminal
liability of an accused? Explain. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ABERRATIO ICTUS or mistake in the blow
occurs when the offender delivered the
blow at his intended victim but missed,
and instead such blow landed on an
Prepared by: LJC

64

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

unintended

victim.

The

situation

or

expected.

This

is

mitigating

generally brings about complex crimes

circumstance (Art. 13. par. 3, RPC) when

where from a single act, two or more

there is a notorious disparity between the

grave or less grave felonies resulted,

act or means employed by the offender

namely the attempt against the intended

and

victim and the consequence on the

resulting felony could not be reasonably

unintended victim. As complex crimes,

anticipated or foreseen by the of fender

the penalty for the more serious crime

from the act or means employed by him.

shall be the one imposed and in the


maximum period. It is only when the
resulting felonies are only light that
complex crimes do not result and the

the

resulting

felony,

i,e.,

the

COMPLEX CRIME; ABERRATIO ICTUS;


ATTEMPTED

MURDER

WITH

HOMICIDE (2000)

penalties are to be imposed distinctly for

Despite

each resulting crime.

campaign in media against firecrackers

ERROR
identity

IN

PERSONAE

occurs

or

when

mistake

the

in

offender

actually hit the person to whom the blow


was

directed

different

but

from

turned

and

not

out

to

be

the

victim

intended. The criminal liability of the


offender

is

not

affected,

unless

the

mistake in identity resulted to a crime


different from what the offender intended
to commit, in which case the lesser
penalty between the crime intended and
the crime committed shall be imposed
but in the maximum period (Art. 49,
RFC).

the

massive

advertising

and gun-firing during the New Year's


celebrations, Jonas and Jaja bought ten
boxes of super lolo and pla-pla in Bocaue,
Bulacan. Before midnight of December
31, 1999, Jonas and Jaja started their
celebration by having a drinking spree at
Jona's place by exploding their highpowered

firecrackers

in

their

neighborhood. In the course of their


conversation, Jonas confided to Jaja that
he has been keeping a long-time grudge
against his neighbor Jepoy in view of the
latter's refusal to lend him some money.
While under the influence of liquor, Jonas
started

throwing

lighted

super

lolos

PRAETER INTENTIONEM or where the

inside Jepoy's fence to irritate him and

consequence went beyond that intended

the same exploded inside the latter's


Prepared by: LJC
65

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

yard. Upon knowing that the throwing of

homicide because a single act caused a

the super lolo was deliberate, Jepoy

less grave and a grave felony (Art. 48.

became furious and sternly warned Jonas

RPC).

to stop his malicious act or he would get


what he wanted. A heated argument
between Jonas and Jepoy ensued but Jaja
tried

to

calm

down

his

friend.

At

midnight, Jonas convinced Jaja to lend

Attempted murder is a less grave felony,


while consummated homicide is a grave
felony: both are punishable by afflictive
penalties.

him his .45 caliber pistol so that he could

COMPLEX

use it to knock down Jepoy and to end his

ABERRATIO ICTUS; NOT APPLICABLE

arrogance. Jonas thought that after all,

(1996)

CRIME;

DOCTRINE

OF

explosions were everywhere and nobody


would know who shot Jepoy. After Jaja

At the height of an altercation, Pedrito

lent his firearm to Jonas, the latter again

shot Paulo but missed, hitting Tiburcio

started throwing lighted super lolos and

instead, resulting in the death of the

pla-plas at Jepoy's yard in order to

latter. Pedrito, invoking the doctrine of

provoke him so that he would come out

aberratio ictus, claims exemption from

of his house. When Jepoy came out, Jonas

criminal liability.If you were the judge,

immediately shot him with Jaja's .45

how would you decide the case?

caliber

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

gun

but

missed

his

target.

Instead, the bullet hit Jepoy's five year


old son who was following behind him,

If I were the Judge, I will convict Pedrito

killing the boy instantaneously,

and find him guilty of the complex crime


of Homicide with Attempted Homicide.

a) What crime or crimes can Jonas

The single act of firing at Paulo resulted

and Jaja be charged with? Explain.

in the commission of two felonies, one

(2%)

grave (homicide) and the other less

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

grave (attempted homicide) thus falling


squarely under Art. 48, RPC; hence, the

Jonas and Jaja, can be charged with the

penalty would be for the more serious

complex crime of attempted murder with

crime (homicide} in its maximum period


Prepared by: LJC

66

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

(17 years 4 months and 1 day to 20

whereas

years).

require. Moreover, the crime of

Aberratio ictus (mistake in the blow)


could not be used as a defense as it is
not an exempting circumstance. Pedrito
is liable under the principle of Art. 4, RPC,
which makes a person criminally liable
for

all

the

natural

and

logical

consequences of his felonious act

rebellion

does

not

so

coup d'etat may be committed


singly, whereas rebellion requires a
public uprising and taking up arms
to overthrow the duly constituted
government. Since the two crimes
are

essentially

different

and

punished with distinct penalties,


there is no legal impediment to the

COMPLEX CRIMES; COUP DETAT &

application of Art. 48 of the Revised

REBELLION & SEDITION (2003)

Penal Code.
a. Yes, coup

d'etat

can

1) Can there be a complex crime of coup

complexed

d'etat with rebellion? 2%

because the two crimes are

2) Can there be a complex crime of coup


d'etat with sedition? 2%

essentially

there

different

and

distinctly punished under the


may not be directed against
the

if

sedition

Revised Penal Code. Sedition

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1.) Yes,

with

be

was

Government

or

non-

conspiracy

political in objective, whereas

between the offender/ offenders

coup d'etat is always political

committing the coup d'etat and the

in objective as it is directed

offenders committing the rebellion.

against the Government and

By conspiracy, the crime of one

led

would be the crime of the other

officer holding public office

and vice versa. This is possible

belonging to the military or

because the offender in coup d'etat

national police. Art. 48 of the

may be any person or persons

Code may apply under the

belonging to the military or the

conditions therein provided.

by

persons

or

public

national police or a public officer,


Prepared by: LJC

67

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

The crime of coup d'etat cannot be

to

just

one

penalty

of

reclusion

perpetua.

complexed with the crime of rebellion

Was the decision of the trial judge

because both crimes are directed against

correct? Explain. (4%)

the Government or for political purposes,


although

the

principal

offenders

are

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

different. The essence may be the same

The decision of the trial judge is not

and thus constitute only one crime. In

correct. When the offender made use of

this situation, the two crimes are not

an automatic firearm, the acts committed

distinct and therefore, may not be proper

are determined by the number of bullets

to apply Article 48 of the Code.

discharged

COMPLEX CRIMES; DETERMINATION


OF THE CRIME (1999)

inasmuch

as

the

firearm

being automatic, the offender need only


press the trigger once and it would fire
continually. For each death caused by a

A, actuated by malice and with the use of

distinct and separate bullet, the accused

a fully automatic M-14 sub-machine gun,

incurs distinct criminal liability. Hence, it

shot a group of persons who were seated

is not the act of pressing the trigger

in a cockpit with one burst of successive,

which should be considered as producing

continuous,

the several felonies, but the number of

automatic

fire.

Four

(4)

persons were killed thereby, each having


hit by different bullets coming from the
sub-machine gun of A. Four (4) cases of
murder were filed against A.
The trial court ruled that there was only
one crime committed by A for the reason
that, since A performed only one act, he
having pressed the trigger of his gun only
once, the crime committed was murder.

bullets which actually produced them.


COMPLEX

CRIMES;

NATURE

&

PENALTY INVOLVED (1999)


What constitutes a complex crime? How
many

crimes

maybe

involved

in

complex crime? What is the penalty


therefor? (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Consequently, the trial judge sentenced


A complex crime is constituted when a
Prepared by: LJC

68

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

single act caused two or more grave or

committing the other offense or offenses.

less grave felonies or when an offense is

They are alleged in one Information so

committed as a necessary means to

that only one penalty shall be imposed.

commit another offense (Art. 48, RPC). At


least two (2) crimes are involved in a
complex crime; either two or more grave
or less grave felonies resulted from a
single act, or an offense is committed as
a

necessary

means

for

committing

another. The penalty for the more serious


crime

shall

be

imposed

and

in

its

maximum period. (Art. 48, RPC)


COMPLEX
COMPLEX

CRIMES;
CRIME

hand, is made up of two or more crimes


which

are

components

considered
of

single

only

as

indivisible

offense being punished in one provision


of the Revised Penal Code.
AS

TO

PENALTIES

-In

ORDINARY

COMPLEX CRIME, the penalty for the

ORDINARY
VS.

A SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME, on the other

SPECIAL

COMPLEX CRIME (2003)

most serious crime shall be imposed and


in its maximum period.
In SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME, only one

Distinguish between an ordinary complex


crime and a special complex crime as to
their concepts and as to the imposition of
penalties. 2%

penalty is specifically prescribed for all


the

component

crimes

which

are

regarded as one indivisible offense. The


component crimes are not regarded as
distinct crimes and so the penalty for the

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

most serious crime is not the penalty to


be imposed nor in its maximum period. It

IN CONCEPT -

is the penalty specifically provided for

An ORDINARY COMPLEX CRIME is made

the special complex crime that shall be

up of two or more crimes being punished

applied

in distinct provisions of the Revised Penal

imposition of the penalty.

Code but alleged in one Information


either because they were brought about
by a single felonious act or because one
offense

is

necessary

means

for

according

to

the

rules

on

CONTINUING OFFENSE VS. DELITO


CONTINUADO (1994)
Differentiate delito continuado from a
Prepared by: LJC

69

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

continuing offense.

continuado

mandates

that

only

one

information should be filed against the

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

offender although a series of felonious

DELITO CONTINUADO, or CONTINUOUS

acts

CRIME, is a term used to denote as only

"continuing crime" is more pertinently

one crime a series of felonious acts

used with reference to the venue where

arising from a single criminal resolution,

the criminal action may be instituted.

not susceptible of division, which are


carried out in the same place and at

were

performed;

the

term

DEATH PENALTY (2004)

about the same time, and violating one

The death penalty cannot be inflicted

and the same penal provision. The acts

under which the following circumstances:

done must be impelled by one criminal


intent or purpose, such that each act
merely constitutes a partial execution of
a particular crime, violating one and the
same

penal

provision.

It

involves

concurrence of felonious acts violating a


common

right,

provision,

and

common

impelled

by

1. When the guilty person is at least


18 years of age at the time of the
commission of the crime.
2. When the guilty person is more
than 70 years of age.
3. When, upon appeal to or automatic

penal

review by the Supreme Court, the

single

required majority for the imposition


of

criminal impulse (People vs. Le- desma,

the

OFFENSE

other
is

death

penalty

is

not

obtained.
4. When the person is convicted of a

73 SCRA 77).
On

the

hand,
one

CONTINUING

whose

essential

ingredients took place in more than one

capital crime but before execution


becomes insane.
5. When the accused is a woman
while she is pregnant or within one

municipality or city, so much so that the

year after delivery.

criminal prosecution may be instituted


and the case tried in the competent court

Explain your answer or choice briefly.

of any one of such municipality or city.

(5%)

The term "CONTINUED CRIME" or delito

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Prepared by: LJC

70

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

A. Understanding the word "inflicted" to


mean

the

penalty,

imposition
not

its

of

the

death

execution,

the

circumstance in which the death penalty


cannot be inflicted is no. 2: "when the
guilty person is more than 70 years of
age" (Art.

47,

Revised

Penal

Code).

executed and while he is insane.


Likewise,

the

death

penalty

can

be

imposed upon a woman but its execution


shall be suspended during her pregnancy
and for one year after her delivery.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Instead, the penalty shall be commuted


to reclusion perpetua, with the accessory

The word "INFLICTED" is found only in

penalties provided in Article 40, RFC.

Art. 83 to the effect that the death


penalty may not be "INFLICTED" upon a

In circumstance no. 1 when the guilty

pregnant woman, such penalty is to be

person is at least 18 years of age at the

suspended.

time of the commission of the crime, the

construed as "EXECUTION", then No. 5 is

death penalty can be imposed since the

the choice.

If

"INFLICTED"

is

to

be

offender is already of legal age when he


DEATH PENALTY; QUALIFIED RAPE;

committed the crime.

REQUISITES (2004)
Circumstance no. 3 no longer operates,
considering the decision of the Supreme

GV was convicted of raping TC, his niece,

Court in People vs. Efren Mateo (G.R.

and he was sentenced to death. It was

147678-87, July 7, 2004) providing an

alleged in the information that the victim

intermediate review for such cases where

was a minor below seven years old, and

the penalty imposed is death, reclusion

her mother testified that she was only six

perpetua or life imprisonment before

years and ten months old, which her aunt

they are elevated to the Supreme Court.

corroborated on the witness stand. The


information also alleged that the accused

In circumtances nos. 4 & 5, the death

was the victim's uncle, a fact proved by

penalty can be imposed if prescribed by

the prosecution.

the law violated although its execution


shall be suspended when the convict

On automatic review before the Supreme

becomes

Court, accused-appellant contends that

insane

before

it

could

be

Prepared by: LJC

71

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

capital punishment could not be imposed

unavailable, the testimony, if

on him because of the inadequacy of the

clear

charges and the insufficiency of the

victim's

evidence to prove all the elements of the

member of the family, by

heinous crime of rape beyond reasonable

consanguinity or affinity, who

doubt. Is appellant's contention correct?

is

Reason briefly. (5%)

matters respecting pedigree

and

credible
mother

qualified

to

of
or

testify

the
any

on

such as the exact age or date

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

of birth of the offended party

Yes, appellant's contention is correct

pursuant to Section 40, Rule

insofar as the age of the victim is

130 of the Rules on Evidence

concerned. The age of the victim raped

shall be sufficient but only

has not been proved beyond reasonable

under

doubt to constitute the crime as qualified

circumstances:

rape and deserving of the death penalty.

victim is alleged to be below

The guidelines in appreciating age as a

3 years of age and what is

qualifying circumstance in rape cases

sought to be proved is that

have not been met, to wit:

she is less than 7 years old;

the

following
(a)

If

the

(b) If the victim is alleged to

1) The primary evidence of the

be below 7 years of age and

age of the victim is her birth

what is sought to be proved

certificate;
2) In the absence of the birth

is that she is less than 12

certificate, age of the victim


maybe proven by authentic
document, such as baptismal
certificate

and

school

records;
3) If the aforesaid documents
are shown to have been lost
or

destroyed

or

otherwise

years old; (c) If the victim is


alleged to be below 12 years
of age and what is sought to
be proved is that she is less
than 18 years old.

4) In the absence of a certificate


of

live

birth,

authentic

document, or the testimony


of the victim's mother or
Prepared by: LJC

72

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

relatives
victim's

concerning
age

the

under

the

circumstances above-stated,
complainant's sole testimony
can suffice, provided that it is
expressly
admitted

and
by

clearly

the

accused

(People us. Pruna, 390 SCRA


577 [2002]).
HABITUAL

that of habitual delinquency.


Juan

is

delinquency,

recidivist
which

DELINQUENCY

&

convicted a third time or more for


specified crimes, is correctly considered
because Juan had already three (3)
previous convictions by final judgment
With Homicide. And the crimes specified
basis

for

INDETERMINATE

for theft when he was found guilty of

(1994)

Robbery with Homicide. In the last case,


the trial Judge considered against the
accused both recidivism and habitual
delinquency. The accused appealed and
contended that in his last conviction, the
trial court cannot consider against him a
habitual

and,

delinquency.

Is

again,

the

of

appeal

meritorious? Explain. (5%)

the

appeal

is

not

delinquency

Itos

was

SENTENCE

convicted

of

an

LAW

offense

penalized by a special law. The penalty


prescribed is not less than six years but
not

more

modifying

than

twelve

circumstance

years.

No

attended

the

commission of the crime.


If you were the judge, will you apply the
Indeterminate Sentence Law?If so, how
will you apply it?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No,

habitual

includes, inter alia, theft and robbery.

previous convictions by final judgment

recidivism

an

additional penalty when an offender is

as

Juan de Castro already had three (3)

of

about

for theft and again convicted for Robbery

RECIDIVISM (2001)

finding

brings

...Habitual

meritorious.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Recidivism and habitual delinquency are

If I were the judge, I will apply the

correctly considered in this case because

provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence

the basis of recidivism is different from

Law, as the last sentence of Section 1 Act


Prepared by: LJC

73

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

4103,

specifically

application

thereof

provides
for

violations

the

If I were the Judge, I will impose an

of

indeterminate sentence, the maximum of

special laws.

which shall not exceed the maximum

Under the same provision, the minimum


must not be less than the minimum
provided therein (six years and one day)
and the maximum shall not be more than
the

maximum

provided

therein,

i.e.

fixed by law and the minimum shall not


be

less

than

the

discretion to impose the penalty within


the said minimum and maximum.
INDETERMINATE

186 SCRA 184)

(1999)
SENTENCE

LAW

(1999)
Andres

penalty

prescribed by the same. I have the

twelve years. (People vs. Rosalina Reyes,

INDETERMINATE

minimum

SENTENCE

LAW

A was convicted of illegal possession of


grease guns and two Thompson sub-

is

charged

with

an

offense

defined by a special law. The penalty


prescribed

for

the

offense

is

imprisonment of not less than five (5)


years but not more than ten [10) years.
Upon arraignment, he entered a plea of

machine guns punishable under the old


law [RA No,4] with imprisonment of from
five (5) to ten (10) years. The trial court
sentenced

the

accused

to

suffer

imprisonment of five (5) years and one


(1) day.

guilty. In the imposition of the proper

Is the penalty thus imposed correct?

penalty,

Explain. (3%)

should

the

Indeterminate

Sentence Law be applied? If you were the


Judge trying the case, what penalty
would you impose on Andres? (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Indeterminate Sentence Law does not
apply to: The penalty imposed, being
only a straight penalty, is not correct

Yes, the Indeterminate Sentence Law

because it does not comply with the

should be applied because the minimum

Indeterminate

imprisonment is more than one (1) year.

applies to this case. Said law requires

Sentence

Law

which

that if the offense is punished by any law


Prepared by: LJC

74

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

other than the Revised Penal Code, the

for fixing the maximum and the

court shall sentence the accused to an

minimum terms of the indeterminate

indeterminate sentence, the maximum

sentence? (2%)

term of which shall not exceed the


maximum penalty fixed by the law and

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

the minimum shall not be less than the

The purpose of the law in fixing the

minimum

minimum term of the sentence is to set

penalty

prescribed

by

the

same.

the grace period at which the convict

INDETERMINATE

SENTENCE

LAW

(2002)

may

be

released

on

parole

from

imprisonment, unless by his conduct he


is not deserving of parole and thus he

How are the maximum and the minimum

shall continue serving his prison term in

terms of the indeterminate sentence for

Jail but in no case to go beyond the

offenses punishable under the Revised

maximum term fixed in the sentence.

Penal Code determined? (3%)

INDETERMINATE

SENTENCE

LAW

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(2005)

For crimes punished under the Revised

Harold was convicted of a crime defined

Penal Code, the maximum term of the

and penalized by a special penal law

Indeterminate

the

where the imposable penalty is from 6

penalty properly imposable under the

months, as minimum, to 3 years, as

same

maximum.

Code

sentence
after

shall

be

considering

the

attending mitigating and/or aggravating


circumstances according to Art, 64 of
said Code. The minimum term of the
same sentence shall be fixed within the
range of the penalty next lower in degree

State with reasons whether the court


may

correctly

impose

the

following

penalties:
a) a straight penalty of 10 months;

to that prescribed for the crime under the


said Code.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Under the law, what is the purpose

Yes, because the penalty is less than one


Prepared by: LJC

75

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

year, a straight penalty may be imposed.

INDETERMINATE

(People v. Arellano, G.R. No, 46501,

EXCEPTIONS (1999)

October 5, 1939)

Under

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

what

circumstances

Indeterminate

Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law,


the minimum imposable penalty shall be
imposed but the maximum shall not
exceed the maximum imposable by law.
b) 6 months, as minimum, to 11
months, as maximum;

SENTENCE

Sentence

LAW;

is

Law

the
not

applicable? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1) Persons

convicted

of

offenses

punished with death penalty or life


imprisonment;
2) Those
convicted

of

treason,

conspiracy or proposal to commit


SUGGESTED ANSWER:

treason;

No, because Indeterminate Sentence Law


does

not

apply

when

the

penalty

3) Those convicted of misprision of


treason,

rebellion,

sedition

or

Art. 4103, as amended).

espionage;
4) Those convicted of piracy;
5) Those
who
are
habitual

c) a straight penalty of 2 years. (5%)

6) Those who shall have escaped from

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

confinement or evaded sentence;


7) Those who violated the terms of

imposed is less than one year (Sec. 2,

delinquents;

No, because the Indeterminate Sentence


Law will apply when the minimum of the

conditional pardon granted to them


by the Chief Executive;
8) Those whose maximum term of

penalty exceeds one year.

imprisonment does not exceed one

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

year;
9) Those who, upon the approval of

If the imposition of straight penalty which


consists of the minimum period of the
penalty prescribed by law, then it may be
allowed because it favors the accused.

the law (December 5, 1933). had


been sentenced by final Judgment;
Those sentenced to the

10)

penalty of destierro or suspension.


Prepared by: LJC

76

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

INDETERMINATE

SENTENCE

LAW;

this Act; and


10)
those

EXCEPTIONS (2003)

whose

sentence

imposes penalties which do not


When would the Indeterminate Sentence

involve

Law be inapplicable? 4%

destierro.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

applicable to:

offenses
penalty

persons
punished
or

convicted
with

of

of

death

life-imprisonment

reclusion perpetua;
2) those
convicted

or

treason,

conspiracy or proposal to commit


treason;
3) those convicted of misprision of
treason,

rebellion,

like

PENALTIES: FINE OR IMPRISONMENT

The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not

1) those

imprisonment,

sedition

or

espionage;
4) those convicted of piracy;
5) those
who
are
habitual

VS.

SUBSIDIARY

IMPRISONMENT

(2005)
E and M are convicted of a penal law that
imposes

penalty

of

fine

or

imprisonment

or

both

fine

imprisonment.

The

judge

sentenced

them

the

fine,

to

pay

jointly

and
and

severally, with subsidiary imprisonment


in

case

of

insolvency.Is

the

penalty

proper? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The penalty is not proper. The two

delinquents;
6) those who shall have escaped from

accused must separately pay the fine,

confinement or evaded sentence;


7) those who having been granted

applies only to civil liabilities.

conditional pardon by the Chief


Executive shall have violated the
terms thereof;
8) those whose maximum term of

which is their penalty. Solidary liability

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
NO, because in penal law when there are
several

offenders,

the

court

in

the

imprisonment does not exceed one

exercise of its discretion shall determine

year;
9) those already sentenced by final

what shall be the share of each offender

judgment at the time of approval of

participation as principal, accomplice or


Prepared by: LJC
77

depending

upon

the

degree

of

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

accessory.

If

within

each

class

of

Pecuniary

liabilities

include

restitution,

more than one principal or more than

damages caused, the indemnification for

one accomplice or accessory, the liability

consequential damages, as well as fines

in

and cost of the proceedings.

class

subsidiary.
required

of

Anyone
to

pertaining

pay

to

offender
of

the

the

such

shall

be

may

be

civil

liability

offender

without

include

not

offender, there are more of them, such as

each

but

do

reparation

of

Pecuniary penalties include fines and


cost of the proceedings.

prejudice to recovery from those whose

PENALTIES;

share have been paid by another.

ESTAFA (1997)

May the judge impose an alternative

A was convicted of the complex crime of

penalty of fine or imprisonment?

estafa

Explain. (4%)

document. Since the amount Involved did


not

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

COMPLEX

through
exceed

CRIME

falsification
P200.00,

of

the

OF

public
penalty

prescribed by law for estafa is arresto

No. A fine, whether imposed as a single

mayor in its medium and maximum

or as an alternative penalty, should not

periods. The penalty prescribed by law

and cannot be reduced or converted into

for falsification of public document is

a prison term. There is no rule for

prision mayor plus fine not to exceed

transmutation of the amount of a fine

P5,000.00.

into a term of imprisonment. (People v.


Dacuycuy, G.R. No. L-45127 May 5,

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1989)
PENALTIES:

PECUNIARY

PENALTIES

VS. PECUNIARY LIABILITIES (2005)


Distinguish

Impose the proper prison penalty.

pecuniary

pecuniary liabilities. (2%)


SUGGESTED ANSWER:

penalties

from

The proper penalty is ANY RANGE WITHIN


prision correccional (six (6) months and
one (1) day to six (6) years) as MINIMUM,
to ANY RANGE within prision mayor
maximum (ten (10) years and one (1)
day to twelve (12) years) as MAXIMUM.
Prepared by: LJC

78

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

This is in accordance with People us,

of participation;
3. Determine the penalty;
4. Consider
the
modifying

Gonzales, 73 Phil, 549, where It was


ruled that for the purpose of determining

circumstances;
5. Determine

the penalty next lower in degree, the

whether

penalty that should be considered as a

Indeterminate Sentence Law is

starting point is the whole of prision

applicable or not.

mayor, it being the penalty prescribed by


law,

and

not

prision

mayor

maximum period, which is


penalty

actually

applied

in

its

only the

because

of

PENALTIES;

HOMICIDE

W/

MODIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE (1995)


Homer was convicted of homicide. The

Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. The

trial

penalty next lower in degree therefor is

modifying

prision correccional and it is within the

aggravating circumstance of nocturnity,

range of this penalty that the minimum

and

should be taken.

passion and obfuscation, no intent to

PENALTIES; FACTORS TO CONSIDER


(1991)

court

the

appreciated

the

following

circumstances:
mitigating

the

circumstances

of

commit so grave a wrong, illiteracy and


voluntary
penalty

surrender.
for

The

homicide

is

imposable
reclusion

Imagine that you are a Judge trying a

temporal the range of which is twelve

case,

(12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20)

and

based

on

the

evidence

presented and the applicable law, you


have decided on the guilt of two (2)
accused. Indicate the five (5) steps you
would follow to determine the exact
penalty to be imposed. Stated differently,
what are the factors you must consider
to arrive at the correct penalty?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. the crime committed;
2. Stage of execution and degree

years.
Taking

into

aggravating
circumstances,

account
and
and

the

attendant
mitigating

applying

the

Indeterminate Sentence Law, determine


the proper penalty to be imposed on the
accused.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
It appears that there is one aggravating
Prepared by: LJC

79

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

circumstance

(nocturnity),

and

four

as maximum. I believe that because of

mitigating circumstances (passion and

the remaining mitigating circumstances

obfuscation, no intent to commit so

after the off-setting it would be very

grave a wrong as that committed and

logical to impose the minimum of the

voluntary surrender). Par. 4, Art. 64

MINIMUM sentence under the ISL and the

should be applied. Hence there will be

minimum of the MAXIMUM sentence.

off-setting of modifying circumstances,


which will now result in the excess of
three mitigating circumstances. This will
therefore justify in reducing the penalty
to the minimum period.
The

existence

circumstance,

of

an

albeit

there

aggravating
are

four

aggravating, will not justify the lowering


of the penalty to the next lower degree
under paragraph 5 of said Article, as this
is

applicable

only

if

THERE

IS

PENALTIES;

MITIGATING

CIRCUMSTANCES
AGGRAVATING

W/OUT
CIRCUMSTANCE

(1997)
Assume in the preceding problem that
there were two mitigating circumstances
and

no

aggravating

circumstance.

Impose the proper prison penalty.


SUGGESTED ANSWER:

NO

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE present.

There

being

two

(2)

mitigating

circumstances without any aggravating


Since the crime committed is Homicide

circumstance, the proper prison penalty

and the penalty therefor is reclusion

is arresto mayor (in any of its periods, ie.

temporal, the MAXIMUM sentence under

ranging from one (1) month and one (1)

the Indeterminate Sentence Law should

day to six (6) months) as MINIMUM to

be the minimum of the penalty, which is

prision

12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8

period four (4) years, two (2) months,

months. The MINIMUM penalty will thus

and one (1) day to six (6) years as

be the penalty next lower in degree,

MAXIMUM. Under Art. 64, par. 5 of the

which is prision mayor in its full extent (6

Revised Penal Code, when a penalty

years and 1 day to 12 years). Ergo, the

contains three periods, each one of which

proper penalty would be 6 years and 1

forms a period in accordance with Article

correccional

in

its

maximum

day, as minimum, to 12 years and 1 day,


Prepared by: LJC

80

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

76 and 77 of the same Code, and there


are two or more mitigating circumstances
and no aggravating circumstances, the
penalty next lower in degree should be
imposed.

For

purposes

of

the

Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty


next

lower

in

degree

should

be

determined without regard as to whether


the

basic

penalty

provided

by

the

Revised Penal Code should be applied in


its maximum or minimum period as
circumstances

modifying

liability may

require. The penalty next lower in degree


to prision correccional. Therefore, as
previously stated, the minimum should
be within the range of arresto mayor and

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The proper penalty is reclusion perpetua.
Even if there are two or more mitigating
circumstances, a court cannot lower the
penalty by one degree (Art. 63. par. 3,
Revised

Penal

Code;

Relador 60 Phil. 593, where the crime


committed was parricide with the two (2)
mitigating circumstances of illiteracy and
lack of intention to commit so grave a
wrong,

and

with

no

that the proper, penalty to be imposed is


reclusion perpetua.

prision

IMPRISONMENT (1994)

its

maximum

aggravating

circumstance, the Supreme Court held

PENALTIES;

in

vs.

Formigones, 87 Phil. 685). In U.S. vs.

the maximum is within the range of


correctional

People

PREVENTIVE

period.
1)
PeNALTIES;

PARRICIDE

W/

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE (1997)


A and B pleaded guilty to the crime of
parricide.

The

court

found

three

mitigating circumstances, namely, plea

When

is

there

preventive

imprisonment?2) When is the accused


credited

with

the

full

time

of

his

preventive imprisonment, and when is he


credited with 4/5 thereof?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

of guilty, lack of Instruction and lack of


intent to commit so grave a wrong as

1) There is

that committed. The prescribed penalty

when [a) an offender is detained while

for parricide is reclusion perpetua to

the criminal case against him is being

death.

heard,

penalty.

Impose

the

proper

principal

preventive imprisonment

either

because

the

crime

committed is a capital offense and not


Prepared by: LJC

81

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

bailable, or even if the crime committed

No. 7959, reclusion perpetua shall be

was bailable, the offender could not post

from 20 years and 1 day to 40 years.

the

Does this mean that reclusion perpetua is

required

bail

for

his

provisional

liberty.

now a divisible penalty? Explain. (2%)

2) An accused is credited with the full

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

time of his preventive imprisonment if he


voluntarily agreed in writing to abide by
the rules of the institution imposed upon
its prisoners, provided that:

No, because the Supreme Court has


repeatedly called the attention of the
Bench and the Bar to the fact that the
penalties of reclusion perpetua and life

a) the penalty imposed on him for the

imprisonment are not synonymous and

crime

should be applied correctly and as may

committed

consists

of

deprivation of liberty;

be

b) he is not disqualified from such credit


for being a recidivist, or for having been
previously convicted for two or more
times of any crime, or for having failed to
surrender voluntarily for the execution of
the sentence upon being so summoned
(Art. 29, RPC).

specified

Reclusion

by

the

perpetua

applicable
has

law.

specific

duration of 20 years and 1 day to 40


years (Art. 27) and accessory penalties
(Art. 41), while life imprisonment has no
definite term or accessory penalties.
Also, life imprisonment is imposable on
crimes punished by special laws, and not
on felonies in the Code (People vs. De

Where the accused however did not

Guzman, G.R. Nos. 51385-86, Jan. 22,

agree he would only be credited with 4/5

1993; People vs. Estrella, G.R. Nos.

of the time he had undergone preventive

92506-07, April 28, 1993; People vs.

imprisonment.

Alvero, G.R. No. 72319, June 30,1993;


People vs. Lapiroso, G.R. No. 122507,

PENALTIES;

RECLUSION

PERPETUA

Feb.

25,

1999).[see

Criminal

(RA) NO. 7959 (2005)

Conspectus, page 156]

Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal

PENALTIES;

Code, as amended by Republic Act (RA)

VS. LIFE IMPRISONMENT (1994)

RECLUSION

Law

PERPETUA

Prepared by: LJC

82

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

Differentiate reclusion perpetua from life

several bullet wounds in his body so that

imprisonment.

he died despite medical assistance given


in the Ospital ng Manila. Because the

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

weapon

used

by

unlicensed

provided for in the Revised Penal Code

circumstance of treachery was found to

for crimes defined in and penalized

be present. Judge Laya rendered his

therein except for some crimes defined

decision

by special laws which impose reclusion

sentencing him to "reclusion perpetua or

perpetua, such as violations of Republic

life imprisonment".

7659

or

of

PD

IMPRISONMENT

is

1860;
a

while

penalty

LIFE

usually

provided for in special laws. Reclusion


perpetua has a duration of twenty (20)
years and one (1) day to forty [40] years
under

Republic

Act

7659,

while

Are

convicting

"reclusion

the

was

RECLUSION PERPETUA is that penalty

Act 6425, as amended by Republic Act

and

Benjamin

qualifying

Benjamin

perpetua"

and

and

life

imprisonment the same and can be


imposed

interchangeably

as

in

the

foregoing sentence? Or are they totally


different? State your reasons. (3%)

life

The penalty of reclusion perpetua and

imprisonment has no duration; reclusion

the penalty of life Imprisonment are

perpetua may be reduced by one or two

totally different from each other and

degrees; reclusion perpetuates accessory

therefore,

penalties while life imprisonment does

interchangeably.

not have any accessory penalties (People


vs. Baguio, 196 SCRA 459, People vs.
Panellos, 205 SCRA 546).
PENALTIES;

RECLUSION

Reclusion

should

perpetua

not

is

be

used

penalty

prescribed by the Revised Penal Code,


with a fixed duration of imprisonment

PERPETUA

from 20 years and 1 day to 40 years, and

VS. LIFE IMPRISONMENT (2001)

carries it with accessory penalties.

After trial, Judge Juan Laya of the Manila

Life imprisonment, on the other hand, is

RTC found Benjamin Garcia guilty of

a penalty prescribed by special laws, with

Murder,

no fixed duration of imprisonment and

the

victim

having

sustained

Prepared by: LJC

83

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

without any accessory penalty.

special laws shall not exceed 6 months at

PROBATION LAW: PROPER PERIOD


(2005)

the rate of one day of imprisonment for


every F2.50. Hence, the proper period of
probation should not be less than (6

Maganda was charged with violation of

months nor more than 12 months. Since

the

P50,000.00

Bouncing

Checks

Law

(BP

22)

fine

is

more

than

the

punishable by imprisonment of not less

maximum subsidiary imprisonment of 6

than 30 days but not more than 1 year or

months at P2.50 a day.

a fine of not less than but not more than


double the amount of the check, which
fine shall not exceed P200,000.00, or
both. The court convicted her of the
crime and sentenced her to pay a fine of
P50,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment
in case of insolvency, and to pay the
private complainant the amount of the
check. Maganda was unable to pay the
fine but filed a petition for probation. The
court granted the petition subject to the
condition, among others, that she should
not change her residence without the
courts prior approval.
a)

What

is

the

Supposing

before

the

Order

of

Discharge was issued by the court but


after the lapse of the period of probation,
Maganda transferred residence without
prior approval of the court. May the court
revoke the Order of Probation and order
her

to

serve

the

subsidiary

imprisonment? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. The Court may revoke her probation.
Probation is not coterminous with its
period. There must first be issued by the
court an order of final discharge based on

proper

period

of

probation?

the report and recommendation of the


probation officer. Only then can the case
of the probationer be terminated. (Bala v.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Martinez, G.R. No. 67301, January 29,

The period shall not be less than twice


the total number of days of subsidiary
imprisonment.

b)

Under

Act

No.

1732,

subsidiary imprisonment for violations of

1990, citing Sec. 16 of P.D. No. 968)


PROBATION

LAW;

BARRED

BY

APPEAL (1994)
Prepared by: LJC

84

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

On

February

convicted

of

3,

1986,

arson

Roberto

through

was

reckless

imprudence and sentenced to pay a fine


of

P15,000.00,

with

subsidiary

imprisonment in case of insolvency by


the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. Even if at the time of his conviction
Roberto was qualified for probation but
that at the time of his application for
probation, he is no longer qualified, he is
not

entitled

to

qualification

the Court of Appeals. Several months

determined as of the time the application

later, he filed a motion to withdraw the

is filed in Court (Bernardo vs. Judge, etal.

appeal on the ground that he is applying

GRNo. L86561,Nov, 10. 1992; Edwin de

for probation. On May 7, 1987, the Court

la Cruz vs. Judge Callejo. et al, SP-19655,

of

April 18, 1990, citing Llamado vs. CA, et

granted

the

motion

and

considered the appeal withdrawn.


On June 10, 1987, the records of the case
were remanded to the trial court. Roberto

al,

GR

No.

84859,

execution of his sentence be suspended,

APPEAL (2001)

report on his probation.

28,

be

1989;

86561, Nov. 10, 1992).


PROBATION

conduct an Investigation and to submit a

June

must

Bernardo us. Judge Balagot, etal, GR

filed a "Motion for Probation" praying that


and that a probation officer be ordered to

probation

The

On February 10, 1986, he appealed to

Appeals

for

probation.

LAW;

BARRED

BY

A, a subdivision developer, was convicted


by the RTC of Makati for failure to issue
the subdivision title to a lot buyer despite

The judge denied the motion on the

full payment of the lot, and sentenced to

ground

suffer

that

pursuant

to

Presidential

one

year

Imprisonment.

Decree No. 1990, which took effect on

appealed the decision of the RTC to the

July 16,1986, no application for probation

Court of Appeals but his appeal was

shall be entertained or granted if the

dismissed.

defendant has perfected an appeal from

probation? Explain. (5%)

the judgment of conviction.


Is the denial of Roberto's motion correct?

May

still

apply

for

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, A is no longer qualified to apply for
Prepared by: LJC

85

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

probation after he appealed from the

the eligibility of the accused for the

judgment of conviction by the RTC. The

probation.

probation law (PD 968, as amended by

"maximum term", and not total term. It is

PD1990)

law

uses

the

word

provides

that

no

enough that each of the prison terms

probation

shall

be

does not exceed six years. The number

entertained or granted if the accused has

of offenses is immaterial for as long as

perfected an appeal from the judgment

the

of conviction (Sec. 4, PD 968).

individually and separately, are within

application

now

The

for

PROBATION LAW; MAXIMUM TERM


VS. TOTAL TERM (1997)

defamation

in

imposed,

when

taken

the probationable period.


PROBATION LAW; ORDER DENYING

The accused was found guilty of grave


oral

penalties

sixteen

(16)

PROBATION;

NOT

APPEALABLE

(2002)

informations which were tried jointly and

A was charged with homicide. After trial,

was sentenced in one decision to suffer

he was found guilty and sentenced to six

in each case a prison term of one (1)

(6) years and one (1) day in prision

year and one (1) day to one (1) year and

mayor, as minimum, to twelve (12) years

eight (8) months of prision correccional.

and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as

Within the period to appeal, he filed an

maximum. Prior to his conviction, he had

application

been

for

probation

under

the

found

guilty

of

vagrancy

and

Probation Law of 1976, as amended.

imprisoned for ten (10) days of arresto

Could he possibly qualify for probation?

manor and fined fifty pesos (P50.00). Is

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. In Francisco vs. Court of Appeals,
243 SCRA 384, the Supreme Court held
that in case of one decision imposing
multiple prison terms, the totality of the
prison terms should not be taken into
account for the purposes of determining

he eligible for probation? Why? (3%)


SUGGESTED ANSWER:No, he is not
entitled to the benefits of the Probation
Law (PD 968, as amended) does not
extend to those sentenced to serve a
maximum term of imprisonment of more
than six years (Sec. 9a).

Prepared by: LJC

86

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

It is of no moment that in his previous

applying for probation; the penalty for his

conviction A was given a penalty of only

present conviction does not disqualify

ten (10) days of arresto mayor and a fine

him either from applying for probation,

of P50.00.

since the imprisonment does not exceed

B. May a probationer appeal from the


decision revoking the grant of probation

six (6) years (Sec. 9, Pres. Decree No.


968).

or modifying the terms and conditions

PROBATION LAW; RIGHT; BARRED BY

thereof? (2%)

APPEAL (1995)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

In a case for violation of Sec. 8, RA 6425,

No. Under Section 4 of the Probation Law,


as

amended,

an

order

granting

or

denying probation is not appealable.

otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs


Act, accused Vincent was given the
benefit of the mitigating circumstances
of

voluntary

plea

of

guilt

and

PROBATION LAW; PERIOD COVERED

drunkenness not otherwise habitual. He

(2004)

was sentenced to suffer a penalty of six


(6) years and one (1) day and to pay a

PX was convicted and sentenced to

fine of P6,000.00 with the accessory

imprisonment of thirty days and a fine of

penalties provided by law, plus costs.

one hundred pesos. Previously, PX was

Vincent

convicted of another crime for which the

probation officer favorably recommended

penalty imposed on him was thirty days

his application.

applied

for

probation.

The

only. Is PX entitled to probation? Explain

1. If you were the Judge, what action

briefly. (5%)

will you take on the application?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, PX may apply for probation. His
previous conviction for another crime
with

penalty

of

thirty

days

imprisonment or not exceeding one (1)


month does not disqualify him from

Discuss fully.
2. Suppose
that

Vincent

was

convicted of a crime for which he


was

sentenced

to

maximum

penalty of ten (10) years. Under


the law, he is not eligible for
Prepared by: LJC

87

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

probation. He seasonably appealed

This is the second consecutive year that

his conviction. While affirming the

this question was asked. It is the sincere

judgment

of

appellate

court

conviction,

the

belief of the Committee that there is a

reduced

the

need to re-examine the doctrine. Firstly,

penalty to a maximum of four (4)

much as the accused wanted to apply for

years and four (4) months taking

probation he is proscribed from doing so

into

as

consideration

certain

the

maximum

penalty

Secondly,

is

NOT

when

the

modifying circumstances. Vincent

PROBATIONABLE.

now applies for probation. How will

maximum penalty was reduced to one

you rule on his application? Discuss

which allows probation it is but fair and

fully.

just to grant him that right because it is


apparent that the trial judge committed

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

an error and for which the accused

1. If I were the judge, I will deny the

should not be made to suffer. Judicial

application for probation. The accused is

tribunals in this jurisdiction are not only

not entitled to probation as Sec. 9 of the

courts of law but also of equity. Thirdly,

Probation Law, PD NO. 968, as amended,

the judgment of the appellate court

specifically mentions that those who "are

should be considered a new decision as

sentenced to serve a maximum term of

the trial court's decision was vacated;

imprisonment of more than six years" are

hence, he could take advantage of the

not entitled to the benefits of the law.

law when the decision is remanded to


the trial court for execution (Please see

2. The law and jurisprudence are to the

Dissenting opinion in Francisco vs. CA).

effect that appeal by the accused from a


sentence of conviction forfeits his right to

It

probation.(Sec.

examinee answering in this tenor should

4,

PD

No.

968.

as

amended by PD 1990; Bernardo us.


Balagot; Francisco vs. CA: Llamado vs.
CA; De la Cruz vs. Judge Callejo, CA
case).

is

suggested,

therefore,

that

an

be credited with some points.


PROBATION LAW; RIGHT; BARRED BY
APPEAL (2003)
Juan was convicted of the Regional Trial
Prepared by: LJC

88

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

Court of a crime and sentenced to suffer

suspended sentence. Enumerate at least

the

5 of them. (5%)

penalty

of

imprisonment

for

minimum of eight years. He appealed


both his conviction and the penalty
imposed upon him to the Court of
Appeals. The appellate court ultimately
sustained Juan's conviction but reduced

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Suspension of sentence of
minor

under

P.D.

603

as

his sentence to a maximum of four years

amended by R.A. 9344.


2. Suspension of sentence of

and eight months imprisonment. Could

minor above 15 but below 18

Juan forthwith file an application for

years of age at the time of


trial under R.A. 9344.
3. Suspension of sentence of

probation? Explain. 8%

minor above 15 but below 18

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

years
No, Juan can no longer avail of the
probation because he appealed from the
judgment of conviction of the trial court,

of

age

at

the

commission of the offense,


while

acting

with

and therefore, cannot apply for probation

discernment.
4. Suspension of sentence by

anymore. Section 4 of the Probation Law,

reason of insanity (Art. 79,

as

amended,

application

for

mandates

that

no

probation

shall

be

entertained or granted if the accused has

Revised Penal Code).


5. Suspension of sentence for
first

offense

minor

under the probation law. (P.D.

appeal from the judgment of conviction.


SUSPENSION

OF

SENTENCE;

968)
7. Suspension
sentence

ADULTS/MINORS (2006)

woman.
instances

83,

pregnant
Revised

9344 is outside the coverage

accused, either as an adult or as a minor,

of the examination)

and/or

(Art.

Penal Code)(NOTA BENE: R.A.

for

least

of

death

situations in criminal cases wherein the


apply

at

of

or

can

are

violating RJV . 9165. (Sec. 32)


6. Suspension
of
sentence

perfected an

There

of

be granted

a
Prepared by: LJC

89

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE; MINORS


(2003)

Explain.4%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

A was 2 months below 18 years of age


when he committed the crime. He was
charged with the crime 3 months later.
He was 23 when he was finally convicted
and sentenced. Instead of preparing to
serve a jail term, he sought a suspension
of the sentence on the ground that he
was a juvenile offender Should he be
entitled to a suspension of sentence?
Reasons. 4%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, A is not entitled to a suspension of
the sentence because he is no longer a
minor at the time of promulgation of the
sentence. For purposes of suspension of
sentence, the offender's age at the time
of promulgation of the sentence is the
one considered, not his age when he
committed the crime. So although A was

Yes, so long as the offender is still a


minor at the time of the promulgation of
the sentence. The law establishing Family
Courts, Rep. Act 8369, provides to this
effect: that if the minor is found guilty,
the

court

should

promulgate

sentence and ascertain any civil liability


which the accused may have incurred.
However,

the

sentence

suspended

without

application

pursuant

the
to

shall

be

need

of

PD

Welfare Code" (RA 8369, Sec. 5a), It is


under PD 603 that an application for
suspension of the sentence is required
and thereunder it is one of the conditions
for suspension of sentence that the
offender be a first time convict: this has
been displaced by RA 8369.
SUSPENSION

the crime, but he was already 23 years

YOUTHFUL OFFENDER (1995)

eligible for suspension of the sentence.


Can

juvenile

offenders,

who

recidivists,
askforsuspensionofsentence?

603,

otherwise known as the "Child and Youth

below 18 years old when he committed


old when sentenced, he is no longer

the

OF

SENTENCE;

Victor, Ricky, Rod and Ronnie went to the


store of Mang Pandoy. Victor and Ricky

are

entered the store while Rod and Ronnie

validly

posted themselves at the door. After


ordering beer Ricky complained that he
Prepared by: LJC

90

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

was shortchanged although Mang Pandoy

an

vehemently denied it. Suddenly Ricky

imprisonment or death, pursuant to P.D.

whipped out a knife as he announced

No. 603, Art. 192, The complex crime of

"Hold-up ito!" and stabbed Mang Pandoy

robbery with homicide is punishable by

to death. Rod boxed the store's salesgirl

reclusion perpetua to death under Art.

Lucy to prevent her from helping Mang

294 (1), RFC [People vs. Galit. 230 SCRA

Pandoy. When Lucy ran out of the store to

486).

seek help from people next door she was


chased by Ronnie. As soon as Ricky had

offense

punishable

by

life

DELITO CONTINUADO (2009)

stabbed Mang Pandoy, Victor scooped up

No. XIII. a. Angelo devised a Ponzi

the money from the cash box. Then

Scheme in which 500 persons were

Victor and Ricky dashed to the street and

deceived into investing their money upon

shouted, "Tumakbo na kayo!" Rod was 14

a promise of a capital return of 25%,

and Ronnie was 17. The money and other

computed monthly, and guaranteed by

articles looted from the store of Mang

post-dated checks. During the first two

Pandoy were later found in the houses of

months following the investment, the

Victor and Ricky.

investors

1. Discuss fully the criminal liability of


Victor, Ricky, Rod and Ronnie.
2. Are the minors Rod and Ronnie entitled
to suspended sentence under The Child
and Youth Welfare Code? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1 . All are liable for the special complex
crime of robbery with homicide....
2. No, because the benefits of suspension
of sentence is not available where the

received

their

profits,

but

thereafter, Angelo vanished.


Angelo was charged with 500 counts of
estafa and 2,000 counts of violation of
Batas Pambansa (BP) 22. In his motion to
quash,

Angelo

contends

that

he

committed a continued crime, or delito


continuado, hence, he committed only
one count of estafa and one count of
violation of BP 22.
What is delito continuado? (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

youthful offender has been convicted of


Prepared by: LJC

91

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

Delito

continuado

constituted

by

refers

to

several

overt

crime

crimes committed and their effects in

acts

relation to the penalty to be imposed on

committed by the offender in one place,


at about the same time, and all such
overt acts violate one and the same
provision

of

penal

law,

thus

demonstrating that all such acts are the

a convict. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Difference

between

recidivism

and

habitual delinquency:

product of a single indivisible criminal


relation.

Hence,

all

said

acts

are

(a) Nature of crime in recidivism, the


first crime, and the aggravated second

considered as one crime only.

crime are embraced in the same Title of


HABITUAL DELINQUENCY (2012)

the Revised Penal Code. In habitual


delinquency, the first, second and third

Who is a habitual delinquent? (5%)

crimes must be a habitual- delinquency

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

crime, and that is, serious or less serious

A person shall be deemed to be habitual


delinquent, if within a period of ten year

physical injuries, theft, robbery, estafa or


falsification of document.

from his release or last conviction of the

Time

crimes of serious or less serious physical

accused was convicted of the first crime

injuries,

by final judgment at the time of trial of

robo,

hurto

estafa

or

element

in

said crimes a third time or oftener

delinquency, the accused was convicted

(Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code).

of the first

HABITUAL

habitual-delinquency crime; within

RECIDIVISM (2012)
No.

VIII.

b.

Distinguish

In

the

the

VS.

crime.

recidivism,

falsification, he is found guilty of any of

DELINQUENCY

second

habitual

10

years after conviction or release, he was


habitual

delinquency from recidivism as to the


crimes committed, the period of time the
crimes are committed, the number of

found

guilty

of

habitual-delinquency

crime for the second time; within 10


years after conviction or release he was
found guilty of habitual- delinquency
crime for the third
Prepared by: LJC

92

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

time or oftener.

Human Rights (CHR) investigating team

(c) Number of crimes in recidivism,


there must be at least two crimes
committed;

while

in

habitual

delinquency, there must be at least three


crimes committed.

recidivism

is

prosecutors

that

all

respondents

be

charged with violation of the "Heinous


Crimes

Law."

The

prosecution

panel

agreed with the CHR. As the Chief


Prosecutor tasked with approving the

Nature of the aggravating circumstance

recommended to the panel of public

ordinary

aggravating

circumstance, the presence of any which


will trigger the application of the penalty
for the second crime committed in its

filing of the Information, how will you


pass upon the recommendation? Explain.
(5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

maximum period unless it is off-set by a

The CHR is correct in describing the

mitigating

aggravating

crime committed as heinous crimes, as

circumstance, the presence of which will

defined in the preamble of the Henious

trigger

the

imposition

Crimes Law (Rep. Act No. 7659), despite

penalty

for

the third

or

special
of
or

additional
subsequent

the

passage

of

Rep.

Act

No.

9346

crime. This is not subject to the off-set

prohibiting the imposition of the death

rule.

penalty.

HEINOUS CRIMES LAW (2010)

However, the Henious Crimes Law does

No. IV. Because of the barbarity and


hideousness of the acts committed by
the suspects/respondents in cutting off
their victims appendages, stuffing their
torsos, legs, body parts into oil drums
and bullet- riddled vehicles and later on
burying these oil drums, vehicles with
the use of backhoes and other earthmoving machinery, the Commission on

not

define

crimes;

it

is

only

an

amendatory law increasing the penalty


for

the

crime

specified

therein

as

heinous, to a maximum of death. Thus,


the heinous crime committed shall be
prosecuted under the penal law they are
respectively defined and penalized, such
as the Revised Penal Code as the case
may be. The circumstances making the
crimes

heinous

may

be

alleged

Prepared by: LJC

as
93

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

qualifying

or

generic

aggravating,

if

minimum shall not be less than the

proper. The crime shall be designated as

minimum term prescribed by the same

defined and punished under the penal

(Section 1 of Act 4103).

law violated and the penalty shall be


reclusion perpetua without the benefit of
parole, as the case may be in lieu of the
death penalty.
INDETERMINATE

INDETERMINATE

SENTENCE

LAW

(2007)
Macky, a security guard, arrived home

SENTENCE

LAW

(2012)

late one night after rendering overtime.


He was shocked to see Joy, his wife, and
Ken, his best friend, in the act of having

How is the Indeterminate Sentence Law

sexual intercourse. Macky pulled out his

applied in imposing a sentence? (5%)

service gun and shot and killed Ken.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The court found that Ken died under

If crime is punishable under the Revised


Penal Code, the court shall sentenced the
accused to an indeterminate sentence
maximum term of which shall be that
which,

in

view

circumstances,

of
could

the
be

attending
properly

imposed under the rules of the said

exceptional circumtances and exonerated


Macky of murder but sentenced him to
destierro, conformably with Article 247 of
the Revised Penal Code. The court also
ordered Macky to pay indemnity to the
heirs of the victim in the amount of
P50,000.

Code, and the minimum which shall be

While

within the range of the penalty next

entered the prohibited area and had a

lower to that prescribed by the Code for

pot session with Ivy (Joys sister). Is

the offense. If the offense is punishable

Macky

under a special law, the court shall

sentence in case he is found guilty of the

sentence

use of prohibited substances? Explain

the

accused

to

an

indeterminate sentence, the maximum


term of which shall not exceed the
maximum fixed by said law and the

serving

entitled

his

to

sentenced,

an

Macky

indeterminate

your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Prepared by: LJC

94

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

No, Macky s not entitled to the benefit of

YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of reclusion

the Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act

temporal.

4103, as amended) for having evaded


the sentence which banished or placed
him on destierro. Sec. 2 of the said law
expressly provides that the law shall not
apply to those who shall have evaded
sentence.

The

defense

contending

counsel

that

chimed

application

in,

of

the

Indeterminate Sentence Law should lead


to the imposition of a straight penalty of
SIX (6) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of
prision correccional only. Who of the

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

three is on the right track? Explain. (3%)

No, because the penalty for use of any

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

dangerous drug by a first offender is not


imprisonment

but

rehabilitation

in

government center for a minimum period


of six (6) months (Sec. 15, R.A. 9165).
The Indeterminate Sentence Law does
not

apply

when

the

penalty

is

imprisonment not exceeding one year.


INDETERMINATE

SENTENCE

LAW;

HOMICIDE (2010)
No. I. An agonizing and protracted trial
having come to a close, the judge found

None of the contention is correct because


the Indeterminate Sentence Law for the
crime of homicide, which is penalized by
mprisonment exceeding one (1) year and
is

divisible,

is

covered

law requires that the sentence in this


case should reflect a minimum term for
purposes of parole, and a minimum term
fixing the limit of the imprisonment.
Imposing a straight penalty is incorrect.
INDETERMINATE

homicide and imposed on him a straight

HOMICIDE (2009)

of prision mayor.

the

indeterminate Sentence Law. The said

A guilty beyond reasonable doubt of


penalty of SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY

by

SENTENCE

LAW;

No. XII. a. In a conviction for homicide,


the

trial

court

appreciated

two

(2)

The public prosecutor objected to the

mitigating circumstances and one (1)

sentence on the ground that the proper

aggravating

penalty should have been TWELVE (12)

under Article 249 of the Revised Penal

circumstance.

Homicide

Prepared by: LJC

95

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

Code

is

reclusion

No, my answer will not be the same

term

of

because violations of Rep. Act 9165 are

twelve (12) years and one (1) day to

mala prohibita in which mitigating and

twenty

aggravating

temporal,

punishable
an
(20)

by

imprisonment
years.

Applying

the

circumstances

are

not

Indeterminate Sentence Law, determine

appreciated. Although in People v. Simon

the appropriate penalty to be imposed.

(234 SCRA 555[1994]), it was held that

Explain. (3%)

Art. 64 can be applied if the special law


adopted the nomenclature of penalties

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

provided

under

the

RPC,

such

Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law,

pronouncement cannot be applied in the

the minimum of the sentence shall be

instant

anywhere within the range of 6 years and

possession of drugs under R.A. 9165 do

1 day to 12 years imprisonment within

not follow the technical nomenclature of

the maximum of the sentence shall be

penalties in the RPC and thus, cannot be

anywhere within the range of Reclusion

divided

Temporal minimum i.e., not lower than 12

existence of mitigating and aggravating

years and 1 day to not more than 14

circumstances cannot be appreciated.

years and 8 months.


INDETERMINATE
ILLEGAL

case

into

because

periods.

the

for

illegal

Hence,

the

PENALTIES; CIVIL LIABILITY (2010)


SENTENCE

POSSESSION

OF

LAW;
DRUGS

(2009)

On her way home, Eva Marie saw an


injured chow chow puppy behind a bush.
Since the puppy did not have a collar,

Will your answer be the same if it is a

she brought it home so she could have it

conviction for illegal possession of drugs

as a pet. Her son in fact begged Eva

under R.A. 9165 (Dangerous Drugs Act of

Marie to keep the puppy. The following

2002), the prescribed penalty of which is

day, Eva Marie bought a collar for the

also imprisonment for a term of twelve

puppy and brought it to a veterinarian for

(12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20)

treatment.

years? Why or why not? (3%)

Did she incur civil liability? Explain. (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Prepared by: LJC

96

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

provocation on his (Bruno's) part, but he

Eva Marie may incur civil liability if the


owner of the puppy would incur a loss
due to non-restitution or return thereof to
the owner. Finding any property of value,

prevailed because he managed to draw


his knife with which he stabbed the
victim.

The

penalty

for

homicide

is

reclusion temporal.

legally regarded as lost property, would

Assuming a judgment of conviction and

constitute theft if the finder failed to

after

deliver the same to the local authorities

circumstances, what penalty should the

or to its owner (Art. 308 par. 1). Once Eva

judge impose? (7%)

Marie is found guilty of theft, she will


incur civil liability, which consists of
restitution
caused

or
and

reparation

for

damage

indemnification

for

considering

the

attendant

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Bruno

should

be

indeterminate

sentenced

sentence

to

an

penalty

of

consequential damages (Art. 100 RPC).

arresto mayor in any of its period to

The general rule is: a person who is

precion correccional in its medium period

criminally liable is also civilly liable.

as maximum. Bruno was entitled to two


priviledged mitigating circumstances of

PENALTIES; HOMICIDE (2013)

incomplete

self-defense

presence

killing the 75-year old owner of his

mitigating

rooming house. The prosecution proved

aggravating circumstance under Articles

that Bruno stabbed the owner causing his

69 and 64(5) of the Revised Penal Code,

death; and that the killing happened at

respectively, which lower the prescribed

10 in the evening in the house where the

penalty for homicide which is reclusion

victim and Bruno lived. Bruno, on the

temporal to prision correccional.

voluntarily

surrendered

to

the

authorities; that he pleaded guilty to the


crime charged; that it was the victim who
first attacked and did so without any

at

least

two

the

Bruno was charged with homicide for

other hand, successfully proved that he

of

and

circumstances

ordinary

without

any

There is incomplete self-defense because


Bruno proved that it was the victim who
first attacked him and did so without
provocation

of

his

part.

There

Prepared by: LJC

is,
97

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

however, no reasonable necessity of the


means employed to defend himself, after
Bruno

used

knife

to

stab

the

weaponless victim. There are also no

Probation Law; Period Covered (2009)


1. Perpetual absolute disqualification;
2. Perpetual special disqualification;
3. Temporary
absolute

because it was not shown that Bruno

disqualification;
4. Temporary special disqualification;
5. Suspension from public office, the

disregarded the age of the victim or that

right to vote and be voted for, and

nighttime facilitated the commission of

the right to follow a profession or

the crime; moreover, dwelling cannot be


appreciated because the crime happened

calling;
Fine; and any principal penalty with

in the house where both Bruno and the

its accessory penalties.

aggravating

circumstances

present,

victim lived. In contrast, there are two


mitigating

circumstances,

namely,

voluntary surrender and plea of guilt.


Applying

the

Indeterminate

PENALTIES;

RECLUSION

PERPETUA

VS. LIFE IMPRISONMENT (2009)

Sentence

Law, the maximum term of the medium

Life imprisonment is a penalty more

period and the minimum term should be

favorable to the convict than reclusion

within the range of the penalty next

perpetua.

lower in degree or arresto mayor in any

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

of its period.
False, Life Imprisonment is unfavorable to
PENALTIES;

PERPETUAL

ABSOLUTE

a convict because the penalty is without

DISQUALIFICATION (2007)

a fixed duration, unlike the penalty of

What are the penalties that may be

reclusion perpetua which has a fixed

served simultaneously? (10%)

duration of 40 years and the convict may


be eligible for pardon after 30 years of

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The

penalties

that

may

simultaneously
imprisonment/destierro and:

imprisonment (People v. Penillos, 205


be

served
are

SCRA 546 [1992])


PROBATION LAW; PERIOD COVERED
(2009)
Prepared by: LJC

98

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

Joe was 17 years old when he committed


homicide

in

2005.

The

crime

is

punishable by reclusion temporal. After


two years in hiding, he was arrested and
appropriately charged in May 2007. Since
Republic Act 9344 (Juvenile Justice and
Welfare Act of 2006) was already in
effect,

upon offenders thereunder.


The brothers petition for prohibition. The
murder

being

attempted

only,

the

prescribed penalty is two degree lower


than reclusion perpetua; hence, prision
mayor. Because Joe was 17 years old
when

he

penalty

of

committed
prision

the

mayor

crime,

the

should

be

Joe moved to avail of the process of

lowered further by one degree because

intervention or diversion.

his minority is a privilege mitigating

Suppose Joe was convicted of attempted


murder

with

special

aggravating

circumstance and was denied suspension


of sentence, would he be eligible for

circumstance; hence, prision correccional


or imprisonment within the range of ix
months and 1 day to 6 years is the
imposable.

probation under Presidential Decree (PD)

PROBATION LAW; ORDER DENYING

968, considering that the death penalty

PROBATION (2010)

is

imposable

for

the

consummated

felony? Explain. (2%)

while his younger brother Jeff was found

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

guilty

Yes, he would be eligible for probation


because the penalty imposable on Joe
will not exceed 6 years imprisonment.
Even if it would be considered that the
crime

committed

was

punishable

by

death, the penalty as far as Joe I


concerned

can

only

Matt was found guilty of drug trafficking

be

reclusion

of

possession

instrument,

of

apparatus

equipment,
and

other

paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under


Section 12 of Republic Act No. 9165.
Matt filed a petition for probation. Jeff
appealed

his

conviction

during

the

pendency of which he also filed a petition


for probation.

perpetua because RA 9344 forbids the

The brothers counsel argued that they

imposition of the capital punishment

being first time offenders, their petitions


Prepared by: LJC

99

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

for probation should be granted. How

years and four(4) months of reclusion

would you resolve the brothers petitions

temporal, as maximum, and a fine of

for probation? Explain. (3%)

P500,000.Michael applied for probation


but his application was denied because

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The

brothers

petition

the probation law does not apply to drug


for

prohibition

offenders under R.A. 9165. Michael then


sought the suspension of his sentence

should be denied.

under R.A. 9344 or the Juvenile Justice


Matts petition for probation shall be

and Youth Welfare Code.

denied because he was convicted for


drug-trafficking. Section 24 of R.A. 9165

Can Michael avail of the suspension of his

(Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of

sentence provided under this law? (7%)

2002) expressly provides, Any person


convicted for drug trafficking or pushing

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

under this Act, regardless of the penalty

The benefits of a suspended sentence

imposed by the court, cannot avail of the

can no longer apply to Machel. The

privilege granted by the Probation Law or

suspension of sentence lasts only until

Presidential

the law reaches the maximum age and

Decree

No.

968,

as

amended.

thus, could no longer be considered a

SUSPENSION

OF

SENTENCE;

ADULTS/MINORS (2013)

child for purposes of applying Rep. Act


No. 9344. However, he shall be entitled
to the right of restoration, rehabilitation

Michael was 17 years old when he was

and reintegration in accordance with the

charged for violation of Sec. 5 of R.A.

law to give him the chance to live a

9165 (illegal sale of prohibited drug). By

normal life and become a productive

the

member of the community. Accordingly,

time

he

was

convicted

and

sentenced, he was already 21 years old.

Michael

may

be

The court sentenced him to suffer an

agricultural

indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of

facility in accordance with Section 51 of

six (6) years and one (1) day of prision

Rep. Act No. 9344 (People v. Jacinto, GR

mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17)

No. 182239, March 16, 2011; People v.

camp

confined
and

other

in

an

training

Prepared by: LJC

100

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

Salcedo, GR. No. 186523, June 22, 2011;

EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Padua v. People, GR No. 1683, July 23,


2008 and People v. Sarcia, GR No.

AMNESTY VS. PD 1160 (2006)

169641, September 10, 2009).

Can

SUSPENSION

Soliman apply for amnesty? How about

OF

SENTENCE;

former

columnist

ADULTS/MINORS (2009)

DSWD

Randy

Secretary
David?

Dinky

(You

are

supposed to know the crimes or offenses


Joe was 17 years old when he committed

ascribed to them as published in almost

homicide

is

all newspapers

punishable by reclusion temporal. After

months.) (2.5%)

in

2005.

The

crime

for

the past several

two years in hiding, he was arrested and


appropriately charged in May 2007. Since

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Republic Act 9344 (Juvenile Justice and

Proclamation

1160,

which

Welfare Act of 2006) was already in

Proclamation

724,

applies

effect, Joe moved to avail of the process

offenses committed prior to 1999. Thus,

of intervention or diversion.

their applications shall be ineffectual and

Suppose Joes motion for intervention or

useless.

diversion

was

General Lim and General Querubin of the

convicted two (2) years later when Joe

Scout Rangers and Philippine Marines,

was already 21 years old, should the

respectively, were changed with conduct

judge apply the suspension of sentence?

unbecoming an officer and a gentleman

Explain. (2%)

under the Articles of War. Can they apply

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

for amnesty? (2.5%)

No,

the

sentence

was

judge

denied,

should

anymore

and

not

because

he

suspend
Joe

amended
only

to

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

was

Proclamation

1160,

which

already 21 years old. Suspension of

Proclamation

724,

applies

sentence is availing under RA 9344 only

offenses committed prior to 1999. Thus,

amended
only

to

until a child reaches the maximum age of


twenty-one (21) years.

their applications shall be ineffectual and


Prepared by: LJC

101

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

useless.

OF PUBLICAITONS AND UNLAWFUL

AMNESTY; CRIMES COVERED (2006)

UTTERANCES;
17.
ALARM AND SCANDAL
18.
ILLEGAL
POSSESSION

Under Presidential Proclamation No. 724,

OF

FIREARMS.

amending Presidential Proclamation No.


347, certain crimes are covered by the

EXTINCTION;

CRIMINAL

grant of amnesty. Name at least 5 of

LIABILITIES;

these crimes. (2.5%)

ACCUSED PENDING APPEAL (2004)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

AX was convicted of reckless imprudence

EFFECTS;

&

CIVIL

DEATH

OF

resulting in homicide. The trial court


Crimes

covered

under

Presidential

Proclamation No. 724:

to pay P150,000 as civil indemnity and

1. COUP DETAT
2. REBELLION OR INSURRECTION;
3. DISLOYALTY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
OR EMPLOYEES;
4. INCITING
TO

REBELLION

INSURRECTION;
5. CONSPIRACY

TO

OR

COMMIT

REBELLION OR INSURRECTION;
6. PROPOSAL TO COMMIT REBELLION
OR INSURRECTION;
7. SEDITION;
8. CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SEDITION;
9. INCITING TO SEDITION;
10.
ILLEGAL ASSEMBLY;
11.
ILLEGAL ASSOCIATION;
12.
DIRECT ASSAULT;
13.
INDIRECT ASSAULT;
14.
RESISTANCE
AND
DISOBEDIENCE TO A PERSON IN
AUTHORITY;
15.
TUMULTS

sentenced him to a prison term as well as

AND

OTHER

DISTURBANCES;
16.
UNLAWFUL USE OF MEANS

damages. While his appeal was pending,


AX met a fatal accident. He left a young
widow, 2 children, and a million-peso
estate. What is the effect, if any, of his
death on his criminal as well as civil
liability? Explain briefly. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The death of AX while his appeal from
the

judgment

pending,

of

the

trial

extinguishes

his

court

is

criminal

liability. The civil liability insofar as it


arises from the crime and recoverable
under the Revised Penal Code is also
extinguished;

but

indemnity

and

damages may be recovered in a civil


action if predicated on a source of
obligation under Art. 1157, Civil Code,
Prepared by: LJC

102

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts

offender,

and quasi-delicts, but not on the basis of

committed against the State [People vs.

delicts. (People v. Bayotas, 236 SCRA

Misola, 87 Phil. 830, 833). Hence, it

239 ).

follows that the civil liability of Alma

Civil indemnity and damages under the


Revised Penal Code are recoverable only
if the accused had been convicted with
finality before he died.
EXTINCTION;
LIABILITIES;

because

the

offense

is

based on the offense committed by her is


not extinguished. The estate of Lorna can
continue the case.
On the other hand, if it were Alma who

CRIMINAL
EFFECTS;

&

CIVIL

DEATH

OF

OFFENDED PARTY (2000)

died pending appeal of her conviction,


her criminal liability shall be extinguished
and therewith the civil liability under the
Revised Penal Code (Art. 89, par. 1, RPC).

For defrauding Lorna, Alma was charged

However, the claim for civil indemnity

before

of

may be instituted under the Civil Code

Malolos, Bulacan. After a protracted trial,

(Art. 1157) if predicated on a source of

Alma was convicted. While the case was

obligation other than delict, such as law,

pending appeal in the Regional Trial

contracts,

Court of the same province, Lorna who

delicts (People vs. Bayotas 236 SCRA

was then suffering from breast cancer,

239, G.R. 152007, September 2. 1994)

the

Municipal

Trial

Court

died. Alma manifested to the court that


with Lorna's death, her (Alma's) criminal

quasi-contracts

Enumerate

Is Alma's contention correct? What if it

pardon and amnesty. (2.5%)

criminal and civil liabilities? Explain. (3%)


SUGGESTED ANSWER:

quasi-

PARDON VS. AMNESTY (2006)

and civil liabilities are now extinguished.


were Alma who died, would it affect her

and

the

differences

between

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) PARDON includes any crime and is
exercised

individually

by

the

No. Alma's contention is not correct. The

President, while AMNESTY applies to

death of the offended party does not

classes of persons or communities

extinguish the criminal liability of the

who

may

be

guilty

of

political

Prepared by: LJC

103

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

offenses.
b)

concurrence of Congress is a public


act of which the courts should take

PARDON is exercised when the

judicial notice.

person is already convicted, while


AMNESTY

may

be

exercised

even

PARDON;

EFFECT;

CIVIL

before trial or investigation.

INTERDICTION (2004)

c) PARDON looks forward and relieves

TRY was sentenced to death by final

the offender of the penalty of the

judgment.

offense

granted pardon by the President. The

for

which

he

has

been

But

restoration of the rights to hold public

disqualification of TRY to hold any public

office, or the right of suffrage, unless

office. After his pardon, TRY ran for office

such rights are expressly restored by

as Mayor of APP, his hometown. His

means of pardon, while AMNESTY

opponent sought to disqualify him. TRY

looks backward and abolishes the

contended he is not disqualified because

offense and its effects, as if the

he

person had committed no offense.

President

that the accused is criminally liable as


it produces only the extinction of the
penalty, while AMNESTY removes the
criminal

liability

of

the

offender

because it obliterates every vestige of


the crime.

already

on

the

was

pardon

was

silent

he

convicted; it does not work for the

d) PARDON does not alter the fact

was

subsequently

perpetual

pardoned

unconditionally.

by
Is

the
TRY'S

contention correct? Reason briefly. (5%)


SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No,

TRY's

contention

is

not

correct.

Article 40 of the Revised Penal Code


expressly provides that when the death
penalty is not executed by reason of
commutation or pardon, the accessory

e) PARDON being a private act by the

penalties

President,

disqualification

must

be

pleaded

and

of

perpetual
and

civil

absolute
interdiction

proved by the person pardoned, while

during thirty (30) years from the date of

AMNESTY which is a Proclamation of

the sentence shall remain as effects

the

thereof, unless such accessory penalties

Chief

Executive

with

the

Prepared by: LJC

104

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

have been expressly remitted in the

directed the City Treasurer to see to it

pardon. This is because pardon only

that the sum of P5,000.00 be satisfied.

excuses the convict from serving the


sentence but does not relieve him of the
effects of the conviction unless expressly
remitted in the pardon.
PARDON;

EFFECT;

REINSTATEMENT

(1994)
Linda

Claiming that she should not be made to


pay P5,000.00, Linda appealed to the
Office of the President.
The Office of the President dismissed the
appeal

and

held

that

acquittal,

not

absolute pardon. Is the only ground for


was

the

reinstatement to one's former position

through

and that the absolute pardon does not

falsification of public document. She was

exempt the culprit from payment of civil

sentenced accordingly and ordered to

liability.

Sandiganbayan

pay,

convicted
of

among

by

estafa,

others,

P5,000.00

representing the balance of the amount

Is Linda entitled to reinstatement?

defrauded.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The case reached the Supreme Court

No, Linda is not entitled to reinstatement

which

of

to her former position inasmuch as her

of

right thereto had been relinquished or

Linda's motion for reconsideration in the

forfeited by reason of her conviction. The

said Court, the President extended to her

absolute pardon merely extinguished her

an absolute pardon which she accepted.

criminal

affirmed

conviction.

During

the
the

judgment
pendency

By reason of such pardon, she wrote the


Department of Finance requesting that
she be restored to her former post as
assistant treasurer, which is still vacant.
The Department ruled that Linda may be
reinstated to her former position without
the necessity of a new appointment and

liability,

disqualification,

removed

and

restored

her
her

eligibility for appointment to that office.


She has to re-apply for such position and
under the usual procedure required for a
new appointment. Moreover, the pardon
does not extinguish the civil liability
arising

from

the

crime.

(Monsanto

vs.Factoran, Jr., 170 SCRA 191); see Art.


Prepared by: LJC

105

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

36, RPC)

Has the crime of bigamy charged against

PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES; BIGAMY

Joe already prescribed? Discuss fully.

(1995)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Joe and Marcy were married in Batanes in

No. The prescriptive period for the crime

1955. After two years, Joe left Marcy and

of bigamy is computed from the time the

settled in Mindanao where he later met

crime was discovered by the offended

and married Linda on 12 June 1960. The

party, the authorities or their agents. The

second marriage was registered in the

principle of constructive notice which

civil registry of Davao City three days

ordinarily applies to land or property

after its celebration. On 10 October 1975

disputes should not be applied to the

Marcy

crime of bigamy, as marriage is not

who

remained

in

Batanes

discovered the marriage of Joe to Linda.

property.

On 1 March 1976 Marcy filed a complaint

complaint for bigamy on 7 March 1976, it

for bigamy against Joe.

was well within the reglamentary period

The crime of bigamy prescribed in fifteen


years computed from the day the crime
is discovered by the offended party, the

Thus

when

Marcy

time of discovery on 10 October 1975.


(Sermonia vs. CA, 233 SCRA 155)
PRESCRIPTION

defense of prescription of the crime,

COMMENCEMENT (2000)

from the celebration of the bigamous


marriage up to the filing of Marcy's
complaint.

He

contended

that

the

registration of his second marriage in the


civil

registry

of

Davao

City

was

constructive notice to the whole world of


the celebration thereof thus binding upon
Marcy.

as it was barely a few months from the

authorities or their agents. Joe raised the


more than fifteen years having elapsed

filed

OF

CRIMES;

One fateful night in January 1990, while


5-year old Albert was urinating at the
back of their house, he heard a strange
noise coming from the kitchen of their
neighbor and playmate, Ara. When he
peeped

inside,

he

saw

Mina,

Ara's

stepmother, very angry and strangling


the 5-year old Ara to death. Albert saw
Mina carry the dead body of Ara, place it
Prepared by: LJC

106

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

inside the trunk of her car and drive

crime. Hence, the period of prescription

away. The dead body of Ara was never

of 20 years for homicide commenced to

found. Mina spread the news in the

run only from the time Albert revealed

neighborhood that Ara went to live with

the same to the NBI authorities.

her grandparents in Ormoc City. For fear


of his life, Albert did not tell anyone,
even his parents and relatives, about

PRESCRIPTION

OF

CRIMES;

COMMENCEMENT (2004)

what he witnessed. Twenty and a half (20

OW is a private person engaged in cattle

& 1/2) years after the incident, and right

ranching. One night, he saw AM stab CV

after

treacherously,

Albert

his

graduation

reported

Criminology,

the

dead

homicide

CVs body was never seen nor found; and

prescribes in 20 years. Can the state still

OW told no one what he had witnessed.

prosecute Mina for the death of Ara

Yesterday after consulting the parish

despite the lapse of 20 & 1/2 years?

priest, OW decided to tell the authorities

Explain, (5%)

what he witnessed, and revealed that AM

crime

of

to

throw

man's body into a ravine. For 25 years,

The

crime

then

NBI

authorities.

the

in

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the State can still prosecute Mina for
the death of Ara despite the lapse of 20
& 1/2 years. Under Article 91, RPC, the

had killed CV 25 years ago. Can AM be


prosecuted for murder despite the lapse
of 25 years? Reason briefly. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

period of prescription commences to run

Yes, AM can be prosecuted for murder

from the day on which the crime is

despite the lapse of 25 years, because

discovered by the offended party, the

the crime has not yet prescribed and

authorities or their agents. In the case at

legally, its prescriptive period has not

bar, the commission of the crime was

even commenced to run.

known only to Albert, who was not the


offended party nor an authority or an

The period of prescription of a crime shall

agent of an authority. It was discovered

commence to run only from the day on

by the NBI authorities only when Albert

which the crime has been discovered by

revealed to them the commission of the

the offended party, the authorities or


Prepared by: LJC

107

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

their agents (Art. 91, Revised Penal

filing of the complaint with the Municipal

Code). OW, a private person who saw the

Trial Court, although only for preliminary

killing but never disclosed it, is not the

investigation, interrupted and suspended

offended party nor has the crime been

the period of prescription in as much as

discovered by the authorities or their

the jurisdiction of a court in a criminal

agents.

case is determined by the allegations in

PRESCRIPTION

OF

CRIMES;

CONCUBINAGE (2001)
On

June

1,

1988,

the complaint or information, not by the


result of proof. (People vs. Galano. 75
SCRA 193)

complaint

for

concubinage committed in February 1987


was filed against Roberto in the Municipal

PRESCRIPTION

OF

CRIMES;

FALSE

TESTIMONY (1994)

Trial Court of Tanza, Cavite for purposes

Paolo was charged with homicide before

of preliminary investigation. For various

the

reasons, it was only on July 3, 1998 when

Andrew, a prosecution witness, testified

the Judge of said court decided the case

that he saw Paolo shoot Abby during

by dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction

their heated argument. While the case is

since the crime was committed in Manila.

still pending, the City Hall of Manila

The case was subsequently filed with the

burned down and the entire records of

City Fiscal of Manila but it was dismissed

the case were destroyed. Later, the

on the ground that the crime had already

records were reconstituted. Andrew was

prescribed. The law provides that the

again called to the witness stand. This

crime of concubinage prescribes in ten

time he testified that his first testimony

(10) years.

was false and the truth was he was

Was the dismissal by the fiscal correct?


Explain, (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the Fiscal's dismissal of the case on

Regional

Trial

Court

of

Manila.

abroad when the crime took place.


The

judge

immediately

ordered

the

prosecution of Andrew for giving a false


testimony favorable to the defendant in a
criminal case.

alleged prescription is not correct. The


Prepared by: LJC

108

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

1. Will

the

case

against

Andrew

prosper?
2. Paolo was acquitted. The decision

PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES; SIMPLE


SLANDER (1997)

became final on January 10, 1987.

A was charged in an information with the

On June 18, 1994 a case of giving

crime of grave oral defamation but after

false testimony was filed against

trial, the court found him guilty only of

Andrew. As his lawyer, what legal

the offense of simple slander. He filed a

step will you take?

motion for reconsideration contending


that, under the law, the crime of simple

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

slander would have prescribed in two


months from commission, and since the

1) Yes. ...

information against him was filed more


2) As lawyer of Andrew, I will file a

than

motion to quash the Information on the

commission of the crime, the same had

ground of prescription. The crime of false

already prescribed.

four

months

after

the

alleged

testimony under Art. 180 has prescribed


because

Paolo,

the

accused

in

the

principal case, was acquitted on January


10, 1987 and therefore the penalty
prescribed for such crime is arresto

punishable

by

arresto

on two grounds: first, in determining the


prescriptive period, the nature of the
offense

charged

in

the

Information

should be considered, not the crime

mayor under Art. 180, par. 4, RPC.


Crimes

The Solicitor General opposed the motion

mayor

proved;

second,

offense

had

assuming

already

that

the

prescribed,

the

prescribes in five (5) years (Art. 90, par.

defense was waived by the failure of A to

3, RPC). But the case against Andrew was

raise it in a motion to quash.

filed only on June 18, 1994, whereas the


principal criminal case was decided with
finality on January 10, 1987 and, thence

Resolve the motion for reconsideration.


SUGGESTED ANSWER:

the prescriptive period of the crime


commenced to run. From January 10,

The motion for reconsideration should be

1987 to June 18, 1994 is more than five

granted.-

(5) years.
Prepared by: LJC

109

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

a) The accused cannot be convicted of

CIVIL LIABILITY

the offense of simple slander although it


is necessarily included in the offense of

CIVIL

grave slander charged in the information,

ACQUITTAL (2000)

because, the lesser offense had already

Name at least two exceptions to the

prescribed at the time the information

general rule that in case of acquittal of

was filed (People us. Rarang, (CA) 62

the accused in a criminal case, his civil

O.G. 6468; Francisco vs. CA, 122 SCRA

liability is likewise extinguished. (2%)

538; Magat vs. People. 201 SCRA 21)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

otherwise

prosecutors

can

LIABILITY;

EFFECT

OF

easily

circumvent the rule of prescription in

Exceptions to the rule that acquittal from

light offenses by the simple expediment

a criminal case extinguishes civil liability,

of filing a graver offense which includes

are:

such light offense.

a. When the civil action is based

b) While the general rule is the failure of

on

an accused to file a motion to quash

from the act complained of

before he pleads to the complaint or

as a felony;
b. When acquittal is based on

information, shall be deemed a waiver of


the grounds of a motion to quash, the
exceptions to this are: (1) no offense was
charged in the complaint or information;
(2) lack of Jurisdiction; (3) extinction of
the offense or penalty; and (4) double
jeopardy. Since the ground invoked by
the

accused

reconsideration

in
is

his

motion

extinction

of

for
the

obligations

arising

reasonable doubt or acquittal


is on the ground that guilt
has not been proven beyond
reasonable doubt (Art. 29,
New Civil Code);
c. Acquittal
due

to

an

exempting circumstance, like


Insanity;
d. Where the court states in its

offense, then it can be raised even after

Judgment

plea. In fact, it may even be invoked on

merely

appeal (People vs. Balagtas)

not

that

the

involves

case
a

civil

obligation;
e. Where there was a proper
reservation for the filing of a
Prepared by: LJC
110

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

separate civil action;


f. In cases of independent civil
actions provided for in Arts.
31, 32, 33 and 34 of the New
Civil Code;
g. When
the
acquittal

judgment
includes

of
a

declaration that the fact from


which the civil liability might
arise did not exist (Sapiera
vs. CA, 314 SCRA 370);
h. Where the civil liability is not
derived

or

based

on

the

criminal act of which the


accused is acquitted (Sapiera
vs. CA. 314 SCRA 370).
CIVIL

LIABILITY;

EFFECT

OF

ACQUITTAL (2000)

was earning his keep as a cigarette


vendor. B was driving a car along busy
Espana Street at about 7:00 p.m. Beside
was

C.

The

car

clung to the window of the car but lost


his grip and fell down on the pavement.
The car did not stop. A suffered serious
injuries

which

eventually

caused

his

death. C was charged with ROBBERY with


HOMICIDE. In the end, the Court was not
convinced with moral certainty that the
guilt of C has been established beyond
reasonable doubt and, thus, acquitted
him on the ground of reasonable doubt.
Can the family of the victim still recover
civil damages in view of the acquittal of
C? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, as against C, A's family can still

A was a 17-year old working student who

continued to speed towards Quiapo, A

stopped

at

an

intersection because of the red signal of


the traffic light. While waiting for the
green signal, C beckoned A to buy some
cigarettes. A approached the car and

recover

civil

damages

despite

C's

acquittal. When the accused in a criminal


prosecution is acquitted on the ground
that his guilt has not been proved
beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action
for damages for the same act or omission
may be instituted. Such action requires
only a preponderance of evidence {Art.
29, CC).

handed two sticks of cigarettes to C.

If A's family can prove the negligence of

While the transaction was taking place,

B by preponderance of evidence, the civil

the traffic light changed to green and the

action for damages against B will prosper

car immediately sped off. As the car


Prepared by: LJC

111

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

based on quasi-delict. Whoever by act or

insolvency. Demy moved for a subsidiary

omission causes damage to another,

writ of execution against Max. The latter

there being fault or negligence, is obliged

opposed the motion on-the ground that

to pay for the damage done. Such fault

the decision made no mention of his

or

subsidiary liability and that he was not

negligence,

about

pre-existing

contractual relation between the parties,


is called a quasi- delict [Art. 2176, CC).
This is entirely separate and distinct from
civil

liability

arising

from

negligence

impleaded in the case.


How will you resolve the motion? [5%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

under the Penal Code [Arts, 31, 2176,


The motion is to be granted. Max as an

2177, CC}.

employer of Guy and engaged in an


CIVIL

LIABILITY;

SUBSIDIARY;

EMPLOYERS (1998)

said employee is utilized, is subsidiarily

Guy, while driving a passenger jeepney


owned and operated by Max, bumped
Demy, a pedestrian crossing the street.
Demy sustained injuries which required
medical attendance for three months.
Guy

was

charged

with

reckless

imprudence resulting to physical injuries.


Convicted by the Metropolitan Trial Court.
Guy was sentenced to suffer a straight
penalty of three months of arresto mayor
and ordered to indemnify Demy in the
sum of P5,000 and to pay P1,000 as
attorney's fees.

execution was served upon Guy, but was


unsatisfied

civilly liable under Article 103 of the


Revised Penal Code. Even though the
decision

made

subsidiary

no

liability,

mention
the

law

of

his

violated

(Revised Penal Code) itself mandates for


such liability and Max is deemed to know
it because ignorance of the law is never
excused. And since his liability is not
primary but only subsidiary in case his
employee cannot pay; he need not be
impleaded in the in the criminal case. It
suffices that he was duly notified of the
motion for issuance of a subsidiary writ
of execution

Upon finality of the decision, a writ of


returned

industry (transportation business) where

due

to

his

and thus given the opportunity to be


heard.
Prepared by: LJC

112

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

CIVIL LIABILITY; WHEN MANDATORY;


CRIMINAL LIABILITY (2005)

DAMAGES;

The accused was found guilty of 10


counts

of

rape

for

having

carnal

knowledge with the same woman. In


addition to the penalty of imprisonment,
he was ordered to pay indemnity in the
amount of P50,000.00 for each count. On
appeal, the accused questions the award
of

civil

indemnity

for

Nos. 132875-76, November 16, 2001)

each

count,

considering that the victim is the same

HOMICIDE;

TEMPERATE

DAMAGES (2006)
In a crime of homicide, the prosecution
failed

to

present

any

receipt

to

substantiate the heirs' claim for an award


of actual damages, such as expenses for
the wake and burial. What kind of
damages may the trial court award to
them and how much? (5%)

woman.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

How would you rule on the contention of

The

the accused? Explain. (3%)

damages in the amount of twenty-five

court

(P25,000.00)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

jurisprudence,

may

award

thousand

temperate

pesos.

temperate

Under

damages

is

The contention is unmeritorious. Under

awarded in homicide when no sufficient

the law, every person criminally liable is

proof of actual damages is offered or if

civilly liable. (Art. 100, Revised Penal

the actual damages proven is less than

Code) Since each count charges different

twenty-five thousand (P25,000) (People

felonious acts and ought to be punished

v. Salona, G.R. No. 151251, May 19,

differently,

2004).

the

concomitant

civil

indemnity ex delicto for every criminal


act

should

be

adjudged.

Said

civil

AMNESTY (2009)

indemnity is mandatory upon a finding of

No. II. Antero Makabayan was convicted

the fact of rape; it is distinct from and

of the crime of Rebellion. While serving

should not be denominated as moral

sentence, he escaped from jail. Captured,

damages which are based on different

he was charged with, and convicted of,

jural foundations. (People v. Jalosjos, G.R.

Evasion

of

Service

of

Sentence.

Prepared by: LJC

113

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

Thereafter,

the

Philippines

President

issued

an

of

the

amnesty

proclamation for the offense of Rebellion.


Antero applied for and was granted the
benefit of the amnesty proclamation.

corpus, praying for his immediate release


from confinement. He claims that the
extends

to

the

offense

thereof.
PARDON; EFFECT (2009)
No. I. a. Amado, convicted of rape but

Antero then filed a petition for habeas

amnesty

conviction, bur also all the legal effect

of

granted

an

President,

absolute

and

one

pardon
year

by

the

thereafter,

convicted of homicide, is a recidivist.


SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Evasion of Service of Sentence. As judge,


will you grant the petition? Discuss fully.

True, rape is now a crime against persons

(4%)

and, like the crime of homicide, is


embraced in the same Title of the

SUGGESTED ANSWER;

Revised penal Code under which Amado

Yes, I will grant the petition because the


sentence evaded proceeded from the
offender as a crime of Rebellion which
has been obliterated by the grant of
amnesty to the offender (Art. 89[3],
RPC).

had been previously convicted by final


judgment. The absolute pardon granted
him for rape, only excuse him from
serving the sentence for rape but did not
erase

the

effect

of

the

conviction

therefore unless expressly remitted by


the pardon.

Since the amnesty erased the criminal


complexion of the act committed by the
offender as a crime of rebellion and

PRESCRIPTION

OF

CRIMES;

COMMENCE TO RUN (2010)

rendered such act a though innocent, the

A killed his wife and buried her in their

sentence

backyard.

purported

lost

its

evasion

legal

basis.

thereof

The

therefore

He

immediately

went

into

hiding in the mountains.

cannot subsist (People v. Patriarca, 341


SCRA 464[200]).

Three years later, the bones of As wife


were discovered by X, the gardener.

Amnesty obliterates, not only the basis of

Since X had a standing warrant of arrest,


Prepared by: LJC

114

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

he hid the bones in an old clay jar and

so scared to tell the authorities about it.

kept quiet about it. After two years, Z,

On

the caretaker, found the bones and

bothered by his conscience, reported the

reported the matter to the police.

matter to the police. After investigation,

After 15 years of hiding, A left the


country but returned three years later to
take care of his ailing sibling. Six years
thereafter, he was charged with parricide
but raised the defense of prescription.
Under the Revised Penal Code, when

the

January

police

2,

finally

1970,

arrested

Dominador,

Baldo

on

January 6, 1980. Charged in court, Baldo


claims that the crime he committed had
already prescribed. Is Baldos contention
correct? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANWER:

does the period of prescription of a crime

No, Baldos contention is not correct

commence to run? (1%)

because the crime committed has not yet


prescribed. The prescriptive period of the

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

crime committed commenced to run only

Generally, the period of prescription of a

after it was report to the police on

crime commences to run from the date it

January 2, 1970, not on the date it was

was committed; but if the crime was

clandestinely committed on January 2,

committed clandestinely, the period of

1960. Under the discovery rule, which

prescription of the crimes under the

govern when the crime is not publicly

Revised Penal Code commence to run

committed, the prescriptive period of a

from the day on which the crime was

crime commences to run only from the

discovered by the offended party, the

day on which the crime is discovered by

authorities or their agents (Art. 91, RPC).

the offended party, the authorities or


their agents: in this case, from January 2,

PRESCRIPTION

OF

CRIMES;

1970 when it made known to the police

DISCOVERY RULE (2009)

authorities until January 2, 1980, when

Baldo killed Conrad in a dark corner, at

Balo was arrested and charged. The

midnight, on January 2, 1960. Dominador

killing committed, whether homicide or

witnessed the entire incident, but he was

murder, is punishable by an afflictive


penalty which prescribes within twenty
Prepared by: LJC
115

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

(20) year, whereas only around ten (10)


years ha lapsed from January 2, 1970
(when the authorities discovered the
commission of the crime) to January 2,
1980 (when the accused was charged in
court).

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The running of the prescriptive period of
the crime is interrupted when any kind
of investigative proceeding is instituted
against the guilty person which may

PRESCRIPTION

OF

CRIMES;

INTERRUPTED (2010)

He

lead

to

his

prosecution

(Panaguiton, Jr. v. Dept. of Justice, G.R.

A killed his wife and buried her in their


backyard.

ultimately

immediately

went

into

No. 167571, Nov. 25, 2008).


PRESCRIPTION

OF

CRIMES;

hiding in the mountains.

PARRICIDE (2010)

a standing warrant of arrest, he hid the

A killed his wife and buried her in their

bones in an old clay jar and kept quiet

backyard.

about

hiding in the mountains.

it.

After

two

years,

Z,

the

caretaker, found the bones and reported


the matter to the police. After 15 years of
hiding, A left the country but returned
three years later to take care of his ailing
sibling. Six years thereafter, he was
charged with parricide but raised the
defense
later,

of

the

prescription.
bones

of

As

Three

years

wife

were

He

immediately

went

into

Three years later, the bones of As wife


were discovered by X, the gardener.
Since X had a standing warrant of arrest,
he hid the bones in an old clay jar and
kept quiet about it. After two years, Z,
the caretaker, found the bones and
reported the matter to the police.

discovered by X, the gardener. Since X

After 15 years of hiding, A left the

had a standing warrant of arrest, he hid

country but returned three years later to

the bones in an old clay jar and kept

take care of his ailing sibling. Six years

quiet about it. After two years, Z, the

thereafter, he was charged with parricide

caretaker, found the bones and reported

but raised the defense of prescription.

the matter to the police.


interrupted? (1%)

When is it
Is As defense tenable? Explain. (3%)
Prepared by: LJC

116

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)


Source: UP Suggested Answers

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Since A had been in hiding for 15 years

No, the defense of prescription of the


crime

is

not

tenable.

The

crime

committed is parricide which prescribes


in twenty (20) years (Art. 90, RPC). It was
only when the care-taker, Z found the
victims bones and reported the matter
to the police that the crime is deemed
legally discovered by the authorities or

after the commission of the crime and


the prescriptive period started running
only after 5 years from such commission
when the crime was discovered, only 10
years lapsed and 3 years thereof should
be deducted when the prescriptive period
was interrupted and suspended. Hence,
the 3 years.

their agents and thus the prescriptive


period of the crime commenced to run.
When A left the country and returned
only after three (3) year, the running of
the prescriptive period of the crime is
interrupted

and

suspended

prescription

shall

not

run

because
when

the

offender is absent from the Philippine


Archipelago (Art. 91, RPC).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Prepared by: LJC

117