You are on page 1of 44


Executive Committee

Chairperson: Bandiola, Dawna Fya O.

Vice Chairperson for Academics: Najarro Jr., Violeta M.

Vice Chairperson for Academic Operations: Matibag, Kevin Christian S.

Vice Chairperson for Hotel Operations: Galvez, Ma. Johara G.

Executive Chairperson for Hotel Operations: Cancio, Ryan John C.

Vice Chairperson for Finance: Cuadra, Luis Alfonso L.

Vice Chairperson for Secretariat: Del Rosario, Janine Gabrielle A.

Vice Chairperson for Communications: Arriba, Edward Vange P.

Vice Chairperson for Recruitment and Membership: Santiago, Martin Kevin P.

Vice Chairperson for Electronic and Data Processing: Arbiol, Christian Adrianne M.


Christian Adrianne M.Arbiol Franchezka Mae S. Celis

Nikki Angeli LB Tuble John Eli Zuriel d.V. Bitong

San Beda College Alabang School of Law Administration

ATTY. Ulpiano P. Sarmiento III

Dean and Adviser

ATTY. Anna Marie Melanie B. Trinidad

Vice Dean

ATTY. Carlo D. Busmente

Prefect of Student Affairs and Adviser
Centralized Bar Operations Advisers
ATTY. Ulpiano P. Sarmiento III
Dean and Adviser

ATTY. Carlo D. Busmente

Prefect of Student Affairs and Adviser

Centralized Bar Operations Core Group

Dawna Fya O. Bandiola Emmanuel Josef Javellanos
Kevin Christian S. Matibag Luis Alfonso L. Cuadra
Annabel F. Hernandez Edward Vange P. Arriba
Violeta M. Najarro Jr. Giulia Ingrid C. Calub
Ma. Terresa M. Marco Martin Kevin P. Santiago
Ma. Johara G. Galvez Rodel Jr. R. Cadorniga
Ryan John C. Cancio Janine Gabrielle A. del Rosario
Kristine C. Mirabueno Jemmarie Q. Pascua
Christian Adrianne M. Arbiol John Eli Zuriel d.V. Bitong
Nikki Angeli LB Tuble Mariane L. Hernandez
Marryl Ann G. Ragpala Juan Paolo N. Tamonte
Criminal Law Team





CRIMINAL LAW a. No, because the Philippine Courts
have no jurisdiction over a crime
committed outside of the Philippine
territory. Under the principle of
CRIMINAL LAW I territoriality, penal laws, specifically
the RPC, are enforceable only within
our territory (Art. 2, RPC).
b. The answer will be the same. The
After drinking one (1) case of San Miguel consent of Eunice would not confer
beer and taking two plates of "pulutan", jurisdiction on Philippine Courts.
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 What is an impossible crime?
owned by Lucio Sy, a rich Filipino
businessman. When M/V "Princess of the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Pacific" reached a Philippine Port at Cebu An impossible crime is an act which would be
City, the Captain of the vessel turned over the an offense against person or property, were
assailant Binoy to the Philippine authorities. if not for the inherent impossibility of its
An information for homicide was filed against accomplishment or on account of the
Binoy in the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. employment of inadequate or ineffectual
He moved to quash the information for lack means (Art. 4, par. 2, RPC)
of jurisdiction. If you were the Judge, will you
grant the motion? Why?
Is an impossible crime really a crime?
Yes, the Motion to Quash the Information No, an impossible crime is not really a crime.
should be granted. The Philippine court has It is only so-called because the act gives rise
no jurisdiction over the crime committed to criminal liability. But actually, no felony is
since it was committed on the high seas or committed. The accused is to be punished
outside of Philippine territory and on board a for his criminal tendency or propensity
vessel not registered or licensed in the although no crime was committed.
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 CONSUMMATED, FRUSTRATED AND
of her owner, which makes it a Philippine ship. ATTEMPTED
The vessel being registered in Panama, the
Sunshine, a beauteous "colegiala" but a
laws of Panama govern while it is in the high
shoplifter, went to the Ever Department Store
and proceeded to the women's wear
Hubert and Eunice were married in the section. The saleslady was of the impression
Philippines. Hubert took graduate studies in that she brought to the fitting room three (3)
New York and met his former girlfriend Eula. pieces of swimsuits of different colors. When
They renewed their friendship and finally she came out of the fitting room, she returned
decided to get married. The first wife, Eunice, only two (2] pieces to the clothes rack. The
heard about the marriage and secures a saleslady became suspicious and alerted
copy of the marriage contract in New York. the store detective. Sunshine was stopped by
Eunice filed a case of Bigamy against Hubert the detective before she could leave the
in the Philippines. store and brought to the office of the store
manager. The detective and the manager
a. Will the case prosper? Explain.
searched her and found her wearing the third
b. If Eunice gave her consent to the
swimsuit under her blouse and pants. Was the
second marriage, what will your
answer be? Explain.

Adviser: Judge Wilhelmina Jorge-Wagan

Subject Head: Angeli Newin C. Agraam Asst. Subject Head: Maria Cassandra A. Catalo Members: Maria Angelica C. Abulencia, Leona
Isabelle A. Aquino, Ray Karlo M. Bonita, Ralph Lorenz N. Deiparine, Philip F. Ebersole, Zandra Marie M. Garcia, Ramon Vicenzzo E.
Osmea, Gerald Christopher M. Padilla, Eos Marielle G. Saldana, Aika Mystica Taban-Ud
theft of the swimsuit consummated, frustrated SUGGESTED ANSWER:
or attempted? Explain. Yes, Section 26 of Rep. Act No. 9262 provides
that victim-survivors who are found by the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: courts to be suffering from battered woman
The theft was consummated because the syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil
taking or asportation was complete. The liability notwithstanding the absence of any
of the elements for justifying circumstances of
asportation is complete once the offender is
self-defense under the Revised Penal Code.
in possession or acquired exclusive control of
the personal property being taken as in this
case, when Sunshine wore the swimsuit under Immediately after murdering Bob, Jake went
her blouse and pants and was on her way to his mother to seek refuge. His mother told
out of the store. With evident intent to gain, him to hide in the maids quarters until she
the taking constitutes theft and being finds a better place for him to hide. After two
complete, it is consummated. It is not days, Jake transferred to his aunts house. A
necessary that the offender is in a position to week later, Jake was apprehended by the
dispose of the property. police. Can Jakes mother and aunt be
made criminally liable as accessories to the
crime of murder? Explain.
When are light felonies punishable and who
Jakes mother was aware of her sons
are liable in light felonies?
commission of a felony, such that her act of
harboring and concealing him renders her
SUGGESTED ANSWER: liable as an accessory. But being an
Under Article 7 of the RPC, light felonies are ascendant to Jake, she is exempt from
punishable only when they have been con- criminal liability by express provision of Article
summated, with the exception of those 20 of the Revised Penal Code.
committed against persons or property.
The criminal liability of Jakes aunt depends
Under Article 16, only Principals and
on her knowledge of his commission of the
Accomplices are liable for light felonies.
felony. Her act of harboring and concealing
Jake would render her criminally liable as
accessory to the crime of murder as an aunt
CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL is not included under the exemption under
LIABILITY Article 20. However, without knowledge of
Jack and Jill have been married for seven Jakes commission of the felony, she would
not be liable.
years. One night, Jack came home drunk.
Finding no food on the table, Jack started
hitting Jill only to apologize the following day. Nicandro borrowed Valerianos, gun, a high-
A week later, the same episode occurred powered M-16 rifle, to hunt wild pigs.
Jack came home drunk and started hitting Nicandro was accompanied by his friend,
Jill. Fearing for her life, Jill left and stayed with Felix. On their way to the hunting ground,
her sister. To woo Jill back, Jack sent her floral Nicandro and Felix met Pedro near a hut.
arrangements of spotted lilies and Pedro told them where to hunt. Later,
confectioneries. Two days later, Jill returned Nicandro saw a pig and then shot and killed
home and decided to give Jack another it. The same bullet, however, that killed the
chance. After several days, however, Jack pig struck a stone and ricocheted hitting
again came home drunk. The following day, Pedro on his breast. Pedro later died. May
he was found dead. Jill was charged with Nicandro be held liable for the death of
parricide but raised the defense of "battered Pedro? Explain.
woman syndrome." Would the defense
prosper despite the absence of any of the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
elements for justifying circumstances of self- Nicandro may be held liable for the death of
defense under the Revised Penal Code? Pedro. While Pedros death would seem to
Explain. be accidental, the requisites of exempting

5 San Beda College Alabang School of Law

2017 Centralized Bar Operations
circumstance of accident are not all present. Spontaneous, i.e., indicative of
Said requisites are: acknowledgment of guilt and not for
convenience nor conditional;
a. A person is performing a lawful act; Made before the government incurs
b. With due care; expenses, time and effort in tracking
c. He causes an injury to another by down the offender's whereabouts;
mere accident; and
d. Without fault or intention of causing it Made to a person in authority or the
(Art. 12, par. 4, RPC) latter's agents

When Nicandro borrowed Valerianos high

powered M-16 rifle and used it for hunting In the middle of the night, Enyong heard the
wild pigs, he committed the crime of illegal footsteps of an intruder inside their house.
possession of firearms, as he does not appear Enyong picked up his rifle and saw a man,
to have either a license to possess a high- Gorio, with a pistol ransacking Enyongs
powered gun or to carry the same outside of personal effects in his study. He shot and
his residence. At the time he shot at the wild killed Gorio.
pig, therefore, Nicandro was not performing a. Is Enyong criminally liable for killing
a lawful act. Furthermore, considering that the robber Gorio? State your reasons.
the M-16 is a high- powered gun. Nicandro b. Suppose Enyong shot Gorio while he
was negligent in not foreseeing that bullets was running away from Enyongs
fired from said gun may ricochet. house with his television set, what is
Enyong liable for? Explain your
In order that the plea of guilty may be
mitigating, what requisites must be complied SUGGESTED ANSWER:
with? a. Enyong is not criminally liable
because he was acting in defense of
property rights. Under the case of
For plea of guilty to be mitigating, the
requisites are: People v. Narvaez (G.R. Nos. L-33466-
That the accused spontaneously and 67. April 20, 1983, 121 SCRA 389)
unconditionally pleaded guilty to the defense of property need not
crime charged; necessarily be coupled with
That such plea was made before the aggression against persons
court competent to try the case and b. There is criminal liability this time with
render judgment; and the mitigating circumstance of
That such plea was made prior to the incomplete self-defense. Under the
presentation of evidence for the case of People v. Narvaez, defense
prosecution. of property can be availed of even
when there is no assault against a
person. It is recognized as an unlawful
When is surrender by an accused considered aggression.
voluntary, and constitutive of the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender?
Distinguish generic aggravating
circumstance from qualifying aggravating
Surrender by an offender is considered
voluntary when it is spontaneous, indicative
of an intent to submit unconditionally to the
Generic Aggravating Circumstances:
- Affects only the imposition of the
penalty prescribed, but not the
To be mitigating, the surrender must be:
nature of the crime committed; can
be offset by ordinary mitigating

6 San Beda College Alabang School of Law

2017 Centralized Bar Operations
circumstances; need not be alleged As for the charge of serious physical injuries,
in the Information as long as proven although serious physical is also a crime
during the trial, the same shall be against person, it appears that he had not as
considered in imposing the sentence. yet been convincted, much less by final
judgment, of the charge at the time that he
Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances: was facing trial for homicide.
- Must be alleged in the Information
and proven during trial; cannot be The aggravating circumstance of habituality
offset by mitigating circumstances; or reiteracion can likewise not be taken
affects the nature of the crime or against Andres because in order for this
brings about a penalty higher in circumstance to exist, it is necessary that
degree than that ordinarily 1. The accused is on trial for an offense;
prescribed. 2. He previously served sentence for
another offense to which the law
attaches an equal or greater
penalty, or for two or more crimes to
Andres was earlier convicted of adultery and which it attaches a lighter penalty
served an indeterminate penalty, the than that for the new offense;
maximum term of which did not exceed two 3. He is convicted of the new offense.
(2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of
prision correctional. A month after his release In the case at bar, Andres had previously
from prison, he was charged with the crime served sentence only for one offense that of
of serious physical injuries. Later, Andres was adultery, but the penalty for adultery (prison
again charged with homicide punishable by correctional) is lighter than then penalty for
reclusion temporal. He entered a plea of homicide (reclusion-temporal).
guilty in the homicide case. May the Consequently, there is no aggravating
aggravating circumstances of recidivism circumstance of habituality or reiteracion.
and/or habituality (reiteracion) be
appreciated against Andres? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: A was invited to a drinking spree by friends.

The aggravating circumstance of recidivism After having had a drink too many, A and B
cannot be taken against Andres. For this had a heated argument, during which A
circumstance to exist, it is necessary that stabbed B. As a result, B suffered serious
1. The offender is on trial for an offense; physical injuries. May the intoxication of A be
2. He was previously convicted by final considered aggravating or mitigating?
judgment of another crime;
3. Both the first and second offenses are SUGGESTED ANSWER:
embraced in the same title of the The intoxication of A may be prima facie
Code; and considered mitigating since it was merely
incidental to the commission of the crime. It
4. The offender is convicted of the new
may not be considered aggravating as there
offense (Art. 14, par. 9 RPC).
is no clear indication from the facts of the
case that it was habitual or intentional on the
At the time of his trial for homicide, Andres
part of A. Aggravating circumstances are
was not previously convicted by final not to be presumed; they should be proved
judgment of another crime embraced in the beyond reasonable doubt.
same title of the Revised Penal Code.
Adultery, which is his only previous conviction
by final judgment is a crime against chastity,
and therefore is not embraced in the same
title of the Code as homicide, which is a
crime against person.

7 San Beda College Alabang School of Law

2017 Centralized Bar Operations
PERSONS LIABLE AND DEGREE OF Ponciano killed Freddie, but used a knife
PARTICIPATION because he did not want Freddies neighbors
to hear the gunshot. What, if any, is the

Mario, a law student, wanted to avenge the SUGGESTED ANSWER:

death of his brother, Jose, in the hands of Rubens liability is that of an accomplice only
Pedro and his gang. So, Mario talked to because he merely cooperated in
Dalmacio, known tough guy, to kill Pedro by Poncianos determination to kill Freddie.
promising him P50,000 to be paid after he Such cooperation is not indispensable to the
had accomplished the killing. Dalmacio killing, as in fact the killing was carried out
agreed. Since Pedro was to appear in court without the use of Rubens gun. Neither may
the following day at 9:00 a.m. at the city hall Ruben be regarded as a co-conspirator
to attend the hearing involving the death of since he was not a participant in the
Jose, Mario told Dalmacio to carry out the decision-making of Ponciono to kill Freddie;
plan at that exact time in the court room, to he merely cooperated in carrying out the
which Dalmacio assented. At 8:50 a.m., plan which was already in place.
Mario went to see Captain Malonso of the
Police Department and told him that
Dalmacio would kill Pedro at 9:00 a.m. at the Modesto and Abelardo are brothers.
city hall. He asked Captain Malonso to Sometime in August 1998 while Abelardo was
prevent it and so the latter rushed to the city in his office, Modesto, together with two other
hall but arrived at 9:05 a.m. when Dalmacio men in police uniform, came with two heavy
had already killed Pedro. Is Mario liable as bags. Modesto asked Abelardo to keep the
coprincipal with Dalmacio for the killing of two bags in his vault until he comes back to
Pedro? Give your reasons. get them. When Abelardo later examined the
two bags, he saw bundles of money that, in
SUGGESTED ANSWER: his rough count, could not be less than P5
Mario is a principal by inducement. By Million. He kept the money inside the vault
promising to give P50,000.00 to Dalmacio, and soon he heard the news that a gang that
which is an agreement for a consideration for included Modesto had been engaged in
the purpose of avenging his brother's death bank robberies. Abelardo, unsure of what to
the inducement was made directly with the do under the circumstances, kept quiet
intention of procuring the commission of the about the two bags in his vault. Soon after,
crime. Furthermore, the facts show that the police captured, and secured a
Dalmacio has no personal reason to kill Pedro confession from, Modesto who admitted that
except the inducement, which is therefore their loot had been deposited with Abelardo.
the determining cause for the commission of What is Abelardo's liability?
the crime by Dalmacio. Mario's change of
mind and heart at the last minute, which did SUGGESTED ANSWER:
not, after all, prevent the consummation of Abelardo is not criminally liable. To be
the crime, because it was too late, does not criminally liable as an accessory under Article
alter the course of his criminal liability as a co- 19 of the Code, such person must have
principal by inducement. Desistance from knowledge of the commission of the crime.
carrying out a criminal design is no defense if The term knowledge under the law is not
such desistance has not actually and synonymous with suspicion. Mere suspicion
that the crime has been committed is not
successfully prevented the commission of the
sufficient. Even if he can be considered as an
accessory under paragraph 2 of Article 19,
RPC, Abelardo is not liable, being the brother
Ponciano borrowed Rubens gun, saying that of Modesto under Article 20, RPC.
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, ha." Later,

8 San Beda College Alabang School of Law

2017 Centralized Bar Operations
CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL 2. Only those who participated by
criminal acts in the commission of the
Distinguish by way of illustration conspiracy
crime will be considered as
as a felony, from conspiracy as a manner of
coconspirators; and
incurring liability, in relation to the crimes of
3. Mere acquiescence to or approval of
rebellion and murder.
the commission of the crime, without
SUGGESTED ANSWER: any act of criminal participation, shall
Conspiracy to commit rebellion: If A and not render one criminally liable as co-
B conspired to overthrow the government, conspirator.
conspiracy is punishable. Conspiracy to
commit rebellion is a felony. Rebellion: If they b. When would qualifying
committed rebellion, they are equally liable circumstances be deemed, if at all,
for the crime of rebellion but they will not be elements of a crime?
additionally charged with conspiracy to
commit rebellion. Since they committed
A qualifying circumstance would be
what they conspired for, conspiracy will not
deemed an element of a crime when -
be considered as an independent felony but
1. It changes the nature of the crime,
as a manner of incurring criminal
bringing about a more serious crime
and a heavier penalty;

Conspiracy to commit homicide, not 2. It is essential to the crime involved,

punishable: If A and B conspired to kill otherwise some other crime is
X, conspiracy is not punishable. The law committed; and
provides no penalty for conspiracy to be
commit homicide. Homicide: If pursuant to 3. It is specifically alleged in the
conspiracy to commit homicide, A Information and proven during the
embraced X and then B stabbed and trial.
killed X, the conspirators are equally liable
for homicide. Conspiracy in this case will be
A, B, C, D, and E were former soldiers who
considered as a manner of incurring liability.
deserted their command in Mindanao. Jose
and Pedro, two big landowners, called A, B,
C, D, and E to a conference. Jose and Pedro
a. State the concept of implied
proposed to these former soldiers that they
conspiracy and give its legal effects.
recruit their comrades and organize a group
SUGGESTED ANSWER: of 100 for the purpose of challenging the
An implied conspiracy is one which is only government by force of arms in order to
inferred or deduced from the manner the prevent the enforcement or implementation
participants in the commission of crime of the Land Reform Law in Cotabato Province.
carried out its execution. Where the Jose and Pedro promised to finance the
offenders acted in concert in the commission group and to buy firearms for the purpose.
of the crime, meaning that their acts are The former soldiers agreed. After Jose and
coordinated or synchronized in a way Pedro left, A, the leader of the former soldiers,
indicative that they are pursuing a common said that in the meanwhile he needed money
criminal objective, they shall be deemed to to support his family. D suggested that they
be acting in conspiracy and their criminal rob a bank and agreed to carry out the plan
liability shall be collective, not individual. on the 15 th day of the month. Unknown to all
of them, as they were conferring with Jose
The legal effects of an implied conspiracy and Pedro and as they were planning to rob
are: the bank, Rosauro, a house boy, was within
1. Not all those who are present at the hearing distance. On the pretext of buying
scene of the crime will be considered cigarettes, Ro6auro instead went directly to
conspirators; the Police and told them what transpired. All

9 San Beda College Alabang School of Law

2017 Centralized Bar Operations
the former soldiers, as well as Jose and Pedro, appears to be a legitimate defense of
were arrested. relatives; hence, justified as a defense of his
father against the unlawful aggression by BB
a. What crime, if any, did the former and CC. STs act to defend his fathers life,
soldiers commit? cannot be regarded as an evil inasmuch as
it is, in the eyes of the law, a lawful act. What
AA did was to stop a lawful defense, not
The former soldiers committed the crime of
greater evil, to allow BB and CC achieve their
conspiracy to commit sedition. What Jose
criminal objective of stabbing FT.
and Pedro proposed to the soldiers that they
recruit their comrades and organize a group
of 100 for the purpose of challenging the COMPLEX CRIME
government by force of arms in order to
prevent the implementation of the Land What constitutes a complex crime? How
Reform Law in Cotabato Province is to many crimes maybe involved in a complex
commit sedition. Proposal to commit sedition crime? What is the penalty therefor?
is not punished. But since the soldiers agreed,
a conspiracy to commit sedition resulted
A complex crime is constituted when a single
which is now punishable. Conspiracy arises
act caused two or more grave or less grave
on the very moment the plotters agree felonies or when an offense is committed as
(People vs. Peralta 25 SCRA 759; People vs. a necessary means to commit another
Tiongson 12 SCRA 402). offense (Art. 48, RPC). At least two (2) crimes
are involved in a complex crime; either two
b. What about Jose and Pedro?
or more grave or less grave felonies resulted
from a single act, or an offense is committed
as a necessary means for committing
Jose and Pedro will also be liable for
another. The penalty for the more serious
conspiracy to commit sedition since they are
crime shall be imposed and in its maximum
members of the conspiracy where the act of period. (Art. 48, RPC)
one is the act of all. If the soldiers did not
agree to their proposal, they would not incur
any criminal liability because there is no pro-
Diego and Pablo were both farmers residing
posal to commit sedition. in Barangay Damayan. On one occasion,
Diego called Pablo to come down from his
house in order to ask him why he got his
BB and CC, both armed with knives, attacked (Diegos) plow without permission. One word
led to another. Diego, in a fit of anger,
FT. The victims son, ST, upon seeing the
unsheathed his bolo and hacked Pablo to
attack, drew his gun but was prevented from
death. Pablos 9-year old son, Mario, who
shooting the attackers by AA, who grappled
was inside the house, saw the killing of his
with him for possession of the gun. FT died
father. Afraid that he might also be killed by
from knife wounds. AA, BB and CC were Diego, Mario covered himself with a blanket
charged with murder. In his defense, AA and hid in a comer of the house. To conceal
invoked the justifying circumstance of the killing of Pablo, Diego brought Pablos
avoidance of greater evil or injury, body inside the house and burned it. Mario
contending that by preventing ST from was also burned to death. What crime or
shooting BB and CC, he merely avoided a crimes did Diego commit?
greater evil. Will AAs defense prosper?
Reason briefly.
Diego committed two crimes (1) homicide
SUGGESTED ANSWER: for the death of Pablo and (2) the special
No, AAs defense will not prosper because complex crime of arson with homicide as
there was a conspiracy among BB, CC and provided in PD 1613 for the burning of the
AA. The principle that when there is a house and the death of Mario.
conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all,
shall govern. The act of ST, the victims son,

10 San Beda College Alabang School of Law

2017 Centralized Bar Operations
The hacking of Pablo to death is homicide, essentially inconsistent and contrary to an
the killing not being attended by any of the acquittal (People vs. Abellera, 69 Phil. 623.)
qualifying circumstances of murder. It was
killing in the course of a quarrel. c) At present, no offense may be punished
with the death penalty in our jurisdiction at
The burning of the house to conceal the present. The 1987 Constitution has abolished
killing of Pablo is a separate crime. Were it not the death penalty and the abolition affects
for the death of Mario, this separate offense even those who has already been
would have been arson. But inside the house sentenced to death penalty. Therefore,
unless Congress enacts a law, no offense
was unknown to Diego, the resulting crime is
may be punished with the death penalty at
under PD No. 1613, because the death
present. But until today, Congress has not yet
resulted from the arson. If by reason or on the
passed a law to this effect.
occasion of the arson, death results, the
offense is the special complex or arson with
homicide (Sec. 5, PD 1613, which expressly
Pedro was convicted of the crime of damage
repealed Art. 320 and consequently the
to property through reckless imprudence for
ruling case therein, People v. Paterno (L-2665,
bumping the car of Jose and the court of
March 6, 1950).
sentenced him to pay a fine of P3,000. Pedro
If Diego knew that Mario was inside the house failed to pay die amount of the fine for he was
when he set it on fire, the crime committed, insolvent. Later, the court ordered the
instead of arson, would be MURDER, with fire incarceration of Pedro so that the latter could
as the qualifying circumstance. serve subsidiary imprisonment to satisfy the
fine. Pedro filed a petition for habeas corpus
alleging that his confinement is illegal. Will
the petition prosper? Give your reasons.
PENALTIES WHICH MAY BE IMPOSED The petition for habeas corpus will prosper.
Subsidiary penalty is not an accessory
(a) State the two classes of penalties under
penalty which inheres to a principal penalty
the revised Penal Code. Define each.
and may therefore be imposed even if it is
(b) May censure be included in a sentence not expressly provided in the sentence. It is a
of acquittal? Why or why not? penalty in lieu of the penalty imposed in the
sentence. Hence, unless the judgment or
(c) What offenses, if any, may be punished sentence expressly provides for subsidiary im-
with the death penalty in our jurisdiction at prisonment, the culprit cannot be made to
present? Explain. undergo the same (People vs. Fajardo, 65
Phil. 639). In this case, the court merely
sentenced Pedro to pay a P3,000.00 fine. It
a) The two classes of penalties under Article was only LATER that the Court ordered the
25 of the Revise Penal Code are as follows: incarceration of Pedro to serve subsidiary
1. Principal imprisonment AFTER Pedro failed to pay the
2. Accessory amount of the fine. Subsidiary imprisonment
A principal penalty is defined as that cannot be imposed unless it is expressly
provided for a felony and which is imposed provided in the sentence.
by court expressly upon conviction. An
accessory penalty is defined as that deemed
What is the doctrine of pro reo? How does it
included in the imposition of the principal
relate to Article 48 of the Revised Penal
b) Censure may not be included in a
sentence of acquittal, because a censure is
The doctrine of pro reo advocates that penal
a penalty. Censure is repugnant and is
laws and laws penal in nature are to be

11 San Beda College Alabang School of Law

2017 Centralized Bar Operations
construed and applied in a way lenient or Penal Code and another under Batas
liberal to the offender, constant to and Pambansa Big. 22.
consistent with the constitutional guarantee
that an accused shall be presumed innocent If you were the Provincial Fiscal asked to
until his guilt is established beyond review the matter, how would you resolve it?
reasonable doubt. Following the pro reo
doctrine, under Art. 48 of the Revised Penal
The resolution of the investigating fiscal is
Code, crimes are complexed and punished
erroneous. There is no complex crime of
with a single penalty (i.e., that prescribed for
estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal
the most serious crime and to be imposed in
Code and the violation of BP 22. A complex
its maximum period). The rationale being,
crime refers only to felonies which are
that the accused who commits two crimes
punished in the Revised Penal Code. BP 22
with single criminal impulse demonstrates
which punishes the offense of issuing a
lesser perversity that when the crimes are
worthless check is a special law.
committed by different acts and several
However, the contention of the counsel of
criminal resolutions. (People vs Comadre, 431
Jose that his client should be liable only for BP
SCRA 366, 384 [2004]). However, Art. 48 shall
22 because it precludes estafa and because
be applied only when it would bring about
BP 22 is more favorable to the accused
the imposition of a penalty lesser than the
cannot also be sustained. BP 22 specifically
penalties if prosecuted separately instead of
provides that liability under said act is without
being complexed.
prejudice to any liability for estafa under the
Revised Penal Code.
Jose purchased roofing materials worth
P20,000.00 from PY & Sons Construction The check issued by Jose in payment of
Company owned by Pedro, paid the latter a roofing materials from PY and Sons was
check in the said amount. The following day, worthless. Said bouncing check having been
Pedro deposited the check, but it was issued in payment of a simultaneous
returned dishonored because it was drawn obligation constitutes estafa under the
against a closed account. Notwithstanding Revised Penal Code and also the offense
written demands, Jose failed to make good punished under BP 22. There is no identity of
said check. Atty. Saavedra, counsel for offenses. Damage is not an element of the
Pedro, filed two complaints against Jose with offense punished in BP 22 whereas in estafa
the Office of the Provincial Fiscal, one for damage is an element. Estafa is an act mala
estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal in se in which requires intent as an element
Code and another for violation of Batas while theoffense punished in BP 22 is an act
Pambansa Big. 22. mala prohibita where intent is not an
Atty. San Pascual, counsel for Jose, claimed
that if his client was at all liable, he could only
be liable for violation of Batas Pambansa Big.
22 and not for estafa under Article 315 of the Rodolfo, a policeman, was cleaning his
Revised Penal Code because one precludes service pistol inside his house when it fell from
the other and because Batas Pambansa Big. his hand and fired. The bullet hit a neighbor
22 is more favorable to the accused as it on the stomach and a second neighbor on
carries a lighter penalty. The investigating the leg. The injuries sustained by the two
fiscal, on his resolution, stated that only one neighbors required thirty-five (35) days and
crime was committed, namely, the complex nine (9) days of medical attendance,
crime of estafa under Article 315 of the respectively. The investigating fiscal later
Revised Penal Code and violation of Batas filed an information for frustrated homicide
Pambansa Big. 22 because the single act of and slight physical injuries through reckless
issuing the bouncing check constitutes two imprudence against Rodolfo. Is the charge
offenses, one under Article 315 of the Revised correct? Explain.

12 San Beda College Alabang School of Law

2017 Centralized Bar Operations
The charge is not correct. One single act of
accidental shooting cannot give rise to two Roman and Wendy are neighbors. On
felonies. One of which is intentional and the Valentine's Day, without prior notice, Roman
other negligent. Frustrated homicide visited Wendy at her condo to invite her to
presupposes intent to kill. The facts do not dinner, but Wendy turned him down and
show any intent to kill on the part of Rodolfo. abruptly left, leaving her condo door
At most, he was careless, and therefore only unlocked. Roman attempted to follow, but
negligent. Two separate crimes of serious appeared to have second thoughts; he
physical injuries (against the first neighbor simply went back to Wendy's condo, let
whose injuries requires 35 days of medical himself in, and waited for her return. On
attendance), and slight physical injuries Wendy's arrival later that evening, Roman
(against the second neighbor), both through grabbed her from behind and, with a knife in
reckless imprudence, were committed by hand, forced her to undress. Wendy had no
Rodolfo. Although both offenses were the choice but to comply. Roman then tied
result of one single act, the crimes cannot be Wendy's hands to her bed and sexually
complexed because it is only when a single assaulted her five (5) times that night. Roman
act constitutes two or more grave or less was charged with, and was convicted of, five
grave felonies that a complex crime may be (5) counts of rape, but the judge did not
committed under the first clause of article 48, impose the penalty of reclusion perpetua for
RPC. Slight physical injuries is not a grave or each count. Instead, the judge sentenced
less grave felony. Roman to 40 years of imprisonment on the
basis of the three-fold rule. Was the judge
No. the three-fold rule is applicable only in
Andres is charged with an offense defined by connection with the service of the sentence
a special law. The penalty prescribed for the not in the imposition of the proper penalties.
offense is imprisonment of not less than five The court must impose all penalties for all the
(5) years but not more than ten [10) years. crimes for which the accused have been
found guilty. Thus, the court should not make
Upon arraignment, he entered a plea of
a computation in it decision and sentence
guilty. In the imposition of the proper penalty,
the accused to not more than the three- fold
should the Indeterminate Sentence Law be
of the most severe of the penalties
applied? If you were the Judge trying the
imposable. The computation under the
case, what penalty would you impose on three-fold rule is for the prison authorities to
Andres? make.


Yes, the Indeterminate Sentence Law should OFFENSES
be applied because the minimum term of
One fateful night in January 1990, while 5-
imprisonment is more than one (1) year. If I
year old Albert was urinating at the back of
were the Judge, I will impose an
their house, he heard a strange noise coming
indeterminate sentence, the maximum of
from the kitchen of their neighbor and
which shall not exceed the maximum fixed
playmate, Ara. When he peeped inside, he
by law and the minimum shall not be less
saw Mina, Ara's stepmother, very angry and
than the minimum penalty prescribed by the
strangling the 5-year old Ara to death. Albert
same. I have the discretion to impose the
saw Mina carry the dead body of Ara, place
penalty within the said minimum and
it inside the trunk of her car and drive away.
The dead body of Ara was never found. Mina
spread the news in the neighborhood that
Ara went to live with her grandparents in
Ormoc City. For fear of his life, Albert did not
tell anyone, even his parents and relatives,

13 San Beda College Alabang School of Law

2017 Centralized Bar Operations
about what he witnessed. Twenty and a half committed by her is not extinguished. The
(20 & 1/2) years after the incident, and right estate of Lorna can continue the case.
after his graduation in Criminology, Albert
reported the crime to NBI authorities. The If it were Alma who died pending appeal of
crime of homicide prescribes in 20 years. her conviction, her death extinguishes his
criminal liability as well as the civil liability
based solely on the offense committed.
Can the state still prosecute Mina for the
death of Ara despite the lapse of 20 & 1/2
On the other hand, the claim for civil liability
years? Explain.
survives notwithstanding the death of
accused, if the same may also be
SUGGESTED ANSWER: predicated on a source of obligation other
Yes, the State can still prosecute Mina for the than delict enumerated under Article 1157 of
death of Ara despite the lapse of 20 & 1/2 the Civil Code. (Law, Contracts, Quasi-
years. Under Article 91, RPC, the period of Contracts and Quasi-Delicts)
prescription commences to run from the day
If the civil liability survives, an action for
on which the crime is discovered by the
recovery therefor may be pursued only by
offended party, the authorities or their
way of filing a separate civil action and
agents. In the case at bar, the commission of
subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985
the crime was known only to Albert, who was
Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended.
not the offended party nor an authority or an This separate civil action may be enforced
agent of an authority. It was discovered by either against the executor/administrator or
the NBI authorities only when Albert revealed the estate of the accused, depending on the
to them the commission of the crime. Hence, source of obligation upon which the same is
the period of prescription of 20 years for based as explained above. The private
homicide commenced to run only from the offended party need not fear a forfeiture of
time Albert revealed the same to the NBI his right to file this separate civil action by
authorities. prescription, in cases where during the
prosecution of the criminal action and prior
to its extinction, the private-offended party
instituted together therewith the civil action.
In such case, the statute of limitations on the
EXTINGUISHMENT OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY civil liability is deemed interrupted during the
pendency of the criminal case. (People vs.
For defrauding Lorna, Alma was charged Bayotas, G.R. No. 102007, September 2, 1994)
before the Municipal Trial Court of Malolos,
Bulacan. After a protracted trial, Alma was
convicted. While the case was pending PRESCRIPTION
appeal in the Regional Trial Court of the same
province, Lorna who was then suffering from A killed his wife and buried her in their
breast cancer, died. Alma manifested to the backyard. He immediately went into hiding
court that with Lorna's death, her (Alma's) in the mountains. Three years later, the bones
criminal and civil liabilities are now of As wife were discovered by X, the
extinguished. Is Alma's contention correct? gardener. Since X had a standing warrant of
What if it was Alma who died, would it affect arrest, he hid the bones in an old clay jar and
kept quiet about it. After two years, Z, the
her criminal and civil liabilities? Explain.
caretaker, found the bones and reported the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: matter to the police. After 15 years of hiding,
No. Alma's contention is not correct. The A left the country but returned three years
death of the offended party does not later to take care of his ailing sibling. Six years
extinguish the criminal liability of the thereafter, he was charged with parricide but
offender, because the offense is committed raised the defense of prescription.
against the State [People vs. Misola, 87 Phil. a. Under the Revised Penal Code, when
830, 833). Hence, it follows that the civil
does the period of prescription of a
liability of Alma based on the offense
crime commence to run?

14 San Beda College Alabang School of Law

2017 Centralized Bar Operations
Generally, the period of prescription of a No, the Fiscal's dismissal of the case on
crime commences to run from the date it alleged prescription is not correct. The filing
was committed; but if the crime was of the complaint with the Municipal Trial
committed clandestinely, the period of Court, although only for preliminary
prescription of the crimes under the Revised investigation, interrupted and suspended the
Penal Code commence to run from the day period of prescription in as much as the
on which the crime was discovered by the jurisdiction of a court in a criminal case is
offended party, the authorities or their agents determined by the allegations in the
(Art. 91, RPC). complaint or information, not by the result of
proof. (People vs. Galano. 75 SCRA 193)
b. When is it interrupted?


The period of prescription shall be interrupted
a. How is criminal liability extinguished
by the filing of the complaint or information,
and shall commence to run again when such
proceedings terminate without the accused
b. If an accused is acquitted, does it
being convicted or acquitted, or are
necessarily follows that no civil
unjustifiably stopped for any reason not
liability arising from the acts
imputable to him.
complained of may be awarded in
The prescription shall be interrupted when the same judgment?
proceedings are instituted against the guilty
person, and shall begin to run again if the
proceedings are dismissed for reasons not
a. Article 94 of the Revised Penal Code
constituting jeopardy. (Act No. 3326,
appropriately entitled An Act to Establish provides for the following causes of partial
Prescription for Violations of Special Acts and extinction of criminal liability:
Municipal Ordinances and to Provide When 1. Condition pardon
Prescription Shall Begin) Any kind of 2. Communication of sentence
investigative proceeding instituted against 3. Good conduct allowances during
the guilty person which may ultimately lead confinement
to his prosecution should be sufficient to toll 4. Parole
prescription. (Panaguiton vs. DOJ, G.R. No. 5. Probation
167571, November 25, 2008)

b. If an accused acquitted, it does not

necessarily follow that no civil liability arising
On June 1, 1988, a complaint for from the acts complained of may be
concubinage committed in February 1987 awarded in the same judgment except: If
was filed against Roberto in the Municipal there is an express waiver of the liability; and
Trial Court of Tanza, Cavite for purposes of if there is a reservation of file a separate civil
preliminary investigation. For various reasons, action (Rule 107; Padilla vs. CA People vs.
it was only on July 3, 1998 when the Judge of Jalandoni).
said court decided the case by dismissing it
for lack of jurisdiction since the crime was
committed in Manila. The case was CIVIL LIABILITY
subsequently filed with the City Fiscal of A was a 17-year old working student who was
Manila but it was dismissed on the ground earning his keep as a cigarette vendor. B was
that the crime had already prescribed. The driving a car along busy Espana Street at
law provides that the crime of concubinage about 7:00 p.m. Beside B was C. The car
prescribes in ten (10) years. Was the dismissal stopped at an intersection because of the
by the fiscal correct? Explain. red signal of the traffic light. While waiting for
the green signal, C beckoned A to buy some

15 San Beda College Alabang School of Law

2017 Centralized Bar Operations
cigarettes. A approached the car and Captain ordered the ship to stop for
handed two sticks of cigarettes to C. While emergency repairs lasting for almost 15
the transaction was taking place, the traffic hours. Due to exhaustion, the officers and
light changed to green and the car crew fell asleep. While the ship was
immediately sped off. As the car continued anchored, a motorboat manned by
to speed towards Quiapo, A clung to the renegade Ybanags from Claveria, Cagayan,
window of the car but lost his grip and fell passed by and took advantage of the
down on the pavement. The car did not stop. situation. They cut the ship's engines and took
A suffered serious injuries which eventually away several heavy crates of electrical
caused his death. C was charged with equipment and loaded them in their
ROBBERY with HOMICIDE. In the end, the motorboat. Then they left hurriedly towards
Court was not convinced with moral certainty Aparri. At daybreak, the crew found that a
that the guilt of C has been established robbery took place. They radioed the Aparri
beyond reasonable doubt and, thus, Port Authorities resulting in the apprehension
acquitted him on the ground of reasonable of the culprits.
a. What crime was committed? Explain.
Can the family of the victim still recover civil
damages in view of the acquittal of C? SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Explain. The crime committed was piracy under Art.
122, Revised Penal Code, the essence of
which is robbery directed against a vessel
and/or its cargoes. The taking of the several
heavy crates of electrical equipment from a
Yes, as against C, A's family can still recover
vessel at sea, was effected by force and
civil damages despite C's acquittal. When
undoubtedly with intent to gain. It is of no
the accused in a criminal prosecution is
moment that the vessel was anchored when
acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not
depredated so long as it was at sea.
been proved beyond reasonable doubt, a
civil action for damages for the same act or
b. Supposing that while the robbery was
omission may be instituted. Such action
taking place, the culprits stabbed a
requires only a preponderance of evidence
{Art. 29, CC). If A's family can prove the member of the crew while sleeping.
negligence of B by preponderance of What crime was committed? Explain.
evidence, the civil action for damages
against B will prosper based on quasi-delict. SUGGESTED ANSWER
Whoever by act or omission causes damage The crime was qualified piracy under Art. 123
to another, there being fault or negligence, of the Revised Penal Code because it was
is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such attended by a killing committed by the same
fault or negligence, about pre-existing culprits against a member of the crew of the
contractual relation between the parties, is vessel.
called a quasi-delict [Art. 2176, CC). This is
entirely separate and distinct from civil
liability arising from negligence under the
Penal Code [Arts, 31, 2176, 2177, CC}. DELAY ON THE DELIVERY OF DETAINED
Amy was apprehended and arrested by
Patrolman Bart for illegal parking. She was
detained at the police precint, underwent
investigation, and released only after 48
While SS Nagoya Mani was negotiating the
sea route from Hongkong towards Manila, a) Patrolman Bart liable for any offense?
and while still 300 miles from Aparri, Explain your answer.
Cagayan, its engine malfunctioned. The

16 San Beda College Alabang School of Law

2017 Centralized Bar Operations
b) Suppose Amy resisted the arrest and INCITING TO SEDITION
grappled with patrolman Bart, is she
What are the different acts of inciting to
criminally liable thereby? State your reasons.
a. Patrolman Bart is liable for violation of
The different acts which constitute the crime
Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code
of inciting to sedition are:
- Delay on the Delivery of Detained
Persons to the Proper Judicial 1. Inciting others through speeches,
Authorities. writings, banners and other media of
b. She is criminally liable for slight representation to commit acts which
disobedience under Article 151 of the constitutes sedition;
Revised Penal Code - Resistance and 2. Uttering seditious words, speeches or
disobedience to a person in authority circulating scurrilous libels against the
or the agents of such person. Government of the Philippines or any
of its duly constituted authorities,
COUP DTAT which tend to disturb or obstruct the
performance of official functions, or
If a group of persons belonging to the armed which tend to incite others to cabal
forces makes a swift attack, accompanied and meet for unlawful purposes;
by violence, intimidation and threat against 3. Inciting through the same media of
a vital military installation for the purpose of representation rebellious conspiracies
seizing power and taking over such or riots;
installation, what crime or crimes are they 4. Stirring people to go against lawful
guilty of? authorities, or disturb the peace and
public order of the community or of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the Government; or
The perpetrators, being persons belonging to Knowingly concealing any of the
the Armed Forces, would be guilty of the aforestated evil practices (Art. 142, Revised
crime of coup d'etat, under Article 134-A of Penal Code).
the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
because their attack was against vital
military installations which are essential to the
continued possession and exercise of
governmental powers, and their purpose is to Jose was charged with slight physical injuries
seize power by taking over such installations. before a Municipal Trial Judge. He listened
attentively as the Judge read the sentence.
When the Judge reached the dispositive
If the attack is quelled but the leader is
portion and pronounced Jose guilty, the
unknown, who shall be deemed the leader
latter was enraged, got hold of an ashtray,
and threw it at the Judge hitting him in the
eye. As his defense lawyer Pedro attempted
to restrain him, Jose boxed him and knocked
The leader being unknown, any person who
him down. The judge became blind in one
in fact directed the others, spoke for them,
eye as a consequence. What crime or crimes
signed receipts and other documents issued
did Jose commit?
in their name, or performed similar acts, on
behalf of the group shall be deemed the
leader of said coup d'etat (Art 135, R.P.C.)
Jose is liable for Qualified Direct Assault with
Serious Physical Injuries. The throwing of the
ashtray at the Judge hitting him in the eye is
laying of hands on the Judge who is a person
in authority while in the performance of

17 San Beda College Alabang School of Law

2017 Centralized Bar Operations
duties. Jose is also liable for qualified direct SUGGESTED ANSWER:
assault when he boxed his defense lawyer, Persons in authority are persons directly
knocking him down while in the act of vested with jurisdiction, whether as an
restraining him. Under Batas 873 a lawyer is individual or as a member of some court or
considered a person in authority if assaulted government corporation, board, or
while in the performance of duties. commission. Barrio captains and barangay
chairmen are also deemed persons in
Rigoberto gate-crashed the 71st birthday authority. (Article 152, RPC) Agents of persons
party of Judge Lorenzo. Armed with a piece in authority are persons who by direct
provision of law or by election or by
of wood commonly known as dos por dos,
appointment by competent authority, are
Rigoberto hit Judge Lorenzo on the back,
charged with maintenance of public order,
causing the latters hospitalization for 30
the protection and security of life and
days. Upon investigation, it appeared that property, such as barrio councilman, barrio
Rigoberto had a grudge against Judge policeman, barangay leader and any
Lorenzo who, two years earlier, had cited person who comes to the aid of persons in
Rigoberto in contempt and ordered his authority (Art. 152, RPC),
imprisonment for three (3) days. (a) Is
Rigoberto guilty of Direct Assault? Why or why
In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and
not? (b) Would your answer be the same if
151 of the Rev. Penal Code, teachers,
the reason for the attack was that when
professors and persons charged with the
Judge Lorenzo was still a practicing lawyer
supervision of public or duly recognized
ten years ago, he prosecuted Rigoberto and
private schools, colleges and universities,
succeeded in sending him to jail for one and lawyers in the actual performance of
year? Explain your answer. their professional duties or on the occasion of
such performance, shall be deemed persons
in authority. (P.D. No. 299, and Batas
a. No, Rigoberto is not guilty of Direct Assault Pambansa Blg. 873).
because Judge Lorenzo has ceased to be a
judge when he was attacked. He has retired
(71 years old) from his position as a person in
authority when he was attacked. Hence, the
attack on him cannot be regarded as A, a detention prisoner, was taken to a
against a person in authority anymore. hospital for emergency medical treatment.
His followers, all of whom were armed, went
b. Yes, Rigorberto is guilty of Direct Assault to the hospital to take him away or help him
because the employment of violence was escape. The prison guards, seeing that they
by reason of an actual performance of a were outnumbered and that resistance
duty by the offended party acting as a would endanger the lives of other patients,
practicing lawyer. Lawyers are considered
deckled to allow the prisoner to be taken by
persons in authority by virtue of Batas
his followers.
Pambansa Blg. 873, which states that lawyers
in the actual performance of their What crime, if any, was committed by A's
professional duties or on the occasion of such followers? Why?
performance shall be deemed persons in
authority. But the crime having been SUGGESTED ANSWER:
committed 10 years ago, may have already A's followers shall be liable as principals in the
prescribed because it is punishable by a crime of delivery of prisoner from Jail (Art.
correctional penalty. 156, Revised Penal Code).

The felony is committed not only by removing

from any jail or penal establishment any
PERSONS IN AUTHORITY AND AGENTS OF person confined therein but also by helping
PERSONS IN AUTHORITY in the escape of such person outside of said
Who are deemed to be persons in authority establishments by means of violence,
and agents of persons in authority? intimidation, bribery, or any other means.

18 San Beda College Alabang School of Law

2017 Centralized Bar Operations
M was forced by a policeman to sign a
document entitled Sinumpaang Salaysay
Is mere possession of false money bills in which M implicated X as the brain behind
punishable under Article 168 of the Revised the robbery of a bank where P500,000.00
Penal Code? Explain. were lost. The document was prepared by
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the policeman upon advice of B, the banks
No. Possession of false treasury or bank note lawyer, who was present when the
alone without an intent to use it, is not policeman asked M to sign the document. As
punishable. But the circumstances of such M refused to sign it, the policeman held him
possession may indicate intent to utter, by the neck and forced him to sign, which he
sufficient to consummate the crime of illegal did as he was afraid he might be bodily
possession of false notes. harmed. During the hearing of the robbery
before the Fiscals Office, B submitted the
Sinumpaang Salaysay as evidence, on the
The accused was caught in possession of 100 basis of which X was included in the
counterfeit P20 bills. He could not explain information filed by the Fiscal in court.
how and why he possessed the said bills.
Neither could he explain what he intended to When M testified in court, he repudiated the
do with the fake bills. Can he be held document and told the court there was no
criminally liable for such possession? Decide. truth to its contents as he was merely forced
to sign it.
Yes. Knowledge that the note is counterfeit
(a) May M be held liable for perjury?
and intent to use it may be shown by the
conduct of the accused. So, possession of (b) Did lawyer B commit any crime when he
100 false bills reveal: (a) knowledge that the used the Sinumpaang Salaysay as
bills are fake; and (b) intent to utter the same. evidence?


a. M is not liable for perjury. He did not sign
A falsified official or public document was the document freely and voluntarily but due
found in the possession of the accused. No
to the force employed by the policeman.
evidence was introduced to show that the
Peijury refers to deliberate distortion of truth.
accused was the author of the falsification.
The facts of the problem do not state that the
As a matter of fact, the trial court convicted
documents was signed before an officer
the accused of falsification of official or
public document mainly on the proposition authorized to administer oath. It is, therefore,
that "the only person who could have made doubtful that the facts would constitute
the erasures and the superimposition perjury.
mentioned is the one who will be benefited
b. The lawyer would be liable under Article
by the alterations thus made" and that "he
172 of the Revised Penal Code for the
alone could have the motive for making such
offense of introducing a false document in a
alterations". Was the conviction of the
judicial proceeding, as he knew the same to
accused proper although the conviction was
be false.
premised merely on the aforesaid
ratiocination? Explain your answer.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Who are public officers?

Yes, the conviction is proper because there is
a presumption in law that the possessor and
Public Officers are persons who, by direct
user of a falsified document is the one who
provision of the law, popular election or
falsified the same.
appointment by competent authority, takes
part in the performance of public functions in

19 San Beda College Alabang School of Law

2017 Centralized Bar Operations
the Government of the Philippines, or b. Was there any crime committed by
performs in said Government or in any of its Estrada and her lawyer and if so, what
branches public duties as an employee, crime?
agent or subordinate official, of any rank or
class (Art. 203, RPC)
a. The sheriff committed the crime of Direct
Bribery under the second paragraph of
Article 210, Revised Penal Code, since the
P2,000 was received by him "in consideration"
Manolo revealed to his friend Domeng his of the prompt enforcement of the writ of
desire to kill Cece. He likewise confided to execution which is an official duty of the
Domeng his desire to borrow his revolver. sheriff to do.
Domeng lent it. Manolo shot Cece in Manila
b. On the part of the plaintiff and her lawyer
with Domeng's revolver. As his gun was used as giver of the bribe-money, the crime is
in the killing, Domeng asked Mayor Tan to Corruption of Public Officials under Article
help him escape. The mayor gave Domeng 212, Revised Penal Code.
P5,000.00 and told him to proceed to
Mindanao to hide. Domeng went to ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
On the premise that even without the P2,000,
Mindanao. The mayor was later charged as
Sheriff Ben Rivas had to carry out the writ of
an accessory to Cece's murder. Can he be
execution and not that he would be
held liable for the charge? Explain.
implementing the writ only because of the
P2,000.00, the receipt of the amount by said
sheriff may be regarded as a gift received by
SUGGESTED ANSWER: reason of his office and not as a
If Domeng is not the principal to the crime of "consideration" for the performance of an
murder, the Mayor may not be held liable as official duty; hence, only indirect Bribery
accessory since he merely assisted in the would be committed by said sheriff.
escape of an accomplice. Par. 3 of Art. 19,
RPC speaks of harboring or assisting in the
escape of a principal. The mayor, however QUALIFIED BRIBERY
can be held liable as principal in the crime of
maliciously refraining from instituting or Commissioner Marian Torres of the Bureau of
prosecuting an offender under Art. 208 of the Internal Revenue (BIR) wrote solicitation
RPC. letters addressed to the Filipino-Chinese
Chamber of Commerce and Industry and to
certain CEOs ofvarious multinational
DIRECT AND INDIRECT BRIBERY corporations requesting donations of gifts for
her office Christmas party. She used the
Deputy Sheriff Ben Rivas received from the Bureau's official stationery. The response was
RTC Clerk of Court a Writ of Execution in the prompt and overwhelming so much so that
case of Ejectment filed by Mrs. Maria Estrada Commissioner Torres' office was
vs. Luis Ablan. The judgment being in favor of overcrowded with rice cookers, radio sets,
Estrada, Rivas went to her lawyer's office freezers, electric stoves and toasters. Her staff
where he was given the necessary amounts also received several envelopes containing
constituting the sheriffs fees and expenses for cash money for the employees' Christmas
execution in the total amount of P550.00, luncheon.
aside from P2,000.00 in consideration of
prompt enforcement of the writ from Estrada Has Commissioner Torres committed any
and her lawyer. The writ was successfully impropriety or irregularity? What laws or
enforced. decrees did she violate? 5%

a. What crime, if any, did the sheriff SUGGESTED ANSWER:

commit? Yes, Commissioner Torres committed an
impropriety. She violated Sec. 7(d) of Rep.
Act 6713 otherwise known as the Code of

20 San Beda College Alabang School of Law

2017 Centralized Bar Operations
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public temporary damage caused. Personal
Officials and Employees. Sec. 7(d) benefit is not an element of the crime of
mandates that public officials and estafa.
employees shall not solicit or accept directly
or indirectly any gift, favor, entertainment,
loan or anything of monetary value from any
person in the course of her official duties or Ernani was accused of estafa. Unable to post
any transaction which may be affected by a bail bond for his provisional liberty pending
the functions of their office. trial of his case, he was detained in the city
jail. On the date of the hearing of the estafa
case, Daniel, a policeman detailed in the city
jail, escorted Ernani to the city hall for the trial.
The solicitation for her office Christmas Party
Daniel removed the handcuffs of Ernani and
violates Pres. Decree 46 which makes it
allowed him to sit on one of the chairs inside
punishable for any public official or
the courtroom. As Daniel was talking to a
employee to receive, directly or indirectly,
lawyer inside the courtroom, Ernani, with the
any gift, present or other valuable thing on
help of a cigarette vendor, Meynardo, who
any occasion, including Christmas when
used his cigarette container as cover,
such gift or present is given by reason of her
surreptitiously moved out of the room and
official position.
escaped. Ernani and Meynardo went to the
comfort room for a while, then went down the
MALVERSATION stairs and lost themselves in the crowd. What
crime or crimes were committed by Ernani,
Dencio, who is the Municipal Treasurer of the Daniel and Meynardo? Give your reasons.
town, was also the treasurer of a charity ball
of the church. Because he was short of SUGGESTEDANSWER:
payroll funds for the municipal employees, Daniel, the policeman, committed the crime
he used part of the church funds to replenish of EVASION THRU NEGLIGENCE, one of the
the payroll funds with the intention of forms of Infidelity in the custody of Prisoner. All
returning the same when the public funds the elements are present, Daniel, a
came. policeman detailed in the city jail, is a public
officer. As the escort for Ernani in the latters
a. Is Dencio guilty of malversation under trial, he had custody of charge of a
the revised Penal Code? State your detention prisoner. Ernanis escape was thru
reasons. his negligence because after removing
b. Assuming that he failed to replenish Eraanis handcuffs and allowing him to sit in
the church funds, may he be held one of the chairs inside the courtroom, he
criminally liable thereby? Explain. should have taken the necessary
precautions to prevent Ernanis escape by
keeping an eye on him. Instead, he provided
a. No. The church funds used by Dencio do
the opportunity for the escape by talking
not constitute public funds which are the
with a lawyer and not keeping watch over his
proper subject of malversation. Neither does
said funds constitute the so-called private
funds, which could be the proper subject of Meynardo, not being a public officer, is guilty
malversation under Article 222, Revised Penal of the crime of DELIVERING PRISONERS FROM
Code which pertain to private property JAILS (Art. 156), which is committed by any
placed in the custody of public officers by person who either removes from any jail or
reason of their office. penal establishment any person confined
therein, or WHO HELPS the escape of such
b. Yes, momentarily use of funds, since there
person by means of violence, intimidation,
is defraudation, is tantamount to estafa
bribery of OTHER MEANS. The act of
under Article 215 of the Revised Penal Code.
Meynardo in giving to Ernani his cigarette
This is because he received the funds in his
fiduciary capacity as treasurer and there was

21 San Beda College Alabang School of Law

2017 Centralized Bar Operations
container is helping in the latters escape by week later, when his mother arrived from
OTHER MEANS. Manila to visit him in jail, that the man whom
he killed was his own father.
Ernani, the escaped prisoner himself is not
criminally liable for any offense. The 1. What crime did Ricky commit? Explain.
detention prisoner who escapes from
detention does not commit any crime. If he 2. Suppose Ricky knew before the killing that
were a convict by final judgment who is Pedro is his father, but he nevertheless killed
serving a sentence which consists of him out of bitterness for having abandoned
deprivation of liberty and he escapes during him and his mother, what crime did Ricky
term of his sentence, he would be liable for commit? Explain.
1. Ricky committed parricide because the
person killed was his own father, and the law
PARRICIDE punishing the crime (Art. 246, RPC) does not
require that the crime be "knowingly"
A killed: (1) a woman with whom he lived
committed. Should Ricky be prosecuted and
without benefit of clergy, (2) their child who
found guilty of parricide, the penalty to be
was only two days old, (3) their daughter, and imposed is Art. 49 of the Revised Penal Code
(4) their adopted son. What crime or crimes for Homicide (the crime he intended to
did A commit? commit) but in its maximum period.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: 2. The crime committed should be parricide

if Ricky knew before the killing that Pedro is
A committed the following crimes:
his father, because the moral basis for
1. HOMICIDE or murder as the case may
punishing the crime already exists. His having
be, for the killing of his common-law
acted out of bitterness for having been
wife who is not legally considered a
abandoned by his father may be considered
"spouse" mitigating.
2. INFANTICIDE for the killing of the child
as said child is less than three (3) days
penalty corresponding to parricide UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE
shall be imposed since A is related to
the child within the degree defined in A and B are husband and wife. A is employed
the crime of parricide. as a security guard at Landmark, his shift
3. PARRICIDE for the killing of their being from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. One night,
he felt sick and cold, hence, he decided to
daughter, whether legitimate or
go home around midnight after getting
illegitimate, as long as she is not less
permission from his duty officer. Upon
than three (3) days old at the time of
reaching the front yard of his home, he
the killing. noticed that the light in the master bedroom
4. MURDER for the killing of their was on and that the bedroom window was
adopted son as the relationship open. Approaching the front door, he was
between A and the said son must be surprised to hear sighs and giggles inside the
by blood in order for parricide to bedroom. He opened the door very carefully
arise. and peeped inside where he saw his wife B
having sexual intercourse with their neighbor
In 1975, Pedro, then a resident of Manila, C. A rushed inside and grabbed C but the
abandoned his wife and their son, Ricky, who latter managed to wrest himself free and
was then only three years old. Twenty years jumped out of the window, A followed suit
later, an affray took place in a bar in and managed to catch C again and after a
Olongapo City between Pedro and his furious struggle, managed also to strangle
him to death. A then rushed back to his
companions, on one hand, and Ricky and his
bedroom where his wife B was cowering
friends, upon the other, without the father and
under the bed covers. Still enraged, A hit B
son knowing each other. Ricky stabbed and
with fist blows and rendered her unconscious.
killed Pedro in the fight, only to find out, a
The police arrived after being summoned by

22 San Beda College Alabang School of Law

2017 Centralized Bar Operations
their neighbors and arrested A, who was an unlicensed firearm in the killing of the
detained, inquested and charged for the victim, and this was proved beyond
death of C and serious physical Injuries of B. reasonable doubt by the prosecution. The
trial court convicted PH of two crimes: murder
a. Is A liable for C's death? Why?
b. Is A liable for B's injuries? Why? and illegal possession of firearms. Is the
conviction correct? Reason briefly.
a. Yes, A is liable for C's death but under
No, the conviction of PH for two crimes,
the exceptional circumstances in
Article 247 of the Revised Penal murder and illegal possession of firearm is not
Code, where only destierro is correct. Under the new law on illegal
prescribed. Article 247 governs since possession of firearms and explosives, Rep.
A surprised his wife B in the act of Act No. 8294, a person may only be criminally
having sexual intercourse with C, and liable for illegal possession of firearm if no
the killing of C was "Immediately other crime is committed therewith; if a
thereafter" as the discovery, escape, homicide or murder is committed with the
pursuit and killing of C form one use of an unlicensed firearm, such use shall
continuous act. (U.S. vs. Vargas, 2 Phil. be considered as an aggravating
194) circumstance. PH therefore may only be
b. Likewise, A is liable for the serious convicted of murder and the use of an
physical injuries he inflicted on his wife
unlicensed firearm in its commission may only
B but under the same exceptional
be appreciated as a special aggravating
circumstances in Article 247 of the
circumstance, provided that such use is
Revised Penal Code, for the same
alleged specifically in the information for

Candido stabbed an innocent bystander
Bruno was charged with homicide for killing
who accidentally bumped him. The
the 75-year old owner of his boarding house.
innocent bystander died as a result of the
The prosecution proved that Bruno stabbed
stabbing. Candido was arrested and was
the owner causing his death; and that the
tested to be positive for the use of shabu" at
killing happened at 10 in the evening in the
the time he committed the stabbing. What
house where the victim and Bruno lived.
should be the proper charge against
Bruno, on the other hand, successfully
Candido? Explain.
proved that he voluntarily surrendered to the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: authorities; that he pleaded guilty to the
Candido should be charged with murder crime charged; that it was the victim who first
qualified by treachery because the attacked and did so without any provocation
suddenness of the stabbing caught the on his (Bruno's) part, but he prevailed
victim by surprise and was totally because he managed to draw his knife with
defenseless. Being under the influence of which he stabbed the victim. The penalty for
dangerous drugs is a qualifying aggravating homicide is reclusion temporal. Assuming a
circumstance in the commission of a crime judgment of conviction and after considering
(Sec. 25, Rep Act 9165 Comprehensive the attendant circumstances, what penalty
Dangerous Drug Act of 2002); hence, the should the judge impose?
penalty for murder shall be imposed in the
Bruno is entitled to one privileged mitigating
circumstance of incomplete self-defense
under Article 69 in relation to Article 13
PH killed OJ, his political rival in the election paragraph 1.
campaign for Mayor of their town. The
Information against PH alleged that he used

23 San Beda College Alabang School of Law

2017 Centralized Bar Operations
Thus, the Indeterminate Sentence shall be likewise not tenable. Pedro acted in
prision correccional in any of its period as legitimate defense of relative, he being the
minimum, to prision mayor with a period brother of Boy Bala.
depending on the presence of mitigating
circumstance or aggravating circumstance
after offsetting.
Boy Bala was a notorious gang leader who Francis and Joan were sweethearts, but their
had previously killed a policeman. The Chief parents had objected to their relationship
of Police ordered his vice squad headed by because they were first cousins. They forged
Captain Aniceto, to arrest Boy Bala and a pact in writing to commit suicide. The
shoud he resist arrest, to shoot and kill him. agreement was to shoot each other in the
Acting upon an informer's tip, Aniceto and head which they did. Joan died. Due to
two (2) of his trusted men went to the medical assistance, Francis survived. Is
Corinthian nightclub where they saw Boy Francis criminally liable for the death of
Bala dancing with a hostess. Without any Joan? Explain
warning, Aniceto shot Boy Bala who slumped
on the dance floor. As Aniceto aimed SUGGESTED ANSWER:
another shot at Boy Bala, the brother of the Yes. Francis is criminally liable for assisting in
latter, Pedro, who was seated at a table the suicide of Joan, as evidenced by their
nearby, got hold of a table knife and stabbed written pact (Art. 253, RPC)
Aniceto killing him instantly. The Chief of
Police filed a homicide case against Pedro
for the death of Aniceto. On the other hand, LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES
Pedro filed a complaint for murder against Charlie hated his classmate, Brad, because
the Chief of Police for the death of Boy Bala the latter was assiduously courting Lily,
alleging that the issuance of the shoot-to-kill Charlies girlfriend. Charlie went to a
order was illegal and the Chief of Police was veterinarian and asked for some poison on
liable as a principal by inducement. How the pretext that it would be used to kill a very
tenable are the respective claims of the sick, old dog. Actually, Charlie intended to
Chief of Police and Pedro? Explain. use the poison on Brad. The veterinarian
mistakenly gave Charlie a non-toxic powder
which, when mixed with Brads food, did not
The charge for murder against the Chief of
kill Brad. Would your answer be the same if
Police for the death of Boy Bala is not
Brad proved to be allergic to the powder,
tenable. Although, the Chief of Police is the
and after ingesting it with his food, fell ill and
superior on Captain Aniceto who shot Boy
was hospitalized for ten (10) days? Explain.
Bala in cold blood, he cannot be held
accountable for the act of Aniceto. His order SUGGESTED ANSWER:
was specific; to arrest Boy Bala and should he No, the answer would not be the same.
resist arrest, to shoot and kill him. Aniceto did Charlie would be criminally liable for less
not act in compliance with this order. He shot serious physical injuries because his act of
Boy Bala without warning, without even mixing the powder with Brads food was
attempting to make an arrest. Consequently, done with felonious intent and was the
it could not be said that the killing of Bala by proximate cause of Brads illness for 10 days.
Aniceto was induced by the Chief of Police It cannot constitute attempted murder,
so as to make the latter criminally liable as a although done with intent to kill, because the
co-principal by inducement. The liability for means employed is inherently ineffectual to
cause death and the crime committed must
the death of Bala is individual and not
be directly linked to the means employed,
not to the intent. Liability for an impossible
On the other hand, the charge of homicide crime can only arise from a consummated
against Pedro for the stabbing of Aniceto is act.

24 San Beda College Alabang School of Law

2017 Centralized Bar Operations
During a concert of Gary V. and in order to b. Assuming no conspiracy is established, will
prevent the crowd from rushing to the stage, your answer in problem (a) be the same?
Rafael Padilla {a security guard} pointed his Explain your answer.
gun at the onrush of people. When the crowd
still pushed forward, Rafael fired his gun into SUGGESTED ANSWER:
air to scare them off. However, the bullet hit a. Aki is liable for homicide because, while it
one of the metal roof supports, ricocheted is clear that he intentionally caused the
and then hit one of the stage crew members, deafh of Caloy, none of the circumstances
causing injuries which resulted in the latters attendant to murder are present. Intent to kill
confinement in a hospital for twelve days. is clear as Aki lunged at Caloy, after the latter
What crime/s did Rafael commit? Explain was inflicted a wound at the right arm, and
your answer gave him a mortal wound. Ben is guilty only
of slight physical injuries as it is evident from
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the wound he inflicted upon Caloy that he
The crime committed by Rafael is Simple did not intend to kill the latter. Also, there was
Negligence Resulting in Less Serious Physical no other act on the part of Ben to show such
Injuries. Rafael is a security guard and was on intent.
duty when he discharged the firearm. The
discharged of the firearm was not calculated b. No, there being no conspiracy each will
to cause alarm or danger but simply to ward be liable for their own individual act. This time
off the unruly crowd which persisted in both will be liable for homicide because in
moving forward, thereby challenging the conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all
duty he was to fulfill there. The discharge of (People v. Damaso, G.R. Nos. L-30116-7, 20
the firearm, therefore, should neither November 1978).
constitute a crime of Alarms and Scandal
under Art. 155 of the Revised Penal Code nor
may such discharge amount to a crime of RAPE
Illegal Discharge of Firearms under Art. 254 of
the Code since it was not directed towards a A, a male, takes B, another male, to a motel
particular person when the firearm was and there, through threat and intimidation,
discharged. However, the physical injuries succeeds in inserting his penis into the anus
resulting from the discharge of the firearm of B. What, if any, is As criminal liability?
betrays a lack of precaution in a situation Why?
where the danger to the discharge of the
firearm is not clearly manifest, thus SUGGESTED ANSWER:
considered as simple imprudence only. The A shall be criminally liable for rape by sexual
crime committed is Simple Imprudence assault against B, by inserting his penis into
Resulting In Less Serious Physical Injuries, since
the anus of the latter. Even a man may be a
the physical injuries required only twelve (12)
victim of rape by sexual assault under par. 2
days of medical attention.
of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended, "when the offender's penis is
inserted into his mouth or anal orifice."

Aki and Ben, while walking together, met

Caloy. There was an altercation between Ben Flordeluna boarded a taxi on her way home
and Caloy so that Ben chased and stabbed to Quezon City which was driven by Roger.
Caloy with a knife hitting his right aim thereby Flordeluna noticed that Roger was always
causing slight physical injury. Ben desisted placing his car freshener in front of the car
from further assaulting Caloy, but Aki lunged aircon ventilation but did not bother asking
at Caloy and felled him this time with a bolo Roger why. Suddenly, Flordeluna felt dizzy
which mortally wounded Caloy. Thus, he and became unconscious. Instead of
died. bringing her to Quezon City, Roger brought
Flordeluna to his house in Cavite where she
a. What is the criminal liability of Aki? How was detained for two (2) weeks. She was
about that of Ben? Explain your answers. raped for the entire duration of her detention.

25 San Beda College Alabang School of Law

2017 Centralized Bar Operations
May Roger be charged and convicted of the offended party extinguish the criminal action
crime of rape with serious illegal detention? or the penalty imposed? Explain.
Yes. By express provision of Article 266-C of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the
No, Roger may not be charged and subsequent valid marriage between the
convicted of the crime of rape with serious offender and offended party shall extinguish
illegal detention. Roger may be charged the criminal action or the penalty imposed,
and convicted of multiple rapes. Each rape although rape has been reclassified from a
crime against chastity, to that of a crime
is a distinct offense and should be punished
against persons.
separately. Evidently, his principal intention
was to abuse Flordeluna; the detention was
only incidental to the rape.
AJ, a medical student, was a boarder in the Jaime, Andy and Jimmy, laborers in the
house of Mr. and Mrs. M who had a good- noodles in the noodles factory of Luke Tan,
looking 25-year old retarded daughter with agreed to kill him due to his arrogance and
the mental age of an 11-year old. One day miserliness. One afternoon, they seized him
when the couple were out, Perlita, the and loaded him in a taxi driven by Mario.
retarded daughter, entered AJs room, came They told Mario they will only teach Luke a
near him and started kissing him. He tried to lesson in Christian humility. Mario drove them
avoid her. But she persisted. They had sexual to-a fishpond in Navotas where Luke was
intercourse. This was repeated every time entrusted to Emil and Louie, the fishpond
Perlitas parents were out until Perlita got caretakers, asking them to hide Luke in their
pregnant. Mr and Mrs. M filed a complaint of shack because he was running from the NBI.
rape against AJ who claimed that it was The trio then left in Marios car for Manila
Perlita who seduced him; that Perlita was where they called up Lukes family and
intelligent, clearly understood what she was threatened them to kill Luke unless they give
doing; and that since Perlita was already 25 a ransom within 24 hours. Unknown to them,
years old did not herself file the complaint, because of a leak, the kidnapping was
her parents had no personality to file the announced over the radio and TV. Emil and
complaint for rape. How would you resolve Louie heard the broadcast and panicked,
the case? especially when the announcer stated that
there is a shoot-to-kill order for the
The contention of AJ cannot be sustained. kidnappers. Emil and Louie took Luke to the
Sexual intercourse with Perlita, who is a seashore of Dagat-dagatan where they
mental retardate, although 25 years old but smashed his head with a shovel and buried
with a mental age of 11-year old girl is rape. him in the sand. However, they were seen by
She is the same class as a woman deprived a barangay kagawad who arrested them
of reason or others wise unconscious. (People and brought them to the police station. Upon
vs. Sunga L-45683 June 24, 1985). Since she is interrogation they confessed and pointed to
suffering from an incapacity, being Jaime, Andy, Jimmy and Mario as those
incompetent on account of her mental age, responsible for the kidnapping. Later, the 4
the parents have the right to file the were arrested and charged. What crime or
complaint for rape. crimes did the 6 suspects commit?

ANTI RAPE LAW OF 1997 Jaime, Andy and Jimmy committed the
crime of kidnapping for ransom having
The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 reclassified rape
seized Luke and causing his detention by Emil
from a crime against honor, a private offense,
and Louie in the latters place. Although the
to that of a crime against persons. Will the
agreement among Jaime, Andy and Jimmy
subsequent marriage of the offender and the
was to kill Luke, the agreement appears to

26 San Beda College Alabang School of Law

2017 Centralized Bar Operations
have been abandoned when they left Luke one of them, and to prevent their
to Emil and Louie to be kept and detained by being delayed, his companion took
the latter, while they called up Lukes family the bundle of bills and then and there
and demanded ransom. tore up the bills.

Mario, the taxi driver, only cooperated as an As City Fiscal of Pasay, what crimes, if any,
accomplice by taking Luke to the fishpond would you charge the two Japanese?
after having learned of the unlawful purpose Explain.
disclosed to him by Jaime, Andy and Jimmy.
There was no indication, however, that Mario SUGGESTED ANSWER:
knew of the demand for ransom. Hence, he
a. Rebellion was committed because their
may only be held liable as an accomplice to
purpose was to overthrow the government
the crime of slight illegal detention under Art.
and all other acts committed in the further of
268 of the Code.
this purpose are absorbed by rebellion.
Emil and Louie should be liable for serious
The armed group committed the crime of
illegal detention with homicide (Art. 267 last
kidnapping and serious illegal detention in
par., RPC) since the detention was attended
violation of Aticle 267 of the Revised Penal
by a killing. Their crime would have been
Code which provides that kidnapping and
slight illegal detention only under Art. 268 of
serious illegal detention. Any private
the Code were it not for the killing of the
individual who shall kidnap another, or in any
other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to
a. An armed group, avowed to
overthrow the duly constituted b. The leaders are criminally liable for the
authorities, captured five officers and crime of libel by theatrical exhibition. Article
five members of the armed forces 355 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
and held them in their mountain lair libel by means of writing or similar means.
for seventy-five days and then A libel committed by means of writing,
voluntarily released them in printing lithography, engraving, radio,
consideration of the promise of phornographs, painting, theatrical exhibition,
medical treatment to be given to cinematographic exhibition, or any similar
some of their comrades who were means, shall be punished by prision
under detention by the authorities. correctional
What crime or crimes had been
c. The two Japanese cannot be charged of
committed? Reasons.
any crime. They committed no crime. Article
164 of the Revised Penal Code on mutilation
b. In the course of proceeding during a
of coins cannot be applied to the Japanese
so-called public hearing held before
because said article refers to coins and not
a crowd in a place open to the
to bills.
public, the leaders of the meeting
tried certain public officials and
thereafter sentenced them to
Virgilio, armed with a gun, stopped a van
death by assassination or
along a major thoroughfare in Manila,
ambuscades. Are the leaders
pointed the gun at the driver and shouted:
criminally liable? Decide the case.
"Tigil! Kidnap ito!" Terrified, the driver, Juanito,
c. Two Japanese were passing through stopped the van and allowed Virgilio to
immigration and customs board. Inside the van were Jeremias, a 6-
preparatory to their departure for year-old child, son of a multi-millionaire, and
Japan at the Ninoy Aquino Daday, the childs nanny. Virgilio told Juanito
International Airport. A bundle of to drive to a deserted place, and there,
P2,000 peso bills was discovered in ordered the driver to alight. Before Juanito

27 San Beda College Alabang School of Law

2017 Centralized Bar Operations
was allowed to go, Virgilio instructed him to Code, as amended. Article 271 expressly
tell Jeremias parents that unless they give a penalizes any parent who shall take from and
ransom of P10-million within two (2) days, deliberately fail to restore his or her minor
Jeremias would be beheaded. Daday was child to the parent or guardian to whom
told to remain in the van and take care of custody of the minor has been placed. Since
Jeremias until the ransom is paid. Virgilio then the custody of C, the minor, has been given
to the mother and B has only the right of
drove the van to his safehouse. What crime
monthly visitation, the latter's act of taking C
or crimes, if any, did Virgilio commit? Explain.
to the United States, to reside there
SUGGESTED ANSWER: permanently, constitutes a violation of said
The crime committed against Jeremias, the 6 provisions of law.
year-old child, is Kidnapping with Serious
Illegal Dtention under Art. 267(4), RPC. The
evident criminal intent of the offender, GRAVE THREATS
Virgilio, is to lock up the child to demand A, B, C D, and E were members of a gang
ransom. Whether or not the ransom was operating in Mindanao with Gorio as over-all
eventually obtained will not affect the crime leader, Gorio assigned A B, and C to get
committed because the demand for ransom money from Pedro, a businessman from
is not an element of the crime; it only qualifies Agusan. As instructed, A, B. and C, armed
the penalty to death but the imposition of the with guns, went to see Pedro and demanded
penalty is now prohibited by Rep. Act. No. PI00,000.00. When Pedro refused, A pointed
9346. As to Daday, the nanny of the child his gun at him while B hit him with the butt of
who was told to remain in the van and take his gun. Pedro gave the amount demanded.
care of the child until the ransom is paid, the After the three (3) left, Pedro went to the PC
crime committed is Serious Illegal Detention Command to tel! them what happened. On
because the offended party deprived of the way, he met Orlando, also a
liberty is a female (Art. 267, par.4, RPC). As to businessman. Orlando told him that D and E,
Juanito, the driver of the van who was week earlier, wrote him a letter asking
seriously intimidated with a gun pointed at P50.000.00 and threatening to kill his son and
him and directed to stop the van and allow wife should he fail to give the amount. Afraid
the gun-man to board the same, and that the two would make good their threat,
thereafter to drive to a deserted place, the he gave the money when D
crime committed by Virgilio is Grave
Coercion (Art. 286, RPC) and Slight Illegal called him that day. Orlando was also on his
Detention (Art. 268, RPC) for holding the way to the PC to report what happened.
driver before he was allowed to go.
a. What crime did A, B, and C commit?
b. What crime did D and E commit?
c. Did Gorio commit any crime?
A and B were legally separated. Their child C, A, B, and C committed robbery. They were
a minor, was placed in the custody of A the able to make Pedro give them the PI00,000
mother, subject to monthly visitations by B, that they demanded when A pointed his gun
his father. On one occasion, when B had C in at Pedro because he refused at first to
his company, B decided not to return C to his accede to their demand and B hit him with
mother. Instead, B took C with him to the the butt of his gun. They employed violence
United States where he intended for them to and intimidation in the taking of the money
reside permanently. What crime, if any, did B with intent to gain.
commit? Why?
b. D and E committed Grave Threats. The
SUGGESTED ANSWER: reason is the intimidation employed refers to
B committed the crime of kidnapping and the killings of the wife and son of Orlando
failure to return a minor under Article 271, in should he failed to give the amount of
relation to Article 270, of the Revised Penal P50,000 demanded in the latter which D and

28 San Beda College Alabang School of Law

2017 Centralized Bar Operations
E sent him. The distinction between robbery "Immediately thereafter" as the discovery,
and grave threats when the purpose is the escape, pursuit and killing of C form one
same, that is, to extort money, is that in continuous act. (U.S. vs. Vargas, 2 Phil. 194)
robbery, the intimidation is actual and imme-
diate whereas on grave threats, the b. Likewise, A is liable for the serious physical
injuries he inflicted on his wife B but under the
intimidation is future and conditional.
same exceptional circumstances in Article
c. Gorio, being the over-all leader of the 247 of the Revised Penal Code, for the same
group, is a principal by inducement in the reasons.
robbery committed against Pedro. He has no
liability regarding the grave threats
committed by D and E against Orlando LIGHT COERCION AND UNJUST VEXATION
because the facts of the problem do not Eduardo Quintos, a widower for the past 10
specifically mention his intervention in the years, felt that his retirement at the age of 70
activities of D and E. gave him the opportunity to engage in his
favorite pastime - voyeurism. If not using his
high-powered binoculars to peep at his
A and B are husband and wife. A is employed neighbors homes and domestic activities,
as a security guard at Landmark, his shift his second choice was to follow sweet young
being from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. One night, girls. One day, he trailed a teenage girl up to
he felt sick and cold, hence, he decided to the LRT station at EDSA-Buendia.
go home around midnight after getting
permission from his duty officer. Upon While ascending the stairs, he stayed one
reaching the front yard of his home, he step behind her and in a moment of
noticed that the light in the master bedroom bravado, placed his hand on her left hip and
was on and that the bedroom window was gently massaged it. She screamed and
open. Approaching the front door, he was shouted for help. Eduardo was arrested and
surprised to hear sighs and giggles inside the
charged with acts of lasciviousness. Is the
bedroom. He opened the door very carefully
designation of the crime correct?
and peeped inside where he saw his wife B
having sexual intercourse with their neighbor SUGGESTED ANSWER:
C. A rushed inside and grabbed C but the No, the designation of the crime charged is
latter managed to wrest himself free and
not correct because the overt act
jumped out of the window, A followed suit
committed by Eduardo still falls short of the
and managed to catch C again and after a
crime of acts of lasciviousness. The nature of
furious struggle, managed also to strangle
the act done does not manifest sexual
him to death. A then rushed back to his
bedroom where his wife B was cowering desire. Lewd designs cannot be inferred
under the bed covers. Still enraged, A hit B from his overt act. It is more appropriate to
with fist blows and rendered her unconscious. consider such overt act as mere annoyance
The police arrived after being summoned by or vexation, constituting a crime of light
their neighbors and arrested A, who was coercion, commonly referred to as unjust
detained, inquested and charged for the vexation. The Revised Penal Code favors a
death of C and serious physical Injuries of B. milder criminal responsibility.

a. Is A liable for C's death? Why?

b. Is A liable for B's injuries? Why?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Christopher, John, Richard, and Luke are

fraternity brothers. To protect themselves
a. Yes, A is liable for C's death but under the
from rival fraternities, they all carry guns
exceptional circumstances in Article 247 of
wherever they go. One night, after attending
the Revised Penal Code, where only destierro
a party, they boarded a taxicab, held the
is prescribed. Article 247 governs since A
driver at gunpoint and took the latters
surprised his wife B in the act of having sexual
earnings. What crime, if any, did the four
intercourse with C, and the killing of C was

29 San Beda College Alabang School of Law

2017 Centralized Bar Operations
commit? Enumerate the elements of the Code; not for highway Robbery under PD
crime. 532. The offenders are not brigands but only
committed the robbery to raise money to
SUGGESTED ANSWER: pay their bill because it happened that they
The crime committed is robbery by a band were short of money to pay the same.
since there were four (4) offenders acting in
concert in committing the robbery and all
the four were armed. The elements of this A, brother of B, with the intention of having a
crime are: night out with his friends, took the coconut
shell which is being used by B as a bank for
1. Unlawful taking of personal property
coins from inside their locked cabinet using
belonging to another (the earnings of the
their common key. Forthwith, A broke the
coconut shell outside of their home in the
2. Intent to gain in the taking (of the earnings presence of his friends.
which belong to the taxi-driver);
a. What is the criminal liability of A, if any?
3. Violence against or intimidation of person Explain.
or force upon things was employed in the b. Is A exempted from criminal liability under
taking; and Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code for
being a brother of B? Explain.
4. There were more than three armed
malefactors taking part in the commission of
the robbery (Art. 296 in relation to Art. 294,
a. A is criminally liable for Robbery with force
Revised Penal Code)
upon things, because the coconut shell with
the coins inside, was taken with intent to gain
and broken outside of their home, (Art. 299
A, B, C, D and B were in a beerhouse along
(b) (2). RPC).
MacArthur Highway having a drinking spree.
At about 1 o'clock in the morning, they
b. No, A is not exempt from criminal liability
decided to leave and so asked for the bill.
under Art. 332 because said Article applies
They pooled their money together but they
only to theft, swindling or malicious mischief.
were still short of P2,000.00. E then
Here, the crime committed is robbery.
orchestrated a plan whereby A, B, C and D
would go out, flag a taxicab and rob the taxi
driver of all his money while E would wait for
them in the beerhouse. A. B, C and D agreed. On her way home, Eva Marie saw an injured
All armed with balisongs, A, B, C and D hailed chow chow puppy behind a bush. Since the
the first taxicab they encountered. After puppy did not have a collar, she brought it
robbing X, the driver, of his earnings, which home so she could have it as a pet. Her son
in fact begged Eva Marie to keep the puppy.
amounted to P1,000.00 only, they needed P1
The following day, Eva Marie bought a collar
,000.00 more to meet their bill. So, they
for the puppy and brought it to a veterinarian
decided to hail another taxicab and they
for treatment. Did Eva Marie incur criminal
again robbed driver T of his hard-earned liability in bringing the puppy home as a pet?
money amounting to P1,000. On their way Explain.
back to the beerhouse, they were
apprehended by a police team upon the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
complaint of X, the driver of the first cab. They Yes, Eva Marie incurred criminal liability for
pointed to E as the mastermind. What crime the crime of simple theft. The puppy is
or crimes, if any, did A, B, C, D and B commit? personal property which is susceptible of
taking and has pecuniary value. Obviously,
Explain fully.
she took it with intent to own it; hence, with
intent to gain.
A, B, C, D and E are liable for two (2) counts
of robbery under Article 294 of the Rev. Penal

30 San Beda College Alabang School of Law

2017 Centralized Bar Operations
A fire broke out in a department store, A, them. What crime should Jorge charge these
taking advantage of the confusion, entered 15 families? Explain.
the store and carried away goods which he
later sold. What crime, if any, did he commit? b. Five laborers were hired by Manuel Diong
Why? to harvest coconuts from a plantation which
he told them belonged to him. Unknown to
SUGGESTED ANSWER: them, the ownership of the land was in
A committed the crime of qualified theft dispute, and the registered owner
because he took the goods on the occasion subsequently filed a case of qualified theft
of and taking advantage of the fire which against them. How would you defend them?
broke out in the department store. The Explain briefly.
occasion of a calamity such as fire, when the
theft was committed, qualifies the crime
under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, a. Jorge can charge the 15 families of 2
as amended. separate crimes namely:

A vehicular accident occurred on the 1) Violation of Article 282 which provides

national highway in Bulacan. Among the first that Grave threats. Any person who
to arrive at the scene of the accident was A, shall threaten another with the infliction
who found one of the victims already dead upon the person, honor or property of
and the others unconscious. Before rescuers the latter or of his family of any wrong
could come, A, taking advantage of the amounting to a crime shall suffer... and
helpless condition of the victims, took their
2) Violation of Article 312 which provides
wallets and jewelry. However, the police,
that: Occupation of real property or
who responded to the report of the accident,
usurpation of real rights in property.
caught A.
Any person who, by means of violence
against or intimidation of persons, shall
What crime or crimes did A commit? Why?
take possession of any real property or
shall usurp any real rights in property
belonging to another, in addition to the
A committed the crime of qualified theft
penalty incurred for violence executed
because he took the wallets and jewelry of
by him, shall be punished by a fine from
the victims with evident intent to gain and on
the occasion of a vehicular accident
wherein he took advantage of the helpless b. I would defend them by citing U.S. vs.
condition of the victims. But only one crime Ah Chong (15 Phil. 488) on mistake of
of qualified theft was committed although facts and charge the owner with
there were more than one victim divested of violation of Article 282 on grave threats.
their valuables, because all the taking of the In U.S. vs. Ah Chong, the accused was
valuables were made on one and the same exempted from criminal liability because
occasion, thus constituting a continued he performed an act which would be
crime. lawful had it been true as he believed
that Grave threats. Any person who
shall threaten another with the infliction
upon the person, honor or property of
a. Jorge is the owner of 10 hectares of land in the latter or of his family of any wrong
the foothills which he planted to lanzones. On amounting to a crime, shall suffer..
his last visit there he was shocked to discover
Fe is the manager of a rice mill in Bulacan. In
that his land had been taken over by a group
order to support a gambling debt, Fe made it
of 15 families whose members had forcibly
appear that the rice mill was earning less
driven away his caretaker, had appropriated
than it actually was by writing in a "talaan" or
the fruits for themselves, and were now
ledger a figure lower than what was
threatening to kill him should he try to eject
collected and paid by their customers. Fe

31 San Beda College Alabang School of Law

2017 Centralized Bar Operations
then pocketed the difference. What crime/s Aurelia introduced Rosa to Victoria, a dealer
did Fe commit, If any? Explain your answer. in jewelry who does business in Timog,
Quezon City. Rosa, a resident of Cebu City,
SUGGESTED ANSWER: agreed to sell a diamond ring and bracelet
If the talaan or ledger which Fe made to to Victoria on a commission basis, on
show a falsehood was a private document, condition that, if these items cannot be sold,
the only crime that Fe committed was estafa they may be returned to Victoria forthwith.
thru abuse of confidence or unfaithfulness. Unable to sell the ring and bracelet, Rosa
Criminal liability for falsification of a private delivered both items to Aurelia in Cebu City
document does not arise without damage or with the understanding that Aurelia shall, in
at least proof of intent to cause damage. It turn, return the items to Victoria in Timog,
cannot co-exist with the crime of estafa Quezon City. Aurelia dutifully returned the
which is also essentially requires damage or bracelet to Victoria but sold the ring, kept the
at least proof of intent to cause damage. cash proceeds thereof to herself, and issued
Since the talaan was falsified to cover-up a check to Victoria which bounced. Victoria
or conceal the misappropriation of the sued Rosa for estafa under Article 315, R.P.C.,
amount involved, whatever damage or Victoria insisting that delivery to a third
intent to cause damage attends the person of the thing held in trust is not a
falsification, it will be the same damage or defense in estafa. Is Rosa criminally liable for
intent to cause damage that will attend the estafa under the circumstances? Explain
If such talaan or ledger was a commercial
No, Rosa cannot be held criminally liable for
document, damage or proof of intent to
estafa. Although she received the jewelry
cause damage is not necessary. The
from Victoria under an obligation to return
falsification alone if done with intent to
the same or deliver the proceeds thereof,
pervert the truth, would bring about criminal
she did not misappropriate it. In fact, she
liability for falsification of a commercial
gave them to Aurelia specifically to be
document. Damage or intent to cause
returned to Victoria. The misappropriation
damage, would sustain the estafa
was done by Aurelia, and absent the
independently of the falsification of the
showing of any conspiracy between Aurelia
commercial document. In this case, two (2)
and Rosa, the latter cannot be held
separate crimes are committed; namely,
criminally liable for Amelia's acts.
estafa and falsification of the commercial
Furthermore, as explained above, Rosa's
document. The falsification should not be
complexed with the estafa since it was not negligence which may have allowed Aurelia
to misappropriate the jewelry does not make
committed as a necessary means to commit
her criminally liable for estafa.
the estafa but rather resorted to, to conceal
or hide the misappropriation of the amount
she pocketed.
A, B, C and D, all armed with armalites,
proceeded to the house of X. Y, a neighbor
Is there such a crime as estafa through of X, who happened to be passing by,
negligence? Explain. pointed to the four culprits the room that X
occupied. The four culprits peppered the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: room with bullets. Unsatisfied, A even threw a
There is no such crime as estafa through hand grenade that totally destroyed X's
negligence. In estafa, the profit or gain must room. However, unknown to the four culprits,
be obtained by the accused personally, X was not inside the room and nobody was
through his own acts, and his mere hit or injured during the Incident. Are A, B, C
negligence in allowing another to take and D liable for any crime? Explain.
advantage of or benefit from the entrusted
chattel cannot constitute estafa. (People v. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Nepomuceno, CA, 46OG 6135) Yes. A, B, C, and D are liable for destructive
arson because of the destruction of the room
of X with the use of an explosive, the hand

32 San Beda College Alabang School of Law

2017 Centralized Bar Operations
grenade. Liability for an impossible crime is to SUGGESTED ANSWER:
be imposed only if the act committed would The crime committed by A is malicious
not constitute any other crime under the mischief. The dements of this are:
Revised Penal Code. Although the facts a. The offender caused damages to the
involved are parallel to the case of Intod vs. property of other
Court of Appeals (215 SCRA 52), where it was b. The damage caused did not
ruled that the liability of the offender was for
constitute arson or any other crime
an impossible crime, no hand grenade was
involving destruction and
used in said case, which constitutes a more
c. The damage was caused by the
serious crime though different from what was
offender (Caballes vs. DAR, GR
78214,5 Dec. 88).

One early evening, there was a fight As act of killing the dog is characterized by
between Eddie Gutierrez and Mario Cortez. malice, it being a product of anger and
Later that evening, at about 11 o'clock, Eddie resentment. However, A is exempt from
passed by the house of Mario carrying a criminal liability for the crime committed by
plastic bag containing gasoline, threw the him because he is the brother-in-law of the
bag at the house of Mario who was inside the offended party and they are both living
house watching television, and then lit it. The together under the same roof. Under Art. 332
front wall of the house started blazing and of the RPC, no criminal, but only civil, liability
some neighbors yelled and shouted. shall result from the commission of the crime
Forthwith, Mario poured water on the burning of THEFT, SWINDLING or MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
portion of the house. Neighbors also rushed committed or caused mutually by among
in to help put the fire under control before others, brothers and sisters and brothers-in-
any great damage could be inflicted and law and sisters-in-law, if living together.
before the flames have extensively spread.
Only a portion of the house was burned.


Eddie is liable for destructive arson in the Dennis leased his apartment to Myla for
consummated stage. It is destructive arson P10,000 a month. Myla failed to pay the rent
because fire was resorted to in destroying the for 3 months. Gabriel, the son of Dennis,
house of Mario which is an inhabited house prepared a demand letter falsely alleging
or dwelling. The arson is consummated that his father had authorized him to collect
because the house was in fact already the unpaid rentals. Myla paid the unpaid
burned although not totally. In arson, it is not rentals to Gabriel who kept the payment.
required that the premises be totally burned Can Gabriel invoke his relationship with
for the crime to be consummated. It is Dennis to avoid criminal liability? Explain.
enough that the premises suffer destruction
No. Gabriel cannot invoke Art. 332, RPC
(Persons exempt from criminal liability). It is
A is married to the sister of B, and the 3 Myla, not the father Dennis, who is the
live together in a house located a Caloocan offended party under Art. 315 (2)(a) (Luis B.
City. On several occasions, Bs dog would Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Volume II,
bark at A everytime he arrives at past page 853,16th Edition [2006]).
midnight. One time, after arriving in the house
at around 2 oclock in the morning, Bs dog
barked continuously at A. In a fit of anger, CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY
A entered the house, took a bolo and killed A, a married woman, had sexual intercourse
the dog. What crime was committed and with a man who was not her husband. The
what is liability of A? Explain, man did not know she was married. What

33 San Beda College Alabang School of Law

2017 Centralized Bar Operations
crime, if any, did each of them commit? punishes the abduction of a virgin over 12
Why? and under 18 years of age, carried out with
her consent and with lewd designs. Although
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the problem did not indicate the victim to be
A, the married woman, committed the crime virgin, virginity should not be understood in its
of adultery under Article 333 of the Revised
material sense, as to exclude a virtuous
Penal Code, as amended, for having sexual
woman of good reputation, since the
intercourse with a man not her husband
essence of the crime is not the injury to the
while her marriage is still subsisting. But the
man who had carnal knowledge of her, not woman but the outrage and alarm to her
knowing her to be married, shall not be liable family. (Valdepenas vs. People, 16 SCRA 871
for adultery. [1966]).


Suspecting that her husband of twenty years
was having an affair, Leilanie hired a private A childless couple, A and B, wanted to have
investigator to spy on him. After two weeks, a child they could call their own. C, an
the private investigator showed Leilanie a unwed mother, sold her newborn baby to
video of her husband having sexual them. Thereafter, A and B caused their names
intercourse with another woman in a room of to be stated in the birth certificate of the child
a five-star hotel. Based on what she saw on as his parents. This was done in connivance
the video, Leilanie accused her husband of with the doctor who assisted in the delivery of
concubinage. Will the case of concubinage C. What are the criminal liabilities, if any, of
prosper? Explain the couple A and B, C and the doctor?


The couple A and B, and the doctor shall be
No, a case for concubinage will not prosper liable for the crime of simulation of birth,
because said crime may be committed only penalized under Article 347 of the Revised
by a husband in 3 ways: Penal Code, as amended. The act of making
1. By keeping a mistress in the conjugal it appear in the birth certificate of a child that
dwelling; the persons named therein are the parents of
2. By having sexual intercourse with a the child when they are not really the
woman not his wife under scandalous biological parents of said child constitutes
circumstances; the crime of simulation of birth. C, the unwed
3. By cohabiting with a woman not his mother is criminally liable for "child
trafficking", a violation of Article IV, Sec. 7 of
wife in any other place (Art. 334,
Rep. Act No. 7610. The law punishes inter alia
the act of buying and selling of a child.
The facts of the case given do not
constitute any of the situations
above- stated.
If you were the judge in a bigamy case
where the defense was able to prove that the
A with lewd designs, took a 13-year old girl to
first marriage was null and void or a nullity,
a nipa hut in his farm and there had sexual would you render a judgment of conviction
intercourse with her. The girl did not offer any or acquittal? Explain your answer
resistance because she was infatuated with
the man, who was good-looking and SUGGESTED ANSWER:
belonged to a rich and prominent family in I will render a judgment of conviction. Proof
the town. What crime, if any, was committed that the first marriage is null and void is not a
defense in bigamy. As long as the previous
by A? Why?
marriage was not lawfully dissolved or
judicially declared as null and void,
contracting a new marriage constitute
A committed the crime of consented
bigamy (People v. Manuel, supra).
abduction under Article 343 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended. The said Article

34 San Beda College Alabang School of Law

2017 Centralized Bar Operations
Raissa and Martin are married to each other CRIMES AGAINST HONOR
but had been separated for the last five
In her weekly gossip column in a tabloid, Gigi
years. Raissa decided to wed Juan, her suitor.
wrote an unflattering article about Pablo, a
Who had no inkling that she was married.
famous singer, and his bitter separation from
Raissa and Juan accomplished an
his wife. The article portrayed Pablo as an
application for marriage license which they
abusive husband and caused him to lose
subscribed and swore to before the Local
lucrative endorsement contracts. Pablo
Civil Registrar. Raissa declared, in the
charged Gigi with libel. In her defense, Gigi
application, that she is single. The marriage
countered that she did not commit libel
licensed was issued. In due time, the couple
because Pablo has attained the status of a
were married by the mayor. Raissa and Juan
public figure so that even his personal life has
had their first sexual intercourse later in the
become a legitimate subject of public
evening. What crime or crimes, if any, did
interest and comment. Is Gigi correct?
Raissa commit? Explain briefly.


No, Gigi is not correct. Although wider
Raissa committed bigamy for contracting a
latitude is given to defamatory utterances
second marriage while her first marriage is still
against public figures in relation to matters of
subsisting (Art. 349, RPC). She is also guilty of
public interest involving them, such
perjury for making untruthful statements
defamatory utterances do not automatically
under oath or executing an affidavit upon a
fall within the ambit of constitutionally
material matter, when she declared she was
protected speech. If the utterances are false,
not married in the application for marriage
malicious or unrelated to a public figures
license a public document (Art. 171, RPC).
work, the same may give rise to criminal
Lastly, she is also guilty of adultery (Art. 333,
liablity. (Fermin v. People, GR No. 157643,
RPC) for having sexual intercourse with Juan,
March 28, 2008). Any attack upon the private
although she is a married woman.
character of the public figure on matters
which are not related to their works may
constitute liber under Article 355 (Sazon v.
At the time Josefas husband, Pedro Coipuz, Hon. Court of Appeals, GR No. 120715, March
died, she was eight months pregnant. As she 29, 1996). Here, Gigi was attacking the
was afraid she could not support her child personal life of Pablo as a husband and not
with Pedro, Josefa accepted Pablos his public life as a famous singer.
proposal for marriage. One week after the
marriage, Josefa gave birth to a boy whom
they named, Pedro Coipuz, Jr. Prosecuted for A was nominated Secretary of a Department
contracting premature marriage under Act. in the Executive Branch of the government.
351 of the Revised Penal Code. She has His nomination was thereafter submitted to
engaged your services as a lawyer. How the Commission on Appointments for
would you argue for her acquittal? confirmation. While the Commission was
considering the nomination, a group of
concerned citizens caused to be published
I would argue for the acquittal of Josefa. She
in the newspapers a full-page statement
is not liable for contracting premature
objecting to A's appointment They alleged
marriage under Article 351 of the Revised
Penal Code. This article does not apply as that A was a drug dependent, that he had
Josefa knew she was pregnant (eight several mistresses, and that he was corrupt,
months) when Pedro Corpuz, her husband, having accepted bribes or favors from
died. When she married Pablo, and as a parties transacting business in his previous
matter of fact, one week after the marriage, office, and therefore he was unfit for the
she gave birth to a boy the paternity of the position to which he had been nominated. As
child was not in doubt Article 351 punishes a result of the publication, the nomination
premature marriage in order to prevent was not confirmed by the Commission on
doubtful paternity. (People vs. Rosal 49 Phil. Appointments. The official sued the
539 concerned citizens and the newspapers for

35 San Beda College Alabang School of Law

2017 Centralized Bar Operations
libel and damages on account of his non- against Marco pertains to a person who is
confirmation. running for public office wherein a wider
latitude is given.
How will you decide the case?

Romeo Cunanan, publisher of the Baguio
I will acquit the concerned citizens and the
Daily, was sued by Pedro Aguas for libel for
newspapers involved, from the crime of libel,
the public publication of his picture with the
because obviously they made the
notice that: This is to inform the public that
denunciation out of a moral or social duty
and thus there is absence of malice. Since A Mr. Pedro Aguas whose picture appears
was a candidate for a very important public above has ceased to be connected with the
position of a Department Secretary, his Sincere Insurance Company as underwriter
moral, mental and physical fitness for the as of December 31, 1987. Any transaction
public trust in such position becomes a public entered into by him after said date will not be
concern as the interest of the public is at honored.
stake. It is pursuant to such concern that the
denunciation was made; hence, bereft of Is the publication defamatory? Explain
malice. briefly.

The publication is not defamatory because
a. Lando and Marco are candidates in the
the element of intent to defame is absent.
local elections. In his speeches, Lando
This is a mere announcement and does not
attacked his opponent Marco alleging that
carry any implication.
he is the son of Nanding, a robber and a thief
who amassed his wealth through shady
deals. May Marco file a case against Lando
for grave oral defamation? State your For some time, bad blood had existed
reasons. beween the two families of Maria Razon and
Judge Gadioma who were neighbors. First,
b. Suppose Marco also delivered a speech there was a boundary dispute between them
stating therein that he had charged Lando of which was still pending in court. Marias
estafa through falsification in the mother also filed an administrative complaint
Tanodbayan so much so that since his against the judge which was however
(Lando's) integrity is doubtful he should not dismissed. The Razons also felt intimidated by
be elected. May Marco also be held liable the position and alleged influence of their
for grave oral defamation? State your neighbor. Fanning fire to the situation was the
reasons. practice of the Gadiomas of throwing
garbage and animal excrement into the
Razons premises. In an explosion of anger,
SUGGESTED ANSWERS: Maria called Judge Gadioma land
grabber, shameless, and hypocrite."
a. Marco cannot file a case for grave oral
defamation. If at all, he may file a case for What crime was committed by Maria, if any?
light slander. In the case of People v. Laroga Explain briefly
(40 O.G. 123), it was held that defamation in
a political meeting, when feelings are
Maria committed the crime of slander or
running high and people could not think slight defamation only because she was
clearly, only amount to light slander. under the influence of anger. When Maria
called Judge Gadioma a hypocrite and land
b. No, Marco cannot be held liable for grave
grabber she imputed to him the commission
oral defamation considering that Lando was
of crimes.
merely stating what appears in a public
record, referring to the exercise of a legal
right to file suit. Moreover, his statement

36 San Beda College Alabang School of Law

2017 Centralized Bar Operations
Pres. Decree No. 1613 (the new Arson Law)
True or False. In the crime of libel, truth is an which punishes any person who bums or sets
absolute defense. fire to the property of another (Section 1 of
Pres. Decree No. 1613).
False, Art. 361 of the RPC provides that proof b. CD is criminally liable although he is the
of truth shall be admissible in libel cases only stepfather of FEL whose property he burnt,
if the same imputes a crime or is made because such relationship is not exempting
against a public officer with repect to fact from criminal liability in the crime of arson but
related to the discharge of their official only in crimes of theft, swindling or estafa,
duties, and moreover must have been and malicious mischief (Article 332, Revised
published with good motives and for Penal Code). The provision (Art. 323) of the
justifiable ends. Hence, truth as a defense, Code to the effect that burning property of
on its own, is not enough. small value should be punished as malicious
mischief has long been repealed by Pres.
Decree 1613; hence, there is no more legal
CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE; RECKLESS basis to consider burning property of small
IMPRUDENCE RESULTING IN HOMICIDE value as malicious mischief.

Olimpio caught a cold and was running a

fever. His doctor prescribed paracetamol. R.A. 7610 ANTI-CHILD ABUSE LAW
Olimpio went to a drug store with the
prescription, and the pharmacist sold him Mrs. MNA was charged of child abuse. It
three (3) tablets. Upon arriving home, he took appears from the evidence that she failed to
a tablet. One hour later, he had a seizure and give immediately the required medical
died. The autopsy showed that the tablet he attention to her adopted child, BPO, when he
had taken was not paracetamol but a pill to was accidentally bumped by her car,
which he was allergic. The pharmacist was resulting in his head injuries and impaired
charged with murder. Is the charge proper? vision that could lead to night blindness. The
If not, what should it be? Explain. accused, according to the social worker on
the case, used to whip him when he failed to
SUGGESTED ANSWER: come home on time from school. Also, to
The charge was improper. The pharmacist punish him for carelessness in washing
should be charged with criminal negligence, dishes, she sometimes sent him to bed
or reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, without supper.
because there was not intent to kill Olimpio.
The accused inexcusably lacked precaution She moved to quash the charge on the
in failing to dispense the proper medicine to ground that there is no evidence she
the victim which caused his death (Art. 365, maltreated her adopted child habitually. She
RPC). added that the accident was caused by her
driver's negligence. She did punish her ward
for naughtiness or carelessness, but only
P.D. 1613 ANTI-ARSON LAW mildly. Is her motion meritorious? Reason
CD is the stepfather of FEL. One day, CD got briefly.
very mad at FEL for failing in his college
courses. In his fury, CD got the leather
suitcase of FEL and burned it together with all No, the motion to quash is not meritorious. It
its contents. is not necessary that movant's maltreatment
of a child be habitual" to constitute child
a. What crime was committed by CD?
abuse. The wrongful acts penalized as "Child
b. Is CD criminally liable? Explain briefly.
Abuse" under Rep. Act No. 7610 refers to the
maltreatment of the child, "whether habitual
or not": this is expressly stated in Sec. 2(b) of
the said Law. Mrs. MNA should be liable for
a. The crime committed by CD is arson under
child abuse.

37 San Beda College Alabang School of Law

2017 Centralized Bar Operations
Aling Maria received an urgent telephone ANTI-FENCING LAW; FENCING P.D. 1612
call from Junior, her eldest son, asking for
True or False. In a prosecution for fencing
P2,000.00 to complete his semestral tuition
under P.D. 1612, it is a complete defense for
fees preparatory to his final exams in
the accused to prove that he had no
Commerce. Distressed and disturbed, she
knowledge that the goods or articles found in
borrowed money from her compadre Mang
his possession had been the subject of
Juan with the assurance to pay him within 2
months. Two months lapsed but Aling Maria
failed to settle her obligation. Mang Juan told SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Aling Maria that she does not have to pay the False, fencing is committed if the accused
loan if she will allow her youngest 10-year old should have known that the goods or
daughter Annie to work as a housemaid in his articles had been the subject of theft or
house for 2 months at PI,000.00 a month. robbery (P.D. No. 1612[a]). Mere possession
Despite Aling Marias objection, Mang Juan of the stolen goods gives rise to the prima
insisted and brought Annie to his house to facie presumption of fencing.
work as a maid.

Was a crime committed by Mang Juan when Roberto bought a Toyota Fortuner from Iigo
he brought Annie to his house as maid for the for P500,000. While driving his newly-bought
purpose of repaying her mother's loan? car, Roberto met a minor accident that made
the examination of his vehicle's Registration
If Aling Maria herself was made to work as a Certificate necessary. When the policeman
housemaid in Mang Juans household to pay checked the plate, chassis and motor
her loan, did he commit a crime? numbers of the vehicle against those
reflected in the Registration Certificate, he
SUGGESTED ANSWER: found the chassis and motor numbers to be
Yes, Mang Juan violated RA 7610 which different from what the Registration
prohibits employment of children below 15 Certificate stated. The Deed of Sale covering
years of age, in relation to the crime of the sale of the Fortuner, signed by Iigo, also
Exploitation of Child Labor under Art. 273, bore the same chassis and motor numbers as
Revised Penal Code. Annie is only 10 years Roberto's Registration Certificate. The chassis
old and under the pretext of reimbursing and motor numbers on the Fortuner were
himself of a debt owed by Annies mother, found, upon verification with the Land
Mang Juan took Annie to his house to work Transportation Office, to correspond to a
as a maid despite her mother's objection. vehicle previously reported as carnapped.
Annie could not have given consent to the Roberto claimed that he was in good faith;
exploitation since she was only ten (10) years Iigo sold him a carnapped vehicle and he
old and thus could not give any valid did not know that he was buying a
consent. carnapped vehicle. If you were the
prosecutor, would you or would you not
If it was against her will that Aling Maria was
charge Roberto with a crime?
made to work as a housemaid in Mang
Juans household to pay her debt to him, the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
latter would be committing a crime under I will charge Roberto with violation of Anti-
Art. 274 of the Revised Penal Code, which Fencing Law. The elements of fencing are:
punishes any person who shall compel a 1) a robbery or theft has been committed; 2)
debtor to work for him as a household the accused, who took no part in the robbery
servant against her will just to enforce or theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps,
payment of a debt. acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys
and sells, or in any manner deals in any article
or object taken during that robbery or theft;
3) the accused knows or should have known
of that the thing was derived form that crime;
and 4) by the deal he makes he intends to

38 San Beda College Alabang School of Law

2017 Centralized Bar Operations
gain for himself or for another. Here, RA 8049 ANTI HAZING LAW
someone carnapped the vehicle, old it to
Roberto who did not take part in the crime. What is hazing as defined by law?
Roberto should have known also that the car
was stolen because it was not properly SUGGESTED ANSWER:
documented as the deed of sale and Hazing, as defined by law, is an initiation rite
registration certificate did not reflect the or practice as a prerequisite for admission
correct numbers of the vehicles engine and into membership in a fraternity, sorority or
chassis. Apparently, he made no effort to organization by placing the recruit,
check the papers covering his purchase. neophyte or applicant in some embarrassing
Lastly, Robertos defense of good faith is or humiliating situations such as forcing him to
flawed because Presidential Decree 1612 is a do menial, silly, foolish and similar tasks or
special law and, therefore, its violation in activities or otherwise subjecting him to
regarded as malum prohibitum, requiring no physical or psychological suffering or injury.
proof of criminal intent (Dimat v. People, GR
No. 181184, January 25, 2012). What does the law require before initiation
rites may be performed?

Section 2 of Rep. Act No. 8049 (Anti-Hazing
Law) requires that before hazing or initiation
Proserfina, an assistant public high school rites may be performed, notice to the school
principal, acted to facilitate the release of authorities or head of organizations shall be
salary differentials and election duty per given seven (7) days before the conduct of
diem of classroom teachers with the such rites. The written notice shall indicate:
agreement that they would reimburse her for a. The period of the initiation activities,
her expenses. Did Proserfina commit a not exceeding three (3) days;
crime? (b) the names of those to be
subjected to such activities, and
Yes, Proserfina committed violation of Sec. (c) an undertaking that no physical
3(b) of Rep. Act No. 3019 which considers as violence shall be employed by anybody
a corrupt practice, the act of: (b) Directly or during such initiation rites.
indirectly requesting or receiving any gift,
present, share percentage, or benefit, for
himself or for any other person, in connection ANTI- PIRACY AND HIGHWAY ROBBERY PD
with any contact or transaction between the
Government and any other party, wherein A postal van containing mail matters,
the public officer in his official capacity ha to including checks and treasury warrants, was
intervene under the law. Being the assistant hijacked along a national highway by ten (1
public high school principal, it is her duty to 0) men, two (2) of whom were armed. They
intervene in the release of salary differentials used force, violence and intimidation against
and per diem of classroom teachers under three (3) postal employees who were
her. Her act of doing so, made with a request occupants of the van, resulting in the
for a share or benefit therefor constitutes unlawful taking and transportation of the
graft or corrupt practices under Sec. 3(b) of entire van and its contents. If you were the
Rep. Act No. 3019. Considering that the acts defense counsel, what are the elements of
prohibited or punished under this law are the crime of highway robbery that the
mala prohibita, and thus punishable prosecution should prove to sustain a
thereunder, whether done with criminal conviction?
intent or not.
Under Section 2 of P.D. 532, highway robbery
is defined as he seizure of any person for

39 San Beda College Alabang School of Law

2017 Centralized Bar Operations
ransom, extortion or other unlawful purposes, leaving a zero balance. Anticipating,
or the taking away of the property of another however, a replenishment of his account
by means of violence against or intimidation soon, B issued A a postdated check with
of person or force upon things or other which A negotiated for a new tire. When
unlawful means, committed by any person presented, the check bounced for lack of
on any Philippine highway. Hence, the funds. The tire company filed a criminal case
elements of highway robbery are: against A and B. What would be the criminal
liability, if any, of each of the two accused?
a. Intent to gain; Explain.
b. Unlawful taking of property of
c. Violence against or intimidation A, who negotiated the unfunded check of B
of any person; in buying a new tire for his car may only be
d. Committed on a Philippine highway; prosecuted for estafa if he was aware at the
e. Indiscriminate victim time of such negotiation that the check has
no sufficient funds in the drawee bank;
To obtain a conviction for highway robbery, otherwise, he is not criminally liable.
the prosecution must prove that the accused
were organized for the purpose of B who accommodated A with his check may
committing robbery indiscriminately. If the nevertheless be prosecuted under BP 22 for
purpose is only a particular robbery, the having issued the check, knowing at the time
crime is only robbery, or robbery in a band if of issuance that it has no funds in the bank
there are at least four armed participants and that A will negotiate it to buy a new tire,
(See: People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 104461, i.e., for value. B may not be prosecuted for
February 23, 1996) estafa because the facts indicate that he is
not actuated by intent to defraud in issuing
the check which A negotiated. Obviously, B
issued the postdated check only to help A:
ANTI - TORTURE ACT (RA 9745) criminal intent or dolo is absent.

AA was arrested for committing a bailable

offense and detained in solitary confinement.
He was able to post bail after two (2) weeks Frank borrowed P1,000,000 from his brother
of defection. During the period of detention, Eric. To pay the loan, Frank issued a post-
he was not given any food. Such deprivation dated check to be presented for payment a
caused him physically discomfort. What month after the transaction. Two days before
crime, if any, was committed in connection maturity, Frank called Eric telling him he had
with the solitary confinement and food insufficient funds and requested that the
deprivation of AA? Explain your answer. deposit of the check be deferred.
Nevertheless, Eric deposited the check and it
SUGGESTED ANSWER: was dishonored. When Frank failed to pay
Food deprivation and confinement in solitary despite demand, Eric filed a complaint
cell are considered as physical torture under against him for violation of Batas Pambansa
Section 4 (2) R.A. No. 9745. Hence, the crime Big. 22 (The Bouncing Checks Law). Was the
committed is torture. charge brought against Frank correct?

ANTI-BOUNCING CHECKS LAW B.P. NO. 22 Yes, the charges brought against Frank is
correct. Violation of BP 22 is malum
A and B agreed to meet at the latter's house prohibitum which is committed by mere
to discuss Bs financial problems. On his way, issuance of a check. Good faith is not a
one of As car tires blew up. Before A left defense. As long as the check was issued on
following the meeting, he asked B to lend him account or for value, the purpose for which
money to buy a new spare tire. B had the check was issued, the terms and
temporarily exhausted his bank deposits, conditions relating to the issuance are

40 San Beda College Alabang School of Law

2017 Centralized Bar Operations
irrelevant to the prosecution of the offender. was arrested in connection with another
For this reason, the request of Frankto defer incident. It appears that during the
the deposit of the check as it as insufficient operations, the police officers were not able
funds will not militate against his prosecution to seize the marked money but were able to
for BP 22. Despite notice, Frank can still be get possession of the marijuana tea bag. X
charged. was subsequently prosecuted for violation of
Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425,
If what is charged is Estafa, Frank, being a otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs
brother of the offended party, cannot be Act, During the trial, the marked money was
held criminally liable under Article 332, RPC. not presented. Can X be held liable? Explain.

R.A. 9165 Yes. X can be held liable. The absence of the
marked money will not create a hiatus in the
Tiburcio asked Anastacio to join their group prosecution's evidence as long as the sale of
for a "session". Thinking that it was for a the dangerous drugs is adequately proven
mahjong session, Anastacio agreed. Upon and the drug subject of the transaction is
reaching Tiburcios house, Anastacio presented before the court. (People vs. Ong
discovered that it was actually a shabu Co, 245 SCRA 733; People vs. Zervoulakos,
session. At that precise time, the place was 241 SCRA 625).
raided by the police, and Anastacio was
among those arrested. What crime can
A and his fianc B were walking in the plaza
Anastacio be charged with, if any? Explain
when they met a group of policemen who
your answer.
had earlier been tipped off that A was in
SUGGESTED ANSWER: possession of prohibited drugs. Upon seeing
Anastacio may not be charged of any crime. the policemen and sensing that they were
Sec. 7 of Rep. Act 9155 on the after him, A handed a sachet containing
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs of 2002 shabu to his fianc B, telling her to hide it in
punishes employees and visitors of a den, her handbag. The policemen saw B placing
dive or resort where dangerous drugs are the sachet inside her handbag.
used in any form. But for a visitor of such
place to commit the crime, it is a requisite If B was unaware that A was a drug user or
that he is aware of the nature of the place pusher or that what was inside the sachet
as such and shall knowingly visit the same. given to her was shabu, is she nonetheless
These requisites are absent in the facts given. liable under the Dangerous Drugs Act?

No, B will not be criminally liable because she
ENTRAPMENT AND INSTIGATION; is unaware that A was a drug user or pusher
DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT or of the content of the sachet handed to her
by A, and therefore the criminal intent to
At about 9 o'clock in the morning, a Narcom possess the drug in violation of the
Group laid a plan to entrap and apprehend Dangerous Drugs Act is absent. There would
X, a long suspected drug dealer, through a be no basis to impute criminal liability to her
"buy-bust" operation. At the appointed time, in the absence of animus possidendi.
the poseur-buyer approached X, who was
then with Y. A marked P100 bill was handed
over to X who in turn, gave the poseur-buyer
one (1) tea bag of marijuana leaves. The
members of the team, who were then Following his arrest after a valid buy-bust
positioned behind thick leaves, closed in but operation, Tommy was convicted of violation
evidently were not swift enough since X and of Section 5, Republic Act 9165. On appeal,
Y were able to run away. Two days later, X Tommy questioned the admissibility of the

41 San Beda College Alabang School of Law

2017 Centralized Bar Operations
evidence because the police officers who hand grenade. After verification, the
conducted the buy-bust operation failed to authorities discovered that A was not a
observe the requisite "chain of custody" of licensed holder of the .38 caliber paltik
the evidence confiscated and/or seized from revolver. As for the hand grenade, it was
him. What is the "chain of custody" established that only military personnel are
requirement in drug offenses? What is its authorized to carry hand grenades.
Subsequently, A was charged with the crime
rationale? What is the effect of failure to
of Illegal Possession of Firearms and
observe the requirement?
Ammunition. During trial, A maintained that
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the bag containing the unlicensed firearm
Chain of Custody requirement in drug and hand grenade belonged to his friend,
and that he was not in actual possession
offense refers to the duly recorded,
thereof at the time he was arrested.
authorized movement and custody of seized
dangerous drugs, controlled chemicals, Are the allegations meritorious? Explain.
plant sources of dangerous drugs, and
laboratory equipment of dangerous drugs
A's allegations are not meritorious. Ownership
from the time confiscation/seizure thereof
is not an essential element of the crime of
from the offender, to its turn-over and receipt
illegal possession of firearms and
in the forensic laboratory for examination to ammunition. What the law requires is merely
its safekeeping and eventual possession, which includes not only actual
presentation/offer in court as evidence of physical possession but also constructive
the criminal violation, and for destruction possession where the firearm and explosive
(Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1 are subject to one's control and
Series of 2002). Its rationale is to preserve the management. (People us. De Grecia, 233
authenticity of the corpus delicti or body of SCRA 716; U.S. vs. Juan, 23 Phil. 105: People
the crime by rendering it improbable that the vs. Soyag, 110 Phil. 565).
original item seized/confiscated in violation
has been exchanged or substituted with
another or tampered with or contaminated. R.A. 9344 JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE
It is a method of authenticating the evidence ACT
as would support a finding beyond
reasonable doubt that the matter is what the INTERVENTION VS. DIVERSION
prosecution claims to be. Failure to observe
Joe was 17 years old when he committed
the chain of custody requirement renders
homicide in 2005. The crime is punishable by
the evidence questionable, not trustworthy
reclusion temporal. After two years in hiding,
and insufficient to prove the corpus delicti
he was arrested and appropriately charged
beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, Tommy
in May 2007. Since Republic Act 9344
would be acquitted on reasonable doubt.
(Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006)
was already in effect, Joe moved to avail of
the process of intervention or diversion. What
COMPREHENSIVE LAW ON FIREARMS AND is intervention or diversion? Is Joe entitled to
intervention or diversion? Explain.
A has long been wanted by the police
authorities for various crimes committed by
him. Acting on information by a tipster, the The two terms are different. Intervention
police proceeded to an apartment where A refers to a series of activities which are
was often seen. The tipster also warned the designed to address issues that caused the
policemen that A was always armed. At the child to commit an offense. It may take the
given address, a lady who introduced herself form of an individualized treatment program
as the elder sister of A, opened the door and which may include counseling, skills training,
let the policemen in inside, the team found A education, and other activities that will
sleeping on the floor. Immediately beside enhance his/her psychological, emotional
him was a clutch bag which, when opened, and psycho-social well-being. This is
contained a .38 caliber paltik revolver and a available to a child 15 years old or less at the

42 San Beda College Alabang School of Law

2017 Centralized Bar Operations
time of the commission or although over 15
but below 18 years old at the time of
commission of the crime, the child acted
without discernment. Diversion refers to an
alternative, child-appropriate process of
determining the responsibility and treatment
of a child in conflict with the law on the basis
of his/her social, cultural, economic,
psychological or educational background
without resorting to formal court
proceedings. This process governs when the
child is over 15 years old but below 18 at the
time of the commission of the crime and has
acted with discernment. Yes, Joe is entitled
to diversion. Being only 12 years old at the
time he committed the crime of homicide,
he is treated as a child in conflict with the law
under RA 9344.


A was charged with homicide. After trial, he

was found guilty and sentenced to 6 years
and 1 day in prision mayor, as minimum, to
12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal, as
maximum. Prior to his conviction, he had
been found guilty of vagrancy and
imprisoned for 10 days of arresto manor and
fined P50.00. Is he eligible for probation?

No. The benefits of the Probation Law (PD
968, as amended) do not extend to those
sentenced to serve a maximum term of
imprisonment of more than six years (Sec.
9a). It is of no moment that in his previous
conviction A was given a penalty of only ten
(10) days of arresto mayor and a fine of

43 San Beda College Alabang School of Law

2017 Centralized Bar Operations