You are on page 1of 101

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)

Source: UP Suggested Answers

GENERAL PRINCIPLES 2. We follow the classical school of thought


although some provisions of eminently
GENERAL PRINCIPLES; SCHOOLS OF
positivist in tendencies, like punishment of
THOUGHT IN CRIMINAL LAW (1996)

impossible crime, Juvenile circumstances,

1) What are the different schools of thought or are incorporated in our Code. 


theories in Criminal Law and describe each briefly.


GENERAL PRINCIPLES; TERRITORIALITY (1994)

2) To what theory does our Revised Penal Code


Abe, married to Liza, contracted another marriage
belong?
with Connie in Singapore. Thereafter, Abe and

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Connie returned to the Philippines and lived as


husband and wife in the hometown of Abe in
1. There are two schools of thought in Criminal Law,
Calamba, Laguna.
and these are
1) Can Abe be prosecuted for bigamy?
(a) the CLASSICAL THEORY, which simply
means that the basis of criminal liabilities is SUGGESTED ANSWER:

human free will, and the purpose of the


1) No, Abe may not be prosecuted for bigamy since
penalty is retribution which must be
the bigamous marriage was contracted or
proportional to the gravity of the offense;
solemnized in Singapore, hence such violation is
and
not one of those where the Revised Penal Code,

(b) the POSITIVIST THEORY, which under Art. 2 thereof, may be applied

considers man as a social being and his acts extraterritorially. The general rule on territoriality

are attributable not just to his will but to of criminal law governs the situation.

other forces of society. As such, punishment


GENERAL PRINCIPLES; TERRITORIALITY;
is not the solution, as he is not entirely to be
JURISDICTION OVER VESSEL (2000)

blamed; law and jurisprudence should not
be the yardstick in the imposition of After drinking one (1) case of San Miguel beer and

sanction, instead the underlying reasons taking two plates of "pulutan", Binoy, a Filipino

would be inquired into. 
 seaman, stabbed to death Sio My, a Singaporean

Prepared by: LJC 1


CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

seaman, aboard M/V "Princess of the Pacific", an SUGGESTED ANSWER:


overseas vessel which was sailing in the South
1. Pseudonym for literary purposes. 

China Sea. The vessel, although Panamanian
2. Use of aliases in cinema and television
registered, is owned by Lucio Sy, a rich Filipino
entertainment. 

businessman. When M/V "Princess of the Pacific"
3. In athletics and sports activities (RA. 6085).
reached a Philippine Port at Cebu City, the Captain

of the vessel turned over the assailant Binoy to the
4. Under the witness protection program a
Philippine authorities. An information for homicide
person may 
adopt a different identity (RA.
was filed against Binoy in the Regional Trial Court
6981). 

of Cebu City. He moved to quash the information
5. When he has been baptized or customarily
for lack of jurisdiction. If you were the Judge, will
known 
by such alias. 

you grant the motion? Why? (5%)

6. When authorized by a competent court (CA.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. 
142, as amended by RA. 6085). 

7. When properly indicated in a Certificate of
Yes, the Motion to Quash the Information should be

Candidacy (Omnibus Election Code). 

granted. The Philippine court has no jurisdiction
over the crime committed since it was committed EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE (2013)
on the high seas or outside of Philippine territory
Assume that you are a member of the legal staff of
and on board a vessel not registered or licensed in
Senator Salcedo who wants to file a bill about
the Philippines (US vs. Fowler, 1 Phil 614)
imprisonment at the National Penitentiary in
It is the registration of the vessel in accordance with Muntinlupa. He wants to make the State prison
the laws of the Philippines, not the citizenship of her revenue
owner, which makes it a Philippine ship. The vessel
earner for the country through a law providing for
being registered in Panama, the laws of Panama
premium accommodations for prisoners (other
govern while it is in the high seas.
than those under maximum security status) whose
USE OF ALIASES; WHEN ALLOWED (2006) wives are allowed conjugal weekend visits, and for
those who want long-term premium
When can a Filipino citizen residing in this country
accommodations.
use an alias legally? Give 3 instances. (2.5%)

Prepared by: LJC 2
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

For conjugal weekenders, he plans to rent out


rooms with hotel-like amenities at rates equivalent
GENERAL PRINCIPLES; TERRITORIALITY (2008)
to those charged by 4-star hotels; for long-term
occupants, he is prepared to offer room and board No. VI. Hubert and Eunice were married in the
with special meals in air conditioned single- Philippines. Hubert took graduate studies in New
occupancy rooms, at rates equivalent to those York and met his former girlfriend Eula. They
charged by 3-star hotels. renewed their friendship and finally decided to get
married. The first wife, Eunice, heard about the
What advice will you give the Senator from the
marriage and secures a copy of the marriage
point of view of criminal law, taking into account
contract in New York. Eunice filed a case of Bigamy
the purpose of imprisonment (7%) and
against Hubert in the Philippines.
considerations of ethics and morality (3%)? (10%
total points)
(a) Will the case prosper? Explain. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I would advice Senator Salcedo to forgo and
permanently abandon his proposed bill, as it will No, because the Philippine Courts have no
result in economic inequality in the field of criminal jurisdiction over a crime committed outside of the
justice. The bill runs afoul with the equal protection Philippine territory. Under the principle of
clause of the 1987 Constitution. The equal territoriality, penal laws, specifically the RPC, are
protection clause in the Constitution does not enforceable only within the bounds of our territory
merely bar the creation of inequalities but (Art. 2, RPC).
commands as well the elimination of existing
(b) If Eunice gave her consent to the second
inequalities.
marriage, what will your answer be? Explain.
Additionally, the purpose of imposing penalties, (3%)
which is to secure justice, retribution and
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
reformation, will be defeated and put to naught if
the bill‟s program/scheme should eventually The answer will be the same. The consent of Eunice
become a law. would not confer jurisdiction on Philippine Courts.
Prepared by: LJC 3
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

taxicab for the purpose. About 20 meters from their


destination, the group alighted and after
GENERAL PRINCIPLES; CONSTITUTIONAL
instructing E, the driver, to wait, traveled on foot to
PROVISION LIMITING THE POWER OF
the house of F. B positioned himself at a distance as
CONGRESS TO ENACT PENAL LAWS (2012)
the group's lookout. C and D stood guard outside

What are the constitutional provisions limiting the the house. Before A could enter the house, D left

power of Congress to enact penal laws? (5%) the scene without the knowledge of the others. A
stealthily entered the house and stabbed F. F ran to
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the street but was blocked by C, forcing him to flee

The constitutional provision limiting the power of towards another direction. Immediately after A had

Congress to enact penal laws are the following: stabbed F, A also stabbed G who was visiting F.
Thereafter, A exiled from the house and, together
1. The law must not be an ex post facto law or with B and C, returned to the waiting taxicab and
it should not be given a retroactive effect. motored away. G died. F survived.

2. The law must not be a bill of attainder, Who are liable for the death of G and the physical

meaning it cannot provide punishment injuries of F?


without judicial proceedings. 



SUGGESTED ANSWER:

2. The law must not impose cruel, unusual or


A alone should be held liable for the death of G. The
degrading punishment. 

object of the conspiracy of A, B, C, and D was to kill
F only. Since B, C, and D did not know of the
No person shall be held to answer for a criminal
stabbing of G by A, they cannot be held criminally
offense without due process of law.
therefor. E, the driver, cannot be also held liable for
FELONIES 
 the death of G since the former was completely
unaware of said killing.
CONSPIRACY (1997)
For the physical injuries of F, A, B and C. should be
A had a grudge against F. Deciding to kill F, A and
held liable therefore. Even if it was only A who
his friends, B, C, and D, armed themselves with
actually stabbed and caused physical injuries to G,
knives and proceeded to the house of F, taking a
Prepared by: LJC 4
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

B and C are nonetheless liable for conspiring with A and CC, he merely avoided a greater evil.
and for contributing positive acts which led to the
Will AA's defense prosper? Reason briefly. (5%)
realization of a common criminal intent. B
positioned himself as a lookout, while C blocked F's SUGGESTED ANSWER:
escape. D, however, although part of the
No, AA's defense will not prosper because obviously
conspiracy, cannot be held liable because he left the
there was a conspiracy among BB, CC and AA, such
scene before A could enter the house where the
that the principle that when there is a conspiracy,
stabbing occurred. Although he was earlier part of
the act of one is the act of all, shall govern. The act
the conspiracy, he did not personally participate in
of ST, the victim's son, appears to be a legitimate
the execution of the crime by acts which directly
defense of relatives; hence, justified as a defense of
tended toward the same end (People vs. Tomoro, et
his father against the unlawful aggression by BB
al 44 Phil. 38),
and CC. ST's act to defend his father's life, cannot
In the same breath, E, the driver, cannot be also be regarded as an evil inasmuch as it is, in the eyes
held liable for the infliction of physical injuries upon of the law, a lawful act.
F because there is no showing that he had
What AA did was to stop a lawful defense, not
knowledge of the plan to kill F.
greater evil, to allow BB and CC achieve their
CONSPIRACY; AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL criminal objective of stabbing FT.
(2004)
CONSPIRACY; CO-CONSPIRATOR (1998)
BB and CC, both armed with knives, attacked FT.
Juan and Arturo devised a plan to murder Joel. In a
The victim's son, ST, upon seeing the attack, drew
narrow alley near Joel's house, Juan will hide behind
his gun but was prevented from shooting the
the big lamppost and shoot Joel when the latter
attackers by AA, who grappled with him for
passes through on his way to work. Arturo will come
possession of the gun. FT died from knife wounds.
from the other end of the alley and simultaneously
AA, BB and CC were charged with murder.
shoot Joel from behind. On the appointed day,
In his defense, AA invoked the justifying Arturo was apprehended by the authorities before
circumstance of avoidance of greater evil or injury, reaching the alley. When Juan shot Joel as planned,
contending that by preventing ST from shooting BB he was unaware that Arturo was arrested earlier.
Prepared by: LJC 5
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

Discuss the criminal liability of Arturo, if any. [5%] CONSPIRACY; COMMON FELONIOUS
PURPOSE (1994)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
At about 9:30 in the evening, while Dino and Raffy
Arturo, being one of the two who devised the plan
were walking along Padre Faura Street, Manila.
to murder Joel, thereby becomes a co-principal by
Johnny hit them with a rock injuring Dino at the
direct conspiracy. What is needed only is an overt
back. Raffy approached Dino, but suddenly, Bobby,
act and both will incur criminal liability. Arturo's
Steve, Danny and Nonoy surrounded the duo. Then
liability as a conspirator arose from his participation
Bobby stabbed Dino. Steve, Danny, Nonoy and
in jointly devising the criminal plan with Juan, to kill
Johnny kept on hitting Dino and Raffy with rocks.
Jose. And it was pursuant to that conspiracy that
As a result. Dino died, Bobby, Steve, Danny, Nonoy
Juan killed Joel. The conspiracy here is actual, not
and Johnny were charged with homicide.
by inference only. The overt act was done pursuant
to that conspiracy whereof Arturo is co-conspirator. Is there conspiracy in this case?
There being a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
all. Arturo, therefore, should be liable as a co-
conspirator but the penalty on him may be that of Yes, there is conspiracy among the offenders, as
an accomplice only (People vs. Nierra, 96 SCRA 1; manifested by their concerted actions against the
People us. Medrano, 114 SCRA 335) because he was victims, demonstrating a common felonious
not able to actually participate in the shooting of purpose of assaulting the victims. The existence of
Joel, having been apprehended before reaching the the conspiracy can be inferred or deduced from the
place where the crime was committed. manner the offenders acted in commonly attacking
Dino and Raffy with rocks, thereby demonstrating a
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
unity of criminal design to inflict harm on their
Arturo is not liable because he was not able to victims.
participate in the killing of Joel. Conspiracy itself is
CONSPIRACY; COMPLEX CRIME WITH RAPE
not punishable unless expressly provided by law
(1996)
and this is not true in the case of Murder. A co-
conspirator must perform an overt act pursuant to Jose, Domingo, Manolo, and Fernando, armed with
the conspiracy. bolos, at about one o'clock in the morning, robbed
Prepared by: LJC 6
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

a house at a desolate place where Danilo, his wife, the special complex crime. (People vs. Canturia et.
and three daughters were living. While the four al, G.R. 108490, 22 June 1995}
were in the process of ransacking Danilo's house,
b) The crime would be Robbery with Homicide
Fernando, noticing that one of Danilo's daughters
(implied: there is still conspiracy)
was trying to get away, ran after her and finally
caught up with her in a thicket somewhat distant CONSPIRACY; FLIGHT TO EVADE
from the house. Fernando, before bringing back the APPREHENSION (2003)
daughter to the house, raped her first. Thereafter,
A and B, both store janitors, planned to kill their
the four carted away the belongings of Danilo and
employer C at midnight and take the money kept in
his family.
the cash register. A and B together drew the sketch
a) What crime did Jose, Domingo, Manolo and of the store, where they knew C would be sleeping,
Fernando commit? Explain. and planned the sequence of their attack. Shortly
before midnight, A and B were ready to carry out
b) Suppose, after the robbery, the four took turns in
the plan. When A was about to lift C's mosquito net
raping the three daughters of Danilo inside the
to thrust his dagger, a police car with sirens blaring
latter's house, but before they left, they killed the
passed by. Scared, B ran out of the store and fled,
whole family to prevent identification, what crime
while A went on to stab C to death, put the money
did the four commit? Explain.
in the bag, and ran outside to look for B. The latter
SUGGESTED ANSWER: was nowhere in sight. Unknown to him, B had
already left the place. What was the participation
(a) Jose, Domingo, and Manolo committed
and corresponding criminal liability of each, if any?
Robbery, while Fernando committed complex
Reasons. 8%
crime of Robbery with Rape, Conspiracy can be
inferred from the manner the offenders committed SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the robbery but the rape was committed by
There was an expressed conspiracy between A and
Fernando at a place "distant from the house" where
B to kill C and take the latter's money. The planned
the robbery was committed, not in the presence of
killing and taking of the money appears to be
the other conspirators. Hence, Fernando alone
intimately related as component crimes, hence a
should answer for the rape, rendering him liable for
special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
Prepared by: LJC 7
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

The conspiracy being expressed, not just implied, A good motive. It is enough that the discontinuance
and B are bound as co-conspirators after they have comes from the person who has begun the
planned and agreed on the sequence of their attack commission of the crime but before all acts of
even before they committed the crime. Therefore, execution are performed. A person who has began
the principle in law that when there is a conspiracy, the commission of a crime but desisted, is absolved
the act of one is the act of all, already governs them. from criminal liability as a reward to one, who
In fact, A and B were already in the store to carry out having set foot on the verge of crime, heeds the call
their criminal plan. of his conscience and returns to the path of
righteousness.
That B ran out of the store and fled upon hearing
the sirens of the police car, is not spontaneous CONSPIRACY; FLIGHT TO EVADE
desistance but flight to evade apprehension. It APPREHENSION (2003)
would be different if B then tried to stop A from
A and B, both store janitors, planned to kill their
continuing with the commission of the crime; he did
employer C at midnight and take the money kept in
not. So the act of A in pursuing the commission of
the cash register. A and B together drew the sketch
the crime which both he and B designed, planned,
of the store, where they knew C would be sleeping,
and commenced to commit, would also be the act
and planned the sequence of their attack. Shortly
of B because of their expressed conspiracy. Both are
before midnight, A and B were ready to carry out
liable for the composite crime of robbery with
the plan. When A was about to lift C's mosquito net
homicide.
to thrust his dagger, a police car with sirens blaring
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: passed by. Scared, B ran out of the store and fled,
while A went on to stab C to death, put the money
A shall incur full criminal liability for the crime of
in the bag, and ran outside to look for B. The latter
robbery with homicide, but B shall not incur
was nowhere in sight. Unknown to him, B had
criminal liability because he desisted. B's
already left the place. What was the participation
spontaneous desistance, made before all acts of
and corresponding criminal liability of each, if any?
execution are performed, is exculpatory.
Reasons. 8%
Conspiracy to rob and kill is not per se punishable.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The desistance need not be actuated by remorse or

Prepared by: LJC 8


CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

There was an expressed conspiracy between A and spontaneous desistance, made before all acts of
B to kill C and take the latter's money. The planned execution are performed, is exculpatory.
killing and taking of the money appears to be Conspiracy to rob and kill is not per se punishable.
intimately related as component crimes, hence a
The desistance need not be actuated by remorse or
special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
good motive. It is enough that the discontinuance
The conspiracy being expressed, not just implied, A
comes from the person who has begun the
and B are bound as co-conspirators after they have
commission of the crime but before all acts of
planned and agreed on the sequence of their attack
execution are performed. A person who has began
even before they committed the crime. Therefore,
the commission of a crime but desisted, is absolved
the principle in law that when there is a conspiracy,
from criminal liability as a reward to one, who
the act of one is the act of all, already governs them.
having set foot on the verge of crime, heeds the call
In fact, A and B were already in the store to carry out
of his conscience and returns to the path of
their criminal plan.
righteousness.
That B ran out of the store and fled upon hearing
CONSPIRACY; IMPLIED CONSPIRACY (1998)
the sirens of the police car, is not spontaneous
desistance but flight to evade apprehension. It What is the doctrine of implied conspiracy? [3%]
would be different if B then tried to stop A from
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
continuing with the commission of the crime; he did
not. So the act of A in pursuing the commission of The doctrine of implied conspiracy holds two or
the crime which both he and B designed, planned, more persons participating in the commission of a
and commenced to commit, would also be the act crime collectively responsible and liable as co-
of B because of their expressed conspiracy. Both are conspirators although absent any agreement to
liable for the composite crime of robbery with that effect, when they act in concert,
homicide. demonstrating unity of criminal intent and a
common purpose or objective. The existence of a
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
conspiracy shall be inferred or deduced from their
A shall incur full criminal liability for the crime of criminal participation in pursuing the crime and
robbery with homicide, but B shall not incur thus the act of one shall be deemed the act of all.
criminal liability because he desisted. B's
Prepared by: LJC 9
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

CONSPIRACY; IMPLIED CONSPIRACY; EFFECTS CRIMINAL LIABILITY: DESTRUCTIVE ARSON


(2003) (2000)

State the concept of "implied conspiracy" and give A, B, C and D, all armed with armalites, proceeded
its legal effects. 4%
 to the house of X. Y, a neighbor of X, who happened
to be passing by, pointed to the four culprits the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

room that X occupied. The four culprits peppered

An "IMPLIED CONSPIRACY" is one which is only the room with bullets. Unsatisfied, A even threw a

inferred or deduced from the manner the hand grenade that totally destroyed X's room.

participants in the commission of crime carried out However, unknown to the four culprits, X was not

its execution. Where the offenders acted in concert inside the room and nobody was hit or injured

in the commission of the crime, meaning that their during the Incident. Are A, B, C and D liable for any

acts are coordinated or synchronized in a way crime? Explain. (3%)

indicative that they are pursuing a common


SUGGESTED ANSWER:
criminal objective, they shall be deemed to be
acting in conspiracy and their criminal liability shall Yes. A, B. C and D are liable for destructive arson
be collective, not individual. because of the destruction of the room of X with the
use of an explosive, the hand grenade. Liability for
The legal effects of an "implied conspiracy" are:
an impossible crime is to be imposed only if the act

a) Not all those who are present at the scene of the committed would not constitute any other crime

crime will be considered conspirators; 
 under the Revised Penal Code. Although the facts
involved are parallel to the case of Intod vs. Court of
b) Only those who participated by criminal acts in
Appeals (215 SCRA 52), where it was ruled that the
the 
commission of the crime will be considered as
liability of the offender was for an impossible crime,
co- 
conspirators; and 

no hand grenade was used in said case, which

c) Mere acquiescence to or approval of the constitutes a more serious crime though different

commission 
of the crime, without any act of from what was intended,

criminal participation, shall not render one


CRIMINAL LIABILITY: FELONIOUS ACT OF
criminally liable as co-conspirator. 

SCARING (1996)

Prepared by: LJC 10


CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

Alexander, an escaped convict, ran amuck on board a two- inch wound on his right palm. Vicente was
a Superlines Bus bound for Manila from Bicol and not able to hack Anacleto further because three
killed ten (10) persons. Terrified by the incident, policemen arrived and threatened to shoot Vicente
Carol and Benjamin who are passengers of the bus, if he did not drop his bolo. Vicente was accordingly
jumped out of the window and while lying charged by the police at the prosecutor's office for
unconscious after hitting the pavement of the road, attempted homicide. Twenty- five days later, while
were ran over and crushed to death by a fast moving the preliminary investigation was in progress,
Desert Fox bus tailing the Superlines Bus. Anacleto was rushed to the hospital because of
symptoms of tetanus infection on the two-inch
Can Alexander be held liable for the death of Carol
wound inflicted by Vicente. Anacleto died the
and Benjamin although he was completely unaware
following day.
that the two jumped out of the bus? Explain.

Can Vicente be eventually charged with homicide
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
for the death of Anacleto? Explain.


Yes, Alexander can be held liable for the death of


SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Carol and Benjamin because of felonious act of
running was the proximate cause of the victim's Yes, Vicente may be charged of homicide for the
death. The rule is that when a person, by a felonious death of Anacleto, unless the tetanus infection
act, generates in the mind of another a sense of which developed twenty five days later, was
imminent danger, prompting the latter to escape brought about by an efficient supervening cause.
from or avoid such danger and in the process, Vicente's felonious act of causing a two-inch wound
sustains injuries or dies, the person committing the on Anacleto's right palm may still be regarded as
felonious act is responsible for such injuries or the proximate cause of the latter's death because
death. (US vs. Valdez, 41 Phil, 1497; People vs. Apra, without such wound, no tetanus infection could
27 SCRA 1037.) develop from the victim's right palm, and without
such tetanus infection the victim would not have
CRIMINAL LIABILITY: FELONIOUS ACT;
died with it.
PROXIMATE CAUSE (1996)
CRIMINAL LIABILITY: IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
Vicente hacked Anacleto with a bolo but the latter
(2000)
was able to parry it with his hand, causing upon him
Prepared by: LJC 11
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

a. What is an impossible crime? (2%)
b. Is an opening his backpack and seeing the snake. Cesar
impossible crime really a crime? (2%) died without regaining consciousness. The police
investigation resulted in pinpointing Felipe as the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
culprit and he was charged with Homicide for

An impossible crime is an act which would be an Cesar's death. In his defense, Felipe claimed that he


offense against person or property, were if not for did not know about Cesar's weak heart and that he

the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or only intended to play a practical joke on Cesar.

on account of the employment of inadequate or


Is Felipe liable for the death of Cesar or will his
ineffectual means (Art. 4, par. 2, RPC) 

defense prosper? Why? (5%}


No, an impossible crime is not really a crime. It is


SUGGESTED ANSWER:

only so-called because the act gives rise to criminal
liability. But actually, no felony is committed. The Yes, Felipe is liable for the death of Cesar but he
accused is to be punished for his criminal tendency shall be given the benefit of the mitigating
or propensity although no crime was committed. 
 circumstance that he did not intend to commit so
grave a wrong as that which was committed (Art.
CRIMINAL LIABILITY; FELONIOUS ACT OF
13, par. 3, RPC).
SCARING (2001)
When Felipe intruded into Cesar's room without the
Maryjane had two suitors - Felipe and Cesar. She
latter's consent and took liberty with the letter's
did not openly show her preference but on two
backpack where he placed the rubber snake. Felipe
occasions, accepted Cesar's invitation to concerts
was already committing a felony. And any act done
by Regine and Pops. Felipe was a working student
by him while committing a felony is no less
and could only ask Mary to see a movie which was
wrongful, considering that they were part of "plans
declined. Felipe felt insulted and made plans to get
to get even with Cesar".
even with Cesar by scaring him off somehow. One
day, he entered Cesar's room in their boarding Felipe's claim that he intended only "to play a

house and placed a rubber snake which appeared to practical joke on Cesar" does not persuade,

be real in Cesar's backpack. Because Cesar had a considering that they are not friends but in fact

weak heart, he suffered a heart attack upon rivals in courting Maryjane. This case is parallel to
the case of People vs. Pugay, et al.
Prepared by: LJC 12
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Code, provides in part that criminal liability shall be


incurred by any person committing a felony
No, Felipe is not liable because the act of
although the wrongful act done be different from
frightening another is not a crime. What he did may
that which he intended. In other words, the rule is
be wrong, but not all wrongs amount to a crime.
that when a person, by a felonious act, generates in
Because the act which caused the death of Cesar is
the mind of another a sense of imminent danger,
not a crime, no criminal liability may arise
prompting the latter to escape from or avoid such
therefrom.
danger and in the process, sustains injuries or dies,

CRIMINAL LIABILITY; FELONIOUS ACT OF the person committing the felonious act is

SCARING (2005) responsible for such injuries or death. (US vs.


Valdez, 41 Phil, 1497; People vs. Apra, 27 SCRA
Belle saw Gaston stealing the prized cock of a
1037.)

neighbor and reported him to the police.
Thereafter, Gaston, while driving a car saw Belle ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:


crossing the street. Incensed that Belle had


Yes, Gaston is liable for Belle's death because by his
reported him, Gaston decided to scare her by trying
acts of revving the engine of his car and driving
to make it appear that he was about to run her over.
towards Belle is felonious, and such felonious act
He revved the engine of his car and drove towards
was the proximate cause of the vehicle to skid and
her but he applied the brakes. Since the road was
hit Belle, resulting in the latter's death. Stated
slippery at that time, the vehicle skidded and hit
otherwise, the death of Belle was the direct, natural
Belle causing her death.
and logical consequence of Gaston's felonious act.

Was Gaston criminally liable?
What is the liability (People v. Arpa, 27 SCRA 1037).

of Gaston? Why? (4%)



CRIMINAL LIABILITY; FELONIOUS ACT;

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
 IMMEDIATE CAUSE (2003)


Yes, Gaston is liable for Belle's death because even The conduct of wife A aroused the ire of her

though Gaston has no intent to kill Belle rather just husband B. Incensed with anger almost beyond his

to scare Belle. "To scare" does not indicate intent to control, B could not help but inflict physical injuries
kill. However, under Art. 4 of the Revised Penal on A. Moments after B started hitting A with his

Prepared by: LJC 13


CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

fists, A suddenly complained of severe chest pains. PROXIMATE CAUSE (1994)


B, realizing that A was indeed in serious trouble,
Bhey eloped with Scott. Whereupon, Bhey's father,
immediately brought her to the hospital. Despite
Robin, and brother, Rustom, went to Scott's house.
efforts to alleviate A's pains, she died of heart
Upon reaching the house, Rustom inquired from
attack. It turned out that she had been suffering
Scott about his sister's whereabouts, while Robin
from a lingering heart ailment. What crime, if any,
shouted and threatened to kill Scott. The latter
could B be held guilty of? 8%

then went downstairs but Rustom held his (Scott's)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
 waist. Meanwhile Olive, the elder sister of Scott,
carrying her two-month old child, approached
B could be held liable for parricide because his act
Rustom and Scott to pacify them. Olive attempted
of hitting his wife with fist blows and therewith
to remove Rustom's hand from Scott's waist. But
inflicting physical injuries on her, is felonious. A
Rustom pulled Olive's hand causing her to fall over
person committing a felonious act incurs criminal
her baby. The baby then died moments later.
liability although the wrongful consequence is
different from what he intended (Art. 4, par. 1, Is Rustom criminally liable for the death of the
Revised Penal Code). child?

Although A died of heart attack, the said attack was SUGGESTED ANSWER:
generated by B's felonious act of hitting her with his
Yes, Rustom is criminally liable for the death of the
fists. Such felonious act was the immediate cause of
child because his felonious act was the proximate
the heart attack, having materially contributed to
cause of such death. It was Rustom's act of pulling
and hastened A's death. Even though B may have
Olive's hand which caused the latter to fall on her
acted without intent to kill his wife, lack of such
baby. Had It not been for said act of Rustom, which
intent is of no moment when the victim dies.
is undoubtedly felonious (at least slight coercion)
However, B may be given the mitigating
there was no cause for Olive to fall over her baby. In
circumstance of having acted without intention to
short, Rustom's felonious act is the cause of the evil
commit so grave a wrong as that committed (Art.
caused. Any person performing a felonious act is
13, par. 3, Revised Penal Code).
criminally liable for the direct, natural and logical
CRIMINAL LIABILITY; FELONIOUS ACT; consequence thereof although different from what

Prepared by: LJC 14


CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

he intended (Art. 4, par. 1, RFC; People vs, Pugay, et because he did not know how to swim, he drowned,
al, GR No. 74324, Nov. 18, 1988). the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for
homicide of the accused because, if a person
CRIMINAL LIABILITY; FELONIOUS ACT;
against whom a criminal assault is directed believes
PROXIMATE CAUSE (1997)
himself to be in danger of death or great bodily

While the crew of a steamer prepared to raise harm and in order to escape jumps into the water,

anchor at the Pasig River, A, evidently impatient impelled by the instinct of self-preservation, the

with the progress of work, began to use abusive assailant is responsible for the homicide in case

language against the men. B, one of the members death results by drowning.

of the crew, remonstrated saying that they could


CRIMINAL LIABILITY; FELONIOUS ACT;
work best if they were not insulted. A took B's
PROXIMATE CAUSE (1999)
attitude as a display of insubordination and, rising
in a rage, moved towards B wielding a big knife and During the robbery in a dwelling house, one of the
threatening to stab B. At the instant when A was culprits happened to fire his gun upward in the
only a few feet from B, the latter, apparently ceiling without meaning to kill anyone. The owner
believing himself to be in great and immediate peril, of the house who was hiding thereat was hit and
threw himself into the water, disappeared beneath killed as a result.
the surface, and drowned.
The defense theorized that the killing was a mere
May A be held criminally liable for the death of B? accident and was not perpetrated in connection
with, or for purposes of, the robbery.
Will you
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
sustain the defense? Why? (4%)

Yes. A can be held criminally liable for the death of


SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B, Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code provides in
part that criminal liability shall be incurred by any No, I will not sustain the defense. The act being
person committing a felony although the wrongful felonious and the proximate cause of the victim's
act done be different from that which he intended. death, the offender is liable therefore although it
In U.S. vs. Valdez 41 Phil. 497. where the victim who may not be intended or different from what he
was threatened by the accused with a knife, jumped intended.
into the river but because of the strong current or
Prepared by: LJC 15
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

The offender shall be prosecuted for the composite who jumped out of the moving train? State your
crime of robbery with homicide, whether the killing reasons. (5%)
was intentional or accidental, as long as the killing
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

was on occasion of the robbery.

Yes, Luis is liable for their deaths because he was


CRIMINAL LIABILITY; FELONIOUS ACT;
committing a felony when he started stabbing at
PROXIMATE CAUSE (2001)
the passengers and such wrongful act was the
Luis Cruz was deeply hurt when his offer of love was proximate cause of said passengers' jumping out of
rejected by his girlfriend Marivella one afternoon the train; hence their deaths.
when he visited her. When he left her house, he
Under Article 4, Revised Penal Code, any person
walked as if he was sleepwalking so much so that a
committing a felony shall incur criminal liability
teenage snatcher was able to grab his cell phone
although the wrongful act done be different from
and flee without being chased by Luis. At the next
that which he intended. In this case, the death of
LRT station, he boarded one of the coaches bound
the three passengers was the direct, natural and
for Baclaran. While seated, he happened to read a
logical consequence of Luis' felonious act which
newspaper left on the seat and noticed that the
created an immediate sense of danger in the minds
headlines were about the sinking of the Super Ferry
of said passengers who tried to avoid or escape
while on its way to Cebu. He went over the list of
from it by jumping out of the train. (People vs. Arpa,
missing passengers who were presumed dead and
27 SCRA 1O37; U.S. vs. Valdez, 41 Phil. 497}
came across the name of his grandfather who had
raised him from childhood after he was orphaned. CRIMINAL LIABILITY; FELONIOUS ACT;
He was shocked and his mind went blank for a few PROXIMATE CAUSE (2004)
minutes, after which he ran amuck and, using his
On his way home from office, ZZ rode in a jeepney.
balisong, started stabbing at the passengers who
Subsequently, XX boarded the same jeepney. Upon
then scampered away, with three of them Jumping
reaching a secluded spot in QC, XX pulled out a
out of the train and landing on the road below. All
grenade from his bag and announced a hold-up. He
the three passengers died later of their injuries at
told ZZ to surrender his watch, wallet and
the hospital.
cellphone. Fearing for his life, ZZ jumped out of the
Is Luis liable for the death of the three passengers vehicle. But as he fell, his head hit the pavement,
Prepared by: LJC 16
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

causing his instant death . Is XX liable for ZZ's by any person performing an act which would be an
death? Explain briefly. (5%) offense against persons or property, were it not for
the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
on account of the employment of inadequate or

Yes, XX is liable for ZZ's death because his acts of ineffectual means (Art. 4, par. 2, RFC).

pulling out a grenade and announcing a hold-up,


In the problem given, the impossibility of
coupled with a demand for the watch, wallet and
accomplishing the crime of murder, a crime against
cellphone of ZZ is felonious, and such felonious act
persons, was due to the employment of ineffectual
was the proximate cause of ZZ's jumping out of the
means which OZ thought was poison. The law
jeepney, resulting in the latter's death. Stated
imputes criminal liability to the offender although
otherwise, the death of ZZ was the direct, natural
no crime resulted, only to suppress his criminal
and logical consequence of XX's felonious act which
propensity because subjectively, he is a criminal
created an immediate sense of danger in the mind
though objectively, no crime was committed.
of ZZ who tried to avoid such danger by jumping
out of the jeepney (People v. Arpa, 27 SCRA 1037). CRIMINAL LIABILITY; IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
(1994)
CRIMINAL LIABILITY; IMPOSSIBLE CRIME (2004)
JP, Aries and Randal planned to kill Elsa, a resident
OZ and YO were both courting their co-employee,
of Barangay Pula, Laurel, Batangas. They asked the
SUE. Because of their bitter rivalry, OZ decided to
assistance of Ella, who is familiar with the place.
get rid of YO by poisoning him. OZ poured a
substance into YO's coffee thinking it was arsenic. On April 3, 1992, at about 10:00 in the evening, JP,
It turned out that the substance was white sugar Aries and Randal, all armed with automatic
substitute known as Equal. Nothing happened to weapons, went to Barangay Pula. Ella, being the
YO after he drank the coffee. What criminal liability guide, directed her companions to the room in the
did OZ incur, if any? Explain briefly. (5%) house of Elsa. Whereupon, JP, Aries and Randal
fired their guns at her room. Fortunately, Elsa was
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
not around as she attended a prayer meeting that

OZ incurred criminal liability for an impossible evening in another barangay in Laurel.


crime of murder. Criminal liability shall be incurred
JP, et al, were charged and convicted of attempted
Prepared by: LJC 17
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

murder by the Regional Trial Court at Tanauan, lunch. Not knowing where he can get poison, he
Batangas. approached another classmate, Jerry to whom he
disclosed his evil plan. Because he himself harbored
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, all the accused
resentment towards Jun, Jerry gave Buddy a
ascribed to the trial court the sole error of finding
poison, which Buddy placed on Jun's food.
them guilty of attempted murder.
If you were the
However, Jun did not die because, unknown to both
ponente, how will you decide the appeal?
Buddy and Jerry, the poison was actually powdered

SUGGESTED ANSWER: milk.

If I were the ponente, I will set aside the judgment 1, What crime or crimes, if any, did Jerry and Buddy

convicting the accused of attempted murder and commit? [3%]
2. Suppose that, because of his

instead find them guilty of impossible crime under severe allergy to powdered milk, Jun had to be

Art. 4, par. 2, RPC, in relation to Art. 59, RPC. hospitalized for 10 days for ingesting it. Would your

Liability for impossible crime arises not only when answer to the first question be the same? [2%]

the impossibility is legal, but likewise when it is


SUGGESTED ANSWER:
factual or physical impossibility, as in the case at
bar. Elsa's absence from the house is a physical 1. Jerry and Buddy are liable for the so-called
impossibility which renders the crime intended "impossible crime" because, with intent to kill, they
Inherently incapable of accomplishment. To convict tried to poison Jun and thus perpetrate Murder, a
the accused of attempted murder would make Art. crime against persons. Jun was not poisoned only
4, par. 2 practically useless as all circumstances because the would-be killers were unaware that
which prevented the consummation of the offense what they mixed with the food of Jun was
will be treated as an incident independent of the powdered milk, not poison. In short, the act done
actor's will which is an element of attempted or with criminal intent by Jerry and Buddy, would have
frustrated felony (Intod vs. CA, 215 SCRA 52). constituted a crime against persons were it not for
the inherent inefficacy of the means employed.
CRIMINAL LIABILITY: IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
Criminal liability is incurred by them although no
(1998)
crime resulted, because their act of trying to poison
Buddy always resented his classmate, Jun. One day. Jun is criminal.

Buddy planned to kill Jun by mixing poison in his


Prepared by: LJC 18
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

2. No, the answer would not be the same as above. Enrique. Impossible crimes are limited only to acts
Jerry and Buddy would be liable instead for less which when performed would be a crime against
serious physical injuries for causing the persons or property. As kidnapping is a crime
hospitalization and medical attendance for 10 days against personal security and not against persons or
to Jun. Their act of mixing with the food eaten by property, Enrique could not have incurred an
Jun the matter which required such medical "impossible crime" to commit kidnapping. There is
attendance, committed with criminal intent, thus no impossible crime of kidnapping.
renders them liable for the resulting injury.
MALA IN SE VS. MALA PROHIBITA (1997)
CRIMINAL LIABILITY; IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES;
1. Distinguish between crimes mala in se and
KIDNAPPING (2000)
crimes mala prohibita. 

Carla, 4 years old, was kidnapped by Enrique, the 2. May an act be malum in se and be, at the
tricycle driver paid by her parents to bring and fetch same time, malum prohibitum? 

her to and from school. Enrique wrote a ransom
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
note demanding P500,000.00 from Carla's parents
in exchange for Carla's freedom. Enrique sent the Crimes mala in se are felonious acts committed by
ransom note by mail. However, before the ransom dolo or culpa as defined in the Revised Penal Code.
note was received by Carla's parents, Enrique's Lack of criminal intent is a valid defense, except
hideout was discovered by the police. Carla was when the crime results from criminal negligence.
rescued while Enrique was arrested and On the other hand, crimes mala prohibita are those
incarcerated. Considering that the ransom note was considered wrong only because they are prohibited
not received by Carla's parents, the investigating by statute. They constitute violations of mere rules
prosecutor merely filed a case of "Impossible Crime of convenience designed to secure a more orderly
to Commit Kidnapping" against Enrique. Is the regulation of the affairs of society.
prosecutor correct? Why? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, an act may be malum in se and malum
No, the prosecutor is not correct in filing a case for prohibitum at the same time. In People v. Sunico, et
"impossible crime to commit kidnapping" against aL. (CA 50 OG 5880) it was held that the omission or
Prepared by: LJC 19
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

failure of election inspectors and poll clerks to SUGGESTED ANSWER:



include a voter's name in the registry list of voters is
In crimes mala prohibita, the acts are not by nature
wrong per se because it disenfranchises a voter of
wrong, evil or bad. They are punished only because
his right to vote. In this regard it is considered as
there is a law prohibiting them for public good, and
malum in se. Since it is punished under a special law
thus good faith or lack of criminal intent in doing
(Sec. 101 and 103, Revised Election Code) it is
the prohibited act is not a defense.
considered malum prohibitum.

In crimes mala in se, the acts are by nature wrong,


MALA IN SE VS. MALA PROHIBITA (1999)
evil or bad, and so generally condemned. The moral
Distinguish " mala in se" from " mala prohibita"(3%) trait of the offender is involved; thus, good faith or
lack of criminal Intent on the part of the offender is
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a defense, unless the crime is the result of criminal

In "mala in se", the acts constituting the crimes are negligence. Correspondingly, modifying

inherently evil, bad or wrong, and hence involves circumstances are considered in punishing the

the moral traits of the offender; while in "mala offender.

prohibita", the acts constituting the crimes are not


MALA IN SE VS. MALA PROHIBITA (2003)
inherently bad, evil or wrong but prohibited and
made punishable only for public good. And because Distinguish, in their respective concepts and legal
the moral trait of the offender is Involved in "mala implications, between crimes mala in se and crimes
in se". Modifying circumstances, the offender's mala prohibits. 4%

extent of participation in the crime, and the degree
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
of accomplishment of the crime are taken into
account in imposing the penalty: these are not so in In concept: Crimes mala in se are those where the
"mala prohibita" where criminal liability arises only acts or omissions penalized are inherently bad, evil,
when the acts are consummated. or wrong that they are almost universally
condemned.
MALA IN SE VS. MALA PROHIBITA (2001)

Crimes mala prohibita are those where the acts


Briefly state what essentially distinguishes a crime
penalized are not inherently bad, evil, or wrong but
mala prohibita from a crime mala in se. (2%)

Prepared by: LJC 20
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

prohibited by law for public good, public welfare or Mr. Ocuarto to prepare and file with the Bureau of
interest and whoever violates the prohibition are Customs the necessary Import Entry and Internal
penalized. Revenue Declaration covering Moonglow's
shipment. Mr. Gabisi and Mr. Yto submitted to Mr.
In legal implications: In crimes mala in se, good
Ocuarto a packing list, a commercial invoice, a bill
faith or lack of criminal intent/ negligence is a
of lading and a Sworn Import Duty Declaration
defense, while in crimes mala prohibita, good faith
which declared the shipment as children's toys, the
or lack of criminal intent or malice is not a defense;
taxes and duties of which were computed at
it is enough that the prohibition was voluntarily
P60,000.00. Mr. Ocuarto filed the aforementioned
violated.
documents with the Manila International Container

Mala in se is incurred when the crime is only Port. However, before the shipment was released,

attempted or frustrated, while in crimes mala a spot check was conducted by Customs Senior

prohibita, criminal liability is generally incurred only Agent James Bandido, who discovered that the

when the crime is consummated. contents of the van (shipment) were not children's
toys as declared in the shipping documents but
Also in crimes mala in se, mitigating and
1,000 units of video cassette recorders with taxes
aggravating circumstances are appreciated in
and duties computed at P600,000.00. A hold order
imposing the penalties, while in crimes mala
and warrant of seizure and detention were then
prohibita, such circumstances are not appreciated
issued by the District Collector of Customs. Further
unless the special law has adopted the scheme or
investigation showed that Moonglow is non-
scale of penalties under the Revised Penal Code.
existent. Consequently, Mr. Gabisi and Mr. Yto

MALA PROHIBITA; ACTUAL INJURY REQUIRED were charged with and convicted for violation of

(2000) Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 which makes it unlawful


among others, for public officers to cause any
Mr. Carlos Gabisi, a customs guard, and Mr. Rico undue Injury to any party, including the
Yto, a private Individual, went to the office of Mr. Government. In the discharge of official functions
Diether Ocuarto, a customs broker, and through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or
represented themselves as agents of Moonglow gross inexcusable negligence. In their motion for
Commercial Trading, an Importer of children's reconsideration, the accused alleged that the
clothes and toys. Mr. Gabisi and Mr. Yto engaged
Prepared by: LJC 21
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

decision was erroneous because the crime was not trait of the offender is involved; thus, good faith or
consummated but was only at an attempted stage, lack of criminal Intent on the part of the offender is
and that in fact the Government did not suffer any a defense, unless the crime is the result of criminal
undue injury. negligence. Correspondingly, modifying
circumstances are considered in punishing the
a) Is the contention of both accused correct?
offender.
Explain. (3%)
b) Assuming that the attempted or
frustrated stage of the violation charged is not In crimes mala prohibitum, an act is not by nature
punishable, may the accused be nevertheless wrong, evil or bad. Yet, it is punished because there
convicted for an offense punished by the Revised is a law prohibiting them for public good, and thus
Penal Code under the facts of the case? Explain. good faith or lack of criminal intent in doing the
(3%) prohibited act is not a defense.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: MOTIVE VS. INTENT (1996)

Yes, the contention of the accused that the crime 1. Distinguish intent from motive in Criminal
was not consummated is correct, RA. 3019 is a Law. 2. May crime be committed without
special law punishing acts mala prohibita. As a rule, criminal intent?
attempted violation of a special law is not punished.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Actual injury is required.
Yes, both are liable for
attempted estafa thru falsification of commercial Motive is the moving power which impels one to
documents, a complex crime. 
action for a definite result; whereas intent is the
purpose to use a particular means to effect such
MALUM IN SE VS. MALUM PROHIBITUM (2005)
results. Motive is not an essential element of a
Distinguish malum in se from malum prohibitum. felony and need not be proved for purpose of
(2%) conviction, while intent is an essential element of
felonies by dolo. 

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, a crime may be committed without criminal
In crimes malum in se, an act is by nature wrong, evil
intent if such is a culpable felony, wherein Intent is
or bad, and so generally condemned. The moral
substituted by negligence or imprudence, and also
Prepared by: LJC 22
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

in a malum prohibitum or if an act is punishable by criminal act did not give rise to variant
special law. 
 crimes.

MOTIVE VS. INTENT (2004)

MOTIVE VS. INTENT (1999) Distinguish clearly but briefly between intent and
motive in the commission of an offense.
1. Distinguish "motive" from "intent". 

2. When is motive relevant to prove a case? SUGGESTED ANSWER:


When is it 
not necessary to be


Intent is the purpose for using a particular means to
established? Explain. (3%) 

achieve the desired result; while motive is the

SUGGESTED ANSWER: moving power which impels a person to act for a


definite result. Intent is an ingredient of dolo or
1. "Motive " is the moving power which impels a
malice and thus an element of deliberate felonies;
person to do an act for a definite result;
while motive is not an element of a crime but only
while "intent" is the purpose for using a considered when the identity of the offender is in
particular means to bring about a desired doubt.
result. Motive is not an element of a crime
but intent is an element of intentional MOTIVE; PROOF THEREOF; NOT ESSENTIAL;

crimes. Motive, if attending a crime, always CONVICTION (2006)

precede the intent. 



Motive is essential in the determination of the

2. Motive is relevant to prove a case when there is commis- sion of a crime and the liabilities of the

doubt as to the identity of the offender or perpetrators. What are the instances where proof of

when the act committed gives rise to variant motive is not essential or required to justify

crimes and there is the need to determine conviction of an accused? Give at least 3 instances.

the proper crime to be imputed to the (5%)

offender. 

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

It is not necessary to prove motive when the 1. When there is an eyewitness or positive
offender is positively identified or the identification of the accused. 

Prepared by: LJC 23
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

2. When the accused admitted or confessed to of the vigilante group reported the liquidation to
the commission of the crime. 
 Ricky. Is Ricky criminally liable? Explain. (7%)
3. In crimes mala prohibita. 

4. In direct assault, when the victim, who is a SUGGESTED ANSWER:
person 
in authority or agent of a person in
authority was attacked in the actual No, there was no conspiracy between Ricky and the
performance of his duty (Art. 148, Revised Commander of the vigilante. Mere vouching for the
Penal Code). 
 honesty of the two (2) policemen in the list cannot
5. In crimes committed through reckless make him a co-conspirator for the killing. Ricky
imprudence. 
 enjoys the presumption of innocence.

CONSPIRACY (2012)
CONSPIRACY VS. CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT

Define conspiracy. (5%) REBELLION VS. CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT


MURDER (2012)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

When two or more persons come to an agreement Distinguish by way of illustration conspiracy as a

concerning the commission of a felony and decide felony from conspiracy as a manner of incurring

to commit it, there is conspiracy. liability in relation to the crimes of rebellion and
murder. (5%)
CONSPIRACY (2008)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Ricky was reviewing for the bar exam when the


Conspiracy to commit rebellion – if “A” and “B”
commander of a vigilante group came to him and
conspired to overthrow the government,
showed him a list of five policemen to be liquidated
conspiracy is punishable. Conspiracy to commit
by them for graft and corruption. He was further
rebellion is a felony. Rebellion – if they committed
asked if any of them is innocent. After going over
rebellion, they are equally liable for the crime of
the list, Ricky pointed to two of the policemen as
rebellion. However, they will not be additionally
honest. Later, the vigilante group liquidated the
charged with conspiracy to commit rebellion. Since
three other policemen in the list. The commander
they committed what they conspired, conspiracy
Prepared by: LJC 24
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

will not be considered as an independent felony but constituted murder which is a crime against
as a manner of incurring criminal responsibility. persons, had it not been for the employment of a
Conspiracy to commit homicide, not punishable – if means which, unknown to him, is ineffectual (Art. 4,
“A” and “B” conspire to kill “X”, conspiracy is not par. 2, RPC).
punishable. The law provides no penalty for
JUSTIFYING & EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
conspiracy to commit homicide. Homicide – if
pursuant to conspiracy to commit homicide, “A” EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES; COVERAGE
embraced “X” and then “B” stabbed and killed “X”, (2000)
the conspirators are equally liable for homicide.
A, brother of B, with the intention of having a night
Conspirators are equally liable for homicide.
out with his friends, took the coconut shell which is
Conspiracy in this case will be considered as a
being used by B as a bank for coins from inside their
manner of incurring liability.
locked cabinet using their common key. Forthwith,
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME OF MURDER (2009) A broke the coconut shell outside of their home in
the presence of his friends.
Charlie hated his classmate, Brad, because the
latter was assiduously courting Lily, Charlie’s a. What is the criminal liability of A, if any? Explain.
girlfriend. Charlie went to a veterinarian and asked (3%)
for some poison on the pretext that it would be used
b. Is A exempted from criminal liability under Article
to kill a very sick, old dog. Actually, Charlie intended
332 of the Revised Penal Code for being a brother of
to use the poison on Brad. The veterinarian
B? Explain. (2%)
mistakenly gave Charlie a non-toxic powder which,
when mixed with Brad’s food, did not kill Brad. SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Did Charlie commit any crime? If so, what and why?


a) A is criminally liable for Robbery with force upon
If not, why not? (3%)
things

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) No, A is not exempt from criminal liability under

Charlie committed an impossible crime of murder. Art. 332 because said Article applies only to theft,

His act of mixing the non- toxic powder with Brad‟s swindling or malicious mischief. Here, the crime
committed is robbery.
food, done with intent to kill, would have
Prepared by: LJC 25
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

**EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES; MINORITY what she had caused, Katreena immediately helped
(1998) Pomping. When investigated, she freely admitted
to the school principal that she was responsible for
John, an eight-year old boy, is fond of watching the
the injury to Pomping's eye. After the incident, she
television program "Zeo Rangers." One evening
executed a statement admitting her culpability.
while he was engrossed watching his favorite
Due to the injury. Pomping lost his right eye.
television show, Petra, a maid changed the channel
to enable her to watch "Home Along the Riles." This a) Is Katreena criminally liable? Why? (3%)

enraged John who got his father's revolver, and
b) Discuss the attendant circumstances and effects
without warning, shot Petra at the back of her head
thereof. (2%)

causing her instantaneous death. Is John criminally
liable? [2%] SUGGESTED ANSWER:

SUGGESTED ANSWER: a) No, Katreena is not criminally liable although she


is civilly liable. Being a minor less than fifteen (15)
No, John is not criminally liable for killing Petra
years old although over nine (9) years of age, she is
because he is only 8 years old when he committed
generally exempt from criminal liability. The
the killing. A minor below nine (9) years old is
exception is where the prosecution proved that the
absolutely exempt from criminal liability although
act was committed with discernment. The burden is
not from civil liability. (Art. 12, par. 2, RPC).
upon the prosecution to prove that the accused
EXEMPTING; MINORITY; 11 YRS OLD; ABSENCE acted with discernment.
OF DISCERNMENT (2000)

The presumption is that such minor acted without
While they were standing in line awaiting their discernment, and this is strengthened by the fact
vaccination at the school clinic, Pomping that Katreena only reacted with a ballpen which she
repeatedly pulled the ponytail of Katreena, his 11 must be using in class at the time, and only to stop
years, 2 months and 13 days old classmate in Grade Pomping's vexatious act of repeatedly pulling her
5 at the Sampaloc Elementary School. Irritated, ponytail. In other words, the injury was accidental.
Katreena turned around and swung at Pomping
b) The attendant circumstances which may be
with a ball pen. The top of the ball pen hit the right
considered are:
eye of Pomping which bled profusely. Realizing
Prepared by: LJC 26
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

1. Minority of the accused as an exempting and exempting circumstances in criminal law.



circumstance under Article 12. paragraph
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

3, Rev. Penal Code, where she shall be
exempt from criminal liability, unless it was Justifying circumstance affects the act, not the
proved that she acted with discernment. actor; while exempting circumstance affects the
She is however civilly liable; 
 actor, not the act. In justifying circumstance, no
criminal and, generally, no civil liability is incurred;
If found criminally liable, the minority of the
while in exempting circumstance, civil liability is
accused as a privileged mitigating circumstance. A
generally incurred although there is no criminal
discretionary penalty lower by at least two (2) 

liability.
degrees than that prescribed for the crime
committed shall be imposed in accordance with JUSTIFYING VS. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
Article 68. paragraph 1, Rev. Penal Code. The (1998)
sentence, however, should automatically be
Distinguish between justifying and exempting
suspended in accordance with Section 5(a) of Rep.
circumstances. [3%]

Act No. 8369 otherwise known as the "Family
Courts Act of 1997"; SUGGESTED ANSWER:


Also if found criminally liable, the ordinary 1. In Justifying Circumstances:


mitigating circumstance of not Intending to
a. The circumstance affects the act, not the
commit so grave a wrong as that committed, under
actor; 

Article 13, paragraph 3, Rev. Penal Code; and 

b. The act is done within legal bounds,
The ordinary mitigating circumstance of sufficient hence 
considered as not a crime; 

provocation on the part of the offended party c. Since the act is not a crime, there is no
immediately preceded the act. 
 criminal; 

d. There being no crime nor criminal, there
JUSTIFYING VS. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
is no 
criminal nor civil liability. 

(2004)
Whereas, in an Exempting Circumstances:
Distinguish clearly but briefly: Between justifying

Prepared by: LJC 27


CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

a. The circumstance affects the actor, not immediate vindication of a grave offense to a
the act; 
 descendant, his daughter, under par. 5, Article 13 of
b. The act is felonious and hence a crime the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
but the 
actor acted without
JUSTIFYING; DEFENSE OF STRANGER (2002)
voluntariness; 

c. Although there is a crime, there is no A chanced upon three men who were attacking B
criminal 
because the actor is regarded with fist blows. C, one of the men, was about to stab
only as an 
instrument of the crime; 
 B with a knife. Not knowing that B was actually the
d. There being a wrong done but no aggressor because he had earlier challenged the
criminal. 
 three men to a fight, A shot C as the latter was
about to stab B.
JUSTIFYING; DEFENSE OF HONOR;
REQUISITES (2002) May A invoke the defense of a stranger as a
justifying circumstance in his favor? Why? (2%)
When A arrived home, he found B raping his
daughter. Upon seeing A, B ran away. A took his SUGGESTED ANSWER:
gun and shot B, killing him. Charged with homicide,
Yes. A may invoke the justifying circumstance of
A claimed he acted in defense of his daughter's
defense of stranger since he was not involved in the
honor. Is A correct? If not, can A claim the benefit of
fight and he shot C when the latter was about to
any mitigating circumstance or circumstances?
stab B. There being no indication that A was
(3%)
induced by revenge, resentment or any other evil
SUGGESTED ANSWER: motive in shooting C, his act is justified under par 3,
Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
No, A cannot validly invoke defense of his
daughter's honor in having killed B since the rape JUSTIFYING; FULFILLMENT OF DUTY;
was already consummated; moreover, B already REQUISITES (2000)
ran away, hence, there was no aggression to defend
Lucresia, a storeowner, was robbed of her bracelet
against and no defense to speak of.
in her home. The following day, at about 5 o'clock in
A may, however, invoke the benefit of the the afternoon, a neighbor, 22-year old Jun-Jun, who
mitigating circumstance of having acted in
Prepared by: LJC 28
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

had an unsavory reputation, came to her store to offense committed be the unavoidable or necessary
buy bottles of beer. Lucresia noticed her bracelet consequence of the due performance of the duty
wound around the right arm of Jun-Jun. As soon as (People vs. Oanis, et.al., 74 Phil. 257). It is not
the latter left, Lucresia went to a nearby police enough that the accused acted in fulfillment of a
station and sought the help of a policeman on duty, duty.
Pat. Willie Reyes. He went with Lucresia to the
After Jun-Jun was shot in the right leg and was
house of Jun-Jun to confront the latter. Pat. Reyes
already crawling, there was no need for Pat, Reyes
introduced himself as a policeman and tried to get
to shoot him further. Clearly, Pat. Reyes acted
hold of Jun-Jun who resisted and ran away. Pat.
beyond the call of duty which brought about the
Reyes chased him and fired two warning shots in
cause of death of the victim.
the air. Jun-Jun continued to run and when he was
about 7 meters away, Pat. Reyes shot him in the JUSTIFYING; SD; DEFENSE OF HONOR;
right leg. Jun-Jun was hit and he fell down but he REQUISITES (1998)
crawled towards a fence, intending to pass through
One night, Una, a young married woman, was
an opening underneath. When Pat. Reyes was
sound asleep in her bedroom when she felt a man
about 5 meters away, he fired another shot at Jun-
on top of her. Thinking it was her husband Tito, who
Jun hitting him at the right lower hip. Pat. Reyes
came home a day early from his business trip, Una
brought Jun-Jun to the hospital, but because of
let him have sex with her. After the act, the man
profuse bleeding, he eventually died. Pat Reyes was
said, "I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did." Not
subsequently charged with homicide. During the
recognizing the voice, it dawned upon Lina that the
trial, Pat Reyes raised the defense, by way of
man was not Tito, her husband. Furious, Una took
exoneration, that he acted in the fulfillment of a
out Tito's gun and shot the man. Charged with
duty.
homicide Una denies culpability on the ground of
Is the defense tenable? Explain. (3%) defense of honor. Is her claim tenable? [5%]

SUGGESTED ANSWER: SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the defense of Pat. Reyes is not tenable. The No, Una's claim that she acted in defense of honor,
defense of having acted in the fulfillment of a duty is not tenable because the unlawful aggression on
requires as a condition, inter alia, that the injury or her honor had already ceased. Defense of honor as
Prepared by: LJC 29
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

included in self- defense, must have been done to of the means employed to prevent or repel it. The
prevent or repel an unlawful aggression. There is no unlawful aggression must be continuing when the
defense to speak of where the unlawful aggression aggressor was injured or disabled by the person
no longer exists. making a defense.

JUSTIFYING; DEFENSE OF HONOR; ELEMENTS But if the aggression that was begun by the injured
(2000) or disabled party already ceased to exist when the
accused attacked him, as in the case at bar, the
Osang, a married woman in her early twenties, was
attack made is a retaliation, and not a defense.
sleeping on a banig on the floor of their nipa hut
Paragraph 1, Article 11 of the Code does not govern.
beside the seashore when she was awakened by the
act of a man mounting her. Thinking that it was her Hence, Osang's act of stabbing Julio to death after
husband, Gardo,who had returned from fishing in the sexual intercourse was finished, is not defense
the sea, Osang continued her sleep but allowed the of honor but an immediate vindication of a grave
man, who was actually their neighbor, Julio, to have offense committed against her, which is only
sexual intercourse with her. After Julio satisfied mitigating.
himself, he said "Salamat Osang" as he turned to
JUSTIFYING; SD; DEFENSE OF PROPERTY;
leave. Only then did Osang realize that the man was
REQUISITES (1996)
not her husband. Enraged, Osang grabbed a
balisong from the wall and stabbed Julio to death. A security guard, upon seeing a man scale the wall
When tried for homicide, Osang claimed defense of of a factory compound which he was guarding, shot
honor. Should the claim be sustained? Why? (5%) and killed the latter. Upon investigation by the
police who thereafter arrived at the scene of the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
shooting, it was discovered that the victim was
No, Osang"s claim of defense of honor should not unarmed. When prosecuted for homicide, the
be sustained because the aggression on her honor security guard claimed that he merely acted in self-
had ceased when she stabbed the aggressor. In defense of property and in the performance of his
defense of rights under paragraph 1, Art. 11 of the duty as a security guard.
If you were the judge,
RPC, It is required inter alia that there be (1) would you convict him of homicide? Explain.
unlawful aggression, and (2) reasonable necessity
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Prepared by: LJC 30
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

Yes. I would convict the security guard for Homicide get some light snacks. The accused was indicted for
if I were the Judge, because his claim of having serious physical injuries. Should the accused, given
acted in defense of property and in performance of the circumstances, be convicted or acquitted?
a duty cannot fully be justified. Even assuming that Why? 4%
the victim was scaling the wall of the factory
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
compound to commit a crime inside the same,
shooting him is never justifiable, even admitting The accused should be convicted because, even
that such act is considered unlawful aggression on assuming the facts to be true in his belief, his act of
property rights. In People vs. Narvaes, 121 SCRA shooting a burglar when there is no unlawful
329, a person is justified to defend his property aggression on his person is not justified. Defense of
rights, but all the elements of self-defense under property or property right does not justify the act of
Art. 11, must be present. In the instant case, just like firing a gun at a burglar unless the life and limb of
in Narvaes, the second element (reasonable the accused is already in imminent and immediate
necessity of the means employed) is absent. Hence, danger. Although the accused acted out of a
he should be convicted of homicide but entitled to misapprehension of the facts, he is not absolved
incomplete self-defense. from criminal liability.

JUSTIFYING; SD; DEFENSE OF PROPERTY; ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:


REQUISITES (2003)
Considering the given circumstances, namely; the
The accused lived with his family in a neighborhood frequent robberies in the neighborhood, the time
that often was the scene of frequent robberies. At was past midnight, and the victim appeared to be
one time, past midnight, the accused went an armed burglar in the dark and inside his house,
downstairs with a loaded gun to investigate what he the accused could have entertained an honest belief
thought were footsteps of an uninvited guest. After that his life and limb or those of his family are
seeing what appeared to him an armed stranger already in immediate and imminent danger. Hence,
looking around and out to rob the house, he fired it may be reasonable to accept that he acted out of
his gun seriously injuring the man. When the lights an honest mistake of fact and therefore without
were turned on, the unfortunate victim turned out criminal intent. An honest mistake of fact negatives
to be a brother-in-law on his way to the kitchen to criminal intent and thus absolves the accused from

Prepared by: LJC 31


CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

criminal liability. see Joy, his wife, and Ken, his best friend, in the act
of having sexual intercourse. Macky pulled out his
QUALIFYING; ELEMENTS OF A CRIME (2003)
service gun and shot and killed Ken.

When would qualifying circumstances be deemed,


The court found that Ken died under exceptional
if at all, elements of a crime? 4%

circumstances and exonerated Macky of murder

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
 but sentenced him to destierro, conformably with


Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. The court
A qualifying circumstance would be deemed an
also ordered Macky to pay indemnity to the heirs of
element of a crime when -
the victim in the amount of P50,000.

a. it changes the nature of the crime,


Did the court correctly order Macky to pay
bringing about a more serious crime and
indemnity even though he was exonerated of
a heavier penalty; 

murder? Explain your answer. (10%)
b. it is essential to the crime involved,
otherwise some other crime is SUGGESTED ANSWER:


committed; and 

No, the court did not act correctly in ordering the
c. it is specifically alleged in the
accused to indemnify the victim. Since the killing of
Information and proven during the trial.
ken was committed under the exceptional

circumstances in Article 247, revised Penal Code, it

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: is the consensus that no crime was committed in


the light of the pronouncement in People v Cosicor
A qualifying circumstance is deemed an element of
(79 Phil. 672 [1947]) that banishment (destierro) is
a crime when it is specifically stated by law as
intended more for the protection of the offender
included in the definition of a crime, like treachery
rather than as a penalty. Since the civil liability
in the crime of murder.
under the Revised Penal Code is the consequence of

EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES (2007) criminal liability, there would be no legal basis for
the award of indemnity when there is no criminal
Macky, a security guard, arrived home late one liability.
night after rendering overtime. He was shocked to
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Prepared by: LJC 32
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

Yes, because the crime punishable by destierro was would not be liable.
committed, which is death under exceptional
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES; INSANITY
circumstances under Art. 247 of the Revised Penal
(2010)
Code.

While his wife was on a 2-year scholarship abroad,


EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES; ACCESSORIES;
Romeo was having an affair with his maid Dulcinea.
ASCENDANTS (2010)
Realizing that the affair was going nowhere,
Immediately after murdering Bob, Jake went to his Dulcinea told Romeo that she was going back to the
mother to seek refuge. His mother told him to hide province to marry her childhood sweetheart.
in the maid’s quarters until she finds a better place Clouded by anger and jealousy, Romeo strangled
for him to hide. After two days, Jake transferred to Dulcinea to death while she was sleeping in the
his aunt’s house. A week later, Jake was maid’s quarters.
apprehended by the police. Can Jake’s mother and
The following day, Romeo was found catatonic
aunt be made criminally liable as accessories to the
inside the maid’s quarters. He was brought to the
crime of murder? Explain. (3 %)
National Center for Mental Health (NCMH) where
SUGGESTED ANSWER: he was diagnosed to be mentally unstable. Charged
with murder, Romeo pleaded insanity as a defense.
Obviously, Jake‟s mother was aware of her son‟s
having committed a felony, such that her act of Will Romeo’s defense prosper? Explain. (2%)
harboring and concealing him renders her liable as
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
an accessory. But being an ascendant to Jake, she is
exempt from criminal liability by express provision No, Romeo’s defense of insanity will not prosper
of Article 20 of the Revised Penal Code. because, even assuming that Romeo was “insane”
when diagnosed after he committed the crime,
On the other hand, the criminal liability of Jake‟s
insanity as a defense to the commission of crime
aunt depends on her knowledge of his commission
must have existed and proven to be so existing at
of the felony, her act of harboring and concealing
the precise moment when the crime was being
Jake would render her criminally liable as accessory
committed. The fact of the case indicate that
to the crime of murder; otherwise without
Romeo committed the crime with discernment.
knowledge of Jake‟s commission of the felony, she
Prepared by: LJC 33
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES; INSANITY; WOMAN SYNDROME (2010)


EFFECT (2010)
Jack and Jill have been married for seven years. One
While his wife was on a 2-year scholarship abroad, night, Jack came home drunk. Finding no food on
Romeo was having an affair with his maid Dulcinea. the table, Jack started hitting Jill only to apologize
Realizing that the affair was going nowhere, the following day.
Dulcinea told Romeo that she was going back to the
A week later, the same episode occurred – Jack
province to marry her childhood sweetheart.
came home drunk and started hitting Jill.
Clouded by anger and jealousy, Romeo strangled
Dulcinea to death while she was sleeping in the Fearing for her life, Jill left and stayed with her
maid’s quarters. sister. To woo Jill back, Jack sent her floral
arrangements of spotted lilies and confectioneries.
The following day, Romeo was found catatonic
Two days later, Jill returned home and decided to
inside the maid’s quarters. He was brought to the
give Jack another chance. After several days,
National Center for Mental Health (NCMH) where
however, Jack again came home drunk. The
he was diagnosed to be mentally unstable.
following day, he was found dead.
Charged with murder, Romeo pleaded insanity as a
Jill was charged with parricide but raised the
defense.
defense of "battered woman syndrome."
What is the effect of the diagnosis of the NCMH on
Would the defense prosper despite the absence of
the case? (2%)
any of the elements for justifying circumstances of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: self-defense under the Revised Penal Code?
Explain. (2%)
The effect of the diagnosis made by NCMH is
possibly a suspension of the proceedings against SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Romeo and his commitment to appropriate
Yes, Section 26 of Rep. Act No. 9262 provides that
institution for treatment until he could already
victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be
understand the proceedings.
suffering from battered woman syndrome do not
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES; BATTERED incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding

Prepared by: LJC 34


CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

the absence of any of the elements for justifying thought that after all, explosions were everywhere
circumstances of self-defense under the Revised and nobody would know who shot Jepoy. After Jaja
Penal Code. lent his firearm to Jonas, the latter again started
throwing lighted super lolos and pla-plas at Jepoy's
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
yard in order to provoke him so that he would come

MITIGATING; NON-INTOXICATION (2000) out of his house. When Jepoy came out, Jonas
immediately shot him with Jaja's .45 caliber gun but
Despite the massive advertising campaign in media missed his target. Instead, the bullet hit Jepoy's five
against firecrackers and gun-firing during the New year old son who was following behind him, killing
Year's celebrations, Jonas and Jaja bought ten the boy instantaneously,
boxes of super lolo and pla-pla in Bocaue, Bulacan.
Before midnight of December 31, 1999, Jonas and a. What crime or crimes can Jonas and Jaja be

Jaja started their celebration by having a drinking charged with? Explain. (2%)


spree at Jona's place by exploding their high-


powered firecrackers in their neighborhood. In the b. If you were Jonas' and Jaja's lawyer, what

course of their conversation, Jonas confided to Jaja possible defenses would you set up in favor of

that he has been keeping a long-time grudge your clients? Explain. (2%)

against his neighbor Jepoy in view of the latter's


refusal to lend him some money. While under the c. If you were the Judge, how would you decide

influence of liquor, Jonas started throwing lighted the case? Explain. (1%)

super lolos inside Jepoy's fence to irritate him and


SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the same exploded inside the latter's yard. Upon
knowing that the throwing of the super lolo was a) Jonas and Jaja, can be charged with the complex

deliberate, Jepoy became furious and sternly crime of ATTEMPTED MURDER WITH HOMICIDE

warned Jonas to stop his malicious act or he would because a single act caused a less grave and a grave

get what he wanted. A heated argument between felony (Art. 48. RPC)....

Jonas and Jepoy ensued but Jaja tried to calm down


b) If I were Jonas' and Jaja's lawyer, I will use the
his friend. At midnight, Jonas convinced Jaja to lend
following defenses:
him his .45 caliber pistol so that he could use it to
knock down Jepoy and to end his arrogance. Jonas That the accused had no intention to commit so
Prepared by: LJC 35
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

grave a wrong as that committed as they merely not competent to render judgment.
intended to frighten Jepoy; 

MITIGATING; PLEA OF GUILTY; REQUISITES
That Jonas committed the crime in a state of (1999)
intoxication thereby impairing his will power or
In order that the plea of guilty may be mitigating,
capacity to understand the wrongfulness of his
what requisites must be complied with? (2%)

act. Non-intentional intoxication is a mitigating
circumstance (People us. Fortich, 281 SCRA 600 SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(1997); Art. 15, RPC.). 

For plea of guilty to be mitigating, the requisites
MITIGATING; PLEA OF GUILTY (1999) are:

An accused charged with the crime of homicide 1. That the ACCUSED SPONTANEOUSLY
pleaded "not guilty" during the preliminary PLEADED guilty to the crime charged; 

investigation before the Municipal Court. Upon the
2. That such plea was MADE BEFORE THE
elevation of the case to the Regional Trial Court the
COURT COMPETENT to try the case and
Court of competent jurisdiction, he pleaded guilty
render judgment; and 

freely and voluntarily upon arraignment. Can his
plea of guilty before the RTC be considered 3. That such plea was made PRIOR TO THE
spontaneous and thus entitle him to the mitigating PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE for the
circumstance of spontaneous plea of guilty under prosecution. 

Art. 13(7), RPC? (3%)
MITIGATING; PLEA OF GUILTY; VOLUNTARY
SUGGESTED ANSWER: SURRENDER (1997)

Yes, his plea of guilty before the Regional Trial After killing the victim, the accused absconded. He
Court can be considered spontaneous, for which he succeeded in eluding the police until he surfaced
is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of plea of and surrendered to the authorities about two years
guilty. His plea of not guilty before the Municipal later. Charged with murder, he pleaded not guilty
Court is immaterial as it was made during but, after the prosecution had presented two
preliminary investigation only and before a court witnesses implicating him to the crime, he changed

Prepared by: LJC 36


CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

his plea to that of guilty. MITIGATING; VOLUNTARY SURRENDER (1996)

Should the mitigating circumstances of voluntary Hilario, upon seeing his son engaged in a scuffle
surrender and plea of guilty be considered in favor with Rene, stabbed and killed the latter. After the
of the accused? stabbing, he brought his son home. The Chief of
Police of the town, accompanied by several
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
policemen, went to Hilario's house. Hilario, upon

Voluntary surrender should be considered as a seeing the approaching policemen, came down

mitigating circumstance. After two years, the police from his house to meet them and voluntarily went

were still unaware of the whereabouts of the with them to the Police Station to be investigated

accused and the latter could have continued to in connection with the killing. When eventually

elude arrest. Accordingly, the surrender of the charged with and convicted of homicide, Hilario, on

accused should be considered mitigating because it appeal, faulted the trial court for not appreciating in

was done spontaneously, indicative of the remorse his favor the mitigating circumstance of voluntary

or repentance on the part of said accused and surrender. Is he entitled to such a mitigating

therefore, by his surrender, the accused saved the circumstance? Explain.

Government expenses, efforts, and time.


SUGGESTED ANSWER:

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, Hilario is entitled to the mitigating

Voluntary surrender may not be appreciated in circumstance of voluntary surrender. The crux of
favor of the accused. Two years is too long a time to the issue is whether the fact that Hilario went home

consider the surrender as spontaneous (People us. after the incident, but came down and met the

Ablao, 183 SCRA 658). For sure the government had police officers and went with them is considered

already incurred considerable efforts and expenses "Voluntary surrender," The voluntariness of

in looking for the accused. surrender is tested if the same is spontaneous


showing the intent of the accused to submit himself
Plea of guilty can no longer be appreciated as a
unconditionally to the authorities. This must be
mitigating circumstance because the prosecution
either (a) because he acknowledges his guilt, or (b)
had already started with the presentation of its
because he wishes to save them the trouble and
evidence (Art. 13, par. 7. Revised Penal Code).
expenses necessarily incurred in his search and
Prepared by: LJC 37
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

capture. (Reyes' Commentaries, p. 303). Thus, the MITIGATING; VOLUNTARY SURRENDER (2009)
act of the accused in hiding after commission of the
Voluntary surrender is a mitigating circumstance in
crime, but voluntarily went with the policemen who
all acts and omissions punishable under the Revised
had gone to his hiding place to investigate, was held
Penal Code.
to be mitigating circumstance.(People vs. Dayrit,
cited in Reyes' Commentaries, p. 299) SUGGESTED ANSWER:

MITIGATING; VOLUNTARY SURRENDER; False, Voluntary surrender may be appreciated in


ELEMENTS (1999) cases of criminal negligence under Art. 365 since in
such cases, the courts are authorized to imposed a
When is surrender by an accused considered
penalty without considering Art. 62 regarding
voluntary, and constitutive of the mitigating
mitigating and aggravating circumstances.
circumstance of voluntary surrender? (3%)


PRIVILEGE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE (2012)


SUGGESTED ANSWER:

What is a privileged mitigating circumstance? (5%)


A surrender by an offender is considered voluntary
when it is spontaneous, indicative of an intent to Privileged mitigating circumstances are those that
submit unconditionally to the authorities. mitigate criminal liability of the crime being
modified to one or two degrees lower. These
To be mitigating, the surrender must be:
circumstances cannot be off- set by aggravating
a. spontaneous, i.e., indicative of acknowledgment circumstance. The circumstance of incomplete
of guilt and not for convenience nor conditional;
 justification or exemption (when majority of the
conditions are present), and the circumstance of
b. made before the government incurs expenses,
minority (if the child above 15 years of age acted
time and effort in tracking down the offender's
with discernment) are privileged mitigating
whereabouts; and

circumstances.

c. made to a person in authority or the latter's


PRIVILEGE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE VS.
agents.
ORDINARY MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE (2012)

Distinguish a privileged mitigating circumstance


Prepared by: LJC 38
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

from an ordinary mitigating circumstance as to caught up with her in a thicket somewhat distant
reduction of penalty and offsetting against from the house. Fernando, before bringing back the
aggravating circumstance/s. (5%) daughter to the house, raped her first. Thereafter,
the four carted away the belongings of Danilo and
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
his family.

The distinction between ordinary and privilege


a. What crime did Jose, Domingo, Manolo and
mitigating circumstances are: (a) Under the rules
Fernando commit? Explain.
for application of divisible penalties (Article 64 of
the Revised Penal Code), the presence of a b. Suppose, after the robbery, the four took turns in
mitigating circumstance, has the effect of applying raping the three daughters of Danilo inside the
the divisible penalty in its minimum period. Under latter's house, but before they left, they killed the
the rules on graduation of penalty (Articles 68 and whole family to prevent identification, what crime
69), the presence of privileged mitigating did the four commit? Explain.
circumstance has the effect of reducing the penalty
c. Under the facts of the case, what aggravating
one or two degrees lower. (b) Ordinary mitigating
circumstances may be appreciated against the
circumstances can be off-set by the aggravating
four? Explain.
circumstances. Privileged mitigating circumstances
are not subject to the off- set rule. SUGGESTED ANSWER:

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES a) Jose, Domingo, and Manolo committed Robbery,


while Fernando committed complex crime of
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES (1996)
Robbery with Rape...

Jose, Domingo, Manolo, and Fernando, armed with


b) The crime would be Robbery with Homicide
bolos, at about one o'clock in the morning, robbed
because the killings were by reason (to prevent
a house at a desolate place where Danilo, his wife,
identification) and on the occasion of the robbery.
and three daughters were living. While the four
The multiple rapes committed and the fact that
were in the process of ransacking Danilo's house,
several persons were killed [homicide), would be
Fernando, noticing that one of Danilo's daughters
considered as aggravating circumstances. The
was trying to get away, ran after her and finally
rapes are synonymous with Ignominy and the
Prepared by: LJC 39
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

additional killing synonymous with cruelty, (People c. need not be alleged in the Information as
vs. Solis, 182 SCRA; People vs. Plaga, 202 SCRA 531) long as 
proven during the trial, the same
shall be considered in imposing the
c) The aggravating circumstances which may be
sentence. 

considered in the premises are:
Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances:
1. Band because all the four offenders are
armed; a. must be alleged in the Information and
2. Noctumity because evidently the offenders proven during trial;
took advantage of nighttime;
b. cannot be offset by mitigating
3. dwelling; and
circumstances; 

4. Uninhabited place because the house where
the crimes were committed was "at a c. affects the nature of the crime or brings
desolate place" and obviously the offenders about a penalty higher in degree than
took advantage of this circumstance in that ordinarily 
prescribed. 

committing the crime.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES; KINDS &
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES; GENERIS VS. PENALTIES (1999)
QUALIFYING (1999)

Name the four (4) kinds of aggravating
Distinguish generic aggravating circumstance from circumstances and state their effect on the penalty
qualifying aggravating circumstance. of crimes and nature thereof. (3%)


SUGGESTED ANSWER: SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Generic Aggravating Circumstances: The four(4) kinds of aggravating circumstances


are:

a. affects only the imposition of the penalty
prescribed, 
but not the nature of the crime 1) GENERIC AGGRAVATING or those that can
committed; 
 generally apply to all crimes, and can be offset by
b. can be offset by ordinary mitigating mitigating circumstances, but if not offset, would
circumstances; 
 affect only the maximum of the penalty prescribed

Prepared by: LJC 40


CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

by law; 181 SCRA 316).

2) SPECIFIC AGGRAVATING or those that apply b) Relationship, because the offended party is a

only to particular crimes and cannot be offset by descendant (daughter) of the offender and

mitigating circumstances: 
 considering that the crime is one against chastity.

3) QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES or those that AGGRAVATING; MUST BE ALLEGED IN THE



change the nature of the crime to a graver one, or INFORMATION (2000)
brings about a penalty next higher in degree, and
Rico, a member of the Alpha Rho fraternity, was
cannot be offset by mitigating circumstances; 

killed by Pocholo, a member of the rival group,
4) INHERENT AGGRAVATING or those that Sigma Phi Omega. Pocholo was prosecuted for
essentially accompany the commission of the crime homicide before the Regional Trial Court in Binan,
and does not affect the penalty whatsoever. 
 Laguna. During the trial, the prosecution was able
to prove that the killing was committed by means
AGGRAVATING; CRUELTY; RELATIONSHIP
of poison in consideration of a promise or reward
(1994)
and with cruelty. If you were the Judge, with what

Ben, a widower, driven by bestial desire, poked a crime will you convict Pocholo? Explain. (2%)

gun on his daughter Zeny, forcibly undressed her


SUGGESTED ANSWER:
and tied her legs to the bed. He also burned her face
with a lighted cigarette. Like a madman, he laughed Pocholo should be convicted of the crime of
while raping her. What aggravating circumstances homicide only because the aggravating
are present in this case? circumstances which should qualify the crime to
murder were not alleged in the Information.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The circumstances of using poison, in consideration
a) Cruelty, for burning the victim's face with a
of a promise or reward, and cruelty which attended
lighted cigarette, thereby deliberately augmenting
the killing of Rico could only be appreciated as
the victim's suffering by acts clearly unnecessary to
generic aggravating circumstances since none of
the rape, while the offender delighted and enjoyed
them have been alleged in the information to
seeing the victim suffer in pain (People vs. Lucas,
qualify the killing to murder. A qualifying
Prepared by: LJC 41
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

circumstance must be alleged in the Information malefactors; in a recent Supreme Court decision,
and proven beyond reasonable doubt during the stones or rocks are considered deadly weapons.
trial to be appreciated as such.
AGGRAVATING; RECIDIVISM (2001)
AGGRAVATING; NIGHTTIME; BAND (1994)
Juan de Castro already had three (3) previous
At about 9:30 in the evening, while Dino and Raffy convictions by final judgment for theft when he was
were walking along Padre Faura Street, Manila. found guilty of Robbery with Homicide. In the last
Johnny hit them with a rock injuring Dino at the case, the trial Judge considered against the accused
back. Raffy approached Dino, but suddenly, Bobby, both recidivism and habitual delinquency. The
Steve, Danny and Nonoy surrounded the duo. Then accused appealed and contended that in his last
Bobby stabbed Dino. Steve, Danny, Nonoy and conviction, the trial court cannot consider against
Johnny kept on hitting Dino and Raffy with rocks. him a finding of recidivism and, again, of habitual
As a result. Dino died, Bobby, Steve, Danny, Nonoy delinquency. Is the appeal meritorious? Explain.
and Johnny were charged with homicide. (5%)


Can the court appreciate the aggravating SUGGESTED ANSWER:


circumstances of nighttime and band?

No, the appeal is not meritorious. Recidivism and
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
 habitual delinquency are correctly considered in
this case because the basis of recidivism is different
No, nighttime cannot be appreciated as an
from that of habitual delinquency.
aggravating circumstance because there is no
indication that the offenders deliberately sought Juan is a recidivist because he had been previously
the cover of darkness to facilitate the commission convicted by final judgment for theft and again
of the crime or that they took advantage of found guilty for Robbery with Homicide, which are
nighttime (People vs. De los Reyes, 203 SCRA 707). both crimes against property, embraced under the
Besides, judicial notice can be taken of the fact that same Title (Title Ten, Book Two] of the Revised
Padre Faura Street is well-lighted. Penal Code. The implication is that he is specializing
in the commission of crimes against property,
However, band should be considered as the crime
hence aggravating in the conviction for Robbery
was committed by more than three armed
with Homicide.
Prepared by: LJC 42
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

Habitual delinquency, which brings about an 2. This circumstance is a special aggravating


additional penalty when an offender is convicted a circumstance which cannot be offset by any
third time or more for specified crimes, is correctly mitigating circumstance. 

considered ...
AGGRAVATING; TREACHERY & UNLAWFUL
AGGRAVATING; RECIDIVISM VS. QUASI- ENTRY (1997)
RECIDIVISM (1998)
The accused and the victim occupied adjacent
Distinguish between recidivism and quasi- apartments, each being a separate dwelling unit of
recidivism. [2%]
 one big house. The accused suspected his wife of
having an illicit relation with the victim. One
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
afternoon, he saw the victim and his wife together
In recidivism - on board a vehicle. In the evening of that day, the
accused went to bed early and tried to sleep, but
1. The convictions of the offender are for
being so annoyed over the suspected relation
crimes embraced in the same Title of the
between his wife and the victim, he could not sleep.
Revised Penal Code; and
Later in the night, he resolved to kill victim. He rose
from bed and took hold of a knife. He entered the
2. This circumstance is generic aggravating
apartment of the victim through an unlocked
and therefore can be effect by an ordinary
window. Inside, he saw the victim soundly asleep.
mitigating circumstance.
He thereupon stabbed the victim, inflicting several

Whereas in quasi-recidivlsm - wounds, which caused his death within a few hours.

1. The convictions are not for crimes embraced Would you say that the killing was attended by the

in the 
same Title of the Revised Penal qualifying or aggravating circumstances of evident

Code, provided that it is a felony that was premeditation, treachery, nighttime and unlawful

committed by the offender before serving entry?

sentence by final judgment for another


SUGGESTED ANSWER:
crime or while serving sentence for another
crime; and 
 1. Evident premeditation cannot be considered
against the accused because he resolved to kill the
Prepared by: LJC 43
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

victim "later in the night" and there was no ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES;


sufficient lapse of time between the determination INTOXICATION (2002)
and execution, to allow his conscience to overcome
A was invited to a drinking spree by friends. After
the resolution of his will.
having had a drink too many, A and B had a heated
2. TREACHERY may be present because the argument, during which A stabbed B. As a result, B
accused stabbed the victim while the latter was suffered serious physical injuries. May the
sound asleep. Accordingly, he employed means and intoxication of A be considered aggravating or
methods which directly and specially insured the mitigating? (5%)
execution of the act without risk himself arising
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
from the defense which the victim might have
made (People vs. Dequina. 60 Phil. 279 People vs. The intoxication of A may be prima facie considered
Miranda, et at. 90 Phil. 91). mitigating since it was merely incidental to the
commission of the crime. It may not be considered
3. Nighttime cannot be appreciated because there
aggravating as there is no clear indication from the
is no showing that the accused deliberately sought
facts of the case that it was habitual or intentional
or availed of nighttime to insure the success of his
on the part of A. Aggravating circumstances are not
act. The Intention to commit the crime was
to be presumed; they should be proved beyond
conceived shortly before its commission (People vs
reasonable doubt
Pardo. 79 Phil, 568). Moreover, nighttime is
absorbed in treachery. PERSONS Criminally Liable for FELONIES

4. UNLAWFUL ENTRY may be appreciated as an ANTI-FENCING LAW; FENCING (1996)


aggravating circumstance, inasmuch as the
accused entered the room of the victim through the Flora, who was engaged in the purchase and sale of

window, which is not the proper place for entrance jewelry, was prosecuted for the violation of P.D.

into the house (Art. 14. par. 18. Revised Penal Code, 1612, otherwise known as the Anti-Fencing Law, for

People vs. Baruga 61 Phil. 318). having been found to be in possession of recently
stolen Jewelry valued at P100,000.00 at her jewelry
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES shop at Zapote Road, Las Pinas, Metro Manila. She
testified during the trial that she merely bought the
Prepared by: LJC 44
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

same from one named Cecilino and even produced ANTI-FENCING LAW; FENCING VS. THEFT OR
a receipt covering the sale. Cecilino, in the past, ROBBERY (1995)
used to deliver to her jewelries for sale but is
What is the difference between a fence and an
presently nowhere to be found. Convicted by the
accessory to theft or robbery? Explain.
Is there any
trial court for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law, she
similarity between them?

argued (or her acquittal on appeal, contending that
the prosecution failed to prove that she knew or SUGGESTED ANSWER:
should have known that the Jewelries recovered
One difference between a fence and an accessory
from her were the proceeds of the crime of robbery
to theft or robbery is the penalty involved; a fence
or theft.
is punished as a principal under P.D. No. 1612 and
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the penalty is higher, whereas an accessory to
robbery or theft under the Revised Penal Code is
No, Flora's defense is not well-taken because mere
punished two degrees lower than the principal,
possession of any article of value which has been
unless he bought or profited from the proceeds of
the subject of theft or robbery shall be prima facie
theft or robbery arising from robbery in Philippine
evidence of fencing (P.D.No. 1612). The burden is
highways under P.D. No. 532 where he is punished
upon the accused to prove that she acquired the
as an accomplice, hence the penalty is one degree
jewelry legitimately. Her defense of having bought
lower.
the Jewelry from someone whose whereabouts is
unknown, does not overcome the presumption of Also, fencing is a malum prohibitum and therefore
fencing against her (Pamintuan vs People, G.R there is no need to prove criminal intent of the
111426, 11 July 1994). Buying personal property accused; this is not so in violations of Revised Penal
puts the buyer on caveat because of the phrases Code.

that he should have known or ought to know that it
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
is the proceed from robbery or theft. Besides, she
should have followed the administrative procedure Yes, there is a similarity in the sense that all the acts
under the decree that of getting a clearance from of one who is an accessory to the crimes of robbery
the authorities in case the dealer is unlicensed in or theft are included in the acts defined as fencing.
order to escape liability. In fact, the accessory in the crimes of robbery or
Prepared by: LJC 45
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

theft could be prosecuted as such under the Revised King went to the house of Laura who was alone.
Penal Code or as a fence under P.D. No. 1612. Laura offered him a drink and after consuming
(Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People, 234 SCRA 63] three bottles of beer. King made advances to her
and with force and violence, ravished her. Then
ANTI-FENCING LAW; FENCING; ELEMENTS
King killed Laura and took her jewelry.
(1995)
Doming, King's adopted brother, learned about the
What are the elements of fencing?
incident. He went to Laura's house, hid her body,

SUGGESTED ANSWER: cleaned everything and washed the bloodstains


inside the room.
The elements of fencing are:

Later, King gave Jose, his legitimate brother, one
i. a crime of robbery or theft has been
piece of jewelry belonging to Laura. Jose knew that
committed;
the jewelry was taken from Laura but nonetheless
ii. accused, who is not a principal or
he sold it for P2,000.
accomplice in the crime, buys, receives,
possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, or What crime or crimes did King, Doming and Jose

disposes, or buys and sells, or in any commit? Discuss their criminal liabilities. [10%]

manner deals in any article, item , object or


SUGGESTED ANSWER:
anything of value, which has been derived
from the proceeds of said crime;
 King committed the composite crime of Rape with
iii. the accused knows or should have known homicide as a single indivisible offense, not a
that said article, item, object or anything of complex crime, and Theft. ...
value has been derived from the from the
Doming's acts, having been done with knowledge
proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft;
of the commission of the crime and obviously to
and
conceal the body of the crime to prevent its
iv. there is on the part of the accused, intent
discovery, makes him an accessory to the crime of
to gain for himself or for another.
rape with homicide under Art. 19, par. 2 of the Rev.
CRIMINAL LIABILITY; ACCESSORIES & FENCE Penal Code, but he is exempt from criminal liability
(1998) therefor under Article 20 of the Code, being an
Prepared by: LJC 46
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

adopted brother of the principal. accessory, though related to the principal of the
crime, is expressly provided in Art. 20 of the Revised
Jose incurs criminal liability either as an accessory
Penal Code.
to the crime of theft committed by King, or as
fence. Although he is a legitimate brother of King, CRIMINAL LIABILITY; PRINCIPAL BY DIRECT
the exemption under Article 20 does not include the PARTICIPATION; CO- PRINCIPAL BY
participation he did, because he profited from the INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION (2000)

effects of such theft by selling the jewelry knowing
Despite the massive advertising campaign in media
that the same was taken from Laura. Or Jose may
against firecrackers and gun-firing during the New
be prosecuted for fencing under the Anti-Fencing
Year's celebrations, Jonas and Jaja bought ten
Law of 1979 (PD No. 1612) since the jewelry was the
boxes of super lolo and pla-pla in Bocaue, Bulacan.
proceeds of theft and with intent to gain, he
Before midnight of December 31, 1999, Jonas and
received it from King and sold it.
Jaja started their celebration by having a drinking
CRIMINAL LIABILITY; NON-EXEMPTION AS spree at Jona's place by exploding their high-
ACCESSORY (2004) powered firecrackers in their neighborhood. In the
course of their conversation, Jonas confided to Jaja
DCB, the daughter of MCB, stole the earrings of
that he has been keeping a long-time grudge
XYZ, a stranger. MCB pawned the earrings with TBI
against his neighbor Jepoy in view of the latter's
Pawnshop as a pledge for P500 loan. During the
refusal to lend him some money. While under the
trial, MCB raised the defense that being the mother
influence of liquor, Jonas started throwing lighted
of DCB, she cannot be held liable as an accessory.
super lolos inside Jepoy's fence to irritate him and
Will MCB's defense prosper? Reason briefly. (5%)

the same exploded inside the latter's yard. Upon

SUGGESTED ANSWER: knowing that the throwing of the super lolo was
deliberate, Jepoy became furious and sternly

No, MCB's defense will not prosper because the
warned Jonas to stop his malicious act or he would
exemption from criminal liability of an accessory by
get what he wanted. A heated argument between
virtue of relationship with the principal does not
Jonas and Jepoy ensued but Jaja tried to calm down
cover accessories who themselves profited from or
his friend. At midnight, Jonas convinced Jaja to lend
assisted the offender to profit by the effects or
him his .45 caliber pistol so that he could use it to
proceeds of the crime. This non-exemption of an
Prepared by: LJC 47
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

knock down Jepoy and to end his arrogance. Jonas to him but because he also had his own long-
thought that after all, explosions were everywhere standing grudge against C, who had wronged him
and nobody would know who shot Jepoy. After Jaja in the past. If C is killed by B, would A be liable as a
lent his firearm to Jonas, the latter again started principal by inducement? (5%)
started throwing lighted super lolos and pla-plas at
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Jepoy's yard in order to provoke him so that he
would come out of his house. When Jepoy came No. A would not be liable as a principal by
out, Jonas immediately shot him with Jaja's .45 inducement because the reward he promised B is
caliber gun but missed his target. Instead, the bullet not the sole impelling reason which made B to kill
hit Jepoy's five year old son who was following C. To bring about criminal liability of a co-principal,
behind him, killing the boy instantaneously, the inducement made by the inducer must be the
sole consideration which caused the person
If you were the Judge, how would you decide the
induced to commit the crime and without which the
case? Explain. (1%)

crime would not have been committed. The facts of
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
 the case indicate that B, the killer supposedly
induced by A, had his own reason to kill C out of a
I would convict Jonas as principal by direct
long standing grudge.
participation and Jaja as co-principal by
Indispensable cooperation for the complex crime of CRIMINAL LIABILITY; PRINCIPAL;
murder with homicide. Jaja should be held liable as INDUCEMENT & PARTICIPATION (1994)

co-principal and not only as an accomplice because
Tata owns a three-storey building located at No. 3
he knew of Jonas' criminal design even before he
Herran Street. Paco, Manila. She wanted to
lent his firearm to Jonas and still he concurred in
construct a new building but had no money to
that criminal design by providing the firearm.
finance the construction. So, she insured the
CRIMINAL LIABILITY; PRINCIPAL BY building for P3,000,000.00. She then urged Yoboy
INDUCEMENT (2002) and Yongsi, for monetary consideration, to burn her
building so she could collect the insurance
A asked B to kill C because of a grave injustice done
proceeds. Yoboy and Yongsi burned the said
to A by C. A promised B a reward. B was willing to
building resulting to its total loss.
kill C, not so much because of the reward promised
Prepared by: LJC 48
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

What is their respective criminal liability? amended by RA No. 7659).

SUGGESTED ANSWER: ACCOMPLICE (2012)

Tata is a principal by inducement because she Who is an accomplice? (5%)


directly induced Yoboy and Yongsi, for a price or
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
monetary consideration, to commit arson which
the latter would not have committed were it not for Accomplices are those persons who, not being a
such reason. Yoboy and Yongsi are principals by principal, cooperate in the execution of the offense
direct participation (Art. 17, pars. 21 and 3, RPC). by previous or simultaneous acts (Article 18)

DESTRUCTIVE ARSON (1994) ACCOMPLICE (2009)

Tata owns a three-storey building located at No. 3 No. V. a. Ponciano borrowed Ruben’s gun, saying
Herran Street. Paco, Manila. She wanted to that he would use it to kill Freddie. Because Ruben
construct a new building but had no money to also resented Freddie, he readily lent his gun, but
finance the construction. So, she insured the told Ponciano: "O, pagkabaril mo kay Freddie, isauli
building for P3,000,000.00. She then urged Yoboy mo kaagad, ha." Later, Ponciano killed Freddie, but
and Yongsi, for monetary consideration, to burn her used a knife because he did not want Freddie’s
building so she could collect the insurance neighbors to hear the gunshot.
proceeds. Yoboy and Yongsi burned the said What, if any, is the liability of Ruben? Explain. (3%)
building resulting to its total loss.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
What crime did Tata, Yoboy and Yongsi commit?

Ruben‟s liability is that of an accomplice only


SUGGESTED ANSWER:
because he merely cooperated in Ponciano‟s
Tata, Yoboy and Yongsi committed the crime of determination to kill Freddie. Such cooperation is
destructive arson because they collectively caused not indispensable to the killing, as in fact the killing
the destruction of property by means of fire under was carried out without the use of Ruben‟s gun.
the circumstances which exposed to danger the life Neither way Ruben may be regarded as a co-
or property of others (Art, 320, par. 5, RPC. as conspirator since he was not a participant in the

Prepared by: LJC 49


CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

decision-making of Ponciono to kill Freddie; he No, the answer would not be the same because
merely cooperated in carrying out the plan which Ruben lent his gun purposely for the killing of
was already in place (Art. 18, RPC). Freddie only, not for any other killing. Ponciano‟s
using Ruben‟s gun in killing a person other then
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Freddie is beyond Ruben‟s criminal intent and

Ruben cannot be held liable as an accomplice in the willing involvement. Only Ponciano will answer for

killing of Freddie because his act of lending his gun the crime against Manuel.

to Ponciano did not have the relation between the


It has been ruled that when the owner of the gun
acts done by the latter to that attributed to Ruben.
knew it would be used to kill a particular person, but
Even if Ruben did not lend his gun, Ponciano would
the offender used it to kill another person, the
have consummated the act of killing Freddie. In
owner of the gun is not an accomplice as to the
other words, Ruben‟s act in lending his gun was not
killing of the other person. While there was
a necessary act to enable Ponciano to consummate
community of design to kill Freddie between
the crime.
Ponciano and Ruben, there was none with respect

ACCOMPLICE (2009) to the killing of Manuel.

Ponciano borrowed Ruben’s gun, saying that he


would use it to kill Freddie. Because Ruben also ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

resented Freddie, he readily lent his gun, but told


Yes, the answer would be the same because Ruben
Ponciano: "O, pagkabaril mo kay Freddie, isauli mo
lent his gun to Ponciano with knowledge that it
kaagad, ha." Later, Ponciano killed Freddie, but
would be used in killing a person, thus with
used a knife because he did not want Freddie’s
knowledge that the gun would be use to commit a
neighbors to hear the gunshot.
crime. It is of no moment who was killed so long as

Would your answer be the same if, instead of Ruben is aware when he lent the gun that it would

Freddie, it was Manuel, a relative of Ruben, who be used to commit a crime.

was killed by Ponciano using Ruben’s gun? Explain.


ACCOMPLICE VS. CONSPIRATOR (2012)
(3%)
No. V. b. Distinguish an accomplice from a
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
conspirator as to their knowledge of the criminal
Prepared by: LJC 50
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

design of the principal, their participation, the of the crime collectively. The acts of the
penalty to be imposed in relation to the penalty for other participants in the execution of the
the principal, and the requisites/elements to be crime are considered also as acts of a
established by the prosecution in order to hold conspirator for purposes of collective
them criminally responsible for their respective criminal responsibility.
roles in the commission of the crime. (5%) 3. An accomplice participates in the execution
of a crime when the criminal design or plan
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
is already in place; whereas a conspirator

The differences between accomplice and participates in the adoption or 
making of

conspirator are as follows: the criminal design. 


ACCOMPLICE VS. CONSPIRATOR (2007) 4. An accomplice is subjected to a penalty one


degree lower than that of a principal;
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
whereas a conspirator incurs the penalty of

The distinction between an accomplice and a 
a principal. 


conspirator are:
ANTI-FENCING LAW; FENCING (2013)
1. An accomplice incurs criminal liability by
Roberto bought a Toyota Fortuner from Iñigo for
merely cooperating in the execution of the
P500,000. While driving his newly-bought car,
crime without participating as a principal, by
Roberto met a minor accident that made the
prior simultaneous acts; whereas a
examination of his vehicle's Registration Certificate
conspirator participates in the commission
necessary. When the policeman checked the plate,
of a crime as a co- principal.
chassis and motor numbers of the vehicle against
2. An accomplice incurs criminal liability in an
those reflected in the Registration Certificate, he
individual capacity by his act alone of
found the chassis and motor numbers to be
cooperating in the execution of the crime;
different from what the Registration Certificate
while a conspirator incurs criminal liability
stated. The Deed of Sale covering the sale of the
not only for his individual acts in the
Fortuner, signed by Iñigo, also bore the same
execution of the crime but also for the acts
chassis and motor numbers as Roberto's
of the other participants in the commission
Registration Certificate. The chassis and motor
Prepared by: LJC 51
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

numbers on the Fortuner were found, upon no effort to check the papers covering his purchase.
verification with the Land Transportation Office, to Lastly, Roberto‟s defense of good faith is flawed
correspond to a vehicle previously reported as because Presidential Decree 1612 is a special law
carnapped. and, therefore, its violation in regarded as malum
prohibitum, requiring no proof of criminal intent
Roberto claimed that he was in good faith; Iñigo
(Dimat v. People, GR No. 181184, January 25, 2012).
sold him a carnapped vehicle and he did not know
that he was buying a carnapped vehicle. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

If you were the prosecutor, would you or would you The facts given show that Roberto “bought” the car

not charge Roberto with a crime? (7%) form Inigo; that a “deed of sale” covering the
subject vehicle was executed by Inigo; that there is
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
also a copy of the “Registration Certificate”; that

I will charge Roberto with violation of Anti-Fencing Roberto aver, too, of being a buyer in good faith and
lacking of any knowledge that the subject car is a
Law. The elements of “fencing” are: 1) a robbery or
carnapped vehicle.
theft has been committed; 2) the accused, who
took no part in the robbery or theft, “buys, receives, As against the foregoing, there is only a certificate
possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or from the Land Transportation Office showing that
disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals
the vehicle had been previously reported as
in any article or object taken” during that robbery or
carnapped.
theft; 3) the accused knows or should have known
of that the thing was derived form that crime; and Consequently, in light of the satisfactory

4) by the deal he makes he intends to gain for explanation of Roberto of his possession of the

himself or for another. Here, someone carnapped vehicle, the presumption of authorship of the theft

the vehicle, old it to Roberto who did not take part upon a person found in possession of the stolen

in the crime. Roberto should have known also that personal property finds no application in the instant

the car was stolen because it was not properly case.

documented as the deed of sale and registration


There is, thus, no probable cause or evidence to
certificate did not reflect the correct numbers of the
warrant the prosecution of Riberto for any
vehicle‟s engine and chassis. Apparently, he made
wrongdoing.
Prepared by: LJC 52
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

ANTI-FENCING LAW; FENCING (2010) ANTI-FENCING LAW; FENCING (2009)

No. V. Arlene is engaged in the buy and sell of used No. XI. c. In a prosecution for fencing under P.D.
garments, more popularly known as"ukay-ukay." 1612, it is a complete defense for the accused to
Among the items found by the police in a raid of her prove that he had no knowledge that the goods or
store in Baguio City were brand-new Louie Feraud articles found in his possession had been the subject
blazers. of robbery.

Arlene was charged with "fencing." Will the charge SUGGESTED ANSWER:
prosper? Why or why not? (5%)
False, fencing is committed if the accused “should
SUGGESTED ANSWER: have known” that the goods or articles had been the
subject of theft or robbery (P.D. No. 1612[a]). Mere
No, the charge of “fencing” will not prosper.
possession of the stolen goods gives rise to the
“Fencing” is committed when a person, with intent
prima facie presumption of fencing.
to gain foe himself or for another, deals in any
manner with an article of value which he knows or CRIMINAL LIABILITY; ACCESSORIES (2013)
should be known to him to have been derived from
Modesto and Abelardo are brothers. Sometime in
the proceeds of theft or robbery (Sec. 2, PD 1612).
August, 1998 while Abelardo was in his office,
Thus, for a charge of fencing to prosper, it must first
Modesto, together with two other men in police
be established that a theft or robbery of the article
uniform, came with two heavy bags. Modesto
subject of the alleged fencing has been committed
asked Abelardo to keep the two bags in his vault
--- fact which is wanting in this case.
until he comes back to get them. When Abelardo
It should be noted that the suspect is engaged in the
later examined the two bags, he saw bundles of
buy and sell of used garments, which are in the
money that, in his rough count, could not be less
nature of movable property carries with it a prima
than P5 Million. He kept the money inside the vault
facie presumption of ownership. The presumption
and soon he heard the news that a gang that
of “fencing” arises only when the article or item
included Modesto had been engaged in bank
involved is the subject of a robbery or thievery (Sec.
robberies. Abelardo, unsure of what to do under the
5, PD 1612).
circumstances, kept quiet about the two bags in his
Prepared by: LJC 53
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

vault. Soon after, the police captured, and secured SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a confession from, Modesto who admitted that
COMPOUND CRIMES result when the offender
their loot had been deposited with Abelardo.
committed only a single felonious act from which
What is Abelardo's liability? (7%) two or more crimes resulted. This is provided for in
modified form in the first part of Article 48, Revised
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Penal Code, limiting the resulting crimes to only

Abelardo is not criminally liable. grave and/or less grave felonies. Hence, light
felonies are excluded even though resulting from
To be criminally liable as an accessory under Article
the same single act.
19 of the Code, such person must have knowledge
of the commission of the crime. The term COMPLEX CRIMES result when the offender has to

“knowledge “ under the law is not synonymous with commit an offense as a necessary means for

suspicion. Mere suspicion that the crime has been committing another offense. Only one information

committed is not sufficient. shall be filed and if proven, the penalty for the more
serious crime shall be imposed.
Moreover, the facts as given in the problem would
show lack or absent of intent to conceal the effects COMPLEX CRIME VS. SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME

of the crime as Abelardo is described as being VS. DELITO CONTINUADO (2005)


“unsure of what to do under the circumstances.”


Distinguish the following from each other:

Even if he can be considered as an accessory under


SUGGESTED ANSWER:
paragraph 2 of Article 19, RPC, Abelardo is not
liable, being the brother of Modesto under Article An ORDINARY COMPLEX CRIME is made up of two
20, RPC. or more crimes being punished in distinct provisions
of the Revised Penal Code but alleged in one
PENALTIES
information either because they were brought

COMPLEX CRIME VS. COMPOUND CRIME (2004) about by a single felonious act or because one
offense is a necessary means for committing the
Distinguish clearly but briefly: Between compound other offense or offenses. They are alleged in one
and complex crimes as concepts in the Penal Code. information so that only one penalty shall be
Prepared by: LJC 54
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

imposed. As to penalties, ordinary complex crime, a common right, a common penal provision, and
the penalty for the most serious crime shall be Impelled by a single cri
imposed and in its maximum period
COMPLEX CRIME; ABERRATIO ICTUS VS.
A SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME, on the other hand, is ERROR IN PERSONAE (1994)

made up of two or more crimes which are
Distinguish aberratio ictus from error in personae.
considered only as components of a single
indivisible offense being punished in one provision SUGGESTED ANSWER:
of the Revised Penal Code. As to penalties, special
Aberratio ictus or mistake in the blow occurs when
complex crime, only one penalty is specifically
a felonious act missed the person against whom it
prescribed for all the component crimes which are
was directed and hit instead somebody who was
regarded as one indivisible offense. The component
not the intended victim. Error in personae, or
crimes are not regarded as distinct crimes and so
mistake in identity occurs when the felonious act
the penalty for the most serious crime is not the
was directed at the person intended, but who
penalty to be imposed nor in its maximum period. It
turned out to be somebody else. Aberratio ictus
is the penalty specifically provided for the special
brings about at least two (2) felonious
complex crime that shall be applied according to
consequence, ie. the attempted felony on the
the rules on imposition of the penalty.
intended victim who was not hit and the felony on
DELITO CONTINUADO, or CONTINUOUS CRIME, the unintended victim who was hit. A complex
is a term used to denote as only one crime a series crime of the first form under Art. 48, RPC generally
of felonious acts arising from a single criminal result. In error in personae only one crime is
resolution, not susceptible of division, which are committed
carried out in the same place and at about the same
COMPLEX CRIME; ABERRATIO ICTUS, ERROR
time, and violating one and the same penal
IN PERSONAE & PRAETER INTENTIONEM
provision. The acts done must be impelled by one
(1999)

criminal intent or purpose, such that each act
merely constitutes a partial execution of a particular What do you understand by aberratio ictus: error in
crime, violating one and the same penal provision. personae; and praeter intentionem? Do they alter
It involves a concurrence of felonious acts violating the criminal liability of an accused? Explain. (4%)
Prepared by: LJC 55
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

SUGGESTED ANSWER: par. 3, RPC) when there is a notorious disparity


between the act or means employed by the
ABERRATIO ICTUS or mistake in the blow occurs
offender and the resulting felony, i,e., the resulting
when the offender delivered the blow at his
felony could not be reasonably anticipated or
intended victim but missed, and instead such blow
foreseen by the of fender from the act or means
landed on an unintended victim. The situation
employed by him.
generally brings about complex crimes where from
a single act, two or more grave or less grave felonies COMPLEX CRIME; ABERRATIO ICTUS;
resulted, namely the attempt against the intended ATTEMPTED MURDER WITH HOMICIDE (2000)

victim and the consequence on the unintended
Despite the massive advertising campaign in media
victim. As complex crimes, the penalty for the more
against firecrackers and gun-firing during the New
serious crime shall be the one imposed and in the
Year's celebrations, Jonas and Jaja bought ten
maximum period. It is only when the resulting
boxes of super lolo and pla-pla in Bocaue, Bulacan.
felonies are only light that complex crimes do not
Before midnight of December 31, 1999, Jonas and
result and the penalties are to be imposed distinctly
Jaja started their celebration by having a drinking
for each resulting crime.
spree at Jona's place by exploding their high-
ERROR IN PERSONAE or mistake in identity occurs powered firecrackers in their neighborhood. In the
when the offender actually hit the person to whom course of their conversation, Jonas confided to Jaja
the blow was directed but turned out to be different that he has been keeping a long-time grudge
from and not the victim intended. The criminal against his neighbor Jepoy in view of the latter's
liability of the offender is not affected, unless the refusal to lend him some money. While under the
mistake in identity resulted to a crime different influence of liquor, Jonas started throwing lighted
from what the offender intended to commit, in super lolos inside Jepoy's fence to irritate him and
which case the lesser penalty between the crime the same exploded inside the latter's yard. Upon
intended and the crime committed shall be knowing that the throwing of the super lolo was
imposed but in the maximum period (Art. 49, RFC). deliberate, Jepoy became furious and sternly
warned Jonas to stop his malicious act or he would
PRAETER INTENTIONEM or where the
get what he wanted. A heated argument between
consequence went beyond that intended or
Jonas and Jepoy ensued but Jaja tried to calm down
expected. This is a mitigating circumstance (Art. 13.
Prepared by: LJC 56
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

his friend. At midnight, Jonas convinced Jaja to lend but missed, hitting Tiburcio instead, resulting in the
him his .45 caliber pistol so that he could use it to death of the latter. Pedrito, invoking the doctrine of
knock down Jepoy and to end his arrogance. Jonas aberratio ictus, claims exemption from criminal
thought that after all, explosions were everywhere liability.
If you were the judge, how would you
and nobody would know who shot Jepoy. After Jaja decide the case?
lent his firearm to Jonas, the latter again started
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

throwing lighted super lolos and pla-plas at Jepoy's
yard in order to provoke him so that he would come If I were the Judge, I will convict Pedrito and find
out of his house. When Jepoy came out, Jonas him guilty of the complex crime of Homicide with
immediately shot him with Jaja's .45 caliber gun but Attempted Homicide. The single act of firing at
missed his target. Instead, the bullet hit Jepoy's five Paulo resulted in the commission of two felonies,
year old son who was following behind him, killing one grave (homicide) and the other less grave
the boy instantaneously, (attempted homicide) thus falling squarely under
Art. 48, RPC; hence, the penalty would be for the
a) What crime or crimes can Jonas and Jaja be
more serious crime (homicide} in its maximum
charged with? Explain. (2%)

period (17 years 4 months and 1 day to 20 years).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Aberratio ictus (mistake in the blow) could not be
Jonas and Jaja, can be charged with the complex used as a defense as it is not an exempting
crime of attempted murder with homicide because circumstance. Pedrito is liable under the principle of
a single act caused a less grave and a grave felony Art. 4, RPC, which makes a person criminally liable
(Art. 48. RPC). for all the natural and logical consequences of his
felonious act
Attempted murder is a less grave felony, while
consummated homicide is a grave felony: both are COMPLEX CRIMES; COUP D’ETAT & REBELLION
punishable by afflictive penalties. & SEDITION (2003)

COMPLEX CRIME; DOCTRINE OF ABERRATIO 1) Can there be a complex crime of coup d'etat with
ICTUS; NOT APPLICABLE (1996)
 rebellion? 2%

At the height of an altercation, Pedrito shot Paulo 2) Can there be a complex crime of coup d'etat with
Prepared by: LJC 57
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

sedition? 2% always political in objective as it is


directed against the Government
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
and led by persons or public officer

1.) Yes, if there was conspiracy between the holding public office belonging to

offender/ offenders committing the coup the military or national police. Art.

d'etat and the offenders committing the 48 of the Code may apply under the

rebellion. By conspiracy, the crime of one conditions therein provided. 


would be the crime of the other and vice


ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
versa. This is possible because the offender
in coup d'etat may be any person or persons The crime of coup d'etat cannot be complexed with
belonging to the military or the national the crime of rebellion because both crimes are
police or a public officer, whereas rebellion directed against the Government or for political
does not so require. Moreover, the crime of purposes, although the principal offenders are
coup d'etat may be committed singly, different. The essence may be the same and thus
whereas rebellion requires a public uprising constitute only one crime. In this situation, the two
and taking up arms to overthrow the duly crimes are not distinct and therefore, may not be
constituted government. Since the two proper to apply Article 48 of the Code.
crimes are essentially different and
COMPLEX CRIMES; DETERMINATION OF THE
punished with distinct penalties, there is no
CRIME (1999)
legal impediment to the application of Art.
48 of the Revised Penal Code. 
 A, actuated by malice and with the use of a fully
a. Yes, coup d'etat can be complexed automatic M-14 sub-machine gun, shot a group of
with sedition because the two crimes persons who were seated in a cockpit with one burst
are essentially different and of successive, continuous, automatic fire. Four (4)
distinctly punished under the persons were killed thereby, each having hit by
Revised Penal Code. Sedition may different bullets coming from the sub-machine gun
not be directed against the of A. Four (4) cases of murder were filed against A.
Government or non-political in
The trial court ruled that there was only one crime
objective, whereas coup d'etat is
committed by A for the reason that, since A
Prepared by: LJC 58
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

performed only one act, he having pressed the A complex crime is constituted when a single act
trigger of his gun only once, the crime committed caused two or more grave or less grave felonies or
was murder. Consequently, the trial judge when an offense is committed as a necessary
sentenced A to just one penalty of reclusion means to commit another offense (Art. 48, RPC). At
perpetua. least two (2) crimes are involved in a complex crime;
either two or more grave or less grave felonies
Was the decision of the trial judge correct? Explain.
resulted from a single act, or an offense is
(4%)
committed as a necessary means for committing

SUGGESTED ANSWER: another. The penalty for the more serious crime
shall be imposed and in its maximum period. (Art.
The decision of the trial judge is not correct. When
48, RPC)
the offender made use of an automatic firearm, the
acts committed are determined by the number of COMPLEX CRIMES; ORDINARY COMPLEX

bullets discharged inasmuch as the firearm being CRIME VS. SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME (2003)


automatic, the offender need only press the trigger


Distinguish between an ordinary complex crime
once and it would fire continually. For each death
and a special complex crime as to their concepts
caused by a distinct and separate bullet, the
and as to the imposition of penalties. 2%
accused incurs distinct criminal liability. Hence, it is
not the act of pressing the trigger which should be SUGGESTED ANSWER:
considered as producing the several felonies, but
IN CONCEPT -
the number of bullets which actually produced
them. An ORDINARY COMPLEX CRIME is made up of two
or more crimes being punished in distinct provisions
COMPLEX CRIMES; NATURE & PENALTY
of the Revised Penal Code but alleged in one
INVOLVED (1999)
Information either because they were brought
What constitutes a complex crime? How many about by a single felonious act or because one
crimes maybe involved in a complex crime? What is offense is a necessary means for committing the
the penalty therefor? (4%)
 other offense or offenses. They are alleged in one
Information so that only one penalty shall be
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
imposed.
Prepared by: LJC 59
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

A SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME, on the other hand, is carried out in the same place and at about the same
made up of two or more crimes which are time, and violating one and the same penal
considered only as components of a single provision. The acts done must be impelled by one
indivisible offense being punished in one provision criminal intent or purpose, such that each act
of the Revised Penal Code. merely constitutes a partial execution of a particular
crime, violating one and the same penal provision.
AS TO PENALTIES -
In ORDINARY COMPLEX
It involves a concurrence of felonious acts violating
CRIME, the penalty for the most serious crime shall
a common right, a common penal provision, and
be imposed and in its maximum period.
impelled by a single criminal impulse (People vs. Le-

In SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME, only one penalty is desma, 73 SCRA 77).

specifically prescribed for all the component crimes


On the other hand, a CONTINUING OFFENSE is one
which are regarded as one indivisible offense. The
whose essential ingredients took place in more than
component crimes are not regarded as distinct
one municipality or city, so much so that the
crimes and so the penalty for the most serious crime
criminal prosecution may be instituted and the case
is not the penalty to be imposed nor in its maximum
tried in the competent court of any one of such
period. It is the penalty specifically provided for the
municipality or city.
special complex crime that shall be applied
according to the rules on imposition of the penalty. The term "CONTINUED CRIME" or delito
continuado mandates that only one information
CONTINUING OFFENSE VS. DELITO
should be filed against the offender although a
CONTINUADO (1994)
series of felonious acts were performed; the term

Differentiate delito continuado from a continuing "continuing crime" is more pertinently used with

offense.
 reference to the venue where the criminal action


may be instituted.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

DEATH PENALTY (2004)
DELITO CONTINUADO, or CONTINUOUS CRIME,
is a term used to denote as only one crime a series The death penalty cannot be inflicted under which

of felonious acts arising from a single criminal the following circumstances:


resolution, not susceptible of division, which are
1. When the guilty person is at least 18 years of
Prepared by: LJC 60
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

age at the time of the commission of the Circumstance no. 3 no longer operates, considering
crime.
 the decision of the Supreme Court in People vs. Efren
2. When the guilty person is more than 70 Mateo (G.R. 147678-87, July 7, 2004) providing an
years of age. intermediate review for such cases where the
3. When, upon appeal to or automatic review penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life
by the Supreme Court, the required majority imprisonment before they are elevated to the
for the imposition of the death penalty is not Supreme Court.
obtained.
In circumtances nos. 4 & 5, the death penalty can be
4. When the person is convicted of a capital
imposed if prescribed by the law violated although
crime but before execution becomes insane.
its execution shall be suspended when the convict
5. When the accused is a woman while she is
becomes insane before it could be executed and
pregnant or within one year after delivery.
while he is insane.
Explain your answer or choice briefly. (5%)
Likewise, the death penalty can be imposed upon a
SUGGESTED ANSWER: woman but its execution shall be suspended during
her pregnancy and for one year after her delivery.
A. Understanding the word "inflicted" to mean the
imposition of the death penalty, not its execution, ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
the circumstance in which the death penalty cannot
The word "INFLICTED" is found only in Art. 83 to the
be inflicted is no. 2: "when the guilty person is more
effect that the death penalty may not be
than 70 years of age" (Art. 47, Revised Penal Code).
"INFLICTED" upon a pregnant woman, such penalty
Instead, the penalty shall be commuted to reclusion
is to be suspended. If "INFLICTED" is to be
perpetua, with the accessory penalties provided in
construed as "EXECUTION", then No. 5 is the
Article 40, RFC.
choice.
In circumstance no. 1 when the guilty person is at
DEATH PENALTY; QUALIFIED RAPE;
least 18 years of age at the time of the commission
REQUISITES (2004)
of the crime, the death penalty can be imposed
since the offender is already of legal age when he GV was convicted of raping TC, his niece, and he
committed the crime. was sentenced to death. It was alleged in the
Prepared by: LJC 61
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

information that the victim was a minor below as baptismal certificate and school
seven years old, and her mother testified that she records; 

was only six years and ten months old, which her 3) If the aforesaid documents are
aunt corroborated on the witness stand. The shown to have been lost or
information also alleged that the accused was the destroyed or otherwise unavailable,
victim's uncle, a fact proved by the prosecution. the testimony, if clear and credible of
the victim's mother or any member
On automatic review before the Supreme Court,
of the family, by consanguinity or
accused-appellant contends that capital
affinity, who is qualified to testify on
punishment could not be imposed on him because
matters respecting pedigree such as
of the inadequacy of the charges and the
the exact age 
or date of birth of the
insufficiency of the evidence to prove all the
offended party pursuant to Section
elements of the heinous crime of rape beyond
40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence
reasonable doubt. Is appellant's contention
shall be sufficient but only under the
correct? Reason briefly. (5%)
following circumstances: (a) If the

SUGGESTED ANSWER: victim is alleged to be below 3 years


of age and what is sought to be
Yes, appellant's contention is correct insofar as the
proved is that she is less than 7 years
age of the victim is concerned. The age of the victim
old; (b) If the victim is alleged to be
raped has not been proved beyond reasonable
below 7 years of age and what is
doubt to constitute the crime as qualified rape and
sought to be proved is that she is less
deserving of the death penalty. The guidelines in
than 12 years old; (c) If the victim is
appreciating age as a qualifying circumstance in
alleged to be below 12 years of age
rape cases have not been met, to wit:
and what is sought to be proved is

1) The primary evidence of the age of that she is less than 18 years old.


the victim is her birth certificate; 
 4) In the absence of a certificate of live

2) In the absence of the birth birth, authentic document, or the

certificate, age of the victim maybe testimony of the victim's mother or

proven by authentic document, such relatives concerning the victim's age

Prepared by: LJC 62


CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

under the circumstances above- final judgment for theft and again convicted for
stated, complainant's sole testimony Robbery With Homicide. And the crimes specified
can suffice, provided that it is as basis for habitual delinquency includes, inter alia,
expressly and clearly admitted by theft and robbery.
the accused (People us. Pruna, 390
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW (1994)
SCRA 577 [2002]).

Itos was convicted of an offense penalized by a


HABITUAL DELINQUENCY & RECIDIVISM (2001)
special law. The penalty prescribed is not less than
Juan de Castro already had three (3) previous six years but not more than twelve years. No
convictions by final judgment for theft when he was modifying circumstance attended the commission
found guilty of Robbery with Homicide. In the last of the crime.
case, the trial Judge considered against the accused
If you were the judge, will you apply the
both recidivism and habitual delinquency. The
Indeterminate Sentence Law?
If so, how will you
accused appealed and contended that in his last
apply it?

conviction, the trial court cannot consider against
him a finding of recidivism and, again, of habitual SUGGESTED ANSWER:
delinquency. Is the appeal meritorious? Explain.
If I were the judge, I will apply the provisions of the
(5%)
Indeterminate Sentence Law, as the last sentence
SUGGESTED ANSWER: of Section 1 Act 4103, specifically provides the
application thereof for violations of special laws.
No, the appeal is not meritorious. Recidivism and
habitual delinquency are correctly considered in Under the same provision, the minimum must not
this case because the basis of recidivism is different be less than the minimum provided therein (six
from that of habitual delinquency. years and one day) and the maximum shall not be
more than the maximum provided therein, i.e.
Juan is a recidivist ...
Habitual delinquency, which
twelve years. (People vs. Rosalina Reyes, 186 SCRA
brings about an additional penalty when an
184)
offender is convicted a third time or more for
specified crimes, is correctly considered because INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW (1999)
Juan had already three (3) previous convictions by
Prepared by: LJC 63
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

Andres is charged with an offense defined by a Is the penalty thus imposed correct? Explain. (3%)
special law. The penalty prescribed for the offense
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
is imprisonment of not less than five (5) years but
not more than ten [10) years. Upon arraignment, he Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply to: The
entered a plea of guilty. In the imposition of the penalty imposed, being only a straight penalty, is
proper penalty, should the Indeterminate Sentence not correct because it does not comply with the
Law be applied? If you were the Judge trying the Indeterminate Sentence Law which applies to this
case, what penalty would you impose on Andres? case. Said law requires that if the offense is
(4%) punished by any law other than the Revised Penal
Code, the court shall sentence the accused to an
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of
Yes, the Indeterminate Sentence Law should be which shall not exceed the maximum penalty fixed
applied because the minimum imprisonment is by the law and the minimum shall not be less than
more than one (1) year. the minimum penalty prescribed by the same.

If I were the Judge, I will impose an indeterminate INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW (2002)
sentence, the maximum of which shall not exceed
How are the maximum and the minimum terms of
the maximum fixed by law and the minimum shall
the indeterminate sentence for offenses punishable
not be less than the minimum penalty prescribed by
under the Revised Penal Code determined? (3%)

the same. I have the discretion to impose the
penalty within the said minimum and maximum. SUGGESTED ANSWER:

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW (1999) For crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code,
the maximum term of the Indeterminate sentence
A was convicted of illegal possession of grease guns
shall be the penalty properly imposable under the
and two Thompson sub-machine guns punishable
same Code after considering the attending
under the old law [RA No,4] with imprisonment of
mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances
from five (5) to ten (10) years. The trial court
according to Art, 64 of said Code. The minimum
sentenced the accused to suffer imprisonment of
term of the same sentence shall be fixed within the
five (5) years and one (1) day.
range of the penalty next lower in degree to that
Prepared by: LJC 64
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

prescribed for the crime under the said Code. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Under the law, what is the purpose for fixing the Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
maximum and the minimum terms of the minimum imposable penalty shall be imposed but
indeterminate sentence? (2%) the maximum shall not exceed the maximum
imposable by law.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

b) 6 months, as minimum, to 11 months, as
The purpose of the law in fixing the minimum term
maximum;

of the sentence is to set the grace period at which
the convict may be released on parole from SUGGESTED ANSWER:

imprisonment, unless by his conduct he is not
No, because Indeterminate Sentence Law does not
deserving of parole and thus he shall continue
apply when the penalty imposed is less than one
serving his prison term in Jail but in no case to go
year (Sec. 2, Art. 4103, as amended).
beyond the maximum term fixed in the sentence.

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


INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW (2005)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Harold was convicted of a crime defined and
penalized by a special penal law where the No, because the Indeterminate Sentence Law will
imposable penalty is from 6 months, as minimum, apply when the minimum of the penalty exceeds
to 3 years, as maximum. one year.

State with reasons whether the court may correctly ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
impose the following penalties:
If the imposition of straight penalty which consists

a) a straight penalty of 10 months; of the minimum period of the penalty prescribed by
law, then it may be allowed because it favors the

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
accused.
Yes, because the penalty is less than one year, a
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW;
straight penalty may be imposed. (People v.
EXCEPTIONS (1999)
Arellano, G.R. No, 46501, October 5, 1939)

Prepared by: LJC 65


CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

Under what circumstances is the Indeterminate SUGGESTED ANSWER:



Sentence Law not applicable? (2%)
The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable
SUGGESTED ANSWER: to:

1) Persons convicted of offenses punished with 1) those persons convicted of offenses


death 
penalty or life imprisonment; 
 punished with death penalty or life-
2) Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or imprisonment or reclusion perpetua; 

proposal 
to commit treason; 
 2) those convicted of treason, conspiracy or
3) Those convicted of misprision of treason, proposal to commit treason; 

rebellion, 
sedition or espionage; 
 3) those convicted of misprision of treason,
4) Those convicted of piracy; 
 rebellion, sedition or espionage; 

5) Those who are habitual delinquents; 
 4) those convicted of piracy; 

6) Those who shall have escaped from 5) those who are habitual delinquents; 

confinement or 
evaded sentence; 
 6) those who shall have escaped from
7) Those who violated the terms of conditional confinement or 
evaded sentence; 

pardon 
granted to them by the Chief 7) those who having been granted conditional
Executive; 
 pardon 
by the Chief Executive shall have
8) Those whose maximum term of violated the terms 
thereof; 

imprisonment does 
not exceed one year; 
 8) those whose maximum term of
9) Those who, upon the approval of the law imprisonment does 
not exceed one year; 

(December 5, 1933). had been sentenced by 9) those already sentenced by final judgment
final Judgment; 
 at the 
time of approval of this Act; and 

10) Those sentenced to the penalty of destierro 10) those whose sentence imposes penalties
or suspension. 
 which do 
not involve imprisonment, like
destierro. 

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW;
EXCEPTIONS (2003) PENALTIES: FINE OR IMPRISONMENT VS.
SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT (2005)

When would the Indeterminate Sentence Law be
inapplicable? 4% E and M are convicted of a penal law that imposes a

Prepared by: LJC 66


CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

penalty of fine or imprisonment or both fine and No. A fine, whether imposed as a single or as an
imprisonment. The judge sentenced them to pay alternative penalty, should not and cannot be
the fine, jointly and severally, with subsidiary reduced or converted into a prison term. There is no
imprisonment in case of insolvency.
Is the penalty rule for transmutation of the amount of a fine into a
proper? Explain.
 term of imprisonment. (People v. Dacuycuy, G.R.
No. L-45127 May 5,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1989)
The penalty is not proper. The two accused must
separately pay the fine, which is their penalty. PENALTIES: PECUNIARY PENALTIES VS.
Solidary liability applies only to civil liabilities.
 PECUNIARY LIABILITIES (2005)


ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
 Distinguish pecuniary penalties from pecuniary


liabilities. (2%)
NO, because in penal law when there are several
offenders, the court in the exercise of its discretion SUGGESTED ANSWER:
shall determine what shall be the share of each
Pecuniary liabilities do not include restitution, but
offender depending upon the degree of
include reparation of damages caused, the
participation – as principal, accomplice or
indemnification for consequential damages, as well
accessory. If within each class of offender, there are
as fines and cost of the proceedings.
more of them, such as more than one principal or
more than one accomplice or accessory, the liability Pecuniary penalties include fines and cost of the
in each class of offender shall be subsidiary. Anyone proceedings.
of the may be required to pay the civil liability
PENALTIES; COMPLEX CRIME OF ESTAFA
pertaining to such offender without prejudice to
(1997)
recovery from those whose share have been paid by
another. A was convicted of the complex crime of estafa
through falsification of public document. Since the
May the judge impose an alternative penalty of
amount Involved did not exceed P200.00, the
fine or imprisonment? Explain. (4%)

penalty prescribed by law for estafa is arresto
SUGGESTED ANSWER: mayor in its medium and maximum periods. The
Prepared by: LJC 67
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

penalty prescribed by law for falsification of public to determine the exact penalty to be imposed.
document is prision mayor plus fine not to exceed Stated differently, what are the factors you must
P5,000.00. consider to arrive at the correct penalty?

Impose the proper prison penalty. SUGGESTED ANSWER:

SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1. the crime committed;



2. Stage of execution and degree of
The proper penalty is ANY RANGE WITHIN prision
participation;

correccional (six (6) months and one (1) day to six
3. Determine the penalty;

(6) years) as MINIMUM, to ANY RANGE within
4. Consider the modifying circumstances;

prision mayor maximum (ten (10) years and one (1)
5. Determine whether Indeterminate
day to twelve (12) years) as MAXIMUM. This is in
Sentence Law is applicable or not.
accordance with People us, Gonzales, 73 Phil, 549,
where It was ruled that for the purpose of PENALTIES; HOMICIDE W/ MODIFYING
determining the penalty next lower in degree, the CIRCUMSTANCE (1995)
penalty that should be considered as a starting
Homer was convicted of homicide. The trial court
point is the whole of prision mayor, it being the
appreciated the following modifying
penalty prescribed by law, and not prision mayor in
circumstances: the aggravating circumstance of
its maximum period, which is only the penalty
nocturnity, and the mitigating circumstances of
actually applied because of Article 48 of the Revised
passion and obfuscation, no intent to commit so
Penal Code. The penalty next lower in degree
grave a wrong, illiteracy and voluntary surrender.
therefor is prision correccional and it is within the
The imposable penalty for homicide is reclusion
range of this penalty that the minimum should be
temporal the range of which is twelve (12) years and
taken.
one (1) day to twenty (20) years.
PENALTIES; FACTORS TO CONSIDER (1991)
Taking into account the attendant aggravating and
Imagine that you are a Judge trying a case, and mitigating circumstances, and applying the
based on the evidence presented and the applicable Indeterminate Sentence Law, determine the proper
law, you have decided on the guilt of two (2) penalty to be imposed on the accused.
accused. Indicate the five (5) steps you would follow
Prepared by: LJC 68
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

SUGGESTED ANSWER: circumstances after the off-setting it would be very


logical to impose the minimum of the MINIMUM
It appears that there is one aggravating
sentence under the ISL and the minimum of the
circumstance (nocturnity), and four mitigating
MAXIMUM sentence.
circumstances (passion and obfuscation, no intent
to commit so grave a wrong as that committed and PENALTIES; MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
voluntary surrender). Par. 4, Art. 64 should be W/OUT AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE (1997)

applied. Hence there will be off-setting of
Assume in the preceding problem that there were
modifying circumstances, which will now result in
two mitigating circumstances and no aggravating
the excess of three mitigating circumstances. This
circumstance. Impose the proper prison penalty.
will therefore justify in reducing the penalty to the
minimum period. SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The existence of an aggravating circumstance, There being two (2) mitigating circumstances
albeit there are four aggravating, will not justify the without any aggravating circumstance, the proper
lowering of the penalty to the next lower degree prison penalty is arresto mayor (in any of its periods,
under paragraph 5 of said Article, as this is ie. ranging from one (1) month and one (1) day to six
applicable only if THERE IS NO AGGRAVATING (6) months) as MINIMUM to prision correccional in
CIRCUMSTANCE present. its maximum period four (4) years, two (2) months,
and one (1) day to six (6) years as MAXIMUM. Under
Since the crime committed is Homicide and the
Art. 64, par. 5 of the Revised Penal Code, when a
penalty therefor is reclusion temporal, the
penalty contains three periods, each one of which
MAXIMUM sentence under the Indeterminate
forms a period in accordance with Article 76 and 77
Sentence Law should be the minimum of the
of the same Code, and there are two or more
penalty, which is 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and
mitigating circumstances and no aggravating
8 months. The MINIMUM penalty will thus be the
circumstances, the penalty next lower in degree
penalty next lower in degree, which is prision mayor
should be imposed. For purposes of the
in its full extent (6 years and 1 day to 12 years). Ergo,
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty next
the proper penalty would be 6 years and 1 day, as
lower in degree should be determined without
minimum, to 12 years and 1 day, as maximum. I
regard as to whether the basic penalty provided by
believe that because of the remaining mitigating
Prepared by: LJC 69
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

the Revised Penal Code should be applied in its Supreme Court held that the proper, penalty to be
maximum or minimum period as circumstances imposed is reclusion perpetua.
modifying liability may require. The penalty next
PENALTIES; PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT
lower in degree to prision correccional. Therefore,
(1994)
as previously stated, the minimum should be within
the range of arresto mayor and the maximum is 1) When is there preventive imprisonment?
2)
within the range of prision correctional in its When is the accused credited with the full time of
maximum period. his preventive imprisonment, and when is he
credited with 4/5 thereof?
PeNALTIES; PARRICIDE W/ MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCE (1997) SUGGESTED ANSWER:


A and B pleaded guilty to the crime of parricide. The 1) There is preventive imprisonment when [a) an
court found three mitigating circumstances, offender is detained while the criminal case against
namely, plea of guilty, lack of Instruction and lack of him is being heard, either because the crime
intent to commit so grave a wrong as that committed is a capital offense and not bailable, or
committed. The prescribed penalty for parricide is even if the crime committed was bailable, the
reclusion perpetua to death. Impose the proper offender could not post the required bail for his
principal penalty. provisional liberty.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: 2) An accused is credited with the full time of his


preventive imprisonment if he voluntarily agreed in
The proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. Even if
writing to abide by the rules of the institution
there are two or more mitigating circumstances, a
imposed upon its prisoners, provided that:
court cannot lower the penalty by one degree (Art.
63. par. 3, Revised Penal Code; People vs. a) the penalty imposed on him for the crime
Formigones, 87 Phil. 685). In U.S. vs. Relador 60 committed consists of a deprivation of liberty;
Phil. 593, where the crime committed was parricide
b) he is not disqualified from such credit for being a
with the two (2) mitigating circumstances of
recidivist, or for having been previously convicted
illiteracy and lack of intention to commit so grave a
for two or more times of any crime, or for having
wrong, and with no aggravating circumstance, the

Prepared by: LJC 70


CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

failed to surrender voluntarily for the execution of 92506-07, April 28, 1993; People vs. Alvero, G.R. No.
the sentence upon being so summoned (Art. 29, 72319, June 30,1993; People vs. Lapiroso, G.R. No.
RPC). 122507, Feb. 25, 1999).[see Criminal Law
Conspectus, page 156]
Where the accused however did not agree he would
only be credited with 4/5 of the time he had PENALTIES; RECLUSION PERPETUA VS. LIFE
undergone preventive imprisonment. IMPRISONMENT (1994)


PENALTIES; RECLUSION PERPETUA (RA) NO. Differentiate reclusion perpetua from life
7959 (2005) imprisonment.

Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, as SUGGESTED ANSWER:


amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 7959, reclusion
RECLUSION PERPETUA is that penalty provided
perpetua shall be from 20 years and 1 day to 40
for in the Revised Penal Code for crimes defined in
years. Does this mean that reclusion perpetua is
and penalized therein except for some crimes
now a divisible penalty? Explain. (2%)
defined by special laws which impose reclusion
SUGGESTED ANSWER: perpetua, such as violations of Republic Act 6425,
as amended by Republic Act 7659 or of PD 1860;
No, because the Supreme Court has repeatedly
while LIFE IMPRISONMENT is a penalty usually
called the attention of the Bench and the Bar to the
provided for in special laws. Reclusion perpetua has
fact that the penalties of reclusion perpetua and life
a duration of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to
imprisonment are not synonymous and should be
forty [40] years under Republic Act 7659, while life
applied correctly and as may be specified by the
imprisonment has no duration; reclusion perpetua
applicable law. Reclusion perpetua has a specific
may be reduced by one or two degrees; reclusion
duration of 20 years and 1 day to 40 years (Art. 27)
perpetuates accessory penalties while life
and accessory penalties (Art. 41), while life
imprisonment does not have any accessory
imprisonment has no definite term or accessory
penalties (People vs. Baguio, 196 SCRA 459, People
penalties. Also, life imprisonment is imposable on
vs. Panellos, 205 SCRA 546).
crimes punished by special laws, and not on felonies
in the Code (People vs. De Guzman, G.R. Nos. 51385- PENALTIES; RECLUSION PERPETUA VS. LIFE
86, Jan. 22, 1993; People vs. Estrella, G.R. Nos. IMPRISONMENT (2001)

Prepared by: LJC 71
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

After trial, Judge Juan Laya of the Manila RTC found Maganda was charged with violation of the
Benjamin Garcia guilty of Murder, the victim having Bouncing Checks Law (BP 22) punishable by
sustained several bullet wounds in his body so that imprisonment of not less than 30 days but not more
he died despite medical assistance given in the than 1 year or a fine of not less than but not more
Ospital ng Manila. Because the weapon used by than double the amount of the check, which fine
Benjamin was unlicensed and the qualifying shall not exceed P200,000.00, or both. The court
circumstance of treachery was found to be present. convicted her of the crime and sentenced her to pay
Judge Laya rendered his decision convicting a fine of P50,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment
Benjamin and sentencing him to "reclusion in case of insolvency, and to pay the private
perpetua or life imprisonment". complainant the amount of the check. Maganda
was unable to pay the fine but filed a petition for
Are "reclusion perpetua" and life imprisonment the
probation. The court granted the petition subject to
same and can be imposed interchangeably as in the
the condition, among others, that she should not
foregoing sentence? Or are they totally different?
change her residence without the court’s prior
State your reasons. (3%)
approval.

The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the penalty


a) What is the proper period of probation?
of life Imprisonment are totally different from each
other and therefore, should not be used SUGGESTED ANSWER:
interchangeably.
The period shall not be less than twice the total
Reclusion perpetua is a penalty prescribed by the number of days of subsidiary imprisonment. Under
Revised Penal Code, with a fixed duration of Act No. 1732, subsidiary imprisonment for
imprisonment from 20 years and 1 day to 40 years, violations of special laws shall not exceed 6 months
and carries it with accessory penalties. at the rate of one day of imprisonment for every
F2.50. Hence, the proper period of probation should
Life imprisonment, on the other hand, is a penalty
not be less than (6 months nor more than 12
prescribed by special laws, with no fixed duration of
months. Since P50,000.00 fine is more than the
imprisonment and without any accessory penalty.
maximum subsidiary imprisonment of 6 months at
PROBATION LAW: PROPER PERIOD (2005) P2.50 a day.

Prepared by: LJC 72


CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

b) Supposing before the Order of Discharge was On June 10, 1987, the records of the case were
issued by the court but after the lapse of the period remanded to the trial court. Roberto filed a "Motion
of probation, Maganda transferred residence for Probation" praying that execution of his
without prior approval of the court. May the court sentence be suspended, and that a probation
revoke the Order of Probation and order her to officer be ordered to conduct an Investigation and
serve the subsidiary imprisonment? Explain. to submit a report on his probation.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: The judge denied the motion on the ground that
pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1990, which
Yes. The Court may revoke her probation.
took effect on July 16,1986, no application for
Probation is not coterminous with its period. There
probation shall be entertained or granted if the
must first be issued by the court an order of final
defendant has perfected an appeal from the
discharge based on the report and
judgment of conviction.
recommendation of the probation officer. Only
then can the case of the probationer be terminated. Is the denial of Roberto's motion correct?
(Bala v. Martinez, G.R. No. 67301, January 29, 1990,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
citing Sec. 16 of P.D. No. 968)

Yes. Even if at the time of his conviction Roberto


PROBATION LAW; BARRED BY APPEAL (1994)
was qualified for probation but that at the time of
On February 3, 1986, Roberto was convicted of his application for probation, he is no longer
arson through reckless imprudence and sentenced qualified, he is not entitled to probation. The
to pay a fine of P15,000.00, with subsidiary qualification for probation must be determined as
imprisonment in case of insolvency by the Regional of the time the application is filed in Court (Bernardo
Trial Court of Quezon City. vs. Judge, etal. GRNo. L86561,Nov, 10. 1992; Edwin
de la Cruz vs. Judge Callejo. et al, SP-19655, April 18,
On February 10, 1986, he appealed to the Court of
1990, citing Llamado vs. CA, et al, GR No. 84859,
Appeals. Several months later, he filed a motion to
June 28, 1989; Bernardo us. Judge Balagot, etal, GR
withdraw the appeal on the ground that he is
86561, Nov. 10, 1992).
applying for probation. On May 7, 1987, the Court of
Appeals granted the motion and considered the PROBATION LAW; BARRED BY APPEAL (2001)
appeal withdrawn.
Prepared by: LJC 73
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

A, a subdivision developer, was convicted by the Yes. In Francisco vs. Court of Appeals, 243 SCRA 384,
RTC of Makati for failure to issue the subdivision the Supreme Court held that in case of one decision
title to a lot buyer despite full payment of the lot, imposing multiple prison terms, the totality of the
and sentenced to suffer one year Imprisonment. A prison terms should not be taken into account for
appealed the decision of the RTC to the Court of the purposes of determining the eligibility of the
Appeals but his appeal was dismissed. May A still accused for the probation. The law uses the word
apply for probation? Explain. (5%) "maximum term", and not total term. It is enough
that each of the prison terms does not exceed six
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
years. The number of offenses is immaterial for as

No, A is no longer qualified to apply for probation long as the penalties imposed, when taken

after he appealed from the judgment of conviction individually and separately, are within the

by the RTC. The probation law (PD 968, as probationable period.

amended by PD1990) now provides that no


PROBATION LAW; ORDER DENYING
application for probation shall be entertained or
PROBATION; NOT APPEALABLE (2002)
granted if the accused has perfected an appeal from
the judgment of conviction (Sec. 4, PD 968). 
A was charged with homicide. After trial, he was
found guilty and sentenced to six (6) years and one
PROBATION LAW; MAXIMUM TERM VS. TOTAL
(1) day in prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve (12)
TERM (1997)
years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as

The accused was found guilty of grave oral maximum. Prior to his conviction, he had been

defamation in sixteen (16) informations which were found guilty of vagrancy and imprisoned for ten (10)

tried jointly and was sentenced in one decision to days of arresto manor and fined fifty pesos

suffer in each case a prison term of one (1) year and (P50.00). Is he eligible for probation? Why? (3%)

one (1) day to one (1) year and eight (8) months of
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, he is not entitled to
prision correccional. Within the period to appeal, he
the benefits of the Probation Law (PD 968, as
filed an application for probation under the
amended) does not extend to those sentenced to
Probation Law of 1976, as amended. Could he
serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more
possibly qualify for probation?
than six years (Sec. 9a).

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Prepared by: LJC 74
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

It is of no moment that in his previous conviction A six (6) years (Sec. 9, Pres. Decree No. 968).
was given a penalty of only ten (10) days of arresto
PROBATION LAW; RIGHT; BARRED BY APPEAL
mayor and a fine of P50.00.
(1995)
B. May a probationer appeal from the decision
In a case for violation of Sec. 8, RA 6425, otherwise
revoking the grant of probation or modifying the
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act, accused
terms and conditions thereof? (2%)

Vincent was given the benefit of the mitigating
SUGGESTED ANSWER: circumstances of voluntary plea of guilt and
drunkenness not otherwise habitual. He was
No. Under Section 4 of the Probation Law, as
sentenced to suffer a penalty of six (6) years and
amended, an order granting or denying probation is
one (1) day and to pay a fine of P6,000.00 with the
not appealable.
accessory penalties provided by law, plus costs.

PROBATION LAW; PERIOD COVERED (2004) Vincent applied for probation. The probation officer
favorably recommended his application.
PX was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment
of thirty days and a fine of one hundred pesos. 1. If you were the Judge, what action will you
Previously, PX was convicted of another crime for take on the application? Discuss fully. 


which the penalty imposed on him was thirty days 2. Suppose that Vincent was convicted of a
only. Is PX entitled to probation? Explain briefly. crime for which he was sentenced to a

(5%) maximum penalty of ten (10) years. Under


the law, he is not eligible for probation. He
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
seasonably appealed his conviction. While

Yes, PX may apply for probation. His previous affirming the judgment of conviction, the

conviction for another crime with a penalty of thirty appellate court reduced the penalty to a

days imprisonment or not exceeding one (1) month maximum of four (4) years and four (4)

does not disqualify him from applying for months taking into consideration certain

probation; the penalty for his present conviction modifying circumstances. Vincent now

does not disqualify him either from applying for applies for probation. How will you rule on

probation, since the imprisonment does not exceed his application? Discuss fully. 


Prepared by: LJC 75


CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

SUGGESTED ANSWER: as the trial court's decision was vacated; hence, he


could take advantage of the law when the decision is
1. If I were the judge, I will deny the application for
remanded to the trial court for execution (Please see
probation. The accused is not entitled to probation
Dissenting opinion in Francisco vs. CA).
as Sec. 9 of the Probation Law, PD NO. 968, as
amended, specifically mentions that those who "are It is suggested, therefore, that an examinee
sentenced to serve a maximum term of answering in this tenor should be credited with some
imprisonment of more than six years" are not points.
entitled to the benefits of the law.
PROBATION LAW; RIGHT; BARRED BY APPEAL
2. The law and jurisprudence are to the effect that (2003)
appeal by the accused from a sentence of
Juan was convicted of the Regional Trial Court of a
conviction forfeits his right to probation.(Sec. 4, PD
crime and sentenced to suffer the penalty of
No. 968. as amended by PD 1990; Bernardo us.
imprisonment for a minimum of eight years. He
Balagot; Francisco vs. CA: Llamado vs. CA; De la Cruz
appealed both his conviction and the penalty
vs. Judge Callejo, CA case).
imposed upon him to the Court of Appeals. The
This is the second consecutive year that this question appellate court ultimately sustained Juan's
was asked. It is the sincere belief of the Committee conviction but reduced his sentence to a maximum
that there is a need to re-examine the doctrine. of four years and eight months imprisonment.
Firstly, much as the accused wanted to apply for Could Juan forthwith file an application for
probation he is proscribed from doing so as the probation? Explain. 8%
maximum penalty is NOT PROBATIONABLE.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Secondly, when the maximum penalty was reduced
to one which allows probation it is but fair and just to No, Juan can no longer avail of the probation
grant him that right because it is apparent that the because he appealed from the judgment of
trial judge committed an error and for which the conviction of the trial court, and therefore, cannot
accused should not be made to suffer. Judicial apply for probation anymore. Section 4 of the
tribunals in this jurisdiction are not only courts of law Probation Law, as amended, mandates that no
but also of equity. Thirdly, the judgment of the application for probation shall be entertained or
appellate court should be considered a new decision granted if the accused has perfected an
Prepared by: LJC 76
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

appeal from the judgment of conviction. 7. Suspension of death sentence of a


pregnant woman. (Art. 83, Revised
SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE; ADULTS/MINORS
Penal Code)
(NOTA BENE: R.A. 9344
(2006)
is outside the coverage of the

There are at least 7 instances or situations in examination)

criminal cases wherein the accused, either as an


SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE; MINORS (2003)
adult or as a minor, can apply for and/or be granted
a suspended sentence. Enumerate at least 5 of A was 2 months below 18 years of age when he
them. (5%) committed the crime. He was charged with the
crime 3 months later. He was 23 when he was finally
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
convicted and sentenced. Instead of preparing to

1. Suspension of sentence of minor serve a jail term, he sought a suspension of the

under P.D. 603 as amended by R.A. sentence on the ground that he was a juvenile

9344. offender Should he be entitled to a suspension of

2. Suspension of sentence of minor sentence? Reasons. 4%

above 15 but below 18 years of age at


SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the time of trial under R.A. 9344.
3. Suspension of sentence of minor No, A is not entitled to a suspension of the sentence
above 15 but below 18 years of age at because he is no longer a minor at the time of
the commission of the offense, while promulgation of the sentence. For purposes of
acting with discernment. suspension of sentence, the offender's age at the
4. Suspension of sentence by reason of time of promulgation of the sentence is the one
insanity (Art. 79, Revised Penal considered, not his age when he committed the
Code). crime. So although A was below 18 years old when
5. Suspension of sentence for first he committed the crime, but he was already 23
offense of a minor violating RJV . years old when sentenced, he is no longer eligible
9165. (Sec. 32) for suspension of the sentence.
6. Suspension of sentence under the
Can juvenile offenders, who are recidivists,
probation law. (P.D. 968)
validly askforsuspensionofsentence? Explain.4%
Prepared by: LJC 77
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
 from people next door she was chased by Ronnie.
As soon as Ricky had stabbed Mang Pandoy, Victor
Yes, so long as the offender is still a minor at the
scooped up the money from the cash box. Then
time of the promulgation of the sentence. The law
Victor and Ricky dashed to the street and shouted,
establishing Family Courts, Rep. Act 8369, provides
"Tumakbo na kayo!" Rod was 14 and Ronnie was 17.
to this effect: that if the minor is found guilty, the
The money and other articles looted from the store
court should promulgate the sentence and
of Mang Pandoy were later found in the houses of
ascertain any civil liability which the accused may
Victor and Ricky.
have incurred. However, the sentence shall be
suspended without the need of application 1. Discuss fully the criminal liability of Victor, Ricky,
pursuant to PD 603, otherwise known as the "Child Rod and Ronnie.
and Youth Welfare Code" (RA 8369, Sec. 5a), It is
2. Are the minors Rod and Ronnie entitled to
under PD 603 that an application for suspension of
suspended sentence under The Child and Youth
the sentence is required and thereunder it is one of
Welfare Code? Explain.
the conditions for suspension of sentence that the
offender be a first time convict: this has been SUGGESTED ANSWER:
displaced by RA 8369.
1 . All are liable for the special complex crime of
SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE; YOUTHFUL robbery with homicide....
OFFENDER (1995)
2. No, because the benefits of suspension of
Victor, Ricky, Rod and Ronnie went to the store of sentence is not available where the youthful
Mang Pandoy. Victor and Ricky entered the store offender has been convicted of an offense
while Rod and Ronnie posted themselves at the punishable by life imprisonment or death, pursuant
door. After ordering beer Ricky complained that he to P.D. No. 603, Art. 192, The complex crime of
was shortchanged although Mang Pandoy robbery with homicide is punishable by reclusion
vehemently denied it. Suddenly Ricky whipped out perpetua to death under Art. 294 (1), RFC [People
a knife as he announced "Hold-up ito!" and stabbed vs. Galit. 230 SCRA 486).
Mang Pandoy to death. Rod boxed the store's
DELITO CONTINUADO (2009)
salesgirl Lucy to prevent her from helping Mang
Pandoy. When Lucy ran out of the store to seek help
Prepared by: LJC 78
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

No. XIII. a. Angelo devised a Ponzi Scheme in which SUGGESTED ANSWER:


500 persons were deceived into investing their
A person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent,
money upon a promise of a capital return of 25%,
if within a period of ten year from his release or last
computed monthly, and guaranteed by post-dated
conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious
checks. During the first two months following the
physical injuries, robo, hurto estafa or falsification,
investment, the investors received their profits, but
he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time
thereafter, Angelo vanished.
or oftener (Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code).
Angelo was charged with 500 counts of estafa and
HABITUAL DELINQUENCY VS. RECIDIVISM
2,000 counts of violation of Batas Pambansa (BP)
(2012)
22. In his motion to quash, Angelo contends that he
committed a continued crime, or delito continuado, No. VIII. b. Distinguish habitual delinquency from
hence, he committed only one count of estafa and recidivism as to the crimes committed, the period
one count of violation of BP 22. of time the crimes are committed, the number of
crimes committed and their effects in relation to
What is delito continuado? (1%)
the penalty to be imposed on a convict. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Delito continuado refers to a crime constituted by
Difference between recidivism and habitual
several overt acts committed by the offender in one
delinquency:
place, at about the same time, and all such overt
acts violate one and the same provision of penal (a) Nature of crime – in recidivism, the first crime,
law, thus demonstrating that all such acts are the and the aggravated second crime are embraced in
product of a single indivisible criminal relation. the same Title of the Revised Penal Code. In
Hence, all said acts are considered as one crime habitual delinquency, the first, second and third
only. crimes must be a habitual- delinquency crime, and
that is, serious or less serious physical injuries, theft,
HABITUAL DELINQUENCY (2012)
robbery, estafa or falsification of document.
Who is a habitual delinquent? (5%)
Time element – in recidivism, the accused was

Prepared by: LJC 79


CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

convicted of the first crime by final judgment at the the acts committed by the suspects/respondents in
time of trial of the second crime. In habitual cutting off their victims’ appendages, stuffing their
delinquency, the accused was convicted of the first torsos, legs, body parts into oil drums and bullet-
riddled vehicles and later on burying these oil
habitual-delinquency crime; within 10 years after
drums, vehicles with the use of backhoes and other
conviction or release, he was found guilty of
earth-moving machinery, the Commission on
habitual-delinquency crime for the second time;
Human Rights (CHR) investigating team
within 10 years after conviction or release he was
recommended to the panel of public prosecutors
found guilty of habitual- delinquency crime for the
that all respondents be charged with violation of
third
the "Heinous Crimes Law." The prosecution panel

time or oftener. agreed with the CHR. As the Chief Prosecutor


tasked with approving the filing of the Information,
(c) Number of crimes – in recidivism, there must be
how will you pass upon the recommendation?
at least two crimes committed; while in habitual
Explain. (5%)
delinquency, there must be at least three crimes
committed. SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Nature of the aggravating circumstance – The CHR is correct in describing the crime

recidivism is ordinary aggravating circumstance, committed as “heinous crimes”, as defined in the

the presence of any which will trigger the preamble of the “Henious Crimes Law” (Rep. Act

application of the penalty for the second crime No. 7659), despite the passage of Rep. Act No. 9346

committed in its maximum period unless it is off-set prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty.

by a mitigating or special aggravating


However, the “Henious Crimes Law” does not
circumstance, the presence of which will trigger the
define crimes; it is only an amendatory law
imposition of additional penalty for the third or
increasing the penalty for the crime specified
subsequent crime. This is not subject to the off-set
therein as heinous, to a maximum of death. Thus,
rule.
the heinous crime committed shall be prosecuted

HEINOUS CRIMES LAW (2010) under the penal law they are respectively defined
and penalized, such as the Revised Penal Code as
No. IV. Because of the barbarity and hideousness of
the case may be. The circumstances making the
Prepared by: LJC 80
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

crimes heinous may be alleged as qualifying or night after rendering overtime. He was shocked to
generic aggravating, if proper. The crime shall be see Joy, his wife, and Ken, his best friend, in the act
designated as defined and punished under the of having sexual intercourse. Macky pulled out his
penal law violated and the penalty shall be reclusion service gun and shot and killed Ken.
perpetua without the benefit of parole, as the case
The court found that Ken died under exceptional
may be in lieu of the death penalty.
circumtances and exonerated Macky of murder but
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW (2012) sentenced him to destierro, conformably with
Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. The court
How is the Indeterminate Sentence Law applied in
also ordered Macky to pay indemnity to the heirs of
imposing a sentence? (5%)
the victim in the amount of P50,000.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
While serving his sentenced, Macky entered the

If crime is punishable under the Revised Penal Code, prohibited area and had a pot session with Ivy (Joy’s

the court shall sentenced the accused to an sister). Is Macky entitled to an indeterminate

indeterminate sentence maximum term of which sentence in case he is found guilty of the use of

shall be that which, in view of the attending prohibited substances? Explain your answer.

circumstances, could be properly imposed under


SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the rules of the said Code, and the minimum which
shall be within the range of the penalty next lower No, Macky s not entitled to the benefit of the
to that prescribed by the Code for the offense. If the Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act 4103, as
offense is punishable under a special law, the court amended) for having evaded the sentence which
shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate banished or placed him on destierro. Sec. 2 of the
sentence, the maximum term of which shall not said law expressly provides that the law shall not
exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the apply to those who shall have “evaded sentence”.
minimum shall not be less than the minimum term
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
prescribed by the same (Section 1 of Act 4103).

No, because the penalty for use of any dangerous


INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW (2007)
drug by a first offender is not imprisonment but
Macky, a security guard, arrived home late one rehabilitation in a government center for a
Prepared by: LJC 81
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

minimum period of six (6) months (Sec. 15, R.A. the indeterminate Sentence Law. The said law
9165). The Indeterminate Sentence Law does not requires that the sentence in this case should reflect
apply when the penalty is imprisonment not a minimum term for purposes of parole, and a
exceeding one year. minimum term fixing the limit of the imprisonment.
Imposing a straight penalty is incorrect.
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW; HOMICIDE
(2010) INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW; HOMICIDE
(2009)
No. I. An agonizing and protracted trial having
come to a close, the judge found A guilty beyond No. XII. a. In a conviction for homicide, the trial
reasonable doubt of homicide and imposed on him court appreciated two (2) mitigating circumstances
a straight penalty of SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) and one (1) aggravating circumstance. Homicide
DAY of prision mayor. under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code is
punishable by reclusion temporal, an imprisonment
The public prosecutor objected to the sentence on
term of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty
the ground that the proper penalty should have
(20) years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence
been TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of
Law, determine the appropriate penalty to be
reclusion temporal.
imposed. Explain. (3%)

The defense counsel chimed in, contending that


SUGGESTED ANSWER:
application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law
should lead to the imposition of a straight penalty Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
of SIX (6) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision minimum of the sentence shall be anywhere within
correccional only. Who of the three is on the right the range of 6 years and 1 day to 12 years
track? Explain. (3%) imprisonment within the maximum of the sentence
shall be anywhere within the range of Reclusion
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Temporal minimum i.e., not lower than 12 years

None of the contention is correct because the and 1 day to not more than 14 years and 8 months.

Indeterminate Sentence Law for the crime of


INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW; ILLEGAL
homicide, which is penalized by mprisonment
POSSESSION OF DRUGS (2009)
exceeding one (1) year and is divisible, is covered by
Prepared by: LJC 82
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

Will your answer be the same if it is a conviction for collar for the puppy and brought it to a veterinarian
illegal possession of drugs under R.A. 9165 for treatment.
(Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), the prescribed
Did she incur civil liability? Explain. (2%)
penalty of which is also imprisonment for a term of
twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
years? Why or why not? (3%)
Eva Marie may incur civil liability if the owner of the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: puppy would incur a loss due to non-restitution or
return thereof to the owner. Finding any property of
No, my answer will not be the same because
value, legally regarded as lost property, would
violations of Rep. Act 9165 are mala prohibita in
constitute theft if the finder failed to deliver the
which mitigating and aggravating circumstances
same to the local authorities or to its owner (Art.
are not appreciated. Although in People v. Simon
308 par. 1). Once Eva Marie is found guilty of theft,
(234 SCRA 555[1994]), it was held that Art. 64 can
she will incur civil liability, which consists of
be applied if the special law adopted the
restitution or reparation for damage caused and
nomenclature of penalties provided under the RPC,
indemnification for consequential damages (Art.
such pronouncement cannot be applied in the
100 RPC). The general rule is: a person who is
instant case because the for illegal possession of
criminally liable is also civilly liable.
drugs under R.A. 9165 do not follow the technical
nomenclature of penalties in the RPC and thus, PENALTIES; HOMICIDE (2013)
cannot be divided into periods. Hence, the
Bruno was charged with homicide for killing the 75-
existence of mitigating and aggravating
year old owner of his rooming house. The
circumstances cannot be appreciated.
prosecution proved that Bruno stabbed the owner
PENALTIES; CIVIL LIABILITY (2010) causing his death; and that the killing happened at
10 in the evening in the house where the victim and
On her way home, Eva Marie saw an injured chow
Bruno lived. Bruno, on the other hand, successfully
chow puppy behind a bush. Since the puppy did not
proved that he voluntarily surrendered to the
have a collar, she brought it home so she could have
authorities; that he pleaded guilty to the crime
it as a pet. Her son in fact begged Eva Marie to keep
charged; that it was the victim who first attacked
the puppy. The following day, Eva Marie bought a
and did so without any provocation on his (Bruno's)
Prepared by: LJC 83
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

part, but he prevailed because he managed to draw commission of the crime; moreover, dwelling
his knife with which he stabbed the victim. The cannot be appreciated because the crime happened
penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. in the house where both Bruno and the victim lived.
In contrast, there are two mitigating circumstances,
Assuming a judgment of conviction and after
namely, voluntary surrender and plea of guilt.
considering the attendant circumstances, what
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
penalty should the judge impose? (7%)
maximum term of the medium period and the

SUGGESTED ANSWER: minimum term should be within the range of the


penalty next lower in degree or arresto mayor in any
Bruno should be sentenced to an indeterminate
of its period.
sentence penalty of arresto mayor in any of its
period to precion correccional in its medium period PENALTIES; PERPETUAL ABSOLUTE

as maximum. Bruno was entitled to two priviledged DISQUALIFICATION (2007)

mitigating circumstances of incomplete self-


What are the penalties that may be served
defense and the presence of at least two ordinary
simultaneously? (10%)
mitigating circumstances without any aggravating
circumstance under Articles 69 and 64(5) of the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Revised Penal Code, respectively, which lower the
The penalties that may be served simultaneously
prescribed penalty for homicide which is reclusion
are imprisonment/destierro and:
temporal to prision correccional.
Probation Law; Period Covered (2009)
There is incomplete self-defense because Bruno
proved that it was the victim who first attacked him 1. Perpetual absolute disqualification; 

and did so without provocation of his part. There is, 2. Perpetual special disqualification; 

however, no reasonable necessity of the means 3. Temporary absolute 
disqualification; 

employed to defend himself, after Bruno used a 4. Temporary special 
disqualification; 

knife to stab the weaponless victim. There are also 5. Suspension from public office, the 
right to
no aggravating circumstances present, because it vote and be voted for, and 
 the right to
was not shown that Bruno disregarded the age of follow a profession or calling;
the victim or that nighttime facilitated the Fine; and any principal penalty with its
Prepared by: LJC 84
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

accessory penalties. for probation under Presidential Decree (PD) 968,


considering that the death penalty is imposable for
the consummated felony? Explain. (2%)
PENALTIES; RECLUSION PERPETUA VS. LIFE
IMPRISONMENT (2009) SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Life imprisonment is a penalty more favorable to Yes, he would be eligible for probation because the
the convict than reclusion perpetua. penalty imposable on Joe will not exceed 6 years
imprisonment.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Even if it would be considered that the crime
False, Life Imprisonment is unfavorable to a convict
committed was punishable by death, the penalty as
because the penalty is without a fixed duration,
far as Joe I concerned can only be reclusion
unlike the penalty of reclusion perpetua which has
perpetua because RA 9344 forbids the imposition of
a fixed duration of 40 years and the convict may be
the capital punishment upon offenders thereunder.
eligible for pardon after 30 years of imprisonment
(People v. Penillos, 205 SCRA 546 [1992]) The brother‟s petition for prohibition. The murder
being attempted only, the prescribed penalty is two
PROBATION LAW; PERIOD COVERED (2009)
degree lower than reclusion perpetua; hence,

Joe was 17 years old when he committed homicide prision mayor. Because Joe was 17 years old when

in 2005. The crime is punishable by reclusion he committed the crime, the penalty of prision

temporal. After two years in hiding, he was arrested mayor should be lowered further by one degree
and appropriately charged in May 2007. Since because his minority is a privilege mitigating

Republic Act 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act circumstance; hence, prision correccional or

of 2006) was already in effect, imprisonment within the range of ix months and 1
day to 6 years is the imposable.
Joe moved to avail of the process of intervention or
diversion. PROBATION LAW; ORDER DENYING
PROBATION (2010)
Suppose Joe was convicted of attempted murder
with a special aggravating circumstance and was Matt was found guilty of drug trafficking while his
denied suspension of sentence, would he be eligible younger brother Jeff was found guilty of possession
Prepared by: LJC 85
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other violation of Sec. 5 of R.A. 9165 (illegal sale of
paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under Section 12 prohibited drug). By the time he was convicted and
of Republic Act No. 9165. sentenced, he was already 21 years old. The court
sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate penalty
Matt filed a petition for probation. Jeff appealed his
of imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day of
conviction during the pendency of which he also
prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years
filed a petition for probation.
and four(4) months of reclusion temporal, as

The brothers’ counsel argued that they being first maximum, and a fine of P500,000.Michael applied

time offenders, their petitions for probation should for probation but his application was denied

be granted. How would you resolve the brothers’ because the probation law does not apply to drug

petitions for probation? Explain. (3%) offenders under R.A. 9165. Michael then sought the
suspension of his sentence under R.A. 9344 or the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Juvenile Justice and Youth Welfare Code.

The brother’s petition for prohibition should be


Can Michael avail of the suspension of his sentence
denied.
provided under this law? (7%)

Matt‟s petition for probation shall be denied


SUGGESTED ANSWER:
because he was convicted for drug-trafficking.
Section 24 of R.A. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous The benefits of a suspended sentence can no longer

Drug Act of 2002) expressly provides, “Any person apply to Machel. The suspension of sentence lasts
convicted for drug trafficking or pushing under this only until the law reaches the maximum age and

Act, regardless of the penalty imposed by the court, thus, could no longer be considered a child for

cannot avail of the privilege granted by the purposes of applying Rep. Act No. 9344. However,

Probation Law or Presidential Decree No. 968, as he shall be entitled to the right of restoration,

amended.” rehabilitation and reintegration in accordance with


the law to give him the chance to live a normal life
SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE; ADULTS/MINORS
and become a productive member of the
(2013)
community. Accordingly, Michael may be confined

Michael was 17 years old when he was charged for in an agricultural camp and other training facility in
accordance with Section 51 of Rep. Act No. 9344
Prepared by: LJC 86
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

(People v. Jacinto, GR No. 182239, March 16, 2011; AMNESTY VS. PD 1160 (2006)
People v. Salcedo, GR. No. 186523, June 22, 2011;
Can former DSWD Secretary Dinky Soliman apply
Padua v. People, GR No. 1683, July 23, 2008 and
for amnesty? How about columnist Randy David?
People v. Sarcia, GR No. 169641, September 10,
(You are supposed to know the crimes or offenses
2009).
ascribed to them as published in almost all
SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE; ADULTS/MINORS newspapers for the past several months.) (2.5%)
(2009)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Joe was 17 years old when he committed homicide
Proclamation 1160, which amended Proclamation
in 2005. The crime is punishable by reclusion
724, applies only to offenses committed prior to
temporal. After two years in hiding, he was arrested
1999. Thus, their applications shall be ineffectual
and appropriately charged in May 2007. Since
and useless.
Republic Act 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act
of 2006) was already in effect, Joe moved to avail of General Lim and General Querubin of the Scout
the process of intervention or diversion. Rangers and Philippine Marines, respectively, were
changed with conduct unbecoming an officer and a
Suppose Joe’s motion for intervention or diversion
gentleman under the Articles of War. Can they
was denied, and he was convicted two (2) years
apply for amnesty? (2.5%)
later when Joe was already 21 years old, should the
judge apply the suspension of sentence? Explain. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(2%)
Proclamation 1160, which amended Proclamation
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 724, applies only to offenses committed prior to
1999. Thus,
No, the judge should not suspend sentence
anymore because Joe was already 21 years old. their applications shall be ineffectual and useless.
Suspension of sentence is availing under RA 9344
AMNESTY; CRIMES COVERED (2006)
only until a child reaches the maximum age of
twenty-one (21) years. Under Presidential Proclamation No. 724,
amending Presidential Proclamation No. 347,
EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Prepared by: LJC 87
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

certain crimes are covered by the grant of amnesty. 17. ALARM AND SCANDAL
Name at least 5 of these crimes. (2.5%) 18. ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: EXTINCTION; CRIMINAL & CIVIL LIABILITIES;


EFFECTS; DEATH OF ACCUSED PENDING
Crimes covered under Presidential Proclamation
APPEAL (2004)

No. 724:
AX was convicted of reckless imprudence resulting
1. COUP D’ETAT
in homicide. The trial court sentenced him to a
2. REBELLION OR INSURRECTION;
prison term as well as to pay P150,000 as civil
3. DISLOYALTY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS OR
indemnity and damages. While his appeal was
EMPLOYEES;
pending, AX met a fatal accident. He left a young
4. INCITING TO REBELLION OR
widow, 2 children, and a million-peso estate. What
INSURRECTION;
is the effect, if any, of his death on his criminal as
5. CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT REBELLION OR
well as civil liability? Explain briefly. (5%)
INSURRECTION;
6. PROPOSAL TO COMMIT REBELLION OR SUGGESTED ANSWER:
INSURRECTION;
The death of AX while his appeal from the judgment
7. SEDITION;
of the trial court is pending, extinguishes his
8. CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SEDITION;
criminal liability. The civil liability insofar as it arises
9. INCITING TO SEDITION;
from the crime and recoverable under the Revised
10. ILLEGAL ASSEMBLY;
Penal Code is also extinguished; but indemnity and
11. ILLEGAL ASSOCIATION;
damages may be recovered in a civil action if
12. DIRECT ASSAULT;
predicated on a source of obligation under Art.
13. INDIRECT ASSAULT;
1157, Civil Code, such as law, contracts, quasi-
14. RESISTANCE AND DISOBEDIENCE TO A
contracts and quasi-delicts, but not on the basis of
PERSON IN AUTHORITY;
delicts. (People v. Bayotas, 236 SCRA 239 ).
15. TUMULTS AND OTHER DISTURBANCES;
16. UNLAWFUL USE OF MEANS OF Civil indemnity and damages under the Revised
PUBLICAITONS AND UNLAWFUL Penal Code are recoverable only if the accused had
UTTERANCES; been convicted with finality before he died.
Prepared by: LJC 88
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

EXTINCTION; CRIMINAL & CIVIL LIABILITIES; be instituted under the Civil Code (Art. 1157) if
EFFECTS; DEATH OF OFFENDED PARTY (2000) predicated on a source of obligation other than
delict, such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts and
For defrauding Lorna, Alma was charged before the
quasi-delicts (People vs. Bayotas 236 SCRA 239, G.R.
Municipal Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan. After a
152007, September 2. 1994)
protracted trial, Alma was convicted. While the case
was pending appeal in the Regional Trial Court of PARDON VS. AMNESTY (2006)
the same province, Lorna who was then suffering
Enumerate the differences between pardon and
from breast cancer, died. Alma manifested to the
amnesty. (2.5%)

court that with Lorna's death, her (Alma's) criminal
and civil liabilities are now extinguished. Is Alma's SUGGESTED ANSWER:
contention correct? What if it were Alma who died,
a) PARDON includes any crime and is exercised
would it affect her criminal and civil liabilities?

individually by the President, while AMNESTY
Explain. (3%)
applies to classes of persons or communities
SUGGESTED ANSWER: who may be guilty of political offenses. 


No. Alma's contention is not correct. The death of b) PARDON is exercised when the person is
the offended party does not extinguish the criminal already convicted, while AMNESTY may be
liability of the offender, because the offense is exercised even before trial or investigation. 

committed against the State [People vs. Misola, 87
c) PARDON looks forward and relieves the
Phil. 830, 833). Hence, it follows that the civil liability
offender of the penalty of the offense for which
of Alma based on the offense committed by her is
he has been convicted; it does not work for the
not extinguished. The estate of Lorna can continue
restoration of the rights to hold public office, or
the case.
the right of suffrage, unless such rights are
On the other hand, if it were Alma who died expressly restored by means of pardon, while
pending appeal of her conviction, her criminal AMNESTY looks backward and abolishes the
liability shall be extinguished and therewith the civil offense and its effects, as if the person had
liability under the Revised Penal Code (Art. 89, par. committed no offense. 

1, RPC). However, the claim for civil indemnity may

Prepared by: LJC 89


CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

d) PARDON does not alter the fact that the commutation or pardon, the accessory penalties of
accused is criminally liable as it produces only perpetual absolute disqualification and civil
the extinction of the penalty, while AMNESTY interdiction during thirty (30) years from the date of
removes the criminal liability of the offender the sentence shall remain as effects thereof, unless
because it obliterates every vestige of the such accessory penalties have been expressly
crime. 
 remitted in the pardon. This is because pardon only
excuses the convict from serving the sentence but
e) PARDON being a private act by the
does not relieve him of the effects of the conviction
President, must be pleaded and proved by the
unless expressly remitted in the pardon.
person pardoned, while AMNESTY which is a
Proclamation of the Chief Executive with the PARDON; EFFECT; REINSTATEMENT (1994)
concurrence of Congress is a public act of which
Linda was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of
the courts should take judicial notice. 

estafa, through falsification of public document.
PARDON; EFFECT; CIVIL INTERDICTION (2004) She was sentenced accordingly and ordered to pay,
among others, P5,000.00 representing the balance
TRY was sentenced to death by final judgment. But
of the amount defrauded.
subsequently he was granted pardon by the
President. The pardon was silent on the perpetual The case reached the Supreme Court which
disqualification of TRY to hold any public office. affirmed the judgment of conviction. During the
After his pardon, TRY ran for office as Mayor of pendency of Linda's motion for reconsideration in
APP, his hometown. His opponent sought to the said Court, the President extended to her an
disqualify him. TRY contended he is not disqualified absolute pardon which she accepted.
because he was already pardoned by the President
By reason of such pardon, she wrote the
unconditionally. Is TRY'S contention correct?
Department of Finance requesting that she be
Reason briefly. (5%)
restored to her former post as assistant treasurer,
SUGGESTED ANSWER: which is still vacant. The Department ruled that
Linda may be reinstated to her former position
No, TRY's contention is not correct. Article 40 of the
without the necessity of a new appointment and
Revised Penal Code expressly provides that when
directed the City Treasurer to see to it that the sum
the death penalty is not executed by reason of
Prepared by: LJC 90
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

of P5,000.00 be satisfied. After two years, Joe left Marcy and settled in
Mindanao where he later met and married Linda on
Claiming that she should not be made to pay
12 June 1960. The second marriage was registered
P5,000.00, Linda appealed to the Office of the
in the civil registry of Davao City three days after its
President.
celebration. On 10 October 1975 Marcy who

The Office of the President dismissed the appeal remained in Batanes discovered the marriage of Joe

and held that acquittal, not absolute pardon. Is the to Linda. On 1 March 1976 Marcy filed a complaint

only ground for reinstatement to one's former for bigamy against Joe.

position and that the absolute pardon does not


The crime of bigamy prescribed in fifteen years
exempt the culprit from payment of civil liability.
computed from the day the crime is discovered by

Is Linda entitled to reinstatement? the offended party, the authorities or their agents.
Joe raised the defense of prescription of the crime,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
more than fifteen years having elapsed from the

No, Linda is not entitled to reinstatement to her celebration of the bigamous marriage up to the

former position inasmuch as her right thereto had filing of Marcy's complaint. He contended that the

been relinquished or forfeited by reason of her registration of his second marriage in the civil

conviction. The absolute pardon merely registry of Davao City was constructive notice to

extinguished her criminal liability, removed her the whole world of the celebration thereof thus

disqualification, and restored her eligibility for binding upon Marcy.

appointment to that office. She has to re-apply for


Has the crime of bigamy charged against Joe
such position and under the usual procedure
already prescribed? Discuss fully.
required for a new appointment. Moreover, the
pardon does not extinguish the civil liability arising SUGGESTED ANSWER:

from the crime. (Monsanto vs.Factoran, Jr., 170



No. The prescriptive period for the crime of
SCRA 191); see Art. 36, RPC)
bigamy is computed from the time the crime was

PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES; BIGAMY (1995) discovered by the offended party, the authorities or
their agents. The principle of constructive notice
Joe and Marcy were married in Batanes in 1955.
which ordinarily applies to land or property disputes

Prepared by: LJC 91


CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

should not be applied to the crime of bigamy, as Yes, the State can still prosecute Mina for the death
marriage is not property. Thus when Marcy filed a of Ara despite the lapse of 20 & 1/2 years. Under
complaint for bigamy on 7 March 1976, it was well Article 91, RPC, the period of prescription
within the reglamentary period as it was barely a commences to run from the day on which the crime
few months from the time of discovery on 10 is discovered by the offended party, the authorities
October 1975. (Sermonia vs. CA, 233 SCRA 155) or their agents. In the case at bar, the commission
of the crime was known only to Albert, who was not
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES; COMMENCEMENT
the offended party nor an authority or an agent of
(2000)
an authority. It was discovered by the NBI

One fateful night in January 1990, while 5-year old authorities only when Albert revealed to them the

Albert was urinating at the back of their house, he commission of the crime. Hence, the period of

heard a strange noise coming from the kitchen of prescription of 20 years for homicide commenced

their neighbor and playmate, Ara. When he peeped to run only from the time Albert revealed the same

inside, he saw Mina, Ara's stepmother, very angry to the NBI authorities.

and strangling the 5-year old Ara to death. Albert


PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES; COMMENCEMENT
saw Mina carry the dead body of Ara, place it inside
(2004)
the trunk of her car and drive away. The dead body
of Ara was never found. Mina spread the news in the OW is a private person engaged in cattle ranching.
neighborhood that Ara went to live with her One night, he saw AM stab CV treacherously, then
grandparents in Ormoc City. For fear of his life, throw the dead man's body into a ravine. For 25
Albert did not tell anyone, even his parents and years, CVs body was never seen nor found; and OW
relatives, about what he witnessed. Twenty and a told no one what he had witnessed. Yesterday after
half (20 & 1/2) years after the incident, and right consulting the parish priest, OW decided to tell the
after his graduation in Criminology, Albert reported authorities what he witnessed, and revealed that
the crime to NBI authorities. The crime of homicide AM had killed CV 25 years ago. Can AM be
prescribes in 20 years. Can the state still prosecute prosecuted for murder despite the lapse of 25
Mina for the death of Ara despite the lapse of 20 & years? Reason briefly. (5%)
1/2 years? Explain, (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Prepared by: LJC 92
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

Yes, AM can be prosecuted for murder despite the (5%)


lapse of 25 years, because the crime has not yet
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
prescribed and legally, its prescriptive period has
not even commenced to run. No, the Fiscal's dismissal of the case on alleged
prescription is not correct. The filing of the
The period of prescription of a crime shall
complaint with the Municipal Trial Court, although
commence to run only from the day on which the
only for preliminary investigation, interrupted and
crime has been discovered by the offended party,
suspended the period of prescription in as much as
the authorities or their agents (Art. 91, Revised
the jurisdiction of a court in a criminal case is
Penal Code). OW, a private person who saw the
determined by the allegations in the complaint or
killing but never disclosed it, is not the offended
information, not by the result of proof. (People vs.
party nor has the crime been discovered by the
Galano. 75 SCRA 193)
authorities or their agents.

PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES; FALSE TESTIMONY


PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES; CONCUBINAGE
(1994)
(2001)

Paolo was charged with homicide before the


On June 1, 1988, a complaint for concubinage
Regional Trial Court of Manila. Andrew, a
committed in February 1987 was filed against
prosecution witness, testified that he saw Paolo
Roberto in the Municipal Trial Court of Tanza,
shoot Abby during their heated argument. While
Cavite for purposes of preliminary investigation.
the case is still pending, the City Hall of Manila
For various reasons, it was only on July 3, 1998 when
burned down and the entire records of the case
the Judge of said court decided the case by
were destroyed. Later, the records were
dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction since the crime
reconstituted. Andrew was again called to the
was committed in Manila. The case was
witness stand. This time he testified that his first
subsequently filed with the City Fiscal of Manila but
testimony was false and the truth was he was
it was dismissed on the ground that the crime had
abroad when the crime took place.
already prescribed. The law provides that the crime
of concubinage prescribes in ten (10) years. The judge immediately ordered the prosecution of
Andrew for giving a false testimony favorable to the
Was the dismissal by the fiscal correct? Explain,
defendant in a criminal case.
Prepared by: LJC 93
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

1. Will the case against Andrew prosper? 
 grave oral defamation but after trial, the court
2. Paolo was acquitted. The decision became found him guilty only of the offense of simple
final on January 10, 1987. On June 18, 1994 a slander. He filed a motion for reconsideration
case of giving false testimony was filed contending that, under the law, the crime of simple
against Andrew. As his lawyer, what legal slander would have prescribed in two months from
step will you take? 
 commission, and since the information against him
was filed more than four months after the alleged
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
commission of the crime, the same had already

1) Yes. ... prescribed.

2) As lawyer of Andrew, I will file a motion to quash The Solicitor General opposed the motion on two

the Information on the ground of prescription. The grounds: first, in determining the prescriptive

crime of false testimony under Art. 180 has period, the nature of the offense charged in the

prescribed because Paolo, the accused in the Information should be considered, not the crime

principal case, was acquitted on January 10, 1987 proved; second, assuming that the offense had

and therefore the penalty prescribed for such crime already prescribed, the defense was waived by the

is arresto mayor under Art. 180, par. 4, RPC. failure of A to raise it in a motion to quash.

Crimes punishable by arresto mayor prescribes in Resolve the motion for reconsideration.

five (5) years (Art. 90, par. 3, RPC). But the case
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
against Andrew was filed only on June 18, 1994,
whereas the principal criminal case was decided The motion for reconsideration should be granted.-
with finality on January 10, 1987 and, thence the
a) The accused cannot be convicted of the offense
prescriptive period of the crime commenced to run.
of simple slander although it is necessarily included
From January 10, 1987 to June 18, 1994 is more than
in the offense of grave slander charged in the
five (5) years.
information, because, the lesser offense had
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES; SIMPLE SLANDER already prescribed at the time the information was
(1997) filed (People us. Rarang, (CA) 62 O.G. 6468;
Francisco vs. CA, 122 SCRA 538; Magat vs. People.
A was charged in an information with the crime of
201 SCRA 21) otherwise prosecutors can easily
Prepared by: LJC 94
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

circumvent the rule of prescription in light offenses b. When acquittal is based on


by the simple expediment of filing a graver offense reasonable doubt or acquittal is on
which includes such light offense. the ground that guilt has not been
proven beyond reasonable doubt
b) While the general rule is the failure of an accused
(Art. 29, New Civil 
Code); 

to file a motion to quash before he pleads to the
c. Acquittal due to an exempting
complaint or information, shall be deemed a waiver
circumstance, like 
Insanity; 

of the grounds of a motion to quash, the exceptions
d. Where the court states in its
to this are: (1) no offense was charged in the
Judgment that the case 
merely
complaint or information; (2) lack of Jurisdiction; (3)
involves a civil obligation; 

extinction of the offense or penalty; and (4) double
e. Where there was a proper
jeopardy. Since the ground invoked by the accused
reservation for the filing 
of a
in his motion for reconsideration is extinction of the
separate civil action; 

offense, then it can be raised even after plea. In fact,
f. In cases of independent civil actions
it may even be invoked on appeal (People vs.
provided for in 
Arts. 31, 32, 33 and
Balagtas)
34 of the New Civil Code; 


CIVIL LIABILITY g. When the judgment of acquittal


includes a declaration that the fact
CIVIL LIABILITY; EFFECT OF ACQUITTAL (2000) from which the civil liability 
might
arise did not exist (Sapiera vs. CA, 314
Name at least two exceptions to the general rule
SCRA 370); 

that in case of acquittal of the accused in a criminal
h. Where the civil liability is not derived
case, his civil liability is likewise extinguished.
or based on the criminal act of which
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the accused is acquitted 
(Sapiera vs.
Exceptions to the rule that acquittal from a criminal CA. 314 SCRA 370). 

case extinguishes civil liability, are:
CIVIL LIABILITY; EFFECT OF ACQUITTAL (2000)
a. When the civil action is based on
A was a 17-year old working student who was
obligations not 
arising from the act
earning his keep as a cigarette vendor. B was driving
complained of as a felony; 

Prepared by: LJC 95
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

a car along busy Espana Street at about 7:00 p.m. CC).


Beside B was C. The car stopped at an intersection
If A's family can prove the negligence of B by
because of the red signal of the traffic light. While
preponderance of evidence, the civil action for
waiting for the green signal, C beckoned A to buy
damages against B will prosper based on quasi-
some cigarettes. A approached the car and handed
delict. Whoever by act or omission causes damage
two sticks of cigarettes to C. While the transaction
to another, there being fault or negligence, is
was taking place, the traffic light changed to green
obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or
and the car immediately sped off. As the car
negligence, about pre-existing contractual relation
continued to speed towards Quiapo, A clung to the
between the parties, is called a quasi- delict [Art.
window of the car but lost his grip and fell down on
2176, CC). This is entirely separate and distinct from
the pavement. The car did not stop. A suffered
civil liability arising from negligence under the
serious injuries which eventually caused his death.
Penal Code [Arts, 31, 2176, 2177, CC}.
C was charged with ROBBERY with HOMICIDE. In
the end, the Court was not convinced with moral CIVIL LIABILITY; SUBSIDIARY; EMPLOYERS
certainty that the guilt of C has been established (1998)
beyond reasonable doubt and, thus, acquitted him
Guy, while driving a passenger jeepney owned and
on the ground of reasonable doubt.
operated by Max, bumped Demy, a pedestrian
Can the family of the victim still recover civil crossing the street. Demy sustained injuries which
damages in view of the acquittal of C? Explain. required medical attendance for three months. Guy
(5%)
 was charged with reckless imprudence resulting to
physical injuries. Convicted by the Metropolitan
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Trial Court. Guy was sentenced to suffer a straight
Yes, as against C, A's family can still recover civil penalty of three months of arresto mayor and
damages despite C's acquittal. When the accused in ordered to indemnify Demy in the sum of P5,000
a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground and to pay P1,000 as attorney's fees.
that his guilt has not been proved beyond
Upon finality of the decision, a writ of execution was
reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the
served upon Guy, but was returned unsatisfied due
same act or omission may be instituted. Such action
to his insolvency. Demy moved for a subsidiary writ
requires only a preponderance of evidence {Art. 29,
Prepared by: LJC 96
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

of execution against Max. The latter opposed the ordered to pay indemnity in the amount of
motion on-the ground that the decision made no P50,000.00 for each count. On appeal, the accused
mention of his subsidiary liability and that he was questions the award of civil indemnity for each
not impleaded in the case. count, considering that the victim is the same
woman.
How will you resolve the motion? [5%]
How would you rule on the contention of the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
accused? Explain. (3%)


The motion is to be granted. Max as an employer of


SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Guy and engaged in an industry (transportation
business) where said employee is utilized, is The contention is unmeritorious. Under the law,
subsidiarily civilly liable under Article 103 of the every person criminally liable is civilly liable. (Art.
Revised Penal Code. Even though the decision 100, Revised Penal Code) Since each count charges
made no mention of his subsidiary liability, the law different felonious acts and ought to be punished
violated (Revised Penal Code) itself mandates for differently, the concomitant civil indemnity ex
such liability and Max is deemed to know it because delicto for every criminal act should be adjudged.
ignorance of the law is never excused. And since his Said civil indemnity is mandatory upon a finding of
liability is not primary but only subsidiary in case his the fact of rape; it is distinct from and should not be
employee cannot pay; he need not be impleaded in denominated as moral damages which are based on
the in the criminal case. It suffices that he was duly different jural foundations. (People v. Jalosjos, G.R.
notified of the motion for issuance of a subsidiary Nos. 132875-76, November 16, 2001)
writ of execution
DAMAGES; HOMICIDE; TEMPERATE DAMAGES
and thus given the opportunity to be heard. (2006)

CIVIL LIABILITY; WHEN MANDATORY; In a crime of homicide, the prosecution failed to


CRIMINAL LIABILITY (2005) present any receipt to substantiate the heirs' claim
for an award of actual damages, such as expenses
The accused was found guilty of 10 counts of rape
for the wake and burial. What kind of damages may
for having carnal knowledge with the same woman.
the trial court award to them and how much? (5%)
In addition to the penalty of imprisonment, he was
Prepared by: LJC 97
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Rebellion which has been obliterated by the grant


of amnesty to the offender (Art. 89[3], RPC).
The court may award temperate damages in the
amount of twenty-five (P25,000.00) thousand Since the amnesty erased the criminal complexion
pesos. Under jurisprudence, temperate damages is of the act committed by the offender as a crime of
awarded in homicide when no sufficient proof of rebellion and rendered such act a though innocent,
actual damages is offered or if the actual damages the sentence lost its legal basis. The purported
proven is less than twenty-five thousand (P25,000) evasion thereof therefore cannot subsist (People v.
(People v. Salona, G.R. No. 151251, May 19, 2004). Patriarca, 341 SCRA 464[200]).

AMNESTY (2009) Amnesty obliterates, not only the basis of


conviction, bur also all the legal effect thereof.
No. II. Antero Makabayan was convicted of the
crime of Rebellion. While serving sentence, he PARDON; EFFECT (2009)
escaped from jail. Captured, he was charged with,
No. I. a. Amado, convicted of rape but granted an
and convicted of, Evasion of Service of Sentence.
absolute pardon by the President, and one year
Thereafter, the President of the Philippines issued
thereafter, convicted of homicide, is a recidivist.
an amnesty proclamation for the offense of
Rebellion. Antero applied for and was granted the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
benefit of the amnesty proclamation.
True, rape is now a crime against persons and, like
Antero then filed a petition for habeas corpus, the crime of homicide, is embraced in the same
praying for his immediate release from Title of the Revised penal Code under which Amado
confinement. He claims that the amnesty extends had been previously convicted by final judgment.
to the offense of Evasion of Service of Sentence. As The absolute pardon granted him for rape, only
judge, will you grant the petition? Discuss fully. excuse him from serving the sentence for rape but
(4%) did not erase the effect of the conviction therefore
unless expressly remitted by the pardon.
SUGGESTED ANSWER;

PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES; COMMENCE TO


Yes, I will grant the petition because the sentence
RUN (2010)
evaded proceeded from the offender as a crime of
Prepared by: LJC 98
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

A killed his wife and buried her in their backyard. He Baldo killed Conrad in a dark corner, at midnight, on
immediately went into hiding in the mountains. January 2, 1960. Dominador witnessed the entire
incident, but he was so scared to tell the authorities
Three years later, the bones of A’s wife were
about it. On January 2, 1970, Dominador, bothered
discovered by X, the gardener. Since X had a
by his conscience, reported the matter to the
standing warrant of arrest, he hid the bones in an
police. After investigation, the police finally
old clay jar and kept quiet about it. After two years,
arrested Baldo on January 6, 1980. Charged in
Z, the caretaker, found the bones and reported the
court, Baldo claims that the crime he committed
matter to the police.
had already prescribed. Is Baldo’s contention

After 15 years of hiding, A left the country but correct? Explain. (3%)

returned three years later to take care of his ailing


SUGGESTED ANWER:
sibling. Six years thereafter, he was charged with
parricide but raised the defense of prescription. No, Baldo‟s contention is not correct because the
crime committed has not yet prescribed. The
Under the Revised Penal Code, when does the
prescriptive period of the crime committed
period of prescription of a crime commence to run?
commenced to run only after it was report to the
(1%)
police on January 2, 1970, not on the date it was

SUGGESTED ANSWER: clandestinely committed on January 2, 1960. Under


the discovery rule, which govern when the crime is
Generally, the period of prescription of a crime
not publicly committed, the prescriptive period of a
commences to run from the date it was committed;
crime commences to run only from the day on
but if the crime was committed clandestinely, the
which the crime is discovered by the offended
period of prescription of the crimes under the
party, the authorities or their agents: in this case,
Revised Penal Code commence to run from the day
from January 2, 1970 when it made known to the
on which the crime was discovered by the offended
police authorities until January 2, 1980, when Balo
party, the authorities or their agents (Art. 91, RPC).
was arrested and charged. The killing committed,

PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES; DISCOVERY RULE whether homicide or murder, is punishable by an

(2009) afflictive penalty which prescribes within twenty


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

Prepared by: LJC 99


CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

lapsed from January 2, 1970 (when the authorities Nov. 25, 2008).
discovered the commission of the crime) to January
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES; PARRICIDE (2010)
2, 1980 (when the accused was charged in court).

A killed his wife and buried her in their backyard. He


PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES; INTERRUPTED
immediately went into hiding in the mountains.
(2010)

Three years later, the bones of A’s wife were


A killed his wife and buried her in their backyard. He
discovered by X, the gardener. Since X had a
immediately went into hiding in the mountains.
standing warrant of arrest, he hid the bones in an
a standing warrant of arrest, he hid the bones in an old clay jar and kept quiet about it. After two years,
old clay jar and kept quiet about it. After two years, Z, the caretaker, found the bones and reported the
Z, the caretaker, found the bones and reported the matter to the police.
matter to the police. After 15 years of hiding, A left
After 15 years of hiding, A left the country but
the country but returned three years later to take
returned three years later to take care of his ailing
care of his ailing sibling. Six years thereafter, he was
sibling. Six years thereafter, he was charged with
charged with parricide but raised the defense of
parricide but raised the defense of prescription.
prescription. Three years later, the bones of A’s wife
were discovered by X, the gardener. Since X had a Is A’s defense tenable? Explain. (3%)
standing warrant of arrest, he hid the bones in an
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
old clay jar and kept quiet about it. After two years,
Z, the caretaker, found the bones and reported the No, the defense of prescription of the crime is not
matter to the police. When is it interrupted? (1%) tenable. The crime committed is parricide which
prescribes in twenty (20) years (Art. 90, RPC). It was
only when the care-taker, Z found the victim‟s
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
bones and reported the matter to the police that
The running of the prescriptive period of the crime the crime is deemed legally discovered by the
is interrupted when “any kind of investigative authorities or their agents and thus the prescriptive
proceeding is instituted against the guilty person period of the crime commenced to run.
which may ultimately lead to his prosecution”
When A left the country and returned only after
(Panaguiton, Jr. v. Dept. of Justice, G.R. No. 167571,
Prepared by: LJC 100
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers

three (3) year, the running of the prescriptive period


of the crime is interrupted and suspended because
prescription shall not run when the offender is
absent from the Philippine Archipelago (Art. 91,
RPC).

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Since A had been in hiding for 15 years after the


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

Prepared by: LJC 101