You are on page 1of 357

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Revised Penal Code (RPC) and related Special Laws
A. Book 1 (Articles 1-99, RPC)

1. Fundamental principles
a) Definition of Criminal Law

Criminal law – Wrongful acts which are not per se considered as criminal offense……………………………………………………1

Criminal law – Fundamental principles – Simultaneous prosecution of two different offenses………………………………….1

Criminal law – Fundamental principles – Circumstantial evidence; Proof beyond reasonable doubt………………………….2

(i) Mala in se and mala prohibita

Criminal law – Fundamental principles – Mala in se; mala prohibita; motive; intent…………………………………………………..3

Criminal law – Fundamental principles – Mala in se; mala prohibita……………..……………………………………………………………4

Criminal law – Fundamental principles - mala in se and mala prohibita…………….……………………………………………………….4

(i) Construction of penal laws

Criminal law – Construction of penal laws – Doctrine of pro reo……………………….………………………………………………………..5

Civil liability

Criminal law – Civil liability -Restitution; Reparation…………………………………………………………………………………………………6

Criminal law – Civil liability – Subsidiary liability of the employer………………….………………………………………………………….6

Criminal law –Civil liability – Indemnity……………………………………………………………..……………………………………………………….7

Criminal law – Acquittal in a criminal prosecution; Institution of civil action……….....................................................................8

Criminal law – Criminal liability; total and partial extinguishment – Acquittal in relation to civil liability………………….9

Criminal law – Extinguishment of criminal liability; civil liability…………………………...................................................................10

Criminal law – Penalties - Execution of the employer’s subsidiary liability…………..…………………………………………………….10

Criminal law – Extinguishment of criminal liability; civil liability…………...………………………………………………………………….10

Criminal law – Fundamental principles – Grounds for dismissal of cases; affidavit of desistance; effect thereof………..11

Criminal law – Fundamental principles – effect of death of the accused on civil liability…………………………………………….12
Criminal law – Fundamental principles – Effect of death of accused on criminal and civil liability……………………………13

Criminal law – Fundamental principles – Criminal and civil liability; when extinguished…………………………………………14

Criminal law – Fundamental principles – Proof of motive; when not required………………………………………………………….15

Criminal law – Fundamental principles – Corpus delicti……………………………………………………………………………………………15

Criminal law – Fundamental principles – Corpus delicti……………………………………………………………………………………………16

Criminal law – Fundamental principles – Absence of corpus delicti…………………………………………………………………………..17

Special laws– RA 7613 and RA 3019 – Requirement of filing Statements of Assets and Liabilities…………………………….17

Criminal law –Fundamental principles – Theories; motive; criminal intent………………………………………………………………18

Concepts
Criminal law- Concepts – Preventive imprisonment……………………………………………………………………………………………….…18

Criminal law – Concepts – warrantless arrest; entrapment; in relation to prohibited drugs………………………………….…19

Criminal law – Concepts – Delito continuado and continuing offense………………………………………………………………………..20

Criminal law – Concepts - Doctrine of aberratio ictus………………………………………………………………………………………………..21

Criminal law – Concepts - Aberratio ictus; error in personae; and praeter intentionem…………………………………………...21

Criminal law – Concepts - Aberratio ictus and error in personae…………………….……………………………………………………...…22

Criminal law – Concepts - Aberratio ictus: Error in personae; and Praeter intentionem……………………………...…..………..23

Criminal law – Concepts –Heinous crimes……………………………………………………….…………………………………………………………23

Criminal law – Concepts – “heinous crimes”………………………………………………………………………………………………………………24

Criminal law – Concepts – Entrapment and instigation………………………………………………………………………………………………24

Criminal law –Concepts – Entrapment and instigation; illustration of instigation……………………………………………………...25

Criminal law – Concepts - Intent and motive…………………………………………………..……………………………………………………….....26

b) Scope of application and characteristics of Philippine Criminal law

Criminal law - Characteristics of criminal law………………………………………………….…………………………………………..…………….27

Criminal law – Fundamental principles – Characteristics of Philippine criminal law…………………………………..…….………27

(i) Generality
(ii) Territoriality

Criminal law -Scope of application and characteristics of Philippine criminal law – Territoriality……………………………28

Criminal law – Application of Philippine Criminal law – Territoriality………………………………………………………………………28

Criminal law – Application of Philippine criminal law – Territoriality principle………………………………………………………..29
Criminal law – Crimes against National Security and Law of Nations – Piracy; Qualified piracy…………………………………30

(iii) Prospectivity

Effects of repeal/amendment of penal law

c) Constitutional limitations on the power of Congress to enact penal laws

Criminal law – Constitutional limitations on the power of Congress to enact penal laws…………………………………………..30

(i) Equal protection

(ii) Due process

Criminal law – Due process – Proper allegation of the offense charged……………………………………………………………………31

(iii) Non-imposition of cruel and unusual punishment or excessive fines

Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines (R.A.
No. 9346)

(iv) Bill of attainder

(v) Ex post facto law

2. Felonies

Criminal law – Felonies – Illustration thereof…………………………………………………………………………………………………….……..32

a) Classifications of felonies

b) Elements of criminal liability

Criminal law – Criminal liability –when incurred………………………………………………………………………………………………………33

Criminal law – Criminal liabilities of persons in a street fight; stages of execution; criminal liability; when incurred;
justifying circumstances; when allowed………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….….…34

Criminal law - Criminal liability – when incurred……………………………………………..………………………………………………………35

Criminal law - Criminal liability – when incurred…………………………………………….……………………………………………………….36

Criminal law - Criminal liability – when incurred……………………………………………..………………………………………………………37

Criminal law – Elements of criminal liability – Lawful defense of property………………………………………………………………38

c) Impossible crime
Criminal law – Felonies – Impossible crimes……………………………………………………………………………………………………..……38

Criminal law – Felonies – Impossible crime of theft………………………………………………………………………………………………..39

Criminal law – Felonies – Impossible crime of murder…………………………………….…………………………………………………….40

Criminal law - Felonies – Impossible crime of murder; less serious physical injuries……………………………………………40

Criminal law – Felonies – Impossible crime of murder…………………………………….…………………………………………………….41

Criminal law – Felonies – Impossible crime of murder…………………………………….…………………………………………………….42

d) Stages of execution

Criminal law – Stages of execution – Consummated theft……………………………………………………………………………………….42

Criminal law – Stages of execution - Crime of theft; attempted; consummated………………………………………………………43

Criminal law – Stages of execution – Frustrated felony………………………………………………………………………………………….43

Criminal law – Stages of execution – Frustrated murder………………………………..……………………………………………………..44

e) Conspiracy and proposal

Criminal law – Felonies – Conspiracy……………………………………………………………….…………………………………………………….44

Criminal law – Felonies – Conspiracy; murder……………………………………………………………………………………………………….45

Criminal law – Felonies –Conspiracy to commit robbery………………………………………………………………………………..……..46

Criminal law - Felonies – Proposal to commit kidnapping……………………………………………………………………………………..46

Criminal law – Felonies – Conspiracy……………………………………………………………….……………………………………………………47

Criminal law – Felonies – Conspiracy; Who are liable……………………………………………………………………………………………47

Criminal law – Conspiracy - Implied conspiracy…………………………………………………………………………………………………….48

Criminal law – Felonies – Conspiracy………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..49-52

f) Complex crimes and special complex crimes

Criminal law – Felonies - Complex crime of arson with quadruple homicide and robbery; improper charge of
offense……………………………………………………………..……………………………………………………………………………………………………..53

Criminal law – Felonies – Complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion……………………………………………….54

Criminal law – Felonies – Conspiracy; Special complex crime of robbery with serious physical injuries………………..54

Criminal law – Felonies - Complex crime of Murder, qualified by explosion, with direct assault……………………………..55

Criminal law – Felonies - Special complex crime of robbery with homicide…………………………………………………………….55
Criminal law – Felonies - Special complex crime of robbery with rape, when not applicable…………………………………56

Criminal law – Conspiracy - Special complex crime of robbery with rape………..…………………………………………………….56

Criminal law – Felonies - Robbery with homicide…………………………………………………………………………………………………..57

Criminal law – Conspiracy - Special complex crime of robbery with homicide………………………………………………………58

Criminal law – Conspiracy and proposal - Special complex crime of robbery with homicide…………………………………59

Criminal law – Felonies – Conspiracy and proposal…………………………………………………………………………………………..60-61

g) Multiple offenders (differences, rules, effects)

Criminal law – Multiple offenders – Recidivism and reiteracion……………………………………………………………………………..62

(i) Recidivism
Criminal law – Multiple offenders- Recidivism and quasi-recidivism……………………………………………………………………...63

Criminal law – Multiple offenders – Recidivist………………………………………….……………………………………………………………..64

(ii) Habituality (Reiteracion)
(iii) Quasi-Recidivism
Criminal law – Felonies – Quasi recidivism; when considered as aggravating circumstance………………………………….…64

(iv) Habitual Delinquency
Criminal law – Felonies – Habitual delinquency………………………………………………………………………………………………………..65

h) Continuing crime
Criminal law – Felonies – Continuing crimes…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….65

i) Complex crimes and special complex crimes

Criminal law – Felonies - Complex crime; requirement of two or more grave or less grave felonies as a result of single
act……………………………………………………………….……………………………………………………………………………………………………………66

Criminal law – Felonies – Complex crimes; when proper……………………………………..…………………………………………………..67

Criminal law – Felonies –Complex crimes………………………………………………..……………………………………………………………….68

Criminal law – Felonies - Composite crime of rape with homicide; theft….…………………………………………………………….…68

Criminal law – Felonies - Composite crime of robbery with rape…………….………………………………………………………………..69

Criminal law – Felonies - Composite crime of robbery with homicide……..……………………………………………………………….70

Criminal law – Felonies – Special complex crime of robbery with homicide. …………………………………………………………...70

Criminal law – Felonies – Complex crime; Special complex crime; complex crime of coup d’etat with rebellion;
complex crime of coup d'etat with sedition………………………………………………………………………………………………………………71

Criminal law – Felonies - Compound and complex crimes…………………………………………………………………………………………72
Criminal law – Felonies - Complex crime of estafa thru falsification of a commercial document……………………………….73

Criminal law – Felonies – Complex crime; Special complex crime; Delito continuado………………………………………………..73

Criminal law – Felonies – Complex crime of multiple murder…………………………………………………………………………………….74

Criminal law – Complex crimes - Frustrated robbery, with homicide and damage to property………………………………….74

Criminal law – Felonies - Special complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with homicide; the special complex crime of
serious illegal detention with homicide……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..75

Criminal law – Felonies – Special complex crime of rape through sexual assault with homicide…………………………………76

Criminal law – Felonies - Special complex crime of rape with homicide……………………………………………………………………...76

Criminal law – Felonies -Special complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with homicide…………………………………………77

Criminal law – Felonies - Complex crime of attempted murder with homicide…………………………………………………….……..78

Criminal law – Felonies - Special complex crime of rape with homicide……………………………………………………………………..79

Criminal law – Complex crimes - Malversation through falsification………………………………………………………………………….80

Criminal law – Complex crimes - Robbery with homicide; direct assault with multiple attempted homicide…………….80

Criminal law – Felonies - Special complex crime of Robbery with homicide………………………………………………………………81

Criminal law – Special complex crimes- Robbery with homicide………………………………………………………………………………..82

Criminal law – Felonies – Carnnaping; Homicide, Serious Physical Injuries and Damage to property resulting from
reckless imprudence………………………………..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………82

3. Circumstances affecting criminal liability

Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Intoxication; when considered as mitigating or
aggravating…………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………………………………………83

a) Justifying circumstances

Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Justifying circumstances; self-defense…………………………...83

Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Justifying circumstances………………………………………………..84

Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Justifying and mitigating circumstances…………………………85

Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Justifying circumstances; Aggravating circumstance of
treachery; when not considered……………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………85

Criminal law – Justifying circumstance of defense of honor – when not sustained…………………………………………………….86

Criminal law – Justifying circumstances - Defense of honor; when untenable……………………………………………………………87

Criminal law – Justifying circumstances – Self-defense………………………………………………………………………………………………87
Criminal law – Justifying circumstances – Defense of a stranger…………………….…………………………………………………………88

Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability - Justifying and exempting circumstances………………………..88

Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Justifying circumstances………….....………………………………….89

(i) Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (R.A. No. 9262)
(a) Battered woman syndrome
Criminal law – Justifying circumstances – Battered Woman Syndrome……………………………………………………………………..89

b) Exempting circumstances
Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Exempting circumstances; when not appreciated…………90

Criminal law – Exempting circumstances – Insanity……………………………………………………………………………………………...…..91

Criminal law – Exempting circumstances – Insuperable cause…………………………………………………………………………………..92

Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Mitigating and aggravating circumstances…………………….92

Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Exempting; mitigating circumstances……………………………93

Criminal law – Exempting circumstances - Suspended sentence under The Child and Youth Welfare Code; when not
applicable………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….94

Special law- Suspension of sentence – PD 603 in relation to RA 8369……………………………………………………………………….95

Special law – Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (RA 9344) – When applicable……………………………………………….96

Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Persons exempt from criminal liability…………………………96

Criminal law – Exempting circumstances – in comparison with justifying circumstances; illustration of exempting
circumstances; minor below nine (9) years old………………………………………………………………………………………………………..97

Criminal law – Exempting circumstances – Insanity as defense……………………..………………………………………………………...98

Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Mitigating and aggravating circumstances……………………98

Criminal law – Mitigating circumstances –Voluntary surrender………………….……………………………………………………………99

Criminal law - Mitigating circumstances - Voluntary surrender and plea of guilty; when not considered………………100

Criminal law – Mitigating circumstances – Voluntary surrender; plea of guilty………………………………………………………100

Criminal law – Mitigating circumstances – Plea of guilty…………………………………………………………………………………………101

Criminal law - Mitigating circumstances –Voluntary surrender………………………………………………………………………………102

Criminal law – Mitigating circumstances - No intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed;
intoxication…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………..102

Criminal law – Mitigating circumstances –no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that which was committed…103

Criminal law – Mitigating circumstances - Immediate vindication of a grave offense to a descendant………………………104
Criminal law – Mitigating circumstances – Voluntary surrender…………………..………………………………………………………….104

Criminal law – Mitigating circumstances - Lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed…………..105

c) Aggravating circumstances
Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Aggravating circumstances…………….………………….………….105

Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability –Aggravating circumstances……………………………………………106

Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability –Aggravating circumstances; cruelty; relationship…106-107

Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability- Aggravating circumstances……………………………………………107

Criminal law – Aggravating circumstances - Evident premeditation, treachery, nighttime and unlawful entry………107

Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Aggravating circumstances……………………………..…………...108

Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Aggravating circumstances………………………………………….109

Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Aggravating circumstances………………………………………….110

(i) Generic
(ii) Qualifying
Criminal law – Crimes affecting criminal liability – Aggravating circumstances; guidelines in appreciating age as a
qualifying circumstance in rape cases………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…111

Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Qualifying circumstances……………………………………………112

Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Qualifying circumstances……………………..…………………….113

Criminal law- Aggravating circumstances – Special aggravating circumstance of the use of an unlicensed firearm in
the commission of a crime……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..113

Criminal law – Aggravating circumstances - Use of an unlicensed firearm in homicide or murder………………………..114

Special penal law - The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (R.A. No. 9165) – Chain of custody…………….114

Criminal law - Kidnapping and serious illegal detention; release of victim, not absolutory……………………………………115

4. Persons criminally liable/Degree of participation
Criminal law – Persons criminally liable/degree of participation – Co-conspirator; accomplice…………………………...116

Criminal law – Persons criminally liable/Degree of participation - Principal by direct participation and co-principal
by indispensable cooperation…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……117

Criminal law – Persons criminally liable/ Degree of participation – Principal by inducement; Accessory……………117

Criminal law – Persons criminally liable/ Degree of participation – Principal by inducement………………………118-119

Criminal law – Persons criminally liable/ Degree of participation – accomplice and a conspirator………………………120

Criminal law - Persons criminally liable/Degree of participation - principal by indispensable cooperation; principal
by inducement……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….120
Criminal law – Persons criminally liable/ Degree of cooperation – Accomplice…………………………………………………….121

Criminal law – Persons criminally liable/Degree of participation – Accessory………………………………………………………122

Criminal law – Persons criminally liable/Degree of participation – Principal; Accessory………………………………………123

Criminal law – Persons criminally liable/Degree of participation – Accessory………………………………………………..124-125

a) Decree Penalizing Obstruction of Apprehension and Prosecution of Criminal
Offenders (P.D. 1829)
(i) Punishable acts
Criminal law – Persons criminally liable/ Degree of participation;
Special penal law - Obstruction of justice……………………………………………………………………………………………………………...126

(ii) Compare with Art. 20, RPC (accessories exempt from criminal liability)
5. Penalties
a) General principles

Criminal law – Penalties – Classes of penalties under the Revised Penal Code……………………………………………………….126

Criminal law – Penalties – Subsidiary penalty; penalty in lieu of the penalty imposed in the sentence…………………..126

Criminal law – Penalties – Factors to consider to arrive at the correct penalty……………………………………………………….127

Criminal law – Penalties - Reclusion perpetua……………………………………….………………………………………………………………..128

Criminal law – Penalties – Prision correctional as minimum, prision mayor maximum as maximum…………………….129

Criminal law – Penalties – Arresto mayor as minimum, prision correctional in its maximum as maximum…………...129

Criminal law – Penalty – Crime of homicide; one aggravating circumstance and four mitigating circumstances…….130

Criminal law – Penalties – death penalty………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….131

Criminal law – Penalties – Death penalty; when death penalty cannot be inflicted………………………………………………….132

Special law – Penalties – Grave offense; life imprisonment……………………………………………………………………………………...133

Criminal law - Penalties – Fine; imprisonment; subsidiary imprisonment………………………………………………………………134

Criminal law – Penalties - Reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment……………………………………………………………..135-137

Special law - Indeterminate Sentence Law – Disqualified offenders……………………………………………………………………..…137

Special law – Indeterminate Sentence Law – Application thereof……………………………………………………………………………138

Special law - Indeterminate Sentence Law – applicable to offenses punished by special laws…………………………………139

Special law – Indeterminate Sentence Law – determination of the proper penalty to constitute the maximum term of
an indeterminate sentence……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..139

Special law – Indeterminate Sentence Law – when applicable………………………………………………………………………………..140
Special law – Indeterminate Sentence Law – when inapplicable………………………………………………………………………140-141

Special law – Indeterminate Sentence Law – Disqualified offenders………………………………………………………………………..140

Special law - Indeterminate Sentence Law – application on the imposed sentence…………………………………..………140-145

Special law- Indeterminate Sentence Law (R.A. No. 4103, as amended) – Penalty imposable for the crime of
homicide…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..145

(a) Application on the imposed sentence
(b) Coverage
(c) Conditions of parole

Criminal law – Penalties – Disqualified offenders for parole; heinous crimes…………………………………………………………146

(ii) Three-fold rule
(iii) Subsidiary imprisonment
f) Execution and service
Criminal law – Penalties - Execution of the civil aspect of the decision……………………………………………………………………146

(i) Probation Law (P.D. 968, as amended)
Special law – Probation law - Legal effect of application for probation on the judgment of conviction……………………147

Special law – Probation law – Purpose of probation law………………………………………………………………………………………....148

Special law - Probation Law of 1976 - Grant of probation……………………………………………………………………………………….148

Special law –Execution and service – Probation Law (PD 968, as amended); grant of probation, manner and
conditions………………………………………………………..……………………………………………………………………………………………………..149

Special law – Probation law – improper denial thereof……………………………..……………………………………………………………149

(d) Criteria of placing an offender on probation
Special law – Probation law – Criteria of placing an offender on probation……………………..…………………………………….150

Special law – Probation law - Eligibility for probation………………..…………………………………………………………………..150-151

Disqualified offenders

Special law – Probation Law – Disqualified offenders…………..…………………………………………………………………………152-156

(f) Period of probation

Special law – Probation law – Period; termination…………………………………………………………………………………………………156

Special penal law - Section 24 of RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of 2002)……………………………………..157

Special law -Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act - Processes of intervention and diversion
Execution and service – Application for suspended sentence…………………………………………………………………………………..159

6. Modification and extinction of criminal liability

Criminal law – Modification and extinction of criminal liability – Pardon; effect……………………………………………………..160

Criminal law - Modification and extinction of criminal liability – Pardon and Amnesty……………………………………..…….160

a) Prescription of crime; Prescription of Violations of Special Laws (Act. No. 3326)

Criminal law – Prescription for violation of special laws - Petition for forfeiture under Republic Act No. 1379………163

Prescription of penalties

Criminal law – Extinction of penalties – Presciption of crime of estafa thru falsification of public document………….163

Criminal law – Extinction of penalties – Prescription for the crime of plunder; Recovery by the State of properties
unlawfully acquired by public officers……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...164

Criminal law – Extinction of criminal liability – Prescription of penalty; Bigamy……………………………………………………...164

Criminal law – Extinction of criminal liability – Prescription of penalties…………………………………………………………165-168

Criminal law – Prescription of crimes – Concubinage………………………………………………………………………………..……………..166

Criminal law – Modification and extinction of criminal liability –Pardon by the Chief Executive………………………169-170

e) Amnesty

Criminal law – Modification and extinction of criminal liability – Amnesty…………………………………………………………….170

B. Book II (Articles 14-365, RPC) and specifically included Special Laws

1. Crimes Against National Security (Arts. 114-123)

Criminal law – Crimes against national security – Qualified piracy…………………………………………………………………………171

Criminal law – Crimes against National Security – Misprision of treason………………………………………………………………..172

a) Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery (P.D. 532)
Special law - Highway Robbery under Presidential Decree No. 532 – difference with Robbery committed on a
highway…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………….172

(i) Definition of terms
(ii) Punishable acts

Special law – Anti-Piracy and Anti- Highway Robbery (PD 532) – punishable acts…………………………………………….….173

b) Anti-Hijacking Law (P.D. 6235)
(i) Punishable acts
c) Human Security Act of 2007 (R.A. No. 9372)
(i) Punishable acts of terrorism
(ii) Who are liable

2. Crimes Against the Fundamental Laws of the State (Articles 124-133)……………… ……………………………………174

Criminal law – Crimes against the fundamental law of the State - Violation of domicile………………………………………...174

Criminal law – Crimes against the Fundamental Law of the State –Violation of domicile………………………………………..175

Criminal law – Crimes against fundamental law of the State - Delay on the Delivery of Detained Persons to the Proper
Judicial Authorities; in relation with Slight disobedience which is a crime against public order……………………………..176

Criminal law – Crimes against fundamental law of the State; violation of domicile – Crimes against personal liberty
and security; trespass to dwelling……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..176

Criminal law – Crimes against the Fundamental Law of the State – Arbitrary detention…………………………………………177

3. Crimes Against Public Order (Articles 134-160)

Criminal law – Crimes against public order – Illegal association…………………………………………………………………………......178

Criminal law – Crimes against public interest - forgery of a private document; falsification of a private document...179

Criminal law – Crimes against public interest - Forgery and falsification…………………………………………………………………179

Criminal law – Crimes against public order – Evasion of sentence; penalty of destierro…………………………………………..181

Criminal law – Crimes against public order - Delivery of prisoner from jail…………………………………………………………….181
Criminal law- Crimes against persons – Murder; complex crime of homicide with assault upon a person in
authority………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..182

Criminal law – Crimes against public order - Direct assault upon a person in authority; direct assault with serious
physical injuries………………….………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….183

Criminal law – Crimes against public order – Direct assault; Resistance and Disobedience……………………………………183

Criminal law - Crimes against public order - Direct assault…………………………………………………………………………………….184

Criminal law – Crimes against public order – Rebellion………………………………………………………………………………….185-186

Criminal law – Crimes against public order - Coup d’etat……………………..…………………………………………………………186-190

Criminal law – Crimes against public order – Inciting to sedition…………………………………………………………………………...190

Criminal law – Crimes against public order - DIRECT ASSAULT UPON A

PERSON IN AUTHORITY or RESISTANCE OR DISOBEDIENCE TO AN AGENT OF A PERSON in authority…………………..191

Criminal law – Crimes against public interest - Falsification of a Private Document……………………………………………….191

Criminal law – Crimes against public order - Qualified Direct Assault with Serious Physical Injuries…………………….192

Criminal law – Crimes against public order - Complex crime of direct assault with murder……………………………………193

Criminal law – Crimes against public order – Direct assault……………………………………………………………………………………194

Special law -Crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition- Elements of the crime……………………………….195

b) Human Security Act of 2007 (R.A. No. 9372)
(i) Punishable acts of terrorism
(ii) Who are liable
(iii) Absorption principle in relation to complex crimes

4. Crimes Against Public Interest (Articles 161-187)

Criminal law – Crimes against public interest – Falsification of private document………………………………………………..195

Criminal law – Crimes against public interest - Falsification of commercial documents……………………………………….196

Criminal law – Crimes against public interest – Falsification of a private document…………………………………………….196

Criminal law – Crimes against public interest - Falsification of public documents………………………………………………..197

Criminal law – Crimes against public interest - introducing a false document in a judicial proceeding………………..197
Criminal law – Crimes against public interest - Mutilation of coins……………………………………………………………………….198

a) R.A. No. 9194 – Anti-Money Laundering Act

Special penal law –How to establish liability under Anti-Money Laundering Act…………………………………………………..198

Special penal law – Anti-Money Laundering Act – Issuance of freeze order……………………………………………………………199

(i) Punishable acts
Special penal law - Money laundering under Rep. Act 9160 (Anti- Money Laundering Act of 2001), as amended by Rep.
Act 9194 – Punishable acts; money proceeds from an unlawful activity are transacted as though coming from a
legitimate source; continued use of proceeds despite knowledge of unlawful source thereof………………………………..200

(ii) Covered Transactions
(iii) Suspicious Transactions

5. Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs

Special law – Crimes relative to opium and other prohibited drugs – Possible crimes which can be committed by an
evidence custodian of the PNP Forensic Chemistry Section……………………………………………………………………………………200

a) The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (R.A. No. 9165)
(i) Punishable acts

Special law – RA 9165 – punishable acts and penalties thereof…………………………………………………………………………….201

Special penal law - Crimes relative to opium and other prohibited drugs -Rep. Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002; plea-bargaining in prosecutions of drug-related cases is no longer allowed…………202

Special law – Crimes relative to opium and other prohibited drugs – RA 9165……………………………………………………...203

Special law – Crimes related to opium and other prohibited drugs - Sale of a prohibited drug………………………………203

Special penal law – Crimes relative to opium and other prohibited drugs –RA 9165; Punishable acts; mere possession
of illegal drugs; non-availability of plea-bargaining……………………………………………………………………………………………….204

Special law – Crimes relative to opium and other prohibited drugs – Misappropriation and failure to account for the
confiscated or seized dangerous drugs; the illegal importation or bringing into the Philippines of the dangerous
drugs……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….205

(ii) Who are liable
Special penal law – Crimes relative to opium and other prohibited drugs – R.A. No. 9165, otherwise known as the
“Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002”; “Protector/Coddler”…………………………………………………………………...205

Special penal law - Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs - Sec. 7 of Rep. Act. 9165 on the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs of 2002; Who are liable as offenders………………………………………………………………...206

6. Crimes Against Public Morals (Articles 200-202)
Criminal law – Crimes against public morals – Sending of indecent booklet to an individual………………………………….207

Criminal law – Crimes against public morals – Grave scandal…………………………………………………………………………………207

7. Crimes Committed by Public Officers (Articles 203-245)

Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers – Dereliction of duty………………………………………………………………208

Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers - Crime of falsification of a public document; invalid
defenses………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….209; 281

Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers – Malversation of public funds or property……………………………209

Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers - Malversation thru falsification of official documents; Frauds
against the public treasury and similar offenses…………………………………………………………………………………………………….210

Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers – Malversation…………………………………………………………………211-217

Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers – Direct bribery; indirect bribery;
Special law - RA. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act………………………………………………………………………218-219

Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers - Consenting or conniving to evasion………………………………………219

Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers - Maliciously refraining from instituting prosecution for
punishment of violators of the law; removing and cancelling public document entrusted to his custody……………….220

Criminal law –Crimes committed by public officers - EVASION THRU NEGLIGENCE; in relation with crimes against
public order - DELIVERING PRISONERS FROM JAILS; EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE………………………………………220

Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers - Infidelity in the custody of a prisoner…………………………………..221

Criminal law - Crimes Committed by Public Officers - Direct Bribery; Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoners; Evasion of
Service of Sentence; Delivery of Prisoners from Jail; Falsification of Public Document…………………………………………..222

Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers – Qualified bribery…………………………………………………………………223

Special law – Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019, as amended) – Preventive suspension…………………...…224

Special law – RA 3019 - Attempted or frustrated stage of the violation charged is not punishable, but the accused be
nevertheless convicted for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code…………………………………………………………….225

Criminal law – Complex crimes - Malversation through falsification……………..………………………………………………………..226

Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers – Indirect bribery; in relation with special law (RA 6713)…….226

Criminal law - Crimes committed by public officers – Indirect bribery……………………………………………………………………226

Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers – Indirect bribery;
Special penal law - Violation of Rep. Act 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………227
Special law - RA No. 3019, the Anti- Graft and Corrupt Practices Act - Suspension pendente lite……………………………227

Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers - Indirect bribery;
Special penal law - Republic Act No. 3019- directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, percentage,
or benefit in connection with any contract or transaction x x x wherein the public officer, in his official capacity, has to
intervene under the law………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….228

Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers - direct bribery;
Special penal law - Republic Act No. 3019………………………………………………………………………………………………………………229

Special law - RA No. 3019 – “corrupt practices” in relation to the requirement of “undue injury”…………………………230

Special penal law – Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019, as amended) – act considered as corrupt
practice…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………………………………………231

Special penal law - Violation of Rep. Act 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees)……………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………………………………..232

Special penal law– Violation of Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials (RA 6713) - Requesting
donations of gifts…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..232

8. Crimes Against Persons (Articles 246-266)

Criminal law - Crimes against persons - Death caused in a tumultuous affray………………………………………………………234

Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Parricide; murder; homicide………………………………………………………….234-235

Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Frustrated homicide; less serious physical injuries………………………………236

Criminal law – Crimes against persons –Homicide; incomplete self-defense….…………………………………………………….237

Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Homicide; slight physical injuries…………………………………………………………237

Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Homicide……………………………………………………………………………...238; 249-250

Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Murder………………………………………………………………………………………….238-240

Special law - Anti-Rape Law of 1997 – Rape as crime against person; extinguishment of criminal liability by
subsequent marriage…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..241

Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Rape; Crimes against chastity - Acts of Lasciviousness…………………………241

Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Rape……………………………………………………………………………………………...242-245

Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Parricide……………………………………………………………………………………………...246

Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Attempted homicide; Slight physical injury………………………………………….246

Criminal law – Crimes against persons - Death under exceptional circumstances………………………….247-248;254-255

Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Murder; serious physical injuries…………………………………………………249-253
Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Homicide; when justified; when aggravated…………………………………..253-254

Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Abortion; infanticide…………………………………………………………………………….256

Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Death caused in a tumultuous affray…………………………………………………….257

Special law - Rep. Act No. 8049 (Anti-Hazing Law) – Hazing; initiation rites……………………………………………………….258

Special law - Child abuse; Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination (RA
7610, as amended)………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..259

Special law – Special Protection of Children against Child abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act – RA 7610; “Child
trafficking”…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...259

Special law – Special Protection of Children against Child abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act (RA 7610 – “Child
abuse,” punishable acts………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….260-261

9. Crimes Against Personal Liberty and Security (Articles 267-292)

Criminal law – Crimes against personal liberty and security – Grave threats…………………………………….………………….262

Criminal law –Crimes against personal liberty and security – Grave coercion; elements……………………………….263-264

Criminal law – Criminal law – Crimes against personal liberty and security - Unjust vexation; in comparison with acts
of lasciviousness……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………264

Criminal law – Crimes against personal liberty and security - Unjust vexation; Grave coercion……………………………264

Criminal law – Crimes against personal liberty and security – Unjust vexation……………………………………………..265; 270

Criminal law – Crimes against personal liberty and security – Coercion; illegal detention…………………………………….266

Criminal law – Crimes against personal liberty and security - kidnapping and serious illegal detention………267-269

Criminal law – Crimes against personal liberty and security – Exploitation of child labor; services rendered under
compulsion in payment of debt……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….271

Criminal law – Crimes against personal liberty and security – Exploitation of child labor………………………………………272

Criminal law – Crimes against personal liberty and security – Light coercions………………………………………………………..273

Special penal law – (RA No. 4200) – Exception to punishable acts…………………………………………………………………………...273

10. Crimes against Property (Articles 293-332)

Criminal law – Crimes against property - Qualified Theft of Large Cattle; Estafa ; Special law - Anti-Fencing Law…..274
Criminal law – Crimes against property – Robbery…………………………………………………………………...275-276; 292-293; 295
Criminal law – Crimes against property – When crime is considered as squatting and not usurpation of real
property…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..276
Criminal law – Crimes against property – Usurpation of real right in property……………………………………………………….278
Criminal law – Crimes against property – Theft……………………………………………………………………………………………………….279
Criminal law – Crimes against property – Estafa……………………………………………………………………………………………………..280
Criminal law – Crimes against the fundamental law of the State – Arbitrary detention…………………………………………..281
Criminal law -Crimes against property - Estafa through falsification of commercial documents…………………………….282
Criminal law - Crimes against property – Estafa through misappropriation or conversion……………………………………..283
Special law - Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. 22)
Crimes against property – Estafa……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..284
Criminal law – Crimes against property – Estafa through abuse of confidence………………………………………………………..285
Criminal law – Crimes against property – Exemption from criminal liability…………………………………………………………..285
Criminal law – Crimes against property – Theft; estafa through abuse of confidence or unfaithfulness………………….286

Criminal law – Crimes against property- Trespass to dwelling; Exceptions…………………………………………………………….287

Criminal law – Crimes against property – Theft; Estafa……………………………………………………………………288-291; 293-296

Criminal law – Crimes against property – Situation when there is no misappropriation…………………………………………292

Criminal law – Crimes against property - Estafa through falsification of commercial documents……………………………295

Criminal law - Crimes against property – Robbery with homicide…………………………………………………………………………..295

Criminal law – Crimes against property – Robbery by band…………………………………………………………………………………….297

Special penal law – Anti – Arson law (PD 1613) – punishable acts…………………………………………………………………………..298

Special penal law – Anti-Fencing Law (PD 1612) – defenses available to the accused……………………………………………..299

Special law - Anti-Fencing Law (P.D. 1612) – “Fencing”- how committed…………………………………………………………300-301

Special penal law – Anti- Fencing Law; Presumption of fencing………………………………………………………………………………302

Special penal law – BP 22; Estafa…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….303

Special penal law– PD No 1689 (Increasing the penalty for certain forms of swindling or estafa)………………………….304

Special law – Bouncing Checks Law (Bp Blg 22) – punishable acts……………………………………………………………304; 306-307

Special penal law – Bouncing Checks Law (Bp Blg 22) – in relation with estafa which is a crime against property…305

Special penal law – Bouncing Checks Law (Bp Blg 22) – memorandum check; bouncing thereof……………………………307

Special penal law – Bouncing Checks Law (Bp Blg 22) – Presumption of knowledge………………………………………..307-309

Special penal law – Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972, Rep. Act 6539– Taking of motorcycle………………………………………….310

Special penal law - Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972, Rep. Act 6539 - Unlawful taking of a motor vehicle……………………..311

Criminal law – Crimes against chastity – Acts of lasciviousness……………………………………………………………………………….312

Criminal law - Crimes against chastity – Qualified seduction…………………………………………………………………………………...312

Criminal law – Crimes against chastity – Consented abduction………………………………………………………………………………..313
Criminal law - Crimes against chastity – Acts of lasciviousness; Penalty imposed when committed by a public
officer…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….313

Criminal law – Crimes against chastity – Acts of lasciviousness……………………………………………………………………………..314

Criminal law – Crimes against chastity – Adultery………………………………………………………………………………………….314-315

Criminal law – Crimes against chastity – Concubinage…………………………..……………………………………………………….316-317

12. Crimes Against Civil Status (Articles 347-352)

Criminal law – Crimes against the civil status of persons – Simulation of births…………………………………………………….318

Criminal law – Crimes against the civil status of persons - Marriage contracted against the provisions of the marriage
law…………………………………………………………….…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..318

Criminal law – Crimes against civil status of persons – Premature marriages……………………………………………………….318

Criminal law – Crimes against civil status of persons – Bigamy………………………………………………………………………319-321

13. Crimes Against Honor (Articles 353-364)

Criminal law – Crimes against honor - slander or slight defamation……………………………….……………………………..………322

Criminal law – Crimes against honor - slander by deed…………………………………………………………………………323; 326; 329

Criminal law – Crimes against honor - grave oral defamation; light slander………………………………………………………….323

Criminal law – Crimes against honor – Libel; publication in the newspapers; broadcast over the radio………………..324

Criminal law – Crimes against honor – Slander by deed; as distinguished from maltreatment………………………………325

Criminal law – Crimes against public interest – False testimony; when incurred; when prescribed………………………326

Criminal law - Crimes against public interest – Perjury…………………………..………………………………………………………327-328

Criminal law – Crimes against honor – Libel…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..329

14. Criminal Negligence (Article 365)

Criminal law – Criminal negligence – Reckless imprudence resulting in homicide………………………………………………..331

*Special laws not included in the 2015 Bar Examinations

Special law – RA 6805; Instances of legal use of an alias by a Filipino citizen….…………………………………………………….332

Special law - Pres. Decree Nos. 704 and 1058 - Fishing with the use of explosives; punishable acts……..…….…………334
Special law – Act Defining Certain Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation (RA 7438) –
Rights which can be violated……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…334
CRIMINAL LAW
Revised Penal Code and related Special Laws

Fundamental principles
Definition of Criminal Law

Criminal law – Wrongful acts which are not per se considered as criminal
offense

a) After due hearing on a petition for a writ of amparo founded on the acts of
enforced disappearance and extralegal killing of the son of the
complainant allegedly done by the respondent military officers, the court
granted the petition. May the military officers be criminally charged in
court with enforced disappearance and extralegal killing? Explain fully.
(3%) (2008 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a) No. "Enforced disappearance and extralegal killing" is not per se a criminal
offense although it is wrongful. The grant of a writ of amparo only provides a relief; it does
not establish a basis for a crime. Unless the writ was issued because of specific overt acts
shown to have been committed by the respondent military officers and such acts are
crimes under penal laws, no criminal charge may be routinely filed just because the
petition for the writ was granted.

b) Are human rights violations considered as crimes in the Philippines?
Explain. (3%) (2008 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

b.) Not necessarily, since there are human rights violations which do not amount to
criminal offenses. In this country, there can be no crime when there is no law
punishing an act or omission as a crime.

Criminal law – Fundamental principles – Simultaneous prosecution of two
different offenses

May a ranking leader of the NPA who has taken up arms against the government be
simultaneously prosecuted for violation of Section 1 of RA. 1700 (the Anti-Subversion Act)
and for rebellion under Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended? (1991 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Page 1 of 338
Yes, because the two offenses are punished under separate laws. Besides, the elements of
the two offenses differ.

Criminal law – Fundamental principles – Circumstantial evidence; Proof
beyond reasonable doubt

Forest Ranger Jay Velasco was patrolling the Balara Watershed and Reservoir
when he noticed a big pile of cut logs outside the gate of the watershed. Curious, he
scouted around and after a few minutes, he saw Rene and Dante coming out of the
gate with some more newly-cut logs. He apprehended and charged them with the
proper offense.

During the preliminary investigation and up to the trial proper, Rene and Dante
contended that if they were to be held liable, their liability should be limited only to
the newly-cut logs found in their possession but not to those found outside the gate.

If you were the judge, what will be your ruling? 2.5% (2006 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1. If I were the judge and the evidence adduced by the prosecution convincingly show a
clear link between the accused and the cut logs piled outside the gate of the watershed,
I will hold the accused criminally liable not only for the newly cut logs in their
possession but also for those found outside the gate. Circumstantial evidence proving
that the accused and no other persons could have done the cutting of the logs, such as
the manner of cutting the logs, the area where they cut the logs they were carrying, and
other indications pointing to them as the culprits may be considered.
ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER:

2. If I were the judge I will rule in favor of Rene and Dante. The liability of Rene and Dante
is limited only to the newly cut logs found in their possession unless convincingly proved
that were the ones who brought out the logs found outside the gate.
It is fundamental rule in this jurisdiction that the guilt of the accused must be
proven beyond reasonable doubt in order to be convicted for the crime charged.
The facts of the case at bar does not show that Rene and Dante were the ones who
took and brought out the logs found outside the gate. Culpability not having been
sufficiently proved, they should not be held liable.

Mala in Se and Mala Prohibita

Criminal law – Fundamental principles - Mala in se and crimes mala
prohibita

Page 2 of 338
Distinguish, in their respective concepts and legal implications, between crimes mala
in se and crimes mala prohibita. (2003 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

In concept:

Crimes mala in se are those where the acts or omissions penalized are inherently bad, evil,
or wrong that they are almost universally condemned.
Crimes mala prohibita are those where the acts penalized are not inherently bad, evil, or
wrong but prohibited by law for public good, public welfare or interest and whoever
violates the prohibition are penalized.
In legal implications:
In crimes mala in se, good faith or lack of criminal intent/ negligence is a defense, while in
crimes mala prohibita, good faith or lack of criminal intent or malice is not a defense; it is
enough that the prohibition was voluntarily violated.
Also, criminal liability is generally incurred in crimes mala in se even when the crime is
only attempted or frustrated, while in crimes mala prohibita, criminal liability is generally
incurred only when the crime is consummated.
Also in crimes mala in se, mitigating and aggravating circumstances are appreciated in
imposing the penalties, while in crimes mala prohibita, such circumstances are not
appreciated unless the special law has adopted the scheme or scale of penalties under the
Revised Penal Code.

Criminal law – Fundamental principles – Mala in se; mala prohibita;
motive; intent
a. Distinguish “ mala in se” from “mala prohibita “motive” from “intent”.
(3%) (1999 Bar Question)

b. When is motive relevant to prove a case? When is it not necessary to be
established? Explain. (3%) (1999 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a. In “mala in se”, the acts constituting the crimes are inherently evil, bad or wrong, and
hence involves the moral traits of the offender; while in “ mala prohibita”, the acts constituting the
crimes are not inherently bad, evil or wrong but prohibited and made punishable only for public
good. And because the moral trait of the offender is involved in “mala in se”, modifying
circumstances, the offender's extent of participation in the crime, and the degree of accomplishment
of the crime are taken into account in imposing the penalty: these are not so in “mala prohibita"
where criminal liability arises only when the acts are consummated.

Page 3 of 338
“Motive” is the moving power which impels a person to do an act for a definite result; while
“intent” is the purpose for using a particular means to bring about a desired result. Motive is not an
element of a crime but intent is an element of intentional crimes. Motive, if attending a crime, always
precede the intent.

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

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

Criminal law – Fundamental principles – Mala in se; mala prohibita

Distinguish between crimes mala in se and crimes mala prohibita. May an act be malum in
se and be, at the same time, malum prohibitum? (1997 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Crimes mala in se are felonious acts committed by dolo or culpa as defined in the Revised Penal
Code. Lack of criminal intent is a valid defense, except when the crime results from criminal
negligence. On the other hand, crimes mala prohibita are those considered wrong only because they
are prohibited by statute. They constitute violations of mere rules of convenience designed to secure
a more orderly regulation of the affairs of society.
Yes, an act may be malum in se and malum prohibitum at the same time. In People v. Sunico, etaL,
(CA 50 OG 5880) it was held that the omission or failure of election inspectors and poll clerks to
include a voter's name in the registry list of voters is wrong perse because it disenfranchises a voter
of his right to vote. In this regard it is considered as malum in se. Since it is punished under a special
law (Sec. 101 and 103, Revised Election Code), it is considered malum prohibitum.

Criminal law – Fundamental principles - mala in se and mala prohibita

Distinguish crime mala in se from crimes mala prohibita. (1988 Bar Question)
May a crime be committed without criminal intent? Explain. (1988 Bar Question)
When are light felonies punishable and who are liable in light felonies? (1988 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) There are three distinctions between mala in se and mala prohibita:
1. A crime mala in se is a natural wrong. On the other hand, an offense mala
prohibita is a wrong only because it is prohibited by law;

Page 4 of 338
2. In the commission of a crime mala in se, intent is an element whereas in the
commission of an
offense mala prohibita, criminal intent is immaterial; and
3. Crimes mala in se are punished by the Revised Penal Code although the
Revised Penal Code may cover special laws while offense mala prohibita are punished
by special laws.
b) A crime may be committed without criminal intent in two cases:
1. Offense, punishable as mala prohibita; an
2. Felonies committed by means of culpa.
c) Light felonies, according to Article 7 of the Revised Penal Code are punishable “only
when they have been consummated, with the exception of those committed against
persons or property.”
Article. 16 of the Revised Penal Code provides that “the following are criminally liable
for light felonies:
1. Principals
2. Accomplices.

Criminal law – Fundamental principles - Malum in se and Malum prohibitum

Distinguish malum in se from malum prohibitum (2%) (2005 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Malum in se is a crime where the act done is inherently bad, evil and wrong in nature, such
that it is generally condemned. The moral traits of the offender are taken into account in punishing
the crime.

Malum prohibitum is a crime where the act done is not inherently bad, evil or wrong but
prohibited by law for public good and welfare. Anyone who voluntarily commits the prohibited act
incurs the crime.

Construction of penal laws

Criminal law – Construction of penal laws – Doctrine of pro reo

A. What is the doctrine of pro reo? How does it relate to Article 48 of the
Revised Penal Code? (3%) (2010 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Page 5 of 338
The doctrine of pro reo advocates that penal laws and laws penal in nature are to be
construed and applied in a way lenient or liberal to the offender, consonant to and
consistent with the constitutional guarantee that an accused shall be presumed innocent
until his guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt.
Following the pro reo doctrine, under Art. 48 of the Revised Penal Code, crimes are
complexed and punished with a single penalty (i.e that prescribed for the most serious
crime and to be imposed in its maximum period). The rationale being, that the accused who
commits two crimes with single criminal impulse demonstrates lesser perversity than
when the crimes are committed by different acts and several criminal resolutions. (People
v. Comadre, 431 SCRA 366, 384 [2004}. However, Art. 48 shall be applied only when it
would bring about the imposition of a penalty lesser than the penalties imposable for all
the component crimes if prosecuted separately instead of being complexed.

Criminal law – Civil liability -Restitution; reparation

Allan, the Municipal Treasurer of the Municipality of Gerona, was in a hurry
to return to his office after a day-long official conference. He alighted from the
government car which was officially assigned to him, leaving the ignition key and
the car unlocked, and rushed to his office. Jules, a bystander, drove off with the car
and later sold the same to his brother, Danny for P20.000.00, although the car was
worth P800,000.00. What, if any, are their respective civil liabilities? Explain. (5%)
(2005 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Allan, Jules and Danny are all civilly liable for restitution of the car to the
government, or if no longer possible, reparation of the damages caused by payment of the
replacement cost of the car minus allowance for depreciation, and to indemnify
consequential damages.

Criminal law – Civil liability – Subsidiary liability of the employer
Guy, while driving a passenger jeepney owned and operated by Max, bumped
Demy, a pedestrian crossing the street. Demy sustained injuries, which required
medical attendance for three months. Guy was charged with reckless imprudence
resulting to physical injuries. Convicted by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Guy was
sentenced to suffer a straight penalty of three months of arresto mayor and ordered
to indemnify Demy in the sum of P5.000 and to pay PI,000 as attorney's fees.
Upon finality of the decision, a writ of execution was served upon Guy, but was
returned unsatisfied due to his insolvency. Demy moved for a subsidiary writ of
execution against Max. The latter opposed the motion on the ground that the
decision made no mention of his subsidiary liability and that he was not impleaded

Page 6 of 338
in the case.

How will you resolve the motion? [5%] (1998 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The motion is to be granted. Max as an employer of Guy and engaged in an industry
(transportation business) where said employee is utilized, is subsidiarily civilly liable
under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. Even though the decision made no mention of
his subsidiary liability, the law violated (Revised Penal Code) itself mandates for such
liability and Max is deemed to know it because ignorance of the law is never excused. And
since his liability is not primary but only subsidiary in case his employee cannot pay, he
need not be impleaded in the in the criminal case. It suffices that he was duly notified of
the motion for issuance of a subsidiary writ of execution and thus given the opportunity to
be heard.

Criminal law –Civil liability - Indemnity

Macky, a security guard, arrived home late one night after rendering overtime.
He was shocked to see Joy, his wife, and Ken, his best friend, in the act of having
sexual intercourse. Macky pulled out his service gun and shot and killed Ken. Macky
was charged with murder for the death of Ken.

The court found that Ken died under exceptional circumstances and
exonerated Macky of murder but sentenced him to destierro, conformably with
Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. The court also ordered Macky to pay
indemnity to the heirs of the victim in the amount of P50,000.

(a) Did the court correctly order Macky to pay indemnity even though he was
exonerated of murder? Explain your answer. (2007 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) No, the court did not act correctly in ordering the accused to indemnify the
victim. Since the killing of Ken was committed under the exceptional circumstances in
Article 247, Revised Penal Code, it is the consensus that no crime was committed in the
light of the pronouncement in People v. Cosicor (79 Phil. 672 [1947]) that banishment
(destierro) is intended more for the protection of the offender rather than as a penalty.
Since the civil liability under the Revised Penal Code is the consequence of criminal
liability, there would be no legal basis for the award of indemnity when there is no criminal
liability.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Page 7 of 338
Yes, because the crime punishable by destierro was committed, which is death
under exceptional circumstances under Art. 247 of the Revised Penal Code.

Criminal law – Civil liability - Damages

In a crime of homicide, the prosecution failed to present any receipt to substantiate
the heirs’ claim for an award of actual damages, such as expenses for the wake and burial.
What kind of damages may the trial court award to them and how much? 5% (2006
Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The damages that the trial court may award are:

a) civil indemnity for the loss of life of the victim which jurisprudence has set at
P50,000.00;
b) Moderate/temperate damages for the expenses incurred for the wake and
burial of the victim as the trial court may consider reasonable; and
c) Moral damages for the sufferings of the family of the victim emotionally and
mentally.

Criminal law – Acquittal in a criminal prosecution; Institution of civil
action
A was a 17-year old working student who was earning his keep as a cigarette vendor. B
was driving a car along busy Espana Street at about 7:00 p.m. Beside B was C. The car
stopped at an intersection because of the red signal of the traffic light While waiting for the
green signal, C beckoned A to buy some cigarettes. A approached the car and handed two
sticks of cigarettes to C. While the transaction was taking place, the traffic light changed to
green and the car immediately sped off. As the car continued to speed towards Qulapo, A
clung to the window of the car but lost his grip and fell down on the pavement. The car did
not stop. A suffered serious injuries which eventually caused his death. C was charged with
ROBBERY with HOMICIDE. In the end, the Court was not convinced with moral certainty that
the guilt of C has been established beyond reasonable doubt and, thus, acquitted him on the
ground of reasonable doubt.

Can the family of the victim still recover civil damages in view of the acquittal of C?
Explain. (5%) (2000 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, as against C, A's family can still recover civil damages despite C's acquittal. When
the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been

Page 8 of 338
proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or omission
may be instituted. Such action requires only a preponderance of evidence (Art. 29, CC).
If A’s family can prove the negligence of B by preponderance of evidence, the civil
action for damages against B will prosper based on quasi-delict. Whoever by act or
omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for
the damage done. Such fault or negligence, about pre-existing contractual relation between
the parties, is called a quasi-delict (Art. 2176, CC). This is entirely separate and distinct
from civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code (Arts. 31, 2176. 2177, CC).

Criminal law – Criminal liability; total and partial extinguishment –
Acquittal in relation to civil liability

a) How is criminal liability totally extinguished? (1988 Bar Question)
b) How is criminal liability extinguished partially? (1988 Bar Question)
c) If an accused is acquitted, does it necessarily follows that no civil liability
arising from the acts complained of may be awarded in the same judgment? (1988
Bar Question)
Explain briefly.

SUGGESTED ANSWER

a) Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code provides for the following causes of total
extinction of criminal liability:
1. Death of the convict as to personal penalties, as to the pecuniary liabilities,
liability therefore is extinguished only when death occurs before final judgment.
2. Service of Sentence
3. Amnesty
4. Absolute pardon
5. Prescription of the crime
6. Prescription of the penalty
7. Marriage of the offended woman as provided in Article 344.
b) Article 94 of the Revised Penal Code provides for the following causes of partial
extinction of criminal liability:
1. Condition pardon
2. Communication of sentence
3. Good conduct allowances during confinement
4. Parole
5. Probation
If an accused acquitted, it does not necessarily follow that no civil liability arising from the acts

Page 9 of 338
complained of may be awarded in the same judgment except: If there is an express waiver of the
liability; and if there is a reservation of file a separate civil action (Rule 107; Padilla vs. CA People vs.
Jalandoni).

Criminal law – Penalties - Execution of the employer’s subsidiary
liability

Juan Cruz, driver of a cargo truck owned and operated by VICMICO a sugar
central, while driving recklessly caused Jorge Abad to fall from the truck resulting in
injuries which caused his death. Juan Cruz was convicted of homicide thru reckless
imprudence and was ordered to pay the heirs of the deceased Ahad P12,000.00. The
respondent judge issued an order granting a motion for execution of the civil service
liability of the accused Juan Cruz, but the return of the Sheriff showed that the
accused was insolvent. Petitioners, heirs of the deceased Abad, now filed a motion
for execution of the employers subsidiary liability under Art. 103 of the Revised
Penal Code. Respondent judge denied the motion, stating that the employer
VICMICO, not having been notified that his driver was facmg a criminal charge, a
separate action had to be filed. Hence, a petition for mandamus was filed.
Decide the case. (1988 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Mandamus will lie. There is no need for a separate civil action because the driver was
convicted (Martinez vs. Barredo). All you need is a motion for execution with a notice to
the employer that states compliance with the requisites imposed by Article 103 of the
Revised Penal Code (that there is employer-employee relationship, that the employer is
engaged in an industry and that the driver is insolvent).

Criminal law – Extinguishment of criminal liability; civil liability

For defrauding Loma, Alma was charged before the Municipal Trial Court of
Malolos, Bulacan. After a protracted trial, Alma was convicted. While the case was
pending appeal in the Regional Trial Court of the same province, Loma who was then
suffering from breast cancer, died. Alma manifested to the court that with Loma's
death, her (Alma's) criminal and civil liabilities are now extinguished. Is Alma’s
contention correct? What if it were Alma who died, would it affect her criminal and
civil liabilities? Explain. (3%) (2000 Bar Question)
a. Name at least two exceptions to the general rule that in case of acquittal of the
accused in a criminal case, his civil liability is likewise extinguished. (2%) (2000 Bar

Page 10 of 338
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) No. Alma's contention is not correct. The death of the offended party does not
extinguish the criminal liability of the offender, because the offense is committed against
the State (People vs. Misola, 87 Phil. 830, 833). Hence, it follows that the civil liability of
Alma based on the offense committed by her is not extinguished. The estate of Loma can
continue the case.

On the other hand, if it were Alma who died pending appeal of her conviction, her
criminal liability shall be extinguished and therewith the civil liability under the Revised
Penal Code (Art. 89, par. 1, RPC). However, the claim for civil indemnity may be instituted
under the Civil Code (Art. 1157) if predicated on a source of obligation other than delict,
such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts and quasidelicts (People vs. Bayotas 236 SCRA 239,
G.R. 152007, September 2, 1994).

b. Exceptions to the rule that acquittal from a criminal case extinguishes civil liability,
are:

1. When the civil action is based on obligations not arising from the act complained of as a
felony;
2. When acquittal is based on reasonable doubt or acquittal is on the ground that guilt has
not been proven beyond reasonable doubt (Art. 29, New Civil Code);
3. Acquittal due to an exempting circumstance, like insanity;

4. Where the court states in its judgment that the case merely involves a civil obligation;

5. Where there was a proper reservation forthe filing of a separate civil action;

6. In cases of independent civil actions provided for in Arts. 31,32,33 and 34 of the New
Civil Code;
7. When the judgment of acquittal includes a declaration that the fact from which the civil
liability might arise did not exist (Saplera vs. CA. 314 SCRA370);
8. Where the civil liability is not derived or based on the criminal act of which the accused
is acquitted (Saplera vs. CA, 314 SCRA 370).
Note : Only two (2) exceptions are asked.

Criminal law – Fundamental principles – Grounds for dismissal of cases;
affidavit of desistance; effect thereof
Ariel intimidated Rachel, a mental retardate, with a bolo into having sexual

Page 11 of 338
intercourse with him. Rachel’s mother immediately filed a complaint, supported by
her sworn statement, before the City Prosecutor’s Office, After the necessary
preliminary investigation, an information was signed by the prosecutor but did not
contain the signature of Rachel nor of her mother. Citing Art. 344 of the RPC
(prosecution of the crimes of rape, etc.), Ariel moves for the dismissal of the case.
Resolve with reasons.
After the prosecution had rested its case, Ariel presented a sworn affidavit of
desistance executed by Rachel and her mother stating that they are no longer interested in
prosecuting the case and that they have pardoned Ariel.
What effect would this affidavit of desistance have on the criminal and civil aspects of the
case? Explain fully. (1993 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The case should not be dismissed. This is allowed by law (People vs. Horde, 125 SCRA 11). It
is enough that a complaint was filed by the offended party or the parents in the Fiscal’s Office.
The affidavit of desistance will only amount to the condonation of civil liability but not
criminal liability hence the case should still proceed.

Criminal law – Fundamental principles – effect of death of the accused on civil
liability
PM, a rich businessman, was convicted of murder and sentenced to life
imprisonment by the Regional Trial Court, and to pay the heirs of the victim the
total amount of P250,000.00. While his appeal was pending before the Supreme
Court, PM died. The defense counsel manifested that PM’s death extinguished not
only the criminal liability but also the pecuniary liability because the death
occurred before the final judgment, since the case was pending appeal. He invoked
Art. 89 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that “criminal liability is totally
extinguished: 1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to
pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the
offender occurs before the final judgment*’

As a Solicitor in the Office of the Solicitor General, do you agree with the defense
counsel’s argument? (1987 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
As Solicitor General, I will not agree to the argument of the defense counsel that the
death of PM while his appeal was pending extinguished not only his criminal liability but
also his pecuniary liability Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that the
“pecuniary liability of the accused is extinguished only when the death of the offender
occurred before the final judgment”, refers to his liability to pay the fine. (People vs.
Sendaydiego, 81 SCRA 120). The civil liability, however, survives the death of the offender

Page 12 of 338
because death is not a valid cause of the extinguishment of civil obligation. (Tonijos vs.
Court of Appeals 67 SCRA 394).

Criminal law – Fundamental principles – Civil action for recovery of property
not subject to confiscation; jurisdiction
Jose. Pedro and Juan, robbed ABC Bank of P200,000.00 and using a stolen car,
immediately proceeded to Quezon City. The police recovered the money and the car.
After the trial, during which the bank lawyer intervened as private prosecutor, the
court convicted Jose, Pedro and Juan of robbery and ordered the forfeiture of the
money (P200,000.00) and the car in favor of the government as proceeds and
instrument of the crime, respectively. The bank lawyer received copy of the
judgment, but did not do anything. Jose, Pedro and Juan did not appeal the
judgment, and began service of sentence. Two months later, realizing that the court
did not order the return of the money to the bank, the bank lawyer filed a motion for
modification of the judgment and prayed that the money be ordered returned to the
bank. Two months later, Armando, the owner of the stolen car, learned of the
judgment even much later. He comes to you seeking your well considered opinion
on whether it is still possible to recover his car.

(a) As legal counsel, what will you tell him? Explain briefly. (1987 Bar Question)

(b) Under the facts given, would the bank be entitled to the return of the money?
Why? (1987 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) As legal counsel, I would advise Armando to file a civil action for the recovery of his
car against its legal custodian. The car was stolen and therefore it belonged to Armando, an
innocent party, who has not participated in the commission of the robbery by Jose, Pedro
and Juan. The car, is therefore, not subject to confiscation.

b) The motion of the bank lawyer for the modification of the judgment with the prayer
that the money be ordered returned to the bank must be denied. The judgment is already
final and so the court has no more “jurisdiction” over the case (People vs. Velez 15 SCRA
26).

Criminal law – Fundamental principles – Effect of death of accused on criminal
and civil liability
Rico was convicted of raping Letty, his former sweetheart by the Regional Trial
Court of Manila and he was ordered to serve the penalty of life imprisonment, to in-
demnify Letty in the amount of P30.000.00 and to support their offspring. Pending
appeal in the Supreme Court. Rico died. His widow, Bemie, moved for a dismissal of
the case.

Page 13 of 338
a. What is the legal effect of Rico’s death on his criminal liability? Explain
your answer. (1990 Bar Question)

b. How about on his civil liability? State your reasons. (1990 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a. The criminal liability of Rico is extinguished on the basis of Article 89 of the
Revised Penal Code which provides that: “ How criminal liability is extinguished -
Criminal liability is totally extiguished: 1. By the death of the convict, as to the
personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished
only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgement.
b. The civil liability of Rico survives. (People v. Sen- davdiego, January 20,
1978, 74 O.G. 4371; People v. Tirol G.R. No. L-30588, January 31, 1981; People v.
Naboa, et, al.,132 SCRA 410).

Criminal law – Fundamental principles - effect death of the accused
pending appeal on his criminal and pecuniary liabilities

Librado was convicted of malversation for which he has imposed the
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment with the following accessory penalties
provided by law - a fine of P6.000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of in-
solvency; perpetual special disqualification; indemnification to the government in
the amount of P6.000.00 and to pay the costs.

If he dies pending appeal, what is the legal effect of his death on his criminal
and pecuniary liabilities? (1992 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under Art. 89. RPC and jurisprudence (People vs. Jose. 71 SCRA 273, People vs.
Alison. 44 SCRA 523; etc.) death of the accused pending appeal extinguishes his criminal
and civil liabilities. Civil liability includes pecuniary liabilities, such as fine. Hence, the same,
together with the disqualification and the costs are extinguished.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
In Peiralba vs. Sandiganbayan. 200 SCRA 644, however, extinction of criminal
liability arising from the death of the accused pending appeal likewise extinguishes the
pecuniary liability such as fine, but not the civil liability, such as the indemnification of
P6.000.00 in the instant case. The same is a claim of the government against the estate but
ONLY IF THE OFFENSE CAN BE PROVED in the appellate court. In other words', the latter
should still decide the appeal as far as the civil liability of P6.000.00 is concerned.

Page 14 of 338
Criminal law – Fundamental principles – Criminal and civil liability;
when extinguished

A. AX was convicted of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. The trial
court sentenced him to a prison term as well as to pay P150.000 as civil indemnity
and damages. While his appeal was pending, AX met a fatal accident. He left a young
widow, 2 children, and a million-peso estate. What is the effect, if any, of his death on
his criminal as well as civil liability? Explain briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

A. The death of AX while his appeal from the judgment of the trial court is
pending, extinguishes his criminal liability. The civil liability insofar as it arises from the
crime and recoverable under the Revised Penal Code is also extinguished; but indemnity
and damages may be recovered in a civil action if predicated on a source of obligation
under Art. 1157, Civil Code, such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts and quasi-delicts, but
not on the basis of delicts. (People v. Bayotas, 236SCRA 239 11994B.

Civil indemnity and damages under the Revised Penal Code are recoverable only if
the accused had been convicted with finality before he died.

Criminal law – Fundamental principles – Proof of motive; when not
required

Motive is essential in the determination of the commission of a crime and the
liabilities of the perpetrators. What are the instances where proof of motive is not
essential or required to justify conviction of an accused? Give at least 3 instances. 5%
(2006 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Proof of motive is not required –

a) Where the offender is positively identified or
b) has admitted the commission of the crime (People v. Yurong, 133 SCRA 26 (1984] citing
People v. Realon, et. al., 94 SCRA 422 [1980]);
c) Where the crime committed is a malum prohibitum; or
d) Where the crime is the product of culpa or criminal negligence.

Criminal law – Fundamental principles – Corpus delicti

Page 15 of 338
a) Define “corpus delicti". (2%) (2000 Bar Question)

b) What are the elements of "corpus delicti"? (3%) (2000 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Corpus Delicti literally means “the body or substance of the crime" or the fact that a
crime has been committed, but does not include the identity of the person who committed
it. (People vs. Pascual, 44 OG 2789).

b) Elements of corpus delicti:

The actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged. It is a compound
fact made up of two things:

1) the existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal
charge; and
2) the existence of a criminal agency as the cause of the act or result

The identity of the offender is not a necessary element of corpus delicti

Criminal law – Fundamental principles – Corpus delicti
At a birthday party in Bogo, Cebu, A got intoxicated and started quarrelling with
B and C. At the height of their arguments, A left and took a bolo from his house, after
which he returned to the party and threatened to stab everybody. B got scared and
ran towards the seashore, with A chasing him. B ran up a steep incline along the
shore and was cornered on top of a cliff. Out of fear. B jumped from the cliff into the
sea. A returned to the scene of their confrontation and seeing that nobody was there,
went home to sleep. The next day, B’s wife reported to the police station that her
husband had not yet come home. A search was conducted by the residents of the
barangay but after almost two days, B or his body could not be located and his
disappearance continued for the next few days. Based on the testimony of C and
other guests, who had seen A and B on top of the cliff, A was arrested and charged
with Murder. In his defense, he claimed that since B’s body has not been found, there
was no evidence of "corpus delicti' and therefore, he should be acquitted.
Is the defense of A tenable or not? State the reason(s) for your answer. (5%)
(2001 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The defense of Ais not tenable. "Corpus delicti' does not refer to the body of the purported
victim which had not been found. Even without the body of the purported victim being found, the
offender can be convicted when the facts and circumstances of a crime, the body of the crime or

Page 16 of 338
"corpus delicti' is established.
In other words, the non-recovery of the body of the victim is not a bar to the prosecution of A
for Murder, but the fact of death and identity of the victim must be established beyond reasonable
doubt.

Special laws– RA 7613 and RA 3019 – Requirement of filing Statements of
Assets and Liabilities

Robert Sy, a well-known businessman and a founding member of the Makati
Business Club, aside from being a classmate of the newly-elected President of the
Philippines, had investments consisting of shares of stocks in the Urban Bank, the
PNB, the Rural Bank of Caloocan City and his privately-owned corporation, the RS
Builders Corporation and Trans-Pacific Air. After the President had taken his oath
and assumed his office, he appointed Robert as Honorary Consul to the Republic of Vietnam.
Robert took his oath before the President and after furnishing the Department of Foreign
Affairs with his appointment papers, flew to Saigon, now Ho Chi Min City, where he organized
his staff, put up an office and stayed there for three months attending to trade opportunities
and relations with local businessman. On the fourth month, he returned to the Philippines to
make his report to the President. However, the Anti-Graft League of the Philippines filed a
complaint against Robert for (1) failing to file his Statement of Assets and Liabilities within
thirty (30) days from assumption of office; (2) failing to resign from his businesses, and (3)
failing to divest his shares and investments in the banks and corporations owned by him, as
required by the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.

Will the complaint prosper? Explain. (5%) (2001 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The complaint will not prosper because the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees (Rep. Act. No. 6713), expressly exempts those who serve the Government in
an honorary capacity from filing Statements of Assets and Liabilities, and from resigning and
divesting themselves of interest from any private enterprise (Secs. 8A and 9).

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, the complaint will prosper under Sec. 7 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Rep.
Act No. 3019, as amended), which requires all public officers within 30 days from assuming public
office to file a true, detailed sworn statement of assets and liabilities. Violations of inis law are mala
prohibita which admits of no excuses.

Criminal law – Fundamental principles – Absence of corpus delicti

Dang was a beauty queen in a university. Job, a rich classmate, was so
enamored with her that he persistently wooed and pursued her. Dang, being in

Page 17 of 338
love with another man, rejected him. This angered Job. Sometime in September
2003, while Dang and her sister Lyn were on their way home, Job and his minor
friend Nonoy grabbed them and pushed them inside a white van. They brought
them in an abandoned warehouse where they forced them to dance naked.
Thereafter, they brought them to a hill in a nearby barangay where they took turns
raping them. After satisfying their lust, Job ordered Nonoy to push Dang down a
ravine, resulting in her death. Lyn ran away but Job and Nonoy chased her and
pushed her inside the van. Then the duo drove away. Lyn was never seen again.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The corpus delicti or fact of commission of the crime is clear. Even the death of
Lyn may be established from the acts of the culprits, without the need of the body of Lyn
being presented.

Criminal law –Fundamental principles – Theories; motive; criminal intent
1)What are the different schools of thought or theories in Criminal Law and describe
each briefly. (1996 Bar Question)

2) To what theory does our Revised Penal Code belong? (1996 Bar Question)

3) Distinguish intent from motive in Criminal Law. (1996 Bar Question)

4) May crime be committed without criminal intent? (1996 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1) There are two schools of thought in Criminal Law, and these are (a) the classical theory,
which simply means that the basis of criminal liabilities is human free will, and the purpose of the
penalty is retribution which must be proportional to the gravity of the offense; and (b) the positivist
theory, which considers man as a social being and his acts are attributable not just to his will but to
other forces of society. As such, punishment is not the solution, as he is not entirely to be blamed; law
and jurisprudence should not be the yardstick in the imposition of sanction, instead the underlying
reasons would be inquired into.
2)We follow the classical school of thought although some provisions of eminently positivist in
tendencies, like punishment of impossible crime, juvenile circumstances, are incorporated in our
Code.
3) Motive is the moving power which impels one to action for a definite result; whereas intent
is the purpose to use a particular means to effect such results. Motive is not an essential element of a
felony and need not be proved for purpose of conviction, while intent is an essential element of
felonies by dolo.
4) Yes, a crime may be committed without criminal intent if such is a culpable felony, wherein

Page 18 of 338
intent is substituted by negligence or imprudence, and also in a malum prohibitum, or if an act is
punishable by special law.

Criminal law- Concepts – Preventive imprisonment
1) When is there preventive imprisonment? (1994 Bar Question)
2) When is the accused credited with the full time of his preventive
imprisonment, and when is he credited with 4/5 thereof? (1994 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1) There is preventive imprisonment when (a) an offender is detained while the
criminal case against him is being heard, either because the crime committed is a capital
offense and not bailable, or even if the crime committed was bailable, the offender could
not post the required bail for his provisional liberty.

2) An accused is credited with the full time of his preventive imprisonment if he
voluntarily agreed in writing to abide by the rules of the institution imposed upon its
prisoners, provided that:

a) the penalty imposed on him for the crime committed consists of a deprivation
of liberty:
b) he is not disqualified from such credit for being a recidivist, or for having been
previously convicted for two or more times of any crime, or for having failed to
surrender voluntarily for the execution of the sentence upon being so summoned (Art.
29, RPC).
Where the accused however did not agree he would only be credited with 4/5 of the time he
had undergone preventive imprisonment.

Criminal law – Concepts – warrantless arrest; entrapment; in relation to
prohibited drugs
Members of the Narcotics Command, upon learning from an informer that Tee Moy,
notorious drug lord was plying his trade and selling methamphetamine hydrocholide
(popularly known as shabu) in a motel at Bambang St, planned a buy-bust operation to
capture him. Camotes was to enter the lobby of the motel where Tee Mqy hangs around and
pose as buyer. The moment the drug vendor hands the drug to him. Camotes would
scratch his ear as a signal to his companions deployed near the motel entrance.
So Camotes, upon espying Tee Moy near the registration desk, approached the
latter. When asked if he would like a “score”, he answered in the affirmative. He was
then handed a matchbox with the assurance that it contained the drug, for which he
gave a P100.00 marked bill. Upon giving the pre-arranged signal, the NARCOM agents

Page 19 of 338
rushed inside and arrested Tee Moy.
In the course of time, Tee Moy was prosecuted for the crimes of possession
and sale of prohibited drugs under the Dangerous Drugs Act. During the trial, his
counsel interposed the following defenses:
a. The arrest, having been effected without a warrant of arrest, was violative of Tee
Moy’s constitutional rights.
b. Accused was the victim of a frame-up instigated by the law enforcement officers,
such that he was practically forced to sell his goods to a total stranger which was
abnormal and unrealistic for one in the kind of business he is in.
c. The prosecution deliberately failed to present the informer as a witness so that
he could have been subjected to cross-examination by the counsel for the
accused.
d. Tee Moy cannot be prosecuted for the separate offenses of possession and sale of
prohibited drugs but of only one criminal offense.
e. Tee Moy was made to sign a Confiscation Receipt at NARCOM headquarters which
has been admitted as evidence against him, thus violating his constitutional right
against self-incrimination.
If you were the prosecutor, how would you traverse the above arguments of
counsel for the accused? Take up each number separately. (1992 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a. There is no need for a warrant of arrest, as this falls under the instances of warrantless airest
sanctioned by law, where a public officer or private individual may arrest a person if, in his
personal presence, the person arrested is actually committing, is about to commit, or has just
committed a crime.
b. This is a pure case of entrapment as Tee Moy has already decided to commit a crime and the
agents of persons in authority merely devised ways and means to entrap him. There was no
inducement of Tee Moy as the latter precisely decided to make a “score” or sale. No pressure or
investigation was applied on him.
c. Failure to present the informer is not fatal to the cause of the prosecution as the testimony of the
latter will be merely corroborative to the testimony of the other witnesses who were eye-
witnesses to the commission of the crime. There are sufficient evidence to convict the accused
beyond reasonable doubt.
d. While as a general rule the offense of possession is integrated in selling prohibited drugs, in this
case, I will argue that, the quantity of the drugs confiscated from Tee Moy was so large that it
cannot be deemed absorbed in the crime of “pushing”. Besides, I will contend that the matchbox
with shabu inside, was not the only evidence taken from the accused.
The Confiscation Receipt signed by Tee Moy was merely presented as part of the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses and such evidence is not material to the conviction of the accused. Again,
overwhelming evidence are presented that inevitably supports conviction.

Page 20 of 338
Criminal law – Concepts – Delito continuado and continuing offense

Differentiate delito continuado from a continuing offense. (1994 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Delito continuado or continuous crime, is a term used to denote as only one crime a series of
felonious acts arising from a single criminal resolution, not susceptible of division, which are carried
out in the same place and at about the same time, and violating one and the same penal provision.
The acts done must be impelled by one criminal intent or purpose, such that each act merely
constitutes a partial execution of a particular crime, violating one and the same penal provision. It
involves a concurrence of felonious acts violating a common right, a common penal provision, and
impelled by a single criminal impulse (People vs, Ledesma, 73 SCRA 77).
On the other hand, a continuing offense is one whose essential Ingredients took place in more
than one municipality or city, so much so that the criminal prosecution may be instituted and the
case tried in the competent court of any one of such municipality or city.
The term “continued crime" or delito continuado mandates that only one information should
be filed against the offender although a series of felonious acts were performed; the term
“continuing crime" is more pertinently used with reference to the venue where the criminal action
may be instituted.

Criminal law – Concepts - Doctrine of aberratio ictus

1) At
the height of an altercation, Pedrito shot Paulo but missed, hitting Tiburcio
instead, resulting in the death of the latter. Pedrito, invoking the doctrine of
aberratio ictus, claims exemption from criminal liability.

If you were the judge, how would you decide the case? (1996 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1) If I were the judge, I will convict Pedrito and find him guilty of the complex crime of
Homicide with Attempted Homicide. The single act of firing at Paulo resulted in the
commission of two felonies, one grave (homicide) and the other less grave (attempted
homicide) thus falling squarely under Art. 48, RPC; hence, the penalty would be for the
more serious crime (homicide) in its maximum period (17 years 4 months and 1 day to 20
years).
Aberratio ictus (mistake in the blow) could not be used as a defense as it is not an
exempting circumstance. Pedrito is liable under the principle of Art. 4, RPC. which makes a

Page 21 of 338
person criminally liable for all the natural and logical consequences of his felonious act.

Criminal law – Concepts - Aberratio ictus; error in personae; and praeter
intentionem

What do you understand by aberratio ictus; error in personae; and praeter
intentionem? Do they alter the criminal liability of an accused? Explain. (1989 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Aberatio ictus, error in personae and praeter intentionem are the three ways by which a person
may commit a felony although the wrongful act done is different from that which he intended.
In aberratio ictus, there is a mistake in the blow meaning to say that the offender intending to
cause an injury to one person actually inflicts it on another because of lack of precision, as far for
example when A, intending to kill B, fires his gun at the latter but because of poor aim or lack of
precision, he hits C instead, who suffers serious physical injury.
In error in personae, there is a mistake in the identity of the victim, as for instance, when A,
intending to kill B, his enemy lay in ambush for the latter to pass along a dark alley. Because of the
darkness, A fired his gun at a person passing by, thinking him to be B. It turned out that the person
shot was C, A's father.
In praeter intentionem, the injurious result is greater than that intended by the offender, the act
exceeds the intent, as for instance, where A, without intent to kill, strikes B with his fist at the back of
the head, causing B to fall down with his head hitting the asphalt pavement, resulting in the fracture
of his head that caused his death.

The presence of these circumstances will alter the criminal liability of the accused. Thus:
In aberratio ictus, two offenses are actually committed by the offender, that which he intended
to commit and that which he actually committed. But if these two offenses are both either grave or
less grave, since they are produced by one single act, a complex crime will result.
In the case of error in personae, the offender shall be guilty of the crime actually committed by
him, but the penalty to be imposed shall either be the penalty for the crime actually committed or
that for the crime intended to be committed. Which ever is lower, but the same will be imposed in its
maximum period.
In the case praeter intentionem, the offended, will incur criminal liability for the felony actually
committed by him, but he will be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of not having intended to
commit so grave a wrong as that which he committed.

Criminal law – Concepts - Aberratio ictus and error in personae

Distinguish aberratio ictus from error in personae. (1994 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Page 22 of 338
Aberratio ictus or mistake in the blow occurs when a felonious act missed the person
against whom it was directed and hit instead somebody who was not the intended victim.
Error in personae, or mistake in identity occurs when the felonious act was directed at the
person intended, but who turned out to be somebody else. Aberratio ictus brings about at
least two (2) felonious consequence. i.e the attempted felony on the intended victim who
was not hit and the felony on the unintended victim who was hit. A complex crime of the
first form under Art. 48, RPC generally result. In error in personae only one crime is
committed.

Criminal law – Concepts - Aberratio ictus: Error in personae; and Praeter
intentionem
What do you understand by aberratio ictus: error in personae; and praeter
intentionem? Do they alter the criminal liability of an accused? Explain. (4%) (1999
Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Aberratio ictus or mistake in the blow occurs when the offender delivered the blow
at his intended victim but missed, and instead such blow landed on an unintended victim.
The situation generally brings about complex crimes where from a single act, two or more
grave or less grave felonies resulted, namely the attempt against the intended victim and
the consequence on the unintended victim. As complex crimes, the penalty for the more
serious crime shall be the one imposed and in the maximum period. It is only when the
resulting felonies are only light that complex crimes do not result and the penalties are to
be imposed distinctly for each resulting crime.

Error in personae or mistake in identity occurs when the offender actually hit the
person to whom the blow was directed but turned out to be different from and not the
victim intended. The criminal liability of the offender is not affected, unless the mistake in
identity resulted to a crime different from what the offender intended to commit, in which
case the lesser penalty between the crime intended and the crime committed shall be
imposed but in the maximum period (Art. 49. RPC).

Praeter intentionem or where the consequence went beyond that intended or
expected. This is a mitigating circumstance (Art. 13, par. 3, RPC) when there is a notorious
disparity between the act or means employed by the offender and the resulting felony, i.e.,
the resulting felony could not be reasonably anticipated or foreseen by the offender from
the act or means employed by him.

Criminal law – Concepts –Heinous crimes

Page 23 of 338
(a) What are heinous crimes? (1995 Bar Question)
(b) Name ten (10) specific heinous crimes. (1995 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) Heinous crimes are those which are punishable by death for being grievous,
odious and hateful offenses and which, by reason of their inherent or manifest
wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity are repugnant and outrageous to the
common standards and norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized and ordered
society.

(b) The ten specific heinous crimes are:
1 Treason
2. Qualified Piracy
3 Qualified Bribery
4. Parricide
5. Murder
6. Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention
7. Robbery with Homicide
8 Destructive Arson
9 Rape committed by two or more persons, or with a deadly weapon or with homicide
10 Plunder

Criminal law – Concepts – “heinous crimes”
(a) What do you understand by the so-called heinous crimes? (1997 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) Heinous crimes are those grievous, odious, and hateful offenses and which
by reason of their inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity, and perversity,
are repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and
morality in a just, civilized and ordered society. They are punishable by reclusion perpetua
or life imprisonment to death. (WHEREAS CLAUSE, RA 7659)

Criminal law – Concepts – Entrapment and instigation

Rodolfo is an informer who told the police authorities that Aldo is a drug
pusher. Policeman Taba then posed as a buyer and persuaded Aldo to sell marijuana

Page 24 of 338
worth PI0.00 to the former. Aldo agreed. He delivered the goods and so was
apprehended with the marked money. He is now prosecuted for violation of the
Dangerous Drugs Act.
a) Aldo’s defense is that he1 was the victim of an instigation of the police who
persuaded him to sell the goods to him. Decide the case with reasons. (1990 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Aldo’s defense in untenable as what happened here was entrapment. With or
without the act of Policemen Taba, Aldo would have went on selling the marijuana to
another buyer. The finding, it must be noted, was that Aldo was continously engaged in the
act of pushing drugs. (People v. Tia, 51 O.G. 1863).

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
This is a case of instigation because Aldo was persuaded by Policeman Taba, who was
posing as buyer, to sell marijuana.

Criminal law –Concepts – Entrapment and instigation; illustration of
instigation

1. Distinguished entrapment from instigation. Discuss fully. (1995 Bar Question)
2. Suspecting that Juan was a drug pusher, SP02 Mercado, leader of the Narcom team,
gave Juan a P 100-bill and asked him to buy some marijuana cigarettes. Desirous of pleasing
SP02 Mercado, Juan went inside the shopping mall while the officer waited at the comer of
the mall. After fifteen minutes, Juan returned with ten sticks of marijuana cigarettes which he
gave to SP02 Mercado who thereupon placed Juan under arrest and charged him with
violation of The Dangerous Drugs Law by selling marijuana cigarettes.
Is Juan guilty of any ofense punishable under The Dangerous Drugs Act? Discuss fully.
(1995 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. In instigation, the instigator practically induces the prospective accused into commission of
the offense and himself becomes co-principal. In entrapment, ways and means are resorted to for the
purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreaker while executing his criminal plan,
2. Juan cannot be charged of any offense punishable under The Dangerous Drugs Act Although
Juan is a suspected drug pusher, he cannot be charged on the basis of a mere suspicion. By providing
the money with which to buy marijuana cigarettes, SP02 Mercado practically induced and prodded
Juan to commit the offense of illegal possession of marijuana. Set against the facts instigation is a

Page 25 of 338
valid defense available to Juan.

Criminal law – Concepts - entrapment and instigation
Distinguish fully between entrapment and instigation in Criminal Law. Exemplify each.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In entrapment -
1) the criminal design originates from and is already in the mind of the lawbreaker
even before entrapment;
2) the law enforcers resort to ways and means for the purpose of capturing the
lawbreaker in flagrante delicto; and
3) this circumstance is no bar to prosecution and conviction of the lawbreaker.
In instigation -
1) the idea and design to bring about the commission of the crime originated and
developed in the mind of the law enforcers;
2) the law enforcers induce, lure, or incite a person who is not minded to commit a
crime and would not otherwise commit it, into committing the crime; and
3) this circumstance absolves the accused from criminal liability (People v. Dante
Marcos, 185 SCRA154. [1990]).
Example of entrapment:
A, an anti-narcotic agent of the Government acted as a poseur buyer of shabu and
negotiated with B, a suspected drug pusher who is unaware that A is a police officer. A then
issued marked money to B who handed a sachet of shabu to B. Thereupon, A signalled his
anti-narcotic team to close-in and arrest B. This is a case of entrapment because the
criminal mind is in B already when A transacted with him.
Example of instigation:
Because the members of an anti-narcotic team are already known to drug pushers, A, the
team leader, money to be used in buying shabu from C. After C handed the sachet of shabu
to B and the latter handed the marked money to C, the team closed-in and placed B and C
under arrest. Under the facts, B is not criminally liable for his participation in the
transaction because he was acting only under instigation by the law enforcers.

Criminal law – Concepts - Intent and motive

Page 26 of 338
Distinguish clearly but briefly: (10%) (2004 Bar Question)

Between intent and motive in the commission of an offense.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Intent is the purpose for using a particular means to achieve the desired result;
while motive is the moving power which impels a person to act for a definite result. Intent
is an ingredient of dolo or malice and thus an element of deliberate felonies; while motive
is not an element of a crime but only considered when the identity of the offender is in
doubt.

Scope of application and characteristics of Philippine Criminal law

Criminal law - Characteristics of criminal law

State the characteristics of criminal law and explain each. (1988 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The characteristics of criminal law are as follows:

1. GENERALITY — That the law is binding upon all persons who reside to sojourn
in the Philippines, irrespective of age, sex, color, creed, or personal cricumtances.
2. TERRITORIALITY - That the law is applicable to all crimes committed with in
the limits of Philippine territory, which includes its atmosphere interiors waters and
maritime zone (Art. 2).
3. PROSPECTIVITY — that the law does not have any retroactive effect, except if it
favors the offender unless he is a habitual delinquent (Art. 22) oR the law otherwise
provides.
Article 2 if the Revised Penal Code however provides for the following exception:
“Treaty stipulations or by a law of preferential application”

Criminal law – Fundamental principles – Characteristics of Philippine
criminal law

What are the three cardinal features or main characteristics of Philippine
Criminal Law? [5%] (1998 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The three main characteristics of Philippine criminal law are:

Page 27 of 338
1) Generality or its being binding to all persons who live or sojourn in Philippine
territory subject to certain exceptions;
2) Territoriality or its having force and effect only within Philippine territory, subject
to certain exceptions also;
3) Irretrospectivity or its application only to acts and omissions committed/incurred
after the effectivity of the law.

Generality
Territoriality

Criminal law -Scope of application and characteristics of Philippine criminal
law - Territoriality
After drinking one (1) case of San Miguel beer and taking two plates of
“pulutan", Binoy, a Filipino seaman, stabbed to death Sio My, a Singaporean seaman,
aboard M/V “Princess of the Pacific", an overseas vessel which was sailing in the
South China Sea. The vessel, although Panamanian registered, is owned by Lucio Sy,
a rich Filipino businessman. When M /V “Princess of the Pacific" reached a
Philippine Port at Cebu City, the Captain of the vessel turned over the assailant
Binoy to the Philippine authorities. An Information for homicide was filed against
Binoy in the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. He moved to quash the Information
for lack of jurisdiction. If you were the Judge, will you grant the motion? Why? (5%)
(2000 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, the Motion to Quash the Information should be granted. The Philippine court has
no jurisdiction over the crime committed since it was committed on the high seas or
outside of Philippine territory and on board a vessel not registered or licensed in the
Philippines (US vs. Fowler, 1 PhiL 614)
It is the registration of the vessel in accordance with the laws of the Philippines, not the
citizenship of her owner, which makes it a Philippine ship. The vessel being registered in
Panama, the laws of Panama govern while it is in the high seas.

Criminal law – Application of Philippine Criminal law - Territoriality

Abe, married to Liza, contracted another marriage with Connie in Singapore.
Thereafter, Abe and Connie returned to the Philippines and lived as husband and wife in the
hometown of Abe in Calamba, Laguna.

Page 28 of 338
1) Can Abe be prosecuted for bigamy? (1994 Bar Question)
2) If not, can he be prosecuted for any other crime? (1994 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1) No, Abe may not be prosecuted for bigamy since the bigamous marriage was contracted or
solemnized in Singapore, hence such violation is not one of those where the Revised Penal Code,
under Art. 2 thereof, may be appplied extraterritorially. The general rule on territoriality of criminal
law governs the situation.
2) Yes, Abe, together with Connie, may be prosecuted for concubinage under Art. 334 of the
Revised Penal Code for having cohabited as husband and wife. But concubinage being a private
crime requires the sworn complaint of Liza, the offended spouse in accordance with Rule 110 of the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
As lawyer of Andrew, I will file a motion to quash the information on the ground of
prescription. The crime of false testimony under Art. 180 has prescribed because Paolo, the
accused in the principal case, was acquitted on January 10, 1987 and therefore the penalty
prescribed for such crime is arresto mayor under Art. 180. par. 4. RPC.
Crimes punishable by arresto mayor prescribes in five (5) years (Art. 90, par. 3.
RPC). But the case against Andrew was filed only on June 18. 1994, whereas the principal
criminal case was decided with finality on January 10, 1987 and, thence the prescriptive
period of the crime commenced to run. From January 10, 1987 to June 18, 1994 is more
than five (5) years.

Criminal law – Application of Philippine criminal law – Territoriality
principle

The inter-island vessel M/ V Viva Lines I, while cruising off Batanes, was
forced to seek shelter at the harbor of Kaoshiung, Taiwan because of a strong
typhoon. While anchored in said harbor, Max, Baldo and Bogart arrived in a
speedboat, fired a bazooka at the bow of the vessel, boarded it and divested the
passengers of their money and jewelry. A passenger of M/ V Viva Lines I, Dodong,
took advantage of the confusion to settle an old grudge with another passenger, and
killed him. After their apprehension, all four were charged with qualified piracy
before a Philippine court.

a) Was the charge of qualified piracy against the three persons (Max, Baldo
and Bogart) who boarded the inter-island vessel correct? Explain. (4%) (2008 Bar
Question)

ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Page 29 of 338
a) No, because the territoriality principle of criminal law applies. The crime
happened in Taiwan where the vessel was anchored. It was not committed in the high seas
or in Philippine waters.

b) Was Dodong correctly charged before the Philippine court for qualified
piracy? Explain. (3%) (2008 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

b) No, Dodong was not correctly charged with qualified piracy because committing
piracy was never in his mind nor did he have any involvement in the piracy committed. He
merely took advantage of the situation in killing the passenger. He should be charged with
murder since there was evident premeditation and intent to kill.

Criminal law – Crimes against National Security and Law of Nations –
Piracy; Qualified piracy

1. While SS Nagoya Mani was negotiating the sea route from Hongkong
towards Manila, and while still 300 miles from Aparri, Cagayan, its engine
malfunctioned. The Captain ordered the ship to stop for emergency repairs lasting
for almost 15 hours. Due to exhaustion, the officers and crew fell asleep. While the
ship was anchored, a motorboat manned by renegade Ybanags from Claveria,
Cagayan, passed by and took advantage of the situation. They cut the ship's engines
and took away several heavy crates of electrical equipment and loaded them in their
motorboat. Then they left hurriedly towards Aparri. At daybreak, the crew found
that a robbery took place. They radioed the Aparri Port Authorities resulting in the
apprehension of the culprits.

What crime was committed? Explain. 2.5% (2006 Bar Question)

2. Supposing that while the robbery was taking place, the culprits stabbed a
member of the crew while sleeping.

What crime was committed? Explain. 2.5% (2006 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1. The crime committed was piracy under Art. 122, Revised Penal Code, the essence
of which is robbery directed against a vessel and/or its cargoes. The taking of the several
heavy crates of electrical equipment from a vessel at sea, was effected by force and
undoubtedly with intent to gain. It is of no moment that the vessel was anchored when
depredated so long as it was at sea.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Page 30 of 338
2. The crime was qualified piracy under Art. 123 of the Revised Penal Code because
it was attended by a killing committed by the same culprits against a member of the crew of
the vessel.

Prospectivity
Effects of repeal/amendment of penal law
Constitutional limitations on the power of Congress to enact penal laws

Criminal law – Constitutional limitations on the power of Congress to
enact penal laws

What are the limitations upon the power of congress to enact penal laws? (1988 Bar
Question)
Are there common law crimes in our jurisdiction? (1988 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a) The limitations upon the power of congress to enact penal laws are as follows:
1. Congress cannot enact an ex post facto law.
2. Congress cannot enact a bill of attainder.
3. Congress cannot provide for a cruel punishment.
However, other limitations may be considered like:
1. Congress cannot enact a law which shall punish for a condition. Congress shall
punish an act and not the condition or status. (Robinson vs. California).
2. Congress should consider Article 21 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that
“penalties that may be imposed. No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not
prescribed by law prior to its commission.”
b) There are none. The rule is, nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege, there is no crim if
there is no law punishing it.

Equal protection
Due process

Criminal law – Due process – Proper allegation of the offense charged

A is charged with the crime defined in Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt

Page 31 of 338
Practices Act in an information that reads:
"That from 1 to 30 January 1995, in the City of Pasig and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the accused, being then employed in the Office of the District Engineer,
Department of Public Works and Highways and in the discharge of his official administrative
functions, did then and there willfully and unlawfully work for and facilitate the approval of
B’s claim for the payment of the price of his land which the government had expropriated,
and after the claim was approved, the accused gave B only PI,000.00 of the approved claim
ofP5,000.00and willfully and unlawfully appropriated for himself the balance of P4,000.00,
thus causing undue injury to B and the Government."
A has filed a motion to quash the information, contending that it does not charge an
offense. Is he correct? (1997 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the contention of A is correct. The information failed to allege that the undue lnjury to B
and the government was caused by the accused's manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross
inexcusable negligence, which are necessary elements of the offense charged, i.e., violation of Section
3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The accused is employed in the Office of the District
Engineer of the DPWH, which has nothing to do with the determination and fixing of the price of the
land expropriated, and for which expropriated land the Government is legally obligated to pay. There
is no allegation in the Information that the land was overpriced or that the payment of the amount
was disadvantageous to the Government. It appears that the charge was solely based on the accused
having followed up the payment for B's land which the Government has already appropriated, and
that the accused eventually withheld for himself from the price of the said land, the amount of
P4.000.00 for his services. No violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Act appears. At
most, the accused should be merely charged administratively

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1. Yes, A is correct in filing a motion to quash the information because Section 3(e) of
Republic Act 3019 applies only to officers and employees of government corporations
charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions, and not to DPWH,
which is not a government corporation.
2. A is not correct. In the case of Mejorda vs. Sandiganbayan. 151 SCRA 399, which
involves a substantially identical information as the information quoted in the question,
the Supreme Court held that the information was valid. While it is true that the
information quoted in the question, failed to allege evident bad faith, gross inexcusable
negligence or manifest partiality, said information is nevertheless adequate because it
averred the three (3) elements for the violation of Section 3(c) of RA. 3012 when it stated
(1) that the accused is a public officer at the time of the commission of the crime, being
employed in the Office of the District Engineer, DPWH; (2) that the accused caused undue
injury to B and the Government, with the statement that B, the owner of the land, received
only P1.000.00 instead of the full value of P5.000.00; and (3) that in the discharge of A's
official administrative functions, he "did then and there willfully and unlawfully work for
and facilitate the approval of his claim xxx and "willfully and unlawfully appropriate for

Page 32 of 338
himself the balance of P4,000.00 x x x". An information need not employ or use the very
words or language of the statute.
It may also use words or language of similar import.

Non-imposition of cruel and unusual punishment or excessive fines
Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines (R.A.
No. 9346)
Bill of attainder
Ex post facto law
Felonies

Criminal law – Felonies – Illustration thereof
Explain and illustrate the following: 1) aberratio ictus, 2) impossible crime, and 3)
subordination of perjury (1993 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Aberratio ictus - A fired a gun at his father to kill him but hit instead a stranger.
Impossible crime - Killing a dead person.
Subordination of perjury - Procuring another to swear falsely and testify under
circumstances rendering him guilty of perjury.

Classifications of felonies

Page 33 of 338
Elements of criminal liability

Criminal law – Criminal liability –when incurred

Bhey eloped with Scott. Whereupon, Bhey’s father, Robin, and brother, Rustom, went to
Scott’s house. Upon reaching the house, Rustom inquired from Scott about his sister’s
whereabouts, while Robin shouted and threatened to kill Scott. The latter then went
downstairs but Rustom held his (Scott’s) waist. Meanwhile Olive, the elder sister of Scott,
carrying her two- month old child, approached Rustom and Scott to pacify them. Olive
attempted to remove Rustom’s hand from Scott’s waist. But Rustom pulled Olive’s hand
causing her to fall over her baby. The baby then died moments later.
Is Rustom criminally liable for the death of the child? (1994 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, Rustom is criminally liable for the death of the child because his felonious act was the
proximate cause of such death. It was Rustom’s act of pulling Olive’s hand which caused the latter to
fall on her baby. Had it not been for said act of Rustom, which is undoubtedly felonious (at least slight
coercion) there was no cause for Olive to fall over her baby. In short, Rustom’s felonious act is the
cause of the evil caused. Any person performing a felonious act is criminally liable for the direct,
natural and logical consequence thereof although different from what he intended (Art. 4, par. 1.
RPC: People vs. Pugay, et aL, GR No. 74324, Nov. 18, 1988).

Criminal law – Criminal liabilities of persons in a street fight; stages of
execution; criminal liability; when incurred; justifying circumstances;
when allowed
Tommy saw Lino and Okito engaged in a street fight. Lino then suddenly drew
his balisong and lunged at Okito. In an effort to break up the fight. Tommy tried to
snatch the balisong from Lino but not before the latter had inflicted a wound on Okito. As
Lino withdrew the weapon and attempted to stab Okito a second time. Tommy tried to grab
the weapon again. In so doing, his left forearm was slashed. As he succeeded in snatching
away the balisong with his right arm, it flew with such force, that it hit Nereo, a passerby who
was seriously injured.
Explain your answers fully.
a. What is the criminal liability of Lino with respect to Okito, Tommy and Nereo?
(1992 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a. As far as Okito is concerned. Lino is liable for frustrated homicide, assuming that the
wound suffered by Okito is such that for reasons or causes independent of the will of Lino

Page 34 of 338
(such as timely medical attention) Okito would have died. If the injury is not serious
enough, the liability is only attempted homicide. Intent to kill is manifest because of the
use of a deadly weapon. For the injury on the arm of Tommy. Uno is liable only for
physical injuries (serious, less serious or slight, depending on the nature of the injury).
Apparently there is no intent to kill.
For Nereo, Lino should be liable for serious physical injuries as the wounding of Nereo was
the natural and logical consequence of Lino’s felonious act.
b. In turn, is Tommy criminally liable to Nereo? (1992 Bar Question)
Suggested Answer:
b. Tommy is exempted from criminal liability for the injury to Nereo as he was performing a
lawful act with due care and the injury was caused by mere accident (Art 12, par. 4), or
that he was in lawful exercise of a right, (Art. 11, par.3), that is, defense of a stranger.

Criminal law - Criminal liability – when incurred

1) Alexander, an escaped convict, ran amuck on board a Superlines Bus bound for
Manila from Bicol and killed ten (10) persons. Terrified by the incident, Carol and Benjamin
who are passengers of the bus, jumped out of the window and while lying unconscious after
hitting the pavement of the road, were ran over and crushed to death by a fast moving Desert
Fox bus tailing the Superlines Bus.
Can Alexander be held liable for the death of Carol and Benjamin although he was completely
unaware that the two jumped out of the bus? Explain. (1996 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Alexander can be held liable for the death of Carol and Benjamin because of felonious act
of running was the proximate cause of the victim’s death. The rule is that when a person, by a
felonious act, generates in the mind of another a sense of imminent danger, prompting the latter to
escape from or avoid such danger and in the process, sustains injuries or dies, the person committing
the felonious act is responsible for such injuries or death. (C7.S. os. Valdez. 41 Phil. 1497; People vs.
Apra. 27 SCRA 1037.)

Criminal law – Criminal liability – when incurred

While the crew of a steamer prepared to raise anchor at the Pasig River, A, evidently
impatient with the progress of work, began to use abusive language against the men. B, one
of the members of the crew, remonstrated saying that they could work best if they were not
insulted. A took B's attitude as a display of insubordination and, rising in a rage, moved

Page 35 of 338
towards B wielding a big knife and threatening to stab B. At the instant when A was only a
few feet from B, the latter, apparently believing himself to be in great and immediate peril,
threw himself into the water, disappeared beneath the surface, and drowned.
May A be held criminally liable for the death of B? (1997 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, A can be held criminally liable for the death of B. Article 4 of the Revised Penal
Code provides in part that criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a
felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. In U.S. vs.
Valdez, 41 Phil. 497, where the victim who was threatened by the accused with a knife,
jumped into the river but because of the strong current or because he did not know how to
swim, he drowned, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for homicide of the accused
because, if a person against whom a criminal assault is directed believes himself to be in
danger of death or great bodily harm and in order to escape jumps into the water, impelled
by the instinct of self-preservation, the assailant is responsible for the homicide in case
death results by drowning.

Criminal law – Felonies – Criminal liability; when incurred
Luis Cruz was deeply hurt when his offer of love was rejected by his girlfriend
Marivella one afternoon when he visited her. When he left her house, he walked as if
he was sleepwalking so much so that a teenage snatcher was able to grab his
cellphone and flee without being chased by Luis. At the next LRT station, he boarded
one of the coaches bound for Baclaran. While seated, he happened to read a
newspaper left on the seat and noticed that the headlines were about the sinking of
the Super Ferry while on its way to Cebu. He went over the list of missing passengers
who were presumed dead and came across the name of his grandfather who had
raised him from childhood after he was orphaned. He was shocked and his mind
went blank for a few minutes, after which he ran amuck and, using his balisong,
started stabbing at the passengers who then scampered away, with three of them
jumping out of the train and landing on the road below. All the three passengers
died later of their injuries at the hospital.

Is Luis liable for the death of the three passengers who jumped out of the
moving train? State your reasons. (5%) (2001 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, Luis is liable for their deaths because he was committing a felony when he started
stabbing at the passengers and such wrongful act was the proximate cause of said
passengers’jumping out of the train; hence their deaths.

Page 36 of 338
Under Article 4, Revised Penal Code, any person committing a felony shall incur
criminal liability although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.

In this case, the death of the three passengers was the direct, natural and logical consequence of
Luis felonious act which created an immediate sense of danger in the minds of said passengers who
tried to avoid or escape from it by jumping out of the train. (People vs. Arpa, 27 SCRA 1037; U.S. vs.
Valdez, 41 Phil. 497)

Criminal law – Felonies – Criminal liability; when incurred

A. On his way home from office, ZZ rode in a jeepney. Subsequently, XX boarded
the same jeepney. Upon reaching a secluded spot in QC, XX pulled out a grenade from
his bag and announced a hold-up. He told ZZ to surrender his watch, wallet and
cellphone. Fearing for his life, ZZ jumped out of the vehicle. But as he fell, his head hit
the pavement, causing his instant death.

Is XX liable for ZZs death? Explain briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

A. Yes, XX is liable for ZZ's death because his acts of pulling out a grenade and
announcing a hold-up, coupled with a demand for the watch, wallet and cellphone of ZZ is
felonious, and such felonious act was the proximate cause of ZZ's jumping out of the
jeepney, resulting in the latter's death. Stated otherwise, the death of ZZ was the direct,
natural and logical consequence of XX’s felonious act which created an immediate sense of
danger in the mind of ZZ who tried to avoid such danger by jumping out of the jeepney
(.People v. Arpat 27 SCRA 1037 [1969]).

Criminal law – Felonies – Criminal liability; when incurred

Francis and Joan were sweethearts, but their parents had objected to their
relationship because they were first cousins. They forged a pact in writing to commit
suicide. The agreement was to shoot each other in the head which they did. Joan
died. Due to medical assistance, Francis survived. Is Francis criminally liable for the
death of Joan? Explain. (5%) (2008 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, Francis is criminally liable for Joan's death. His act of shooting her, although
done pursuant to a solemn pact, is nevertheless felonious and is the proximate cause of
Joan's death (Art. 4, par. 1, RPC). Moreover, the mere act of giving assistance to a suicide is
a crime (Art. 253, RPC).

Page 37 of 338
Criminal law – Elements of criminal liability – Lawful defense of property

While Carlos was approaching his car, he saw it being driven away by Paolo, a
thief. Carlos tried to stop Paolo by shouting at him, but Paolo ignored him. To
prevent his car from being carnapped, Carlos drew his gun, aimed at the rear wheel
of the car and fired. The shot blew the tire which caused the car to veer out of control
and collide with an oncoming tricycle, killing the tricycle driver.

a) What is the criminal liability of Carlos, if any? Explain. (4%) (2008 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a) Carlos did not incur criminal liability because his act of firing at the rear wheel of
the car to stop the vehicle and prevent Paolo from taking away his (Carlos') car is neither
done with dolo nor culpa. The act does not constitute a crime; it is a reasonable exercise of
his right to prevent or repel an actual unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his
property pursuant to Art. 429 of the Civil Code.

Impossible crime

Criminal law – Felonies – Impossible crimes
a) What is an impossible crime? (2%) (2000 Bar Question)

b) Is an impossible crime really a crime? (2%) (2000 Bar Question)

c) A, B, C and D, all armed with armalites, proceeded to the house of X. Y, a
neighbor of X, who happened to be passing by, pointed to the four culprits the room
that X occupied. The four culprits peppered the room with bullets. Unsatisfied, A
even threw a hand grenade that totally destroyed X's room. However, unknown to
the four culprits, X was not inside the room and nobody was hit or injured during
the incident. Are A, B, C and D liable for any crime? Explain. (3%) (2000 Bar
Question)

d) Carla, 4 years old, was kidnapped by Enrique, the tricycle driver paid by her
parents to bring and fetch her to and from school. Enrique wrote a ransom note
demanding * P500.000.00 from Carla's parents in exchange for Carla's freedom. Enrique
sent the ransom note by mail. However, before the ransom note was received by Carla's
parents, Enrique's hideout was discovered by the police. Carla was rescued while Enrique
was arrested and incarcerated. Considering that the ransom note was not received by
Carla’s parents, the investigating prosecutor merely filed a case of ’‘Impossible Crime to
Commit Kidnapping" against Enrique. Is the prosecutor correct? Why? (3%) (2000 Bar
Question)

Page 38 of 338
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
An impossible crime is an act which would be an offense against person or property, were if
not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of
inadequate or ineffectual means (Art. 4, par. 2, RPC).
a. No. An impossible crime is not really a crime. It is only so-called because the act gives rise
to criminal liability. But actually, no felony is committed. The accused is to be punished for
his criminal tendency or propensity although no crime was committed.
b. Yes, A, B, C and D are liable for destructive arson because of the destruction of the room of
X with the use of an explosive, the hand grenade. Liability for an impossible crime is to be
imposed only if the act committed would not constitute any other crime under the
Revised Penal Code. Although the facts involved are parallel to the case of Intod vs. Court
of Appeals (215 SCRA 52). where it was ruled that the liability of the offender was for an
impossible crime, no hand grenade was used in said case, which constitutes a more
serious crime though different from what was intended.
c. No, the prosecutor is not correct in filing a case for “impossible crime to commit
kidnapping" against Enrique. Impossible crimes are limited only to acts which when
performed would be a crime against persons or property.

As kidnapping is a crime against personal security and not against persons or property,
Enrique could not have incurred an “impossible crime" to commit kidnapping. There is
thus no impossible crime of kidnapping

Criminal law – Felonies – Impossible crime of theft

Lucas had been the stay-in houseboy of spouses Nestor and Julia for five years.
One night, while Nestor and Julia were out having dinner, Lucas and his friend Pedro
gained entry into the masters' bedroom with the use of a false key.

They found Julia's jewelry box in one of the cabinets, which was unlocked.
Lucas believed that Julia's jewelry was inside the box. Unknown to Lucas and Pedro,
the box was empty. Pedro took the box and left the bedroom with Lucas. They were
shocked when they saw Nestor in the house pointing a gun at them. Nestor ordered
them to stop hand over the box. Pedro complied. It turned out that Nestor had just
arrived in time to see Lucas and Pedro leaving masters' bedroom with the box.

State with reasons, the crime or crimes, if any, Lucas and Pedro committed.
(7%) (2008 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Page 39 of 338
Lucas and Pedro may be held liable only for impossible crime of theft because what
they had in in in taking the jewelry box was to take Julia's jewelry. However, it turned out
to be empty. The impossibility of committing the crime of theft is factual or physical since
there is no jewelry to steal inside the box.

Criminal law – Felonies – Impossible crime of murder

JP, Aries and Randal planned to kill Elsa, a resident of Barangay Pula, Laurel, Batangas.
They asked the assistance of Ella, who is familiar with the place.
On April 3, 1992, at about 10:00 in the evening, JP, Aries and Randal, all armed with
automatic weapons, went to Barangay Pula. Ella, being the guide, directed her companions to
the room in the house of Elsa. Whereupon, JP, Aries and Randal fired their guns at her room.
Fortunately, Elsa was not around as she attended a prayer meeting that evening in another
barangay in Laurel.
JP, et aL, were charged and convicted of attempted murder by the Regional Trial Court
at Tanauan, Batangas.

On appeal to the Court of Appeals, all the accused ascribed to the trial court the
sole error of finding them guilty of attempted murder.
If you were the ponente, how will you decide the appeal? (1994 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

If I were the ponente, I will set aside the judgment convicting the accused of
attempted murder and instead find them guilty of impossible crime under Art. 4, par. 2,
RPC, in relation to Art. 59, RPC. Liability for impossible crime arises not only when the
impossibility is legal, but likewise when it is factual or physical impossibility, as in the case
at bar. Elsa’s absence from the house is a physical impossibility which renders the crime
intended inherently incapable of accomplishment. To convict the accused of attempted
murder would make Art. 4, par. 2 practically useless as all circumstances which prevented
the consummation of the offense will be treated as an incident independent of the actor’s
will which is an element of attempted or frustrated felony (Intod vs. CA, 215 SCRA 52).

Criminal law - Felonies – Impossible crime of murder; less serious
physical injuries

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

Page 40 of 338
harbored resentment towards Jun, Jerry gave Buddy a poison, which Buddy placed
on Jun's food. However, Jun did not die because, unknown to both Buddy and Jerry,
the poison was actually powdered milk
1. What crime or crimes, if any, did Jerry and Buddy commit? [3%J (1998 Bar
Question)
2. Suppose that, because of his severe allergy to powdered milk, Jun had to be
hospitalized for 10 days for ingesting it. Would your answer to the first question be
the same? [2%] (1998 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Jerry and Buddy are liable for the so-called “impossible crime” because, with intent to
kill, they tried to poison Jun and thus perpetrate murder, a crime against persons. Jun was
not poisoned only because the would-be killers were unaware that what they mixed with
the food of Jun was powdered milk, not poison. In short, the act done with criminal intent
by Jerry and Buddy, would have constituted a crime against persons were it not for the
inherent inefficacy of the means employed.

Criminal liability is incurred by them although no crime resulted, because their act
of trying to poison Jun is criminal,

2. No, the answer would not be the same as above. Jerry and Buddy would be liable
instead for less serious physical injuries for causing the hospitalization and medical
attendance for 10 days to Jun. Their act of mixing with the food eaten by Jun the matter
which required such medical attendance, committed with criminal intent, renders them
liable for the resulting injury.

Criminal law – Felonies – Impossible crime of murder

B. OZ and YO were both courting their co-employee, SUE. Because of their
bitter rivalry, OZ decided to get rid of YO by poisoning him. OZ poured a substance
into YO’s coffee thinking it was arsenic. It turned out that the substance was white
sugar substitute known as Equal. Nothing happened to YO after he drank the coffee.

What criminal liability did OZ incur, If any? Explain briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

B. OZ incurred criminal liability for an impossible crime of murder. Criminal
liability shall be incurred by any person performing an act which would be an offense
against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its

Page 41 of 338
accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means (Art.
4, par. 2, RPC).

In the problem given, the impossibility of accomplishing the crime of murder, a
crime against persons, was due to the employment of ineffectual means which OZ thought
was poison. The law imputes criminal liability to the offender although no crime resulted,
only to suppress his criminal propensity because subjectively, he is a criminal though
objectively, no crime was committed.

Criminal law – Felonies – Impossible crime of murder

Charlie hated his classmate, Brad, because the latter was assiduously courting
Lily, Charlie's girlfriend. Charlie went to a veterinarian and asked for some poison on
the pretext that it would be used to kill a very sick, old dog. Actually, Charlie
intended to use the poison on Brad.
The veterinarian mistakenly gave Charlie a non-toxic powder which, when
mixed with Brad's food, did not kill Brad.

[a] Did Charlie commit any crime? If so; what and why? If not, why not? (3%)
(2009 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Charlie committed an impossible crime of murder. His act of mixing the non-toxic
powder with Brad's food, done with intent to kill, would have constituted murder which is
a crime against persons, had it not been for the employment of a means which, unknown to
him, is ineffectual (Art.4, par. 2, RPC).

[b] Would your answer be the same if Brad proved to be allergic to the
powder, and after ingesting it with his food, fell ill and was hospitalized for ten (10)
days? Explain. (3%) (2009 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the answer would not be the same. Charlie would be, criminally liable for less
serious physical injuries because his act of mixing the powder with Brad's food was done
with felonious intent and was the proximate cause of Brad's illness for 10 days. It cannot
constitute attempted murder, although done with intent to kill, because the means
employed is inherently ineffectual to cause death and the crime committed must be directly
linked to the means employed, not to the intent. Liability for an impossible crime can only
arise from a consummated act.

Stages of execution

Page 42 of 338
Criminal law – Stages of execution – Consummated theft
In the jewelry section of a big department store, Julia snatched a couple of
bracelets and put these in her purse. At the store's exit, however, she was arrested
by the guard after being radioed by the store personnel who caught the act in the
store's moving camera. Is the crime consummated, frustrated, or attempted? (5%)
(1998 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime is consummated theft because the taking of the bracelets was complete
after Julia succeeded in putting them in her purse. Julia acquired complete control of the
bracelets after putting them in her purse; hence, the taking with intent to gain is complete
and thus the crime is consummated.

Criminal law – Stages of execution - Crime of theft; attempted; consummated
Sunshine, a beauteous “colegiala” but a shoplifter, went to the Ever Department Store
and proceeded to the women’s wear section. The saleslady was of the impression that she
brought to the fitting room three (3) pieces of swimsuits of different colors. When she came
out of the fitting room, she returned only two (2) pieces to the clothes rack. The saleslady
became suspicious and alerted the store detective. Sunshine was stopped by the detective
before she could leave the store and brought to the office of the store manager. The detective
and the manager searched her and found her wearing the third swimsuit under her
blouse and pants. Was the theft of the swimsuit consummated, frustrated or
attempted? Explain. (5%) (2000 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The theft was consummated because the taking or asportation was complete. The
asportation is complete when the offender acquired exclusive control of the personal
property being taken; in this case, when Sunshine wore the swimsuit under her blouse and
pants and was on her way out of the store. With evident intent to gain the taking
constitutes theft and being complete, it is consummated. It is not necessary that the
offender is in a position to dispose of the property.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

The crime of theft was only frustrated because Sunshine has not yet left the store
when the offense was opportunely discovered and the article seized from her. She does
not have yet the freedom to dispose of the swimsuit she was taking (People vs. Dino, CA 45
O.G. 3446). Moreover, in case of doubt as to whether it is consummated or frustrated, the
doubt must be resolved in favor of the milder criminal responsibility.

Page 43 of 338
Criminal law – Stages of execution – Frustrated felony
Taking into account the nature and elements of the felonies of coup d’etat
and rape, may one be criminally liable for frustrated coup d'etat or frustrated rape?
Explain. (2%) (2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, a person may not be held liable for frustrated coup d'etat or for frustrated rape because
in a frustrated felony, it is required that all acts of execution that could produce the felony as a
consequence must have been performed by the offender but the felony was not produced by reason
of causes independent of the will of the offender. In the said felonies, however, one cannot perform
all the acts of execution without consummating the felony. The said felonies, therefore, do not admit
of the frustrated stage.

Criminal law – Stages of execution – Frustrated murder

Delmo learned that his enemy, Oscar, was confined at the Intensive Care Unit
(ICU) of the Philippine Medical Center. Intending to kill Oscar, Delmo disguised
himself as a nurse, entered the ICU, and saw a man lying on the hospital bed with
several life-saving tubes attached to the body. Delmo disconnected the tubes and left.
Later, the resident physician doing his rounds entered the ICU and, seeing the
disconnected tubes, replaced them. The patient survived. It turned out that the
patient was Larry, as Oscar had been discharged from the hospital earlier.

Delmo was charged with frustrated murder, qualified by evident
premeditation and treachery as aggravating circumstances. Discuss the propriety of
the charge. (4%) (2009 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Delmo was correctly charged with the crime of frustrated murder qualified by
treachery—not evident premeditation because the victim was different from the one
premeditated against. Delmo has performed all the acts of execution that would produce
the death of the victim but for reasons independent of the will of the perpetrator, the death
of the victim was not accomplished. Treachery qualifies the crime, because the means,
manner and method of committing the intended killing were consciously adopted to insure
its execution without risk that may arise from the defense the victim may make. Evident
premeditation is absorbed in the treachery.

Conspiracy and proposal

Criminal law – Felonies – Conspiracy

Page 44 of 338
During a fiesta, Simeon Marco, brandishing a knife, asked Constancio whether
he was the one who slapped his (Simeon's) son the year previous. Vicente (father of
Constancio) shouted at Constancio and his other son, Bien- venido, telling them to
run away. When Bienvenido passed by Rafael Marco (brother of Simeon), Rafael
stabbed him. Bienvenido parried the blow but fell down, his feet entangled with
some vines. While Bienvenido was lying on the ground, Rafael continued to stab him,
inflicting slight injuries on the shoulder of Bienvenido, after which Rafael stood up.
At that moment, Dulcisimo Beltran (no relation to the Marco brothers), came out of
nowhere and, together with Simeon, stabbed Bienvenido. Both of them inflicted fatal
wounds resulting in the death of the victim.
a) Discuss the criminal liability of Dulcisimo, Simeon and Rafael. (1991 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a. Simeon and Dulcisimo will be liable for the death of Bienvenido as the fatal injuries sustained
by the victim were inflicted by the two.
Rafael is not liable for slight physical injuries as conspiracy was not present, and there was no
apparent intent to kill when he inflicted the slight physical injuries on the aim of the victim.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Dulcisimo, Simeon and Rafael will all be liable under the principle of conspiracy, where the act
of one becomes the act of all.

Criminal law – Felonies – Conspiracy; murder
As a result of a misunderstanding during a meeting, Joe was mauled by Nestor, Jolan,
Reden and Arthur. He ran towards his house but the four chased and caught him. Thereafter,
they tied Joe’s hands at his back and attacked him. Nestor used a knife; Jolan, a shovel; Arthur,
his fists; and Reden, a piece of wood. After killing Joe, Reden ordered the digging of a grave to
bury Joe’s lifeless body. Thereafter, the four (4) left together. Convicted for the killing of Joe,
Arthur now claims that his conviction is erroneous as it was not he who inflicted the fatal
blow.
Would you sustain his claim? Why? (1993 Bar Question)
What was the crime committed by the four assailants? Discuss with reasons (1993
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. Arthur’s claim is without merit. The offenders acted in conspiracy in killing the
victim and hence, liable collectively. The act of one is the act of all.

Page 45 of 338
The existence of a conspiracy among the offenders can be clearly deduced or
inferred from the manner they committed the killing, demonstrating a common criminal
purpose and intent. There being a conspiracy, the individual acts of each participant is not
considered because their liability is collective.
The crime committed is murder, qualified by treachery because the offenders,
taking advantage of their superiority in number, rendered the victim defenseless and
without any chance to retaliate, by tying his hands at his back before attacking him.
Treachery exists at least in the second and final stage of the attack, after the offenders
caught up with the victim.

Criminal law – Felonies –Conspiracy to commit robbery
Jose, Domingo. Manolo, and Fernando, armed with bolos, at about one o'clock in
the morning, robbed a house at a desolate place where Danilo, his wife, and three
daughters were living. While the four were in the process of ransacking Danilo’s
house, Fernando, noticing that one of Danilo’s daughters was trying to get away, ran
after her and finally caught up with her in a thicket somewhat distant from the
house. Fernando, before bringing back the daughter to the house, raped her first.
Thereafter, the four carted away the belongings of Danilo and his family.
What crime did Jose, Domingo. Manolo and Fernando commit? Explain. (1996 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) Jose, Domingo, and Manolo committed Robbery, while Fernando committed complex crime
of Robbery with Rape. Conspiracy can be inferred from the manner the offenders committed
the robbery but the rape was committed by Fernando at a place “distant from the house”
where the robbery was committed, not in the presence of the other conspirators. Hence,
Fernando alone should answer for the rape, rendering him liable for the special complex
crime. [People vs. Cardurta et at, G.R. 108490. 22 June 1995)

Criminal law - Felonies – Proposal to commit kidnapping
1) Edgardo induced his friend Vicente, in consideration of money, to kidnap a girl he is
courting so that he may succeed in raping her and eventually making her accede to marry
him. Vicente asked for more money which Edgardo failed to put up. Angered because
Edgardo did not put up the money he required, he reported. Edgardo to the police.

May Edgardo be charged with attempted kidnapping? Explain. (1996 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1) No, Edgardo may not be charged with attempted kidnapping inasmuch as no overt

Page 46 of 338
act to kidnap or restrain the liberty of the girl had been commenced. At most, what
Edgardo has done in the premises was a proposal to Vicente to kidnap the girl, which is
only a preparatory act and not an overt act. The attempt to commit a felony commences
with the commission of overt act, not preparatory act. Proposal to commit kidnapping is
not a crime.

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

Is there conspiracy in this case? (1994 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, there is conspiracy among the offenders, as manifested by their concerted actions against the
victims, demonstrating a common felonious purpose of assaulting the victims. The existence of the
conspiracy can be inferred or deduced from themannerthe offenders acted in commonly attacking
Dino and Raffy with rocks, thereby demonstrating a unity of criminal design to inflict harm on their
victims.

Criminal law - Conspiracy – Who are liable
A had a grudge against F. Deciding to kill F, A and his friends, B, C, and D, armed
themselves with knives and proceeded to the house of F, taking a taxicab for the purpose.
About 20 meters from their destination, the group alighted and after instructing B, the
driver, to wait, traveled on foot to the house of F. B positioned himself at a distance as the
group's lookout. C and D stood guard outside the house. Before A could enter the house, D left
the scene without the knowledge of the others. A stealthily entered the house and stabbed F.
F ran to the street but was blocked by C, forcing him to flee towards another direction.
Immediately after A had stabbed F. A also stabbed G who was visiting F. Thereafter, A exited
from the house and, together with B and C, returned to the waiting taxicab and motored
away.
G died, F survived.
Who are liable for the death of G and the physical injuries of F? (1997 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A alone should be held liable for the death of G. The object of the conspiracy of A B, C, and D was
to kill F only.

Page 47 of 338
Since B, C, and D did not know of the stabbing of G by A, they cannot be held
criminally therefor E. the driver, cannot be also held liable for the death of G since the
former was completely unaware of said killing.
For the physical injuries of A, B and C, should be held liable therefore. Even if it was
only A who actually stabbed and caused physical injuries to G, B and C are nonetheless
liable for conspiring with A and for contributing positive acts which led to the
realization of a common criminal intent. B positioned himself as a lookout, while C
blocked F's escape. D, however, although part of the conspiracy, cannot be held liable
because he left the scene before A could enter the house where the stabbing occurred.
Although he was earlier part of the conspiracy, he did not personally participate in the
execution of the crime by acts which directly tended toward the same end (People vs.
Tamaro. et al, 44 Phil. 38).
In the same breath, E, the driver, cannot be also held liable for the infliction of
physical injuries upon F because there is no showing that he had knowledge of the plan
to kill F.

Criminal law – Conspiracy - Implied conspiracy
1. What is the doctrine of implied conspiracy? [3%] (1998 Bar Question)
Distinguish between recidivism and quasi-recidivism. (2%) (1998 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1. The doctrine of conspiracy holds two or more persons participating in the commission
of a crime collectively responsible and liable as co-conspirators although absent any
agreement to that effect, when they act in concert, demonstrating unity of criminal intent
and a common purpose or objective. The existence of a conspiracy shall be inferred or
deduced from their criminal participation in pursuing the crime and thus the act of one
shall be deemed the act of all.

Criminal law – Felonies – “Implied conspiracy”
(a) State the concept of “implied conspiracy” and give its legal effects. (2003 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) An “implied conspiracy” is one which is only inferred or deduced from the manner
the participants in the commission of crime carried out its execution. Where the offenders

Page 48 of 338
acted in concert in the commission of the crime, meaning that their acts are coordinated or
synchronized in a way indicative that they are pursuing a common criminal objective, they
shall be deemed to be acting in conspiracy and their criminal liability shall be collective, not
individual.
The legal effects of an “implied conspiracy” are:
1) Not all those who are present at the scene of the crime will be considered conspirators;
2) Only those who participated by criminal acts in the commission of the crime will be
considered as coconspirators; and
3) Mere acquiescence to or approval of the commission of the crime, without any act of
criminal participation, shall not render one criminally liable as co-conspirator.

Criminal law – Felonies – Conspiracy

a) In the course of funeral procession, a young mourner who was marching in
front of the funeral hearse, momentarily stooped down to tie her shoelaces which
had become untied. The driver of the hearse, who was driving at 5 miles an hour,
was then looking at the stores by the roadside and did not see her. He continued to
drive on and ran over the girl. When the people around shouted and gestured, he
backed up and ran over the girl a second time, killing her.
If you were the-parent of the girl-victim, what crime would you charge, if you
think a crime had been committed, and against whom? Explain your answer briefly.
At a pre-wedding celebration where plenty of people were milling and walking
about or standing close together, a mad killer shot up the wedding party. The three
appellants were convicted by the owner court as co-conspirators of the killer
because they were allegedly with him before, during, and after the shooting. It was
proven conclusively that the appellant were friends of the killer; that they went
together with the killer to the celebration; and that they left at the same time with
the killer, after the shooting. However, the appellants had no guns and passively
witnessed the without intervening in the killing in any way nor shielding killer.
Is there conspiracy among them? Why? (1988 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) Only the driver could be charged of homicide thru reckless imprudence or
homicide thru simple negligence which preclude conspiracy against those who shouted
and gestured.
(b) There is no conspiracy among them because as the problem has stated, they
passively witnessed the shooting. No overt act was committed therefore the element that
the conspiracy must be proved as the essence of the crime itself is not present.

Page 49 of 338
Criminal law – Felonies - Conspiracy to commit sedition

A, B. C, D, and E were former soldiers who deserted their command in
Mindanao. Jose and Pedro, two big landowners, called A. B, C, D, and E to a
conference. Jose and Pedro proposed to these former soldiers that they recruit their
comrades and organize a group of 100 for the purpose of challenging the
government by force of arms in order to prevent the enforcement or
implementation of the Land Reform Law in Cotabato Province. Jose and Pedro
promised to finance the group and to buy firearms for the purpose. The former
soldiers agreed. After Jose and Pedro left, A, the leader of the former soldiers, said
that in the meanwhile he needed money to support his family. D suggested that they
rob a bank and agreed to carry out the plan on the 15 th day of the month. Unknown
to all of them, as they were conferring with Jose and Pedro and as they were
planning to rob the bank, Rosauro, a house boy, was within hearing distance. On the
pretext of buying cigarettes, Ro6auro instead went directly to the Police and told
them what transpired. All the former soldiers, as well as Jose and Pedro, were
arrested.
(a) What crime, if any, did the former soldiers commit? (1987 Bar Question)
(b) What about Jose and Pedro? (1987 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a) The former soldiers committed the crime of conspiracy to commit sedition. What
Jose and Pedro proposed to the soldiers that they recruit their comrades and organize a
group of 100 for the purpose of challenging the government by force of arms in order to
prevent the implementation of the Land Reform Law in Cotabato Province is to commit
sedition. Proposal to commit sedition is not punished. But since the soldiers agreed, a
conspiracy to commit sedition resulted which is now punishable. Conspiracy arises on the
very moment the plotters agree (People vs. Peralta 25 SCRA 759; People vs. Tiongson 12
SCRA 402).
b) Jose and Pedro will also be liable for conspiracy to commit sedition since they are
members of the conspiracy where the act of one is the act of all. If the soldiers did not
agree to their proposal, they would not incur any criminal liability because there is no pro-
posal to commit sedition.

Criminal law – Felonies – Conspiracy; act of one is the act of all

A. BB and CC, both armed with knives, attacked FT. The victim’s son, ST, upon
seeing the attack, drew his gun but was prevented from shooting the attackers by AA,
who grappled with him for possession of the gun. FT died from knife wounds. AA, BB

Page 50 of 338
and CC were charged with murder.

In his defense, AA invoked the justifying circumstance of avoidance of greater evil or
injury, contending that by preventing ST from shooting BB and CC, he merely avoided
a greater evil.

Will AA’s defense prosper? Reason briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

A. No, AA’s defense will not prosper because obviously there was a conspiracy among
BB, CC and AA, such that the principle that when there is a conspiracy, the act of one is the
act of all, shail govern. The act of ST, the victim’s son, appears to be a legitimate defense of
relatives; hence, justified as a defense of his father against the unlawful aggression by BB
and CC. ST’s act to defend his father’s life, cannot be regarded as an evil inasmuch as it is, in
the eyes of the law, a lawful act.

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

Criminal law – Felonies – Conspiracy to commit robbery

Jose employed Mario as gardener and Henry as cook. They learned that Jose
won P5, 000,000.00 in the-lotto, and decided to rob him. Mario positioned himself
about 30 meters away from Jose's house and acted as lookout. For his part. Henry
surreptitiously gained entry into the house and killed Jose who was then having his
dinner. Henry found the P5,000,000.00 and took it. Henry then took a can of
gasoline from the garage and burned the house to conceal the acts. Mario and Henry
fled, but were arrested around 200 meters away from the house by alert barangay
tanods. The tanods recovered the P500,000.00.

Mario and Henry were charged with and convicted of robbery with
homicide, with the aggravating circumstances of arson, dwelling, and nighttime.

Mario moved to reconsider the decision maintaining that he was not at the
scene of the crime and was not aware that Henry killed the victim; hence, he was
guilty only of robber, as an accomplice. Mario also claimed that he conspired with
Hemy to commit robbery but not to kill Jose. Henry, likewise, moved to reconsider
the decision, asserting that he is liable only for attempted robbery with homicide
with no aggravating circumstance; dwelling is not aggravating in attempted robbery
with homicide; and nighttime is not aggravating because the house of Jose was
lighted at the time he was killed.

Resolve with reasons the respective motions of Mario and Henry. (7%)
(2005 Bar Question)

Page 51 of 338
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The motion of Mario contending that he should be liable only as an accomplice is
without merit and therefore should be denied. There was conspiracy to commit the
robbery between him and Henry. There being a conspiracy to commit robbery, the act of
one is the act of all. Since the conspiracy was only to commit robbery, Mario should be
liable only for robbery as a co-principal, not for the composite crime of robbery with
homicide.

Mario, being 30 meters away from the victim's house, could not have known what
Henry was doing inside the victim’s (Jose's) house, so much so that he was not in a
position to stop the same. Mario, therefore, cannot properly be made answerable for what
Henry did inside Jose's house which was not agreed upon. Applying the subjective test to
his participation as a co-conspirator to the robbery, Mario’s criminal liability should be
aggravated by nighttime but not by dwelling or arson.

Henry's motion to reconsider the decision is, likewise, without merit and should
be denied. He is criminally liable for robbery with homicide. His contention that he is only
liable for attempted robbery with homicide is not correct because the unlawful taking of
the P500,000.00 is deemed complete from the moment he gained control of the money
even if he had no opportunity to dispose of the same.

The killing of Jose, having been committed on the occasion of a robbery, becomes
a component of the robbery, giving rise to the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide. Since Henry alone committed the killing of Jose a fact unknown to Mario, Henry
alone should be convicted for said crime. Dwelling, although not aggravating in robbery
with force upon things where the circumstance is inherent, is aggravating in robbery with
violence against or with intimidation of persons.

The burning of the house or arson accompanying the robbery is only a component
of the robbery under Article 294 (1), Revised Penal Code. Such burning does not constitute
a separate crime from robbery with homicide.

Nighttime is aggravating, applying the subjective test, unless the house of Jose
was indeed well-lighted during the commission of the crime.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Mario should be convicted with robbery only, not for robbery with homicide
because he conspired only in the commission of the robbery. As a conspirator in said
crime, he is liable as co-principal and not as an accomplice only. His motion for
reconsideration claiming that he should be liable only for robbery has merit, but not his
contention that he should be liable as an accomplice only.

On the other hand, Henry’s motion for reconsideration should be denied for lack

Page 52 of 338
of merit. His contention that his liability should only be for attempted robbery with
homicide because they did not benefit from the P500,000.00 lacks merit. In robbery, the
crime is consummated the moment the unlawful taking is complete even though the
offender was not able to appropriate or dispose of the personal property taken.

The contention that no aggravating circumstance attended the commission of the
crime is not correct. In robbery with violence or intimidation against person, dwelling is
aggravating to the offender who entered the dwelling of the offended party. Nighttime is
not aggravating because the house of the victim was lighted. The burning of the victim’s
house is not a separate crime of arson but only a component of the robbery under Article
294, RPC.

Criminal law – Felonies - Complex crime of arson with quadruple
homicide and robbery; improper charge of offense
Harry, an overseas contract worker, arrived from Saudi Arabia with
considerable savings. Knowing him to be “loaded", his friends Jason, Manuel and
Dave invited him to poker session at a rented beach cottage. When he was losing
almost all his money which to him was his savings of a lifetime, he discovered that he
was being cheated by his friends. Angered by the betrayal he decided to take
revenge on the three cheats.

Harry ordered several bottles of Tanduay Rhum and gave them to his companions to
drink, as they did, until they all fell asleep. When Harry saw his companions already sound
asleep he hacked all of them to death. Then he remembered his losses. He rifled through the
pockets of his victims and got back all the money he lost. He then ran away but not before
burning the cottage to hide his misdeed. The following day police investigators found among
the debris the charred bodies of Jason, Manuel, Dave and the caretaker of the resort.
After preliminary investigation, the Provincial Prosecutor charged Harry with the
complex crime of arson with quadruple homicide and robbery.
Was Harry properly charged? Discuss fully. (1995 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Harry was not properly charged. Harry should have been charged with three (3) separate
crimes, namely: murder, theft and arson.
Harry killed Jason, Manuel and Dave with evident premeditation, as there was considerable
lapse of time before he decided to commit the crime and the actual commission of the crime. In
addition, Harry employed means which weakened the defense of Jason, Manuel and Dave. Harry
gave them the liquor to drink until they were drunk and fell asleep. This gave Harry the opportunity
to cany out his plan of murder with impunity.
The taking of the money from the victims was a mere afterthought of the killings. Hence, Harry

Page 53 of 338
committed the separate crime of theft and not the complex crime of robbery with homicide.
Although theft was committed against dead persons, it is still legally possible as the offended party
are the estates of the victims.
In burning the cottage to hide his misdeed. Harry became liable for another separate crime,
arson. This act of burning was not necessary for the consummation of the two (2) previous offenses
he committed. The fact that the caretaker died from the blaze did not qualify Harry’s crime into a
complex crime of arson with homicide for there is no such crime.

Hence, Harry was improperly charged with the complex crime of arson with
quadruple homicide and robbery. Harry should have been charged with three (3) separate
crimes, murder, theft and arson.

Criminal law – Felonies – Complex crime of parricide with unintentional
abortion
Aldrich was dismissed from his job by his employer. Upon reaching home, his pregnant
wife, Carmi, nagged him about money for her medicines. Depressed by his dismissal and
angered by the nagging of his wife, Aldrich struck Carmi with his fist. She fell to the ground.
As a result, she and her unborn baby died.

What crime was committed by Aldrich? (1994 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Aldrich committed the crime of parricide with unintentional abortion. When Aldrich struck
his wife, Carmi with his fist, he committed the crime of maltreatment under Art. 266, par. 3 of the
Revised Penal Code. Since Carmi died because of the felonious act of Aldrich, he is
criminally liable of parricide under Art. 246, RPC in relation to Art. 4, par. 1 of the same
Code. Since the unborn baby of Carmi died in the process, but Aldrich had no intention to
cause the abortion of his wife, Aldrich committed unintentional abortion as defined in Art.
257, RPC. Inasmuch as the single act of Aldrich produced two grave or less grave felonies,
he falls under Art 48, RPC, i.e. a complex crime [People vs. Salufrancia, 159 SCRA 401).

Criminal law – Felonies – Conspiracy; Special complex crime of robbery
with serious physical injuries
Efren, Greggy and Hilario, wearing fatigues and carrying unlicensed firearms,
barged into the residence of Amulfo Dilat at Scout Lazcano St. (Before making their
entrance, they gave instructions to their companion Sakay to stand watch outside). Once
inside, they announced that they were members of the Philippine National Police (PNP) on an
official mission. Inside the master bedroom, they demanded from Luningning, the wife of
Amulfo, cash and jewelries. After receiving the jewelries but before the money could be
handed to them, they heard their companion Sakay shouting: “Pulis! Pulis!" Panic-stricken,

Page 54 of 338
Efren shot Amulfo who was seriously injured. Greggy and Hilarto picked up the jewelry box
whose contents spilled all over the floor as they rushed out. Before they could make good
their escape, however, the police blocked their way, one of them clutching Sakay by the collar.
They were forthwith brought to the Police Headquarters nearby.
Discuss the individual and collective criminal liabilities of Efren, Greggy, Hilario and
Sakay. (1992 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
There appears to be conspiracy amongst the four offenders; in which case the act of one
becomes the act of all. Ergo, they are all liable for the consequent crime, which is robbery under Art.
299, special complex crime of robbery with serious physical injuries, committed in an inhabited
house, by pretending to be persons in authority. There is no band as only three are armed.
Sakay, who seems to have participated only as lookout, still will be liable as principal because
of the conspiracy. Even if there is none, he is criminally liable as a principal by indispensable
cooperation.
The crime is definitely consummated as offenders have complete disposal of the subject
matter of the offense.

Criminal law – Felonies - Complex crime of Murder, qualified by explosion,
with direct assault
Two (2) Philippine National Police (PNP) officers, X and Y, on board on motorboat with
Z, a civilian as motorman, arrested A and B who were in a banca, for dynamite fishing. The
latter’s banca was towed towards the municipality. On the way, the PNP motorboat was
intercepted by a third banca whose occupants, C, D. and E, tried to negotiate for the release of
A and B and their banca. The PNP officers refused and instead shouted at C, D, and E that they
are all under arrest. Thereupon, C, D, and E simultaneously threw dynamite sticks at the
PNP motorboats. The first explosion killed X. A and B also reacted by throwing
dynamite at the PNP motorboat: its explosion killed Y and Z.

What crime or crimes did A, B, C, D and E commit? (1991 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
C, D and E are liable for the complex crime of Murder, qualified by explosion, with
direct assault for the death of X. A and B are liable for the complex crime of Murder
Qualified by explosion as to death of Y, and simple Murder qualified by explosion for the
death of Z.
No crime of direct assault can be filed insofar as the death of Z is concerned, he being a
civilian.
This, of course, assumes that there is no conspiracy among A, B, C, D and E, otherwise
all would have the same criminal liability as the act of one becomes the act of all.

Page 55 of 338
Criminal law – Felonies - Special complex crime of robbery with homicide
Victor, Ricky, Rod and Ronnie went to the store of Mang Pandoy. Victor and Ricky
entered the store while Rod and Ronnie posted themselves at the door. After ordering beer
Ricky complained that he was shortchanged although Mang Pandoy vehemently denied it.
Suddenly Ricky whipped out a knife as he announced “Hold-up ito!" and stabbed Mang
Pandoy to death. Rod boxed the store’s salesgirl Lucy to prevent her from helping Mang
Pandoy. When Lucy ran out of the store to seek help from people next door she was chased
by Ronnie. As soon as Ricky had stabbed Mang Pandoy, Victor scooped up the money from
the cash box. Then Victor and Ricky dashed to the street and shouted, “Tumakbo na kayo!”
Rod was 14 and Ronnie was 17. The money and other articles looted from the store of Mang
Pandoy were later found in the houses of Victor and Ricky.
Discuss fully the criminal liability of Victor, Ricky, Rod and Ronnie. (1995 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
All are liable for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The acts of Ricky in
stabbing Mang Pandoy to death, of Rod in boxing the salesgirl to prevent her from helping Mang
Pandoy, of Ronnie in chasing the salesgirl to prevent her in seeking help, of Victor in scooping up
money from the cash box, and of Ricky and Victor in dashing to the street and announcing the
escape, are all indicative of conspiracy.
The rule is settled that when homicide takes place as a consequence or on the occasion of a
robbery, all those who took part in the robbery are guilty as principals of the crime of robbery with
homicide, unless the accused tried to prevent the killing {People vs. BaeUo, 224 SCRA 218). Further,
the aggravating circumstance of craft could be assessed against the accused for pretending to be
customers of Mang Pandoy.

Criminal law – Felonies - Special complex crime of robbery with rape,
when not applicable
After raping the complainant in her house, the accused struck a match to smoke
a cigarette before departing from the scene. The brief light from the match allowed
him to notice a watch in her wrist. He demanded that she hand over the watch.
When she refused, he forcibly grabbed it from her. The accused was charged with
and convicted of the special complex crime of robbery with rape.

Was the court correct? (1997 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the court erred in convicting the accused of the special complex crime of robbery
with rape. The accused should instead be held liable for two (2) separate crimes of
robbery and rape, since the primary intent or objective of the accused was only to rape the
complainant, and his commission of the robbery was merely an afterthought. The robbery

Page 56 of 338
must precede the rape, in order to give rise to the special complex crime for which the
court convicted the accused.

Criminal law – Conspiracy - Special complex crime of robbery with rape

B. Together XA, YB and ZC planned to rob Miss OD. They entered her house by
breaking one of the windows in her house. After taking her personal properties and
as they were about to leave, XA decided on impulse to rape OD. As XA was molesting
her, YB and ZC stood outside the door of her bedroom and did nothing to prevent XA
from raping OD.

What crime or crimes did XA, YB and ZC commit, and what is the criminal liability of
each? Explain briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

B. The crime committed by XA, YB and ZC is the composite crime of Robbery with
Rape, a single, indivisible offense under Art. 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code.

Although the conspiracy among the offenders was only to commit robbery and only XA
raped CD, the other robbers, YB and ZC, were present and aware of the rape being
committed by their co-conspirator. Having done nothing to stop XA from committing the
rape, YB and ZC thereby concurred in the commission of the rape by their co-conspirator
XA.

The criminal liability of all, XA, YZ and ZC, shall be the same, as principals in the special
complex crime of robbery with rape which is a single, indivisible offense where the rape
accompanying the robbery is just a component.

Criminal law – Felonies - Robbery with homicide

a) An armed band tried to stop a passenger bus, and the driver who sensed that
the band might commit robbery, did not stop the bus but drove it faster. The
members of the band then fired at the bus, killing one passenger who was hit in the
head.
b) As the malefactor were about to enter the house of A, the latter hid himself
inside the ceiling. Once inside the house, the malefactor took from A’s wife cash and
pieces of jewelry. One of the malefactors stood on a table and fired his gun at the
ceiling. After they had left A’s wife called for him and receiving no answer, she went
up the ceiling and found him already dead.

Page 57 of 338
What crime was committed? Explain. (1988 Bar Question)
c) In the course of robbery there was confusion and in the exchange of shots
between the robbers and the victims, one of the robbers happened to shoot one of
his own companions.
What crime was committed? Explain. (1988 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a) They committed the crime of attempted robbery with homicide with band as a
generic aggravating circumstance. Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code provides that
“Attempted... robbery committed under certain circumstances.—When on the occasion of
an attempted robbery a homicide is committed the person guilty of such offenses shall be
punished by reclusion temporal
b) Robbery with homicide was committed by the malefactors. Article 297 of the
Revised Penal Code provides that “Attempted and frustrated robbery committed under
certain circumstances.— When by reason...of an attempted or frustrated robbery a
homicide is committed the person guilty of such offenses shall be punished by reclusion
temporal. .
c) The robber committed the crime of robbery with homicide in violation of Article
297 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that “ . . . w h e n . . . on the occasion of an
attempted robbery a homicide is committed the person guilty of such offenses shall be
punished by reclusion temporal.

Criminal law – Complex crimes - Robbery with Homicide
Jose, Domingo. Manolo, and Fernando, armed with bolos, at about one o'clock in
the morning, robbed a house at a desolate place where Danilo, his wife, and three
daughters were living. While the four were in the process of ransacking Danilo’s
house, Fernando, noticing that one of Danilo’s daughters was trying to get away, ran
after her and finally caught up with her in a thicket somewhat distant from the
house. Fernando, before bringing back the daughter to the house, raped her first.
Thereafter, the four carted away the belongings of Danilo and his family.
Suppose, after the robbery, the four took turns in raping the three daughters of
Danilo inside the latter's house, but before they left, they killed the whole family to
prevent identification, what crime did the four commit? Explain. (1996 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime would be Robbery with Homicide because the killings were by reason (to prevent
identification) and on the occasion of the robbery. The multiple rapes committed and the fact that
several persons were killed (homicide), would be considered as aggravating circumstances. The
rapes are synonymous with ignominy and the additional killing synonymous with cruelty. [People vs.
Solis, 182 SCRA: People vs. Plagcu 202 SCRA 531)

Page 58 of 338
Criminal law – Conspiracy - Special complex crime of robbery with
homicide
A and B, both store janitors, planned to kill their employer C at midnight and take the
money kept in the cash register. A and B together drew the sketch of the store, where
they knew C would be sleeping, and planned the sequence of their attack. Shortly
before midnight, A and B were ready to carry out the plan. When A was about to lift
C's mosquito net to thrust his dagger, a police car with sirens blaring passed by.
Scared, B ran out of the store and fled, while A went on to stab C to death, put the
money in the bag, and ran outside to look for B. The latter was nowhere in sight.
Unknown to him, B had already left the place. What was the participation and
corresponding criminal liability of each, if any? Reasons. (2003 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
There was an expressed conspiracy between A and B to kill C and take the latter’s
money. The planned killing and taking of the money appears to be intimately related as
component crimes, hence a special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The
conspiracy being expressed, not just implied, A and B are bound as co-conspirators after
they have planned and agreed on the sequence of their attack even before they committed
the crime. Therefore, the principle in law that when there is a conspiracy, the act of one is
the act of all, already governs them, in fact, A and B were already in the store to carry out
their criminal plan.
That B ran out of the store and fled upon hearing the sirens of the police car, is not
spontaneous desistance but flight to evade apprehension. It would be different if B then
tried to stop A from continuing with the commission of the crime; he did not. So the act of A
in pursuing the commission of the crime which both he and B designed, planned, and
commenced to commit, would also be the act of B because of their expressed conspiracy.
Both are liable for the composite crime of robbery with homicide.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
A shall incur full criminal liability for the crime of robbery with homicide, but B shall
not incur criminal liability because he desisted. B’s spontaneous desistance, made before all
acts of execution are performed, is exculpatory. Conspiracy to rob and kill is not perse
punishable.
The desistance need not be actuated by remorse or good motive. It is enough that
the discontinuance comes from the person who has begun the commission of the crime but
before all acts of execution are performed. A person who has began the commission of a
crime but desisted, is absolved from criminal liability as a reward to one, who having set
foot on the verge of crime, heeds the call of his conscience and returns to the path of
righteousness.

Page 59 of 338
Criminal law – Conspiracy and proposal - Special complex crime of
robbery with homicide

Jervis and Marlon asked their friend, Jonathan, to help them rob a bank. Jervis
and Marlon went inside the bank, but were unable to get any money from the vault
because the same was protected by a time-delay mechanism. They contented
themselves with the customers' cellphones and a total of P5,000 in cash. After they
dashed out of the bank and rushed into the car, Jonathan pulled the car out of the
curb, hitting a pedestrian which resulted in the latter's death.

What crime or crimes did Jervis, Marlon and Jonathan commit? Explain your
answer. (2007 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Jervis and Marlon committed the crime of robbery, while Jonathan committed the
special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
Jervis and Marlon are criminally liable for the robbery only, because that was the
crime conspired upon and actually committed by them, assuming that the taking of the
cellphones and the cash from the bank's customers was effected with intimidation. They
will not incur liability for the death of the pedestrian because they have nothing to do with
it. Only Jonathan will incur liability for the death of the pedestrian, aside from the robbery,
because he alone brought about such death. Although the death caused was not intentional
but accidental, it shall be a component of the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide because it was committed in the course of the commission of the robbery.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Jervis, Marlon and Jonathan committed robbery with homicide, because there was
conspiracy among them to commit the robbery and the death of the pedestrian was caused
on the occasion of the robbery. Even though the death was accidental, it is enough that such
death was caused by any of the robbers' felonious act and on the occasion of the
commission of the robbery (People v. Guiapar, 129 SCRA. 539 [1984]).

Criminal law – Felonies – Conspiracy and proposal

Dang was a beauty queen in a university. Job, a rich classmate, was so
enamored with her that he persistently wooed and pursued her. Dang, being in
love with another man, rejected him. This angered Job. Sometime in September
2003, while Dang and her sister Lyn were on their way home, Job and his minor
friend Nonoy grabbed them and pushed them inside a white van. They brought
them in an abandoned warehouse where they forced them to dance naked.
Thereafter, they brought them to a hill in a nearby barangay where they took turns

Page 60 of 338
raping them. After satisfying their lust, Job ordered Nonoy to push Dang down a
ravine, resulting in her death. Lyn ran away but Job and Nonoy chased her and
pushed her inside the van. Then the duo drove away. Lyn was never seen again.

1. What crime or crimes were committed by Job and Nonoy? 2.5% (2006 Bar
Question)
2. What penalties should be imposed on them? 2.5% (2006 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Because of obvious conspiracy, each of the culprits should be punished not only for
the rape he committed but also for the rape committed by the other; hence, for as many
counts of rape committed by him plus those committed by the other culprit against each of
the victims.

Although the penalty for the crime of rape with homicide was death at the time the
accused committed them, and the law (Rep. Act No. 9346) prohibiting the imposition of the
death penalty took effect only this year (2006), said new law should be given retroactive
effect because it is favorable to the culprits who are not habitual delinquents and there
being no provision of law to the contrary. Hence, reclusion perpetua for each count of rape
with homicide. The accessory penalty under Art. 40 of the Revised Penal Code will not
follow because RA 9346, Sec. 2 does not so provide: it is the accessory penalty for reclusion
perpetua that shall now adhere to the principal penalty.

Criminal law – Felonies – Conspiracy and proposal

Ricky was reviewing for the bar exam when the commander of a vigilante
group came to him and showed him a list of five policemen to be liquidated by them
for graft and corruption. He was further asked if any of them is innocent. After going
over the list, Ricky pointed to two of the policemen as honest. Later, the vigilante
group liquidated the three other policemen in the list. The commander of the
vigilante group reported the liquidation to Ricky. Is Ricky criminally liable? Explain.
(7%) (2008 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, Ricky is not criminally liable because he has not done any overt act that the law
punishes as a crime. He did not conspire with the vigilante group. Although his act of
pointing out two policemen as honest men may imply his acquiescence to the vigilante's
conclusion that the others were corrupt and deserved to be killed, mere acquiescence to a
crime, absent any criminal participation, does not make one a co-conspirator.

Criminal law – Felonies – Conspiracy and proposal

Page 61 of 338
Eman, a vagrant, found a bag containing identification cards and a diamond ring
along Roxas Blvd.
Knowing that it was not his, he went to the nearest police station to seek help
in finding the owner of the bag. At the precinct P01 Melvin attended to him. In the
investigation Eman proposed to P01 Melvin, "in case you don't find the owner let's
just pawn the ring and split the proceeds fifty-fifty (50/50)." P01 Melvin then went
straight to the pawnshop and pawned the ring for P50,000. Eman never saw P01
Melvin again.

a) What is the criminal liability of Eman, if any? Explain. (3%) (2008 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a) Eman has no criminal liability, unless he received part of the proceeds of the
pawned ring. The facts do not state that Eman received any part of the P50,000.00
proceeds of the ring pledged. The facts state that after turning over the bag to P01 Melvin,
Eman never saw P01 Melvin again. The proposal Eman made to P01 Melvin is not a crime
as to bring about criminal liability.

Multiple offenders (differences, rules, effects)

Criminal law – Multiple offenders – Recidivism and reiteracion
Andres was earlier convicted of adultery and served an indeterminate penalty, the
maximum term of which did not exceed two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of
prision correctional. A month after his release from prison, he was charge with the crime of
serious physical injuries. Later, Andres was again charged with homicide punishable by re-
clusion temporal. He entered a plea of guilty in the homicide case. May the aggravating
circumstances of recidivism and/or habituality (reiteracion) be appreciated against Andres?
Explain. (1989 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The aggravating circumstance of recidivism cannot be taken against Andres. For this
circumstance to exist, it is necessary that —
1. The offender is on trial for an offense;
2. He was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime;
3. Both the first and second offenses are embraced in the same title of the Code; and
4. The offender is convicted of the new offense (Art. 14, par. 9 RPC).
At the time of his trial for homicide, Andres was not previously convicted by final
judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code. Adultery,

Page 62 of 338
which is his only previous conviction by final judgment is a crime against chastity, and
therefore is not embraced in the same title of the Code as homicide, which is a crime
against person.
As for the charge of serious physical injuries, although serious physical is also a crime
against person, it appears that he had not as yet been conviced, much less by final
judgment, of the charge at the time that he was facing trial for homicide.
The aggravating circumstance of habitually or reiteracion can likewise not be taken
against Andres because in order that this circumstance can exist, it is necessary that he
was facing trial for homicide.
The aggravating circumstance of habituality or reiteracion can likewise not be taken
against Andres because in order for this circumstance to exist, it is necessary that—
1. The accused is on trial for an offense;
2. He previously served sentence for another offense to which the law attaches an
equal or greater penalty, or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty
than that for the new offense;
3. He is convicted of the new offense.
In the case at bar, Andres had previously served sentence only for one offense that of
adultery, but the penalty for adultery (prison correctional) is lighter than then penalty for
homicide (reclusion-temporal). Consequently, there is no aggravating circumstance of
habituality or reiteracion.

Recidivism

Criminal law – Multiple offenders- Recidivism and quasi-recidivism
Distinguish between recidivism and quasi-recidivism. (2%) (1998 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

In recidivism -
a) The convictions of the offender are for crimes embraced in the same Title of the
Revised Penal Code; and
b) This circumstance is generic aggravating and therefore can be offset by an ordinary
mitigating circumstance.

Whereas in quasi-recidivism -
a) The convictions are not for crimes embraced in the same Title of the Revised Penal
Code, provided that it is a felony that was committed by the offender before serving
sentence by final judgment for another crime or while serving sentence for another crime;
and
b) This circumstance is a special aggravating circumstance which cannot be offset by

Page 63 of 338
any mitigating circumstance.

Criminal law – Multiple offenders – recidivism; habitual delinquency

Juan de Castro already had three (3) previous convictions by final judgment for
theft when he was found guilty of Robbery with Homicide. In the last case, the trial
judge considered against the accused both recidivism and habitual delinquency. The
accused appealed and contended that in his last conviction, the trial court cannot
consider against him a finding of recidivism and, again, of habitual delinquency. Is
the appeal meritorious? Explain. (5%) (2001 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the appeal is not meritorious. Recidivism and habitual delinquency are correctly
considered in this case because the basis of recidivism is different from that of habitual
delinquency.
Juan is a recidivist because he had been previously convicted by final judgment for
theft and again found guilty for Robbery with Homicide, which are both crimes against
property, embraced under the same Title (Title Ten, Book Two) of the Revised Penal Code.
The implication is that he is specializing in the commission of crimes against property,
hence aggravating in the conviction for Robbery with Homicide.

Habitual delinquency, which brings about an additional penalty when an offender is convicted a
third time or more for specified crimes, is correctly considered because Juan had already three (3)
previous convictions by final judgment for theft and again convicted for Robbery With Homicide.
And the crimes specified as basis for habitual delinquency includes, inter alia, theft and robbery.

Criminal law – Multiple offenders - Recidivist

TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the
statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences. (5%)
(2009 Bar Question)

[a] Amado, convicted of rape but granted an absolute pardon by the President,
and one year thereafter, convicted of homicide, is a recidivist.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

True. Rape is now a crime against persons and, like the crime of homicide, is
embraced in the same Title of the Revised Penal Code under which Amado had been
previously convicted by final judgment. The absolute pardon granted him for rape, only
excused him from serving the sentence for rape but did not erase the effects of the
conviction therefore unless expressly remitted by the pardon.

Page 64 of 338
Habituality (Reiteracion)
Quasi-Recidivism

Criminal law – Felonies – Quasi recidivism; when considered as aggravating
circumstance
During a fiesta, Simeon Marco, brandishing a knife, asked Constancio whether
he was the one who slapped his (Simeon's) son the year previous. Vicente (father of
Constancio) shouted at Constancio and his other son, Bien- venido, telling them to
run away. When Bienvenido passed by Rafael Marco (brother of Simeon), Rafael
stabbed him. Bienvenido parried the blow but fell down, his feet entangled with
some vines. While Bienvenido was lying on the ground, Rafael continued to stab him,
inflicting slight injuries on the shoulder of Bienvenido, after which Rafael stood up.
At that moment, Dulcisimo Beltran (no relation to the Marco brothers), came out of
nowhere and, together with Simeon, stabbed Bienvenido. Both of them inflicted fatal
wounds resulting in the death of the victim.
b. Supposing Dulcisimo is a convict out on parole, will the aggravating circumstances of
quasi-recidivism be appreciated against him? (1991 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a. No, because quasi-recidivism under Art. 160, RPC occurs when the accused commits a felony
while serving or about to serve sentence (or if he escapes from prison). A parolee who
commits a felony cannot be a quasi-recidivist.

Habitual Delinquency

Criminal law – Felonies – Habitual delinquency
A was charged with homicide. During the trial, uncontradicted evidence consisting of
medical certificates were presented showing that the accused had sustained injuries in ten
(10) previous occasions while engaged in fisticuffs with different persons. He was also
confined at the National Mental Hospital for mental ailment diagnosed as “homicidal and
suicidal instincts.” During his second confinement thereat, he escaped. Upon conviction, the
prosecutor objected to the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law contending that
the accused is a habitual delinquent and an escapee from the National Mental Hospital.

If you are the Judge, rule on the objection. (1991 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Page 65 of 338
The objection should be overruled. A could not be legally considered a habitual delinquent.
Habitual delinquency cannot be validly invoked without being alleged in the Information and proven
during the trial. Besides there is no indication that A was convicted within ten (10) years from
last conviction or release, three times or oftener of the crimes of robbery, theft, estafa,
physical injuries or falsification.

Continuing crime
Criminal law – Felonies – Continuing crimes

Angelo devised a Ponzi Scheme in which 500 persons were deceived into
investing their money upon a promise of a capital return of 25%, computed monthly,
and guaranteed by post-dated checks. During the first two months following the
investment, the investors received their profits, but thereafter, Angelo vanished.

Angelo was charged with 500 counts of estafa and 2,000 counts of violation of
Batas Pambansa (BP) 22. In his motion to quash, Angelo contends that he committed
a continued crime, or delito continuado, hence, he committed only one count of
estafa and one count of violation of BP 22.

[a] What is delito continuado? (1%) (2009 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Delito continuado refers to a crime constituted by several overt acts committed by
the offender in one place, at about the same time, and all such overt acts violate one and the
same provision of penal law, thus demonstrating that all such acts are the product of a
single indivisible criminal resolution. Hence, all said acts are considered as one crime only.

[b] Is Angelo's contention tenable? Explain. (4%) (2009 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. His contention is not tenable. He committed as many counts of estafa against the
500 victims and 2000 counts of violation of BP 22, since each swindling is achieved through
distinct fraudulent machinations contrived at different times or dates, and in different
amounts. Moreover, his drawing separate checks payable to each payee is a separate
criminal resolution, as they must be of different amounts and of different dates. He acted
with separate fraudulent intent against each swindling victim and had distinct criminal
intent in drawing and issuing each check. It cannot be maintained that his acts are the
product of one criminal resolution only.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Page 66 of 338
Yes. Angelo committed only one count of estafa and one count of violation of BP 22
because his acts were propelled by one and the same intent to defraud (Santiago v.
Garchitorena, 228 SCRA 214 [1993]).

Complex crimes and special complex crimes

Criminal law – Felonies - Complex crime; requirement of two or more grave or
less grave felonies as a result of single act
Rodolfo, a policeman, was cleaning his service pistol inside his house when it fell from
his hand and fired. The bullet hit a neighbor on the stomach and a second neighbor on the
leg. The injuries sustained by the two neighbors required thirty-five (35) days and nine (9)
days of medical attendance, respectively. The investigating fiscal later filed an information
for frustrated homicide and slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence against
Rodolfo. Is the charge correct? Explain. (1989 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The charge is not correct.
One single act of accidental shooting cannot give rise to two felonies. One of which is intentional and
the other negligent. Frustrated homicide presupposes intent to kill. The facts do not show any intent
to kill on the part of Rodolfo. At most, he was careless, and therefore only negligent.

Criminal law – Felonies – Complex crimes; when proper
Jose purchased roofing materials worth P20,000.00 from PY & Sons
Construction Company owned by Pedro, and paid the latter a check in the said
amount. The following day, Pedro deposited the check, but it was returned dis-
honored because it was drawn against a closed account. Notwithstanding written
demands, Jose failed to make good said check. Atty. Saavedra, counsel for Pedro,
filed two complaints against Jose with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal, one for
estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code and another for violation of Batas
Pambansa Big. 22. Atty. San Pascual, counsel for Jose, claimed that if his client was at
all liable, he could only be liable for violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22 and not for
estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code because one precludes the other
and because Batas Pambansa Big. 22 is more favorable to the accused as it carries a
lighter penalty. The investigating fiscal, on his resolution, stated that only one crime
was committed, namely, the complex crime of estafa under Article 315 of the
Revised Penal Code and violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22 because the single act of
issuing the bouncing check constitutes two offenses, one under Article 315 of the
Revised Penal Code and another under Batas Pambansa Big. 22.

Page 67 of 338
If you were the Provincial Fiscal asked to review the matter, how would you
resolve it? (1987 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The resolution of the investigating fiscal is erroneous. There is no complex crime of
estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code and the violation of BP 22. A complex
crime refers only to felonies which are punished in the Revised Penal Code. Batas 22 which
punishes the offense of issuing a worthless check is a special law. The contention of Atty.
San Pascuai, counsel of Jose that his client should be liable only for Batas 22 and for estafa
under the Revised Penal Code because one precludes the other and because Batas 22 is
more favorable to the accused as it carries a lighter penalty cannot also be sustained. Batas
22 specifically provides that liability under said act is without prejudice to any liability for
estafa under the Revised Penal Code. The check issued by Jose in payment of roofing
materials from PY and Sons was worthless. Said bouncing check having been issued in
payment of a simultaneous obligation constitutes estafa under the Revised Penal Code and
also the offense punished under Batas 22. There is no identity of offenses. Damage is not an
element of the offense punished in Batas 22 whereas in estafa damage is an element. Estafa
is an act mala in se in which requires intent as an element while the offense punished in
Batas 22 is an act mala prohibita where intent is not an element.

Criminal law – Felonies –Complex crimes
1. A, actuated by malice and with the use of a fully automatic M-14 sub-machine
gun, shot a group of persons who were seated in a cockpit with one burst of
successive, continuous, automatic fire. Four (4) persons were killed thereby,
each having hit by different bullets coming from the sub-machine gun of A.
Four (4) cases of murder were filed against A. The trial court ruled that there
was only one crime committed by A for the reason that, since A performed
only one act, he having pressed the trigger of his gun only once, the crime
committed was murder. Consequently, the trial judge sentenced A to just one
penalty of reclusion perpetua. Was the decision of the trial judge correct?
Explain. (4%) (1999 Bar Question)

2. What constitutes a complex crime? How many crimes maybe involved in a
complex crime? What is the penalty therefor? (4%) (1999 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1. The decision of the trial judge is not correct. When the offender made use of an
automatic firearm, the acts committed are determined by the number of bullets
discharged inasmuch as the firearm being automatic, the offender need only press
the trigger once and it would fire continually. For each death caused by a distinct
and separate bullet, the accused incurs distinct criminal liability. Hence, it is not the

Page 68 of 338
act of pressing the trigger which should be considered as producing the several
felonies, but the number of bullets which actually produced them.
2. A complex crime is constituted when a single act caused two or more grave or less
grave felonies or when an offense is committed as a necessary means to commit
another offense (Art. 48, RPC).
At least two (2) crimes are involved in a complex crime; either two or more grave or
less grave felonies resulted from a single act, or an offense is committed as a necessary
means for committing another.
The penalty for the more serious crime shall be imposed and in its maximum period.
(Art. 48, RPC)

Criminal law – Felonies - Composite crime of rape with homicide; theft
King went to the house of Laura who was alone. Laura offered him a drink and
after consuming three bottles of beer. King made advances to her and with force and
violence, ravished her. Then King killed Laura and took her jewelry.
Doming, King's adopted brother, learned about the incident. He went to Laura's
house, hid her body, cleaned everything and washed the bloodstains inside the
room.
Later, King gave Jose, his legitimate brother, one piece of jewelry belonging to
Laura. Jose knew that the jewelry was taken from Laura but nonetheless he sold it
for P2.000.
What crime or crimes did King, Doming and Jose commit? Discuss their criminal
liabilities. (10%](1998 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
King committed the composite crime of Rape with homicide as a single indivisible
offense, not a complex crime, and Theft. The taking of Laura's jewelry when she is already
dead is only theft.

Doming's acts, having been done with knowledge of the commission of the crime and
obviously to conceal the body of the crime to prevent its discovery, makes him an
accessory to the crime of rape with homicide under Art. 19, par. 2 of the Rev. Penal Code,
but he is exempt from criminal liability therefor under Article 20 of the Code, being an
adopted brother of the principal.
Jose incurs criminal liability either as an accessory to the crime of theft committed by
King, or as fence. Although he is a legitimate brother of King, the exemption under Article
20 does not include the participation he did, because he profited from the effects of such
theft by selling the jewelry knowing that the same was taken from Laura. Or Jose may be
prosecuted for fencing under the Anti-Fencing Law of 1979 (PD No. 1612) since the

Page 69 of 338
jewelry was the proceeds of theft and with intent to gain, he received it from King and sold
it.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
King committed two distinct crimes. Rape and Theft. The killing of Laura will only be
an aggravating circumstance raising the penalty to death. The theft is a separate crime
since it was committed after the rape.
Doming, although an accessory, is exempt from criminal liability for being an adopted
brother of the accused pursuant to Article 20 of the Revised Penal Code.
Jose may be held liable for fencing under P.D. No. 1612, or as accessory to the theft
committed by King, notwithstanding that he is a brother of King because he profited or
assisted Jose to profit from the effect of the crime.

Criminal law – Felonies - Composite crime of robbery with rape
Two young men, A and B, conspired to rob a residential house of things of value.
They succeeded in the commission of their original plan to simply rob. A, however,
was sexually aroused when he saw the lady owner of the house and so, raped her.
The lady victim testified that B did not in any way participate in the rape but B
watched the happening from a window and did nothing to stop the rape.
Is B as criminally liable as A for robbery with rape? Explain. (4%) (1999 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, B is as criminally liable as A for the composite crime of robbery with rape
under Art. 294 (1). Although the conspiracy of A and B was only to rob, B was present
when the rape was being committed which gave rise to a composite crime, a single
indivisible offense of robbery with rape. B would not have been liable had he endeavored
to prevent the commission of the rape. But since he did not when he could have done so, he
in effect acquiesced with the rape as a component of the robbery and so he is also liable for
robbery with rape.

Criminal law – Felonies - Composite crime of robbery with homicide
During the robbery in a dwelling house, one of the culprits happened to fire his
gun upward in the ceiling without meaning to kill anyone. The owner of the house
who was hiding thereat was hit and killed as a result.
The defense theorized that the killing was a mere accident and was not
perpetrated in connection with, or for purposes of, the robbery.

Page 70 of 338
Will you sustain the defense? Why? (4%) (1999 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, I will not sustain the defense. The act being felonious and the proximate cause of the
victim's death, the offender is liable therefor although it may not be intended or different from what
he intended.

The offender shall be prosecuted for the composite crime of robbery with homicide, whether
the killing was intentional or accidental, as long as the killing was on occasion of the robbery

Criminal law – Felonies – Special complex crime of robbery with
homicide
A learned two days ago that B had received dollar bills amounting to $10,000
from his daughter working in the United States. With the intention of robbing B of
those dollars, A entered B’s house at midnight, armed with a knife which he used to
gain entry, and began quietly searching the drawers, shelves, and other likely
receptacles of the cash. While doing that, B awoke, rushed out from the bedroom,
and grappled with A for the possession of the knife which A was then holding. After
stabbing B to death, A turned over B’s pillow and found the latter’s wallet
underneath the pillow, which was bulging with the dollar bills he was looking for A
took the bills and left the house.' What crime or crimes were committed? (2003 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime committed is robbery with homicide, a composite crime. This is so
because A’s primordial criminal intent is to commit a robbery and in the course of the
robbery, the killing of B took place. Both the robbery and the killing were consummated,
thus giving rise to the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The primary
criminal intent being to commit a robbery, any killing on the “occasion” of the robbery,
though not by reason thereof, is considered a component of the crime of robbery with
homicide as a single indivisible offense.

Criminal law – Felonies – Complex crime; Special complex crime;
complex crime of coup d’etat with rebellion; complex crime of coup
d'etat with sedition

(a) Distinguish between an ordinary complex crime and a special complex
crime as to their concepts and as to the imposition of penalties. (2003 Bar
Question)

Page 71 of 338
(b) Can there be a complex crime of coup d’etat with rebellion? (2003 Bar
Question)
(c) Can there be a complex crime of coup d'etat with sedition? (2003 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) In concept-
An ordinary complex crime is made up of two or more crimes being punished in distinct
provisions of the Revised Penal Code but alleged in one Information either because they
were brought about by a single felonious act or because one offense is a necessary means
for committing the other offense or offenses. They are alleged in one Information so that
only one penalty shall be imposed.
A special complex crime, on the other hand, is made up of two or more crimes which are
considered only as components of a single indivisible offense being punished in one
provision of the Revised Penal Code.
As to penalties -
In ordinary complex crime, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed and in
its maximum period.
In special complex crime, only one penalty is specifically prescribed for all the component
crimes which are regarded as one indivisible offense. The component crimes are not
regarded as distinct crimes and so the penalty for the most serious crime is not the penalty
to be imposed nor in its maximum period. It is the penalty specifically provided for the
special complex crime that shall be applied according to the rules on imposition of the
penalty.
(b) Yes, if there was conspiracy between the offender/ offenders committing the coup
d’etat and the offenders committing the rebellion. By conspiracy, the crime of one would be
the crime of the other and vice versa. This is possible because the offender in coup d'etat
may be any person or persons belonging to the military or the national police or a public
officer, whereas rebellion does not so require. Moreover, the crime of coup d’etat may be
committed singly, whereas rebellion requires a public uprising and taking up arms to
overthrow the duly constituted government. Since the two crimes are essentially different
and punished with distinct penalties, there is no legal impediment to the application of Art.
48 of the Revised Penal Code.
(c) Yes, coup d’etat can be complexed with sedition because the two crimes are essentially
different and distinctly punished under the Revised Penal Code. Sedition may not be
directed against the Government or non-political in objective, whereas coup d’etat is
always political in objective as it is directed against the Government and led by persons or
public officer holding public office belonging to the military or national police. Art. 48 of the
Code may apply under the conditions therein provided.

Page 72 of 338
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The crime of coup d’etat cannot be complexed with the crime of rebellion because
both crimes are directed against the Government or for political purposes, although the
principal offenders are different. The essence may be the same and thus constitute only one
crime. In this situation, the two crimes are not distinct and therefore, may not be proper to
apply Article 48 of the Code.

Criminal law – Felonies - Compound and complex crimes

Distinguish clearly but briefly: (10%) (2004 Bar Question)

Between compound and complex crimes as concepts in the Penal Code.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Compound crimes result when the offender committed only a single felonious act
from which two or more crimes resulted. This is provided for in modified form in the first
part of Article 48, Revised Penal Code, limiting the resulting crimes to only grave and/or
less grave felonies. Hence, light felonies are excluded even though resulting from the same
single act.

Complex crimes result when the offender has to commit an offense as a necessary
means for committing another offense. Only one information shall be filed and if proven,
the penalty for the more serious crime shall be imposed

Criminal law – Felonies - Complex crime of estafa thru falsification of a
commercial document

(2) DD purchased a television set for P50,000.00 with the use of a
counterfeit credit card. The owner of the establishment had no inkling that the
credit card used by DD was counterfeit.

What crime or crimes did DD commit? Explain. (5%) (2005 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(2) DD committed a complex crime of estafa thru falsification of a commercial
document. As a user of a false or fake credit card, a commercial document, DD is presumed

Page 73 of 338
to have falsified the same; Hence he does not only commit the crime of using a false
document but also the crime of falsification. Since he used such false or fake credit card to
defraud the owner of the store from whom he purchased the television set, the crime of
swindling or estafa was perpetrated thru the falsification of said commercial document.
He, therefore, committed the complex crime of estafa thru falsification of a commercial
document.

Criminal law – Felonies – Complex crime; Special complex crime; Delito
continuado

(1.) Distinguish the following from each other:

a. Complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code;

b. Special complex crime; and
c. Delito continuado. (3%) (2005 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1. a) In a complex crime, the component crimes are defined and penalized under
separate and distinct Articles of the Revised Penal Code but are allowed to be
alleged in one Information as an exception to Sec. 13, Rule 110 of the Rules of
Criminal Procedure, because they are committed under the circumstances provided
in Article 48 of same Code, i.e., two or more grave or less grave felonies resulted
from a single act, or one offense was a necessary means for committing the other
offense.
b. In a special complex crime, also known as composite crime, the component crimes
constitute a single indivisible offense and are thus penalized as one crime under one
Article of the Revised Penal Code, such as robbery with homicide under Art. 294 of
the Code.
c. Delito continuado, also known as continued crime, is constituted by a series of overt
acts committed by the offender in one place a penal law, and therefore regarded as
impelled by a single, indivisible criminal resolution; hence, punished as one crime
offense

Criminal law – Felonies – Complex crime of multiple murder

Roger, the leader of a crime syndicate in Malate, Manila, demanded the
payment by Antonio, the owner of a motel in that area, of P10,000 a month as

Page 74 of 338
'protection money". With the monthly payments, Roger assured, the syndicate would
provide protection to Antonio, his business, and his employees. Should Antonio
refuse, Roger warned, the motel owner would either be killed or his establishment
destroyed. Antonio refused to pay the protection money. Days later, at around 3:00
in the morning, Mauro, a member of the criminal syndicate, arrived at Antonio's
home and hurled a grenade into an open window of the bedroom where Antonio, his
wife and their three year-old daughter were sleeping. All three of them were killed
instantly when the grenade exploded.

State, with reasons, the crime or crimes that had been committed as well as
the aggravating circumstances, if any, attendant thereto. (7%) (2008 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

For killing the businessman, his wife and three year-old daughter, the complex crime of
multiple murder was committed by Mauro, a member of the same crime syndicate.

Criminal law – Complex crimes - Frustrated robbery, with homicide and
damage to property

While Carlos was approaching his car, he saw it being driven away by Paolo, a
thief. Carlos tried to stop Paolo by shouting at him, but Paolo ignored him. To
prevent his car from being carnapped, Carlos drew his gun, aimed at the rear wheel
of the car and fired. The shot blew the tire which caused the car to veer out of control
and collide with an oncoming tricycle, killing the tricycle driver.

b) What is the criminal liability of Paolo, if any? Explain. (4%) (2008 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

b) Paolo is liable for the complex crime of frustrated robbery, with homicide and
damage to property (tricycle) in trying to rob the car. This resulted in the shooting of the
car by Carlos and the subsequent collision destroying the tricycle and the death of the
driver.

Criminal law – Felonies - Special complex crime of kidnapping for
ransom with homicide; the special complex crime of serious illegal
detention with homicide

Paz Masipag worked as a housemaid and yaya of the one-week old son of the

Page 75 of 338
spouses Martin and Pops Kuripot. When Paz learned that her 70 year-old mother
was seriously ill, she asked Martin for a cash advance of PI,000.00 but Martin
refused. One morning, Paz gagged the mouth of Martin's son with stockings; placed
the child in a box; sealed it with masking tape and placed the box in the attic. Later
in the afternoon, she demanded P5.000.00 as ransom for the release of his son.
Martin did not pay the ransom. Subsequently, Paz disappeared.

After a couple of days, Martin discovered the box in the attic with his child
already dead. According to the autopsy report, the child died of asphyxiation barely
three minutes after the box was sealed.

What crime or crimes did Paz commit? Explain. (5%) (2005 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Paz committed a special complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with homicide
and the penalty shall be only one death penalty.

When any individual, in any manner, unlawfully deprives another of his liberty,
the crime is designated as kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Article 267,
Revised Penal Code. The penalty shall be death where the crime was committed for the
purpose of extorting ransom. It is not necessary that the ransom be obtained by the
offender: it is enough that the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention be
committed for the purpose of demanding ransom.

Under the same Article of the Code, the death penalty is also prescribed if the
victim of the kidnapping dies as a result of the detention. However, since Paz committed
only one felony, a special complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with homicide, she
should be sentenced to only one death penalty.

SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Paz committed the crime of serious illegal detention because the victim is a minor
and because the victim died as a consequence of the detention, the special complex crime
of serious illegal detention with homicide under the last paragraph of Article 267 of the
Revised Penal Code is committed.

Criminal law – Felonies – Special complex crime of rape through sexual
assault with homicide

On July 1, 2004, Jet Matulis, a pedophile, gave P1,000.00 to Sherly, an orphan
and a prostitute and brought her to a motel. He inserted a rusty and oversized
vibrator into her vagina with such force that she bled profusely. Jet panicked and
fled. Sherly was brought to the hospital and died a few days later because of shock

Page 76 of 338
caused by hemorrhage.
If Sherly were a minor when she died, would your answer be the same?
Explain. (5%) (2005 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

If Sherly were a minor when she died, the crimes of homicide and child abuse in
violation of Rep. Act 7610 (Special Protection of Children against abuse, exploitation,
discrimination and for other purposes), are committed by Jet Matulis, provided Sherly is
not less than 12 years old. If Sherly was less than 12 years old then, the crime committed
by Matulis is rape (through sexual assault) with Homicide, a special complex crime under
Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code.

Criminal law – Felonies - Special complex crime of rape with homicide

Dang was a beauty queen in a university. Job, a rich classmate, was so
enamored with her that he persistently wooed and pursued her. Dang, being in
love with another man, rejected him. This angered Job. Sometime in September
2003, while Dang and her sister Lyn were on their way home, Job and his minor
friend Nonoy grabbed them and pushed them inside a white van. They brought
them in an abandoned warehouse where they forced them to dance naked.
Thereafter, they brought them to a hill in a nearby barangay where they took turns
raping them. After satisfying their lust, Job ordered Nonoy to push Dang down a
ravine, resulting in her death. Lyn ran away but Job and Nonoy chased her and
pushed her inside the van. Then the duo drove away. Lyn was never seen again.

1. What crime or crimes were committed by Job and Nonoy? 2.5% (2006 Bar
Question)
2. What penalties should be imposed on them? 2.5% (2006 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Job and Nonoy each committed two (2) counts of the special complex crime of rape
with homicide under Art. 266-B for the rapes respectively committed on Dang and on Lyn.
Their felonious acts of grabbing and pushing the victims inside their van and later forcing
them to dance naked may only be appreciated as part of the violence and lewd desires
attending the rape, and are therefore absorbed by the rape.

Although, there is no indication that the same culprits killed Lyn who was never seen
again, it is reasonable to assume from what the culprits did to Dang, and from the acts of
violence they employed on Lyn, that they are answerable also for the presumed death of
Lyn whom the culprits took with them by force and was never seen again. Hence, the rape
committed against her is attended by homicide giving rise to the special complex crime of
rape with homicide also. It would be different if Lyn was not subjected to physical violence.
(R.A. 7659)

Page 77 of 338
Although the penalty for the crime of rape with homicide was death at the time the
accused committed them, and the law (Rep. Act No. 9346) prohibiting the imposition of the
death penalty took effect only this year (2006), said new law should be given retroactive
effect because it is favorable to the culprits who are not habitual delinquents and there
being no provision of law to the contrary. Hence, reclusion perpetua for each count of
rape with homicide. The accessory penalty under Art. 40 of the Revised Penal Code will not
follow because RA 9346

Criminal law – Felonies -Special complex crime of kidnapping for
ransom with homicide

Jaime, Andy and Jimmy, laborers in the noodles in the noodles factory of Luke
Tan, agreed to kill him due to his arrogance and miserliness. One afternoon, they
seized him and loaded him in a taxi driven by Mario. They told Mario they will only
teach Luke a lesson in Christian humility. Mario drove them to-a fishpond in Navotas
where Luke was entrusted to Emil and Louie, the fishpond caretakers, asking them
to hide Luke in their shack because he was running from the NBI. The trio then left
in Mario’s car for Manila where they called up Luke’s family and threatened them to
kill Luke unless they give a ransom within 24 hours. Unknown to them, because of a
leak, the kidnapping was announced over the radio and TV. Emil and Louie heard
the broadcast and panicked, especially when the announcer stated that there is a
shoot-to-kill order for the kidnappers. Emil and Louie took Luke to the seashore of
Dagat-dagatan where they smashed his head with a shovel and buried him in the
sand. However, they were seen by a barangay kagawad who arrested them and
brought them to the police station. Upon interrogation they confessed and pointed
to Jaime, Andy, Jimmy and Mario as those responsible for the kidnapping. Later, the
4 were arrested and charged.
What crime or crimes did the 6 suspects commit? 5% (2006 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Jaime, Andy and Jimmy committed the special complex crime of kidnapping for
ransom with homicide because their purpose was to kill Luke when they seized him.
Mario, the taxi driver, does not incur criminal liability for the acts of Jaime, Andy and
Jimmy because he had no participation therein.
Emil and Louie should be liable only for murder for killing Luke in a defenseless
position, but not for keeping Luke since it was not their intention to detain him.

Criminal law – Felonies - Complex crime of attempted murder with homicide
Despite the massive advertising campaign in media against firecrackers and

Page 78 of 338
gun-firing during the New Year's celebrations. Jonas and Jaja bought ten boxes of
super lolo and pla-pla in Bocaue, Bulacan. Before midnight of December 31,1999,
Jonas and Jaja started their celebration by having a drinking spree at Jona's place by
exploding their high-powered firecrackers in their neighborhood. In the course of
their conversation, Jonas confided to Jaja that he has been keeping a long-time
grudge against his neighbor Jepoy in view of the tatter's refusal to lend him some
money. While under the influence of liquor, Jonas started throwing lighted super
lolos inside Jepoy's fence to irritate him and the same exploded inside the tatter's
yard. Upon knowing that the throwing of the super lolo was deliberate, Jepoy
became furious and sternly warned Jonas to stop his malicious act or he would get
what he wanted. A heated argument between Jonas and Jepoy ensued but Jaja tried
to calm down his friend. At midnight, Jonas convinced Jaja to lend him his .45 caliber
pistol so that he could use it to knock down Jepoy and to end his arrogance. Jonas
thought that after all, explosions were everywhere and nobody would know who
shot Jepoy. After Jaja lent his firearm to Jonas, the latter again started started
throwing lighted super lolos and pla-plas at Jepoy’s yard in order to provoke him so
that he would come out of his house. When Jepoy came out, Jonas immediately shot
him with Jaja’s .45 caliber gun but missed his target. Instead, the bullet hit Jepoy's
five year old son who was following behind him, killing the boy instantaneously.
a) What crime or crimes can Jonas and Jaja be charged with? Explain. (2%) (2000
Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Jonas and Jaja, can be charged with the complex crime of attempted murder with homicide
because a single act caused a less grave and a grave felony (Art. 48, RPC).

Attempted murder is a less grave felony, while consummated homicide is a grave felony: both
are punishable by afflictive penalties.

Criminal law – Felonies – Special complex crime of rape with homicide

Wenceslao and Loretta were staying in the same boarding house, occupying
different rooms. One late evening, when everyone in the house was asleep,
Wenceslao entered Loretta's room with the use of a picklock. Then, with force and
violence, Wenceslao ravished Loretta. After he had satisfied his lust, Wenceslao
stabbed Loretta to death and, before leaving the room, took her jewelry.

[a] What crime or crimes, if any, did Wenceslao commit? Explain. (4%) (2009
Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Page 79 of 338
Wenceslao committed the following crimes: (1) the special complex crime of rape
with homicide (2) theft and (3) unlawful possession of picklocks and similar tools under
Art. 304, RPC. His act of having carnal knowledge of Loretta against her will and with the
use of force and violence constituted rape, plus the killing of Loretta by reason or on the
occasion of the rape, gave rise to the special complex crime of rape with homicide. Since the
taking of the jewelry was an afterthought as it was done only when he was about to leave
the room and when Loretta was already dead, the same constitutes theft. His possession
and use ofthe picklock "without lawful cause" is by itself punishable under Art. 304, RPC.

[c] Would your answer to [a] be the same if, despite the serious stab wounds
she sustained, Loretta survived? Explain. (3%) (2009 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the answer will be different. In that case, the crimes committed would be four
separate crimes of (1) rape (2) frustrated homicide or 'murder (3) theft and (4) unlawful
possession and use of picklocks under Art. 304, RPC. The special complex crime of rape
with homicide is constituted only when both the rape and the killing are consummated;
when one or both of them are not consummated, they are to be charged and punished
separately. In any event, the possession of the picklock "without lawful cause", more so its
use in an unlawful entry is punished as a crime by itself.

Criminal law – Complex crimes - Malversation through falsification

Roger and Jessie, Municipal Mayor and Treasurer, respectively, of San Rafael,
Leyte, caused the disbursement of public funds allocated for their local development
programs for 2008. Records show that the amount of P2-million was purportedly
used as financial assistance for a rice production livelihood project. Upon
investigation, however, it was found that Roger and Jessie falsified the disbursement
vouchers and supporting documents in order to make it appear that qualified
recipients who, in fact, are non-existent individuals, received the money.

Roger and Jessie are charged with malversation through falsification. Discuss
the propriety of the charge filed against Roger and Jessie. Explain. (4%) (2009 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The charge of malversation through falsification is not correct because the
falsifications of several documents were not necessary means to obtain the money that
were malversed. The falsifications were committed to cover up or hide the malversation
and therefore, should be separately treated from malversation. The given facts state that
Roger and Jessie falsified disbursement vouchers and supporting documents "in order to

Page 80 of 338
make it appear" that qualified recipients received the money. Art. 48, RPC on complex
crimes is not applicable.

Criminal law – Complex crimes - Robbery with homicide; direct assault
with multiple attempted homicide

While Alfredo, Braulio, Ciriaco, and 'Domingo were robbing a bank, policemen
arrived. A firefight ensued between the bank robbers and the responding policemen,
and one of the policemen was killed.

[a] What crime or crimes, if any, had been committed? Explain. (3%) (2009
Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The crimes committed are Robbery with homicide (Art. 294(1], RPC), a single
indivisible offense, and Direct Assault with Multiple Attempted Homicide, a complex crime
(Art. 48, Art. 148 and Art. 249, RPC; People v. Gayrama, 60 Phil. 796 (1934]).
Robbery with Homicide was committed because one of the responding policemen
was killed by reason or on occasion of the robbery being committed. The complex crime of
Direct Assault with Multiple Attempted Homicide was committed in respect of the
offender's firing guns at the responding policemen who are agents of person in authority
performing their duty when fired at to frustrate such performance. (People vs. Ladjaalam,
G.R. Nos. 136149-51, Sept 19, 2000)

[b] Suppose it was Alfredo who was killed by the responding policemen, what
charges can be filed against Braulio, Ciriaco and Domingo? Explain. (2%) (2009 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The crime of which Braulio, Ciriaco and Domingo can be charged is Robbery with
Homicide (Art.294[1], RPC) because the killing resulted by reason or on the occasion, of the
robbery. It is of no moment that the person killed is one of the robbers. A killing by reason
or on the occasion of the robbery, whether deliberate or accidental, will be a component of
the crime of Robbery with Homicide, a single indivisible offense, as long as it is intimately
connected to the robbery.

[c] Suppose in the course of the robbery, before the policemen arrived, Braulio
shot and killed Alfredo following a heated disagreement on who should carry the
money bags, what would be the criminal liability of Braulio, Ciriaco and Domingo?
Explain. (2%) (2009 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Page 81 of 338
Braulio shall be liable for Robbery with homicide (Art. 294[1], RPC) for killing
Alfredo, since the killing was by reason of the robbery. Ciriaco and Domingo having
conspired only in the commission of the robbery, should incur liability only for the crime
conspired upon—the robbery, unless they were with Braulio during the killing and could
have prevented the same but they did not, in which case they shall also be liable for
Robbery with homicide.
It is of no moment that the person killed is one of the robbers and he was killed
during the robbery (People v, Barot, 89 SCRA 16 [19791).

Criminal law – Felonies - Special complex crime of Robbery with
homicide
A, B, C and D all armed, robbed a bank, and when they were about to get out of the bank,
policemen came and ordered them to surrender but they fired on the police officers who
fired back and shot it out with them.
1. Suppose a bank employee was killed and the bullet which killed him came from the
firearm of the police officers, with what crime shall you charge A, B, C and D? [3%] (1998 Bar
Question)
2. Suppose it was robber D who was killed by the policemen and the prosecutor
charged A. B and C with Robbery and Homicide. They demurred arguing that they (A, B and
C) were not the ones who killed robber D, hence, the charge should only be Robbery. How
would you resolve their argument? (2%) (1998 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. A, B. C and D should be charged with the crime of robbery with homicide
because the death of the bank employee was brought about by the acts of said offenders on
the occasion of the robbery. They shot it out with the policeman, thereby causing such
death by reason or on the occasion of a robbery; hence, the composite crime of robbery
with homicide.
2. The argument is valid, considering that a separate charge for Homicide was
filed. It would be different if the charge filed was for the composite crime of robbery with
homicide, which is a single, indivisible offense.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2. The argument raised by A. B and C is not correct because their liability is not only
for Robbery but for the special complex crime of Robbery with homicide. But the facts
stated impresses that separate crimes of Robbery “and" Homicide were charged, which is
not correct. What was committed was a single indivisible offense of Robbery with
homicide, not two crimes.

Page 82 of 338
Criminal law – Special complex crimes- Robbery with homicide

Christopher, John, Richard, and Luke are fraternity brothers. To protect
themselves from rival fraternities, they all carry guns wherever they go. One night,
after attending a party, they boarded a taxicab, held the driver at gunpoint and took
the latter's earnings.

B. What crime, if any, did the four commit if they killed the driver? Explain.
(2%) (2010 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the crime becomes robbery with homicide and all the fraternity brothers are
liable. The existence of a band shall be appreciated only as generic aggravating
circumstance. Also, if the firearms used were unlicensed, the same would only be taken as
generic aggravating circumstance as provided by the Rep. Act No. 8294 (People v. Bolinget,
G.R. Nos. 137949-52, December 11, 2003).

Criminal law – Felonies – Carnnaping; Homicide, Serious Physical
Injuries and Damage to property resulting from reckless imprudence.
Dodoy, possessing only a student driver's permit, found a parked car with the
key left in the ignition, he proceeded to drive it away, intending to sell it. Just then
Ting, the owner of the car, arrived. Failing to make Dodoy stop. Ting boarded a taxi
and pursued Dodoy, who in his haste to escape, and because of his inexperience,
violently collided with a jeepney full of passengers. The jeepney overturned and was
wrecked. One passenger was killed: the leg of the other passenger was crushed and
had to be amputated. The car of Ting was damaged to the tune of P20.000.00.
What offense or offenses may Dodoy be charged with? Discuss. (1993 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Consummated carnnaping. Homicide, Serious Physical Injuries and Damage to
property resulting from reckless imprudence.
Please take note that with respect to Espiritu Case, taking hold of the object is
enough to consummate the crime: although in the Dino case, it is still frustrated because
there is inability to dispose freely the object.

Circumstances affecting criminal liability

Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Intoxication;

Page 83 of 338
when considered as mitigating or aggravating
A was invited to a drinking spree by friends. After having had a drink too many, A
and B had a heated argument, during which A stabbed B. Asa result, B suffered
serious physical injuries. May the intoxication of A be considered aggravating or
mitigating? (5%) (2002 Bar Question)

Answer:

The intoxication of A may be prima facie considered mitigating since it was merely
incidental to the commission of the crime. It may not be considered aggravating as there is
no clear indication from the facts of the case that it was habitual or intentional on the part
of A. Aggravating circumstances are not to be presumed; they should be proved beyond
reasonable doubt

Justifying circumstances

Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Justifying
circumstances; self-defense
Pedro confronted Jose one morning near the letter's house and angrily inquired why he
let loose his carabaos which destroyed his plants. Pedro saw that Jose was aimed with a
dagger tucked on his waist and thinking that Jose would react violently. Pedro immediately
drew his revolver. Instinctively, Jose grabbed the gun from Pedro’s hand and a struggle for
possession of the gun ensued, as a result of which the gun was thrown one meter away.
Pedro jumped for the gun, and Jose unsheathed his dagger and stabbed Pedro at the base of
his neck, causing the latter to fall down. Jose ran away as he was afraid Pedro’s relatives
might kill him. He was apprehended three days later in another barrio. Fortunately, Pedro
survived after 40 days of hospitalization. The gun turned out to be without live bullets.
During the trial for frustrated homicide against Jose, Pedro testified that he drew his gun
even while he knew it had no bullets, merely to scare Jose, and he jumped for it when it was
thrown away for the same purpose. Jose pleaded self-defense. The Fiscal argued that Jose’s
act of running away is evidence of guilt and negates self-defense. He also said that, in any
event, there was no reasonable necessity of the means employed — namely, stabbing with a
dagger — because Pedro’s gun had no bullets.

Decide the case. (1987 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Jose is entitled to self-defense.
Considering the circumstance of the case, unlawful aggression, the first element of
self-defense is present. Pedro loose his carabaos which destroyed his plants and he then

Page 84 of 338
loose his carabaos whicn destroyed his plants and then immediately drew his revolver
which Jose instinctively grabbed from Pedro’s hand. In the struggle for the possession for
the revolver, it was thrown one meter away, and when Pedro jumped for the gun, Jose
unsheathed his dagger and stabbed Pedro who fell down. Jose ran away. The intimidating
attitude of Pedro when he drew his revolver constitutes imminent unlawful aggression.
Jose did not give any provocation to Pedro. Pedro was in a violent mood and in the mind of
Jose, was armed, with revolver, in hand, and what Jose did in grabbing the gun was to
prevent an aggression that is expected (People vs. Domingo CA 13 Rep. 1355). Stabbing
Pedro with a dagger was the only available means to prevent the expected aggression
considering that Jose acted by following his instinct of self-preservation. The flight of Jose
after stabbing Pedro cannot be considered as evidence of guilt because he did so as he was
afraid the relatives of Pedro might kill him.

Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Justifying
circumstances
a. In mercy killing, is the attending physician criminally liable for deliberately turning
off the life support system consequently costing the life of the patient? State reasons. (1990
Bar Question)
b. How about in an instance when in saving the life of the mother, the doctor sacrificed
the life of the unborn child? Explain your answer. (1990 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a. The attending physician is criminally liable. Euthanasia is not a justifying circumstance in
Philippine jurisdiction.

b. There is no criminal liability on the part of the doctor because his acts are justified under
Article 11(4) of the Revised Penal Code which provides that: "The following do not incur any
criminal liability: x x x 4) any person, who in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes
damage to another, provided that the following requisites are present: First: That the evil sought to
be avoided actually exists; Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it; Third.
That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it."

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
There is no criminal liability on the part of the doctor because his acts are justified under Article
11(5) of the Revised Penal Code which provides that: "The following do not incur any criminal
liability: x x x (5) Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or
office.”

Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Justifying and
mitigating circumstances

Page 85 of 338
In the middle of the night, Enyong heard the footsteps of an intruder inside their house.
Enyong picked up his rifle and saw a man, Gorio, with a pistol ransacking Enyong’s personal
effects in his study. He shot and killed Gorio.
a. Is Enyong criminally liable for killing the robber Gorio? State your reasons.
(1990 Bar Question)

b. Suppose Enyong shot Gorio while he was running away from Enyong’s house
with his television set, what is Enyong liable for? Explain your answer. (1990 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a.Enyong is not criminally liable because he was acting in defense of property rights. Under
the case of People v. Narvaez (G.R. Nos. L-33466-67. April 20, 1983, 121 SCRA 389)
defense of property need not necessarily be coupled with aggression against persons.

b. There is criminal liability this time with the mitigating circumstance of
incomplete self-defense. Under the case of People v. Narvaez, defense of
property can be availed of even when there is no assault against a person. It is
recognized as an unlawful aggression.

Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Justifying
circumstances; Aggravating circumstance of treachery; when not considered
As Sergio, Yoyong, Zoilo and Warlilo engaged in a drinking spree at Heartthrob Disco,
Special Police Officer 3 (SPO 3) Manolo Yabang suddenly approached them, aimed his
revolver at Sergio whom he recognized as a wanted killer and fatally shot the latter.
Whereupon, Yoyong.Zoilo and Warlito ganged up on Yabang. Warlito, using his own
pistol, shot and wounded Yabang.
a. What are the criminal liabilities of Yoyong, Zoilo and Warlito for the injury
to Yabang? (1992 Bar Question)
b. Was there conspiracy and treachery? Explain. (1992 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a. If they have to be criminally liable at all each will be responsible for their
individual acts as there appears to be no conspiracy, as the acts of the three were
spontaneous and a reflex response to Yabang’s shooting of Sergio. There was no
concerted act that will lead to a common purpose.
Treachery cannot likewise be appreciated as there was no conscious adoption of
means, methods or fonn to facilitate the commission of the felony.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Page 86 of 338
The acts of Yoyong, Zoilo and Warlito are justified under pars. 1 and 2 of Article 11,
RPG, that is, self-defense or defense of a stranger, as they have reason to suspect that
Yabang might not be satisfied in killing Sergio ONLY, the three being friends and
companions of the victim. Hence, they are entitled to protect their own lives and limbs from
the unlawful aggression of Yabang. Alternatively they have the justified right to defend a
stranger (Sergio) whose life at that moment might still be saved by ganging up on Yabang
to prevent the latter from any further attack by the latter. In either case reasonable
necessity of the means employed and lack of sufficient provocation are present.
b. In turn, is yabang criminally liable for the death of Sergio? (1992 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b. Yabang is liable for Homicide for the killing of Sergio as the attack was frontal (Alternative:
Murder, because of the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength, in term of weapon).
Sergio, being a suspected killer, is no jurisdiction to be killed by Yabang (People vs. Oanis).

Criminal law – Justifying circumstance of defense of honor – when not
sustained
Osang, a married woman in her early twenties, was sleeping on a banig on the floor of
their nipa hut beside the seashore when she was awakened by the act of a man mounting
her. Thinking that it was her husband, Gardo, who had returned from fishing in the sea,
Osang continued her sleep but allowed the man, who was actually their neighbor, Julio, to
have sexual intercourse with her. After Julio satisfied himself, he said “Salamat Osang" as he
turned to leave. Only then did Osang realize that the man was not her husband. Enraged,
Osang grabbed a balisong from the wall and stabbed Julio to death. When tried for homicide,
Osang claimed defense of honor. Should the claim be sustained? Why? (5%) (2000 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, Osang's claim of defense of honor should not be sustained because the aggression on her
honor had ceased when she stabbed the aggressor. In defense of rights under paragraph 1, Art. 11 of
the RPC, it is required inter alia that there be (1) unlawful aggression, and (2) reasonable necessity of
the means employed to prevent or repel it. The unlawful aggression must be continuing when the
aggressor was injured or disabled by the person making a defense.
But if the aggression that was begun by the injured or disabled party already ceased to exist
when the accused attacked him, as in the case at bar, the attack made is a retaliation, and not a
defense. Paragraph 1, Article 11 of the Code does not govern.
Hence, Osang's act of stabbing Julio to death after the sexual intercourse was finished, is not
defense of honor but an immediate vindication of a grave offense committed against her, which is
only mitigating.

Page 87 of 338
Criminal law – Justifying circumstances - Defense of honor; when
untenable
One night, Lina, a young married woman, was sound asleep in her bedroom
when she felt a man on top of her. Thinking it was her husband Tito, who came home
a day early from his business trip, Una let him have sex with her. After the act, the
man said, “I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did." Not recognizing the voice, it
dawned upon Lina that the man was not Tito, her husband. Furious. Una took out
Tito's gun and shot the man. Charged with homicide Una denies culpability on the
ground of defense of honor. Is her claim tenable? 15% (1998 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Lina's claim that she acted in defense of honor, is not tenable because the
unlawful aggression on her honor had already ceased. Defense of honor as included in self-
defense, must have been done to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression. There is no
defense to speak of where the unlawful aggression no longer exists.

Criminal law – Justifying circumstances – Self-defense
Pat. Negre saw Filemon, an inmate, escaping from jail and ordered the latter to
surrender. Instead of doing so, Filemon attacked Pat. Negre with a bamboo spear.
Filemon missed in his first attempt to hit Pat. Negre, and before he could strike again,
Pat. Negre shot and killed him.
Can Pat. Negre claim self defense? Explain. .(1993 Bar Question)
Suppose Pat Negre missed in his shot, and Filemon ran away without parting
with his weapon. Pat Negre pursued Filemon but the latter was running so fast that
Pat Negre fired warning shots into the air shouting for Filemon to stop. Inasmuch as
Filemon continued running Pat. Negre fired at him hitting and killing him.
Is the plea of self-defense sustainable? Why would you then hold Pat. Negre
criminally liable? Discuss. .(1993 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, self-defense can be claimed as there is an imminent and great peril on the life of Negre;
No, self-defense is no longer sustainable as there is no more peril on his life;
Yes, excessive force is used.

Criminal law – Justifying circumstances – Defense of a stranger

Page 88 of 338
A. A chanced upon three men who were attacking B with fist blows. C, one of the men,
was about to stab B with a knife. Not knowing that B was actually the aggressor because he
had earlier challenged the three men to a fight, A shot C as the latter was about to stab B. May
A invoke the defense of a stranger as a justifying circumstance in his favor? Why? (2%)
(2002 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. A may invoke the justifying circumstance of defense of stranger since he was not
involved in the fight and he shot C when the latter was about to stab B. There being no
indication that A was induced by revenge, resentment, or any other evil motive in shooting
C, his act is justified under par. 3, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.

Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability - Justifying and
exempting circumstances

Distinguish clearly but briefly: (10%) (2004 Bar Question)

Between justifying and exempting circumstances in criminal law.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Justifying circumstance affects the act, not the actor; while exempting circumstance
affects the actor, not the act. In justifying circumstance, no criminal and, generally, no civil
liability is incurred; while in exempting circumstance, civil liability is generally incurred
although there is no criminal liability

Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Justifying
circumstances
The accused lived with his family in a neighborhood that often was the scene
of frequent robberies. At one time, past midnight, the accused went downstairs with
a loaded gun to investigate he thought were footsteps of an uninvited guest. After
seeing what appeared to him an armed stranger looking around and out to rob the
house, he fired his gun seriously injuring the man. When the lights were turned on,
the unfortunate victim turned out to be a brother-in-law on his way to the kitchen to
get some light snacks. The accused was indicted for serious physical injuries. Should
the accused, given the circumstances, be convicted or acquitted? Why? (2003 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The accused should be convicted because, even assuming the facts to be true in his
belief, his act of shooting a burglar when there is no unlawful aggression on his person is
not justified. Defense of property or property right does not justify the act of firing a gun at

Page 89 of 338
a burglar unless the life and limb of the accused is already in imminent and immediate
danger. Although the accused acted out of a misapprehension of the facts, he is not
absolved from criminal liability.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Considering the given circumstances, namely; the frequent robberies in the
neighborhood, the time was past midnight, and the victim appeared to be an armed burglar
in the dark and inside his house, the accused could have entertained an honest belief that
his life and limb or those of his family are already in immediate and imminent danger.
Hence, it may be reasonable to accept that he acted out of an honest mistake of fact and
therefore without criminal intent. An honest mistake of fact negatives criminal intent and
thus absolves the accused from criminal liability.

Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (R.A. No.
9262)
Battered woman syndrome

Criminal law – Justifying circumstances – Battered Woman Syndrome

Jack and Jill have been married for seven years. One night, Jack came home
drunk. Finding no food on the table, Jack started hitting Jill only to apologize the
following day.
A week later, the same episode occurred - Jack came home drunk and started
hitting Jill.
Fearing for her life, Jill left and stayed with her sister. To woo Jill back, Jack
sent her floral arrangements of spotted lilies and confectioneries. Two days later, Jill
returned home and decided to give Jack another chance. After several days, however,
Jack again came home drunk. The following day, he was found dead.
Jill was charged with parricide but raised the defense of "battered woman
syndrome."

A. Define "Battered Woman Syndrome? (2%) (2010 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

"Battered Woman Syndrome" refers to a scientifically defined pattern of
psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering relationships
as a result of cumulative abuse (Section 31dj, Rep. Act No. 9262).

B. What are the three phases of the "Battered Woman Syndrome"? (3%)
(2010 Bar Question)

Page 90 of 338
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The three (3) phases of the "Battered Woman Syndrome" are: (1) the tension-
building phase; (2) the acute battering incident; and (3) the tranquil, loving, or non-violent
phase (People v. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004).

C. Would the defense prosper despite the absence of any of the elements for
justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code?
Explain. (2%) (2010 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes. Section 26 of Rep. Act No. 9262 provides that victim-survivors who are found
by the courts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and
civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying
circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code.

Exempting circumstances

Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Exempting
circumstances; when not appreciated
Nicandro borrowed Valeriano’s, gun, a high-powered M-16 rifle, to hunt wild pigs.
Nicandro was accompanied by his friend, Felix. On their way to the hunting ground, Nicandro
and Felix met Pedro near a hut. Pedro told them where to hunt. Later, Nicandro saw a pig and
then shot and killed it. The same bullet, however, that killed the pig struck a stone and
ricocheted hitting Pedro on his breast. Pedro later died. May Nicandro be held liable for the
death of Pedro? Explain. (1989 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Nicandro may be held liable for the death of Pedro. While Pedro’s death would seem to be
accidental, the requisites of exempting circumstance of accident are not all present. Said requisites
are:
1. A person is performing a lawful act;
2. With due care;
3. He causes an injury to another by mere accident;
4. Without fault or intention of causing it (Art. 12, par. 4, RPC).
When Nicandro borrowed Valeriano’s high powered M-16 rifle and used it for hunting wild
pigs, he committed the crime of illegal possession of firearms, as he does not appear to have either a
license to possess a high-powered gun or to carry the same outside of his residence. At the time he
shot at the wild pig, therefore, Nicandro was not performing a lawful act.

Page 91 of 338
Furthermore, considering that the M-16 is a high- powered gun. Nicandro was negligent in not
foreseeing that bullets fired from said gun may ricochet.

Two separate crimes of serious physical injuries (against the first neighbor whose injuries
requires 35 days of medical attendance), and slight physical injuries (against the second neighbor),
both through reckless imprudence, were committed by Rodolfo. Although both of these offenses
were the result of one single act, a complex crime is not committed because it is only when a single
act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies that a complex crime may be committed
under the first clause of article 48, RPC. Slight physical injuries is not a grave or less grave felonies

Criminal law – Exempting circumstances - Insanity
A raped X. In the process, X resisted and slapped A Angered. A grabbed a stone
and hit X. She was dying when A consummated the sexual attack. A psychiatrist from
the National Center for Mental Health testified that he conducted physical, mental
and psychological examinations on A and found him to be suffering from a mental
disorder classified under organic mental disorder with psychosis. A's father testified
that A was playful but cruel to his brothers and sisters, stole his mother’s jewelry
which he sold for low sums, wandered naked sometimes, and oftentimes did not
come home for extended periods of time. The prosecution on the other hand,
presented an array of witnesses to prove A that was lucid before and after the crime
was committed and that he acted with discernment. After trial, the court convicted
the accused and sentenced him to “life imprisonment" considering that under the
Constitution death penalty could no longer be imposed.

Given the conflicting testimonies as to sanity of the accused, was the trial court
correct in ruling out insanity as an exempting circumstances in this case? Is the sen-
tence of “life imprisonment” a correct imposition of penalty? (1991 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the court is correct in ruling out insanity as an exempting circumstance. While there was
testimony that A was suffering from a mental disorder, the testimony of A’s father disclosed that A
had lucid intervals. Because what is presumed is sanity, not insanity, it is to be presumed that A was
sane when he committed the crime. Consequently, evidence being wanting that A is completely
deprived of reason at the moment of committing the crime, he should be liable. Besides, the crime
committed and the acts done by the accused in the commission of the crime hardly reconciles with
insanity of the offender, as rape presupposes evident premeditation.
The sentence of “life imprisonment" is not a correct imposition of penalty for the rape: it should
be reclusion perpetua, the technical designation of the penalty for the crime under the Revised Penal
Code. It is not correct to use the term “life imprisonment” because the accessory penalties to
reclusion perpetua does not follow the penalty of “life imprisonment". Furthermore, in reclusion
perpetua the duration is stated to be for 30 years.

Page 92 of 338
Criminal law – Exempting circumstances – Insuperable cause
VC, JG, GG and JG conspired to overthrow the Philippine Government. VG was
recognized as the titular head of the conspiracy. Several meetings were held and the
plan was finalized. JJ, bothered by his conscience, confessed to Father Abraham that
he, VG, JG and GG have conspired to overthrow the government. Father Abraham did
not report this information to the proper authorities.
Did Father Abraham commit a crime? If so, what crime was committed? What
is his criminal liability? (1994 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Father Abraham did not commit a crime because the conspiracy involved is one to
commit rebellion, not a conspiracy to commit treason which makes a person criminally liable under
Art. 116, RPC. And even assuming that it will fall as misprision of treason. Father Abraham is
exempted from criminal liability under Art. 12, par. 7, as his failure to report can be considered as due
to “insuperable cause", as this involves the sanctity and inviolability of a confession.
Conspiracy to commit rebellion results in criminal liability to the co-conspirators, but not to a
person who learned of such and did not report to the proper authorities (US vs. Vergara, 3 Phil. 432;
People vs. Atienza, 56 Phil. 353).

Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Mitigating and
aggravating circumstances
B, who is blind in one eye, conspired with M, a sixteen year old boy, with C, who had been
previously convicted of Serious Physical Injuries, and with R, whose sister was raped by X a
day before, to kill the latter. B, C and R were armed with .38 caliber revolvers, while M carried
no weapon and acted only as a look out. They proceeded to the house of X riding in a
motorized tricycle. Thereupon, C, on instruction of B to give X no chance, shot X who was then
sleeping. Indicted for Homicide, as the information alleges no qualifying circumstance,
specify the mitigating and aggravating circumstances present, and explain in whose favor,
and against whom, must they be considered. (1993 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Mitigating circumstances:

a) B is entitled to the mitigating circumstance under paragraph 8 of Article 13 of the
Revised Penal Code;
b) M is entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstances of minority under Article 68
of the Revised Penal Code;

c) Vindication of a grave offense in favor of R because his sister was raped by X a day
before the shooting, and even if there was an interval of one (1) day between the rape
and the killing.

Page 93 of 338
2. Aggravating circumstances:
a. The aggravating circumstance of recidivism under paragraph 9. Article 14
should be considered against C if alleged in the Information (People vs. Peter
Cadevida, et al, G.R. No. L-94528, March 1. 1993).
b. The aggravating circumstance of motor vehicle under paragraph 20 of Article
14 of the Code, all the accused having used a motorized tricyle;
c. Treachery should be aggravating against all of the accused including M who
acted as a lookout because all of them were present when X was shot (Article
62. paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code). X was sleeping when shot to
death.

Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Exempting;
mitigating circumstances
While they were standing in line awaiting their vaccination at the school clinic,
Pomping repeatedly pulled the ponytail of Katreena, his 11 years, 2 months and 13
days old classmate in Grade 5 at the Sampaloc Elementary School. Irritated,
Katreena turned around and swung at Pomping with a ballpen. The top of the
ballpen hit the right eye of Pomping which bled profusely. Realizing what she had
caused, Katreena immediately helped Pomping. When investigated, she freely
admitted to the school principal that she was responsible for the injury to
Pomping's eye. After the incident, she executed a statement admitting her
culpability. Due to the injury, Pomping lost his right eye.

Discuss the attendant circumstances and effects thereof. (2%) (2000 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Katreena is not criminally liable although she is civilly liable. Being a minor less than fifteen (15)
years old although over nine (9) years of age, she is generally exempt from criminal liability. The
exception is where the prosecution proved that the act was committed with discernment The
burden is upon the prosecution to prove that the accused acted with discernment.
The presumption is that such minor acted without discernment and this is strengthened by the
fact that Katreena only reacted with a ballpen which she must be using in class at the time, and only
to stop Pomping’s vexatious act of repeatedly pulling her ponytail. In other words, the injury was
accidental.
The attendant circumstances which may be considered are:

1. Minority of the accused as an exempting circumstance under Article 12, paragraph 3, Rev.
Penal Code, where she shall be exempt from criminal liability, unless it was proved that she acted
with discernment She is however civilly liable;

Page 94 of 338
2. If found criminally liable, the minority of the accused as a privileged mitigating circumstance.
A discretionary penalty lower by at least two (2) degrees than that prescribed for the crime
committed shall be imposed in accordance with Article 68, paragraph 1, Rev. Penal Code. The
sentence, however, should automatically be suspended in accordance with Section 5(a) of Rep. Act
No. 8369otherwise known as the “Family Courts Act of 1997";
3. Also if found criminally liable, the ordinary mitigating circumstance of not intending to
commit so grave a wrong as that committed, under Article 13, paragraph 3, Rev. Penal Code; and

4. The ordinary mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation on the part of the
offended party immediately preceded the act.

Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (R.A. No. 9344); also refer to
Child and Youth Welfare Code (P.D. 603, as amended)
(a) Definition of child in conflict with the law
(b) Minimum age of criminal responsibility
(c) Determination of age
(d) Exemption from criminal liability

Criminal law – Exempting circumstances - Suspended sentence under The
Child and Youth Welfare Code; when not applicable
Victor, Ricky, Rod and Ronnie went to the store of Mang Pandoy. Victor and Ricky
entered the store while Rod and Ronnie posted themselves at the door. After ordering beer
Ricky complained that he was shortchanged although Mang Pandoy vehemently denied it.
Suddenly Ricky whipped out a knife as he announced “Hold-up ito!" and stabbed Mang
Pandoy to death. Rod boxed the store’s salesgirl Lucy to prevent her from helping Mang
Pandoy. When Lucy ran out of the store to seek help from people next door she was chased
by Ronnie. As soon as Ricky had stabbed Mang Pandoy, Victor scooped up the money from
the cash box. Then Victor and Ricky dashed to the street and shouted, “Tumakbo na kayo!”
Rod was 14 and Ronnie was 17. The money and other articles looted from the store of Mang
Pandoy were later found in the houses of Victor and Ricky.
Are the minors Rod and Ronnie entitled to suspended sentence under The Child and Youth
Welfare Code? Explain. (1995 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Although Rod is only 14years old, his act of boxing Lucy to prevent her from helping
Mang Pandoy is a clear sign of discernment, thus he cannot invoke exemption from crimi-
nal liability under Art. 12, par. 3, RPC. Rod and Ronnie are, however, entitled to two and
one degrees lower, respectively from the penalty of the principal under Art. 68. RPC.

Page 95 of 338
No, because the benefits of suspension of sentence is not available where the
youthful offender has been convicted of an offense punishable by life imprisonment or
death, pursuant to P.D. No. 603, Art. 192. The complex crime of robbery with homicide is
punishable by reclusion perpetua to death under Art. 294 (1), RPC (People vs. Galit, 230
SCRA 486).

Special law- Suspension of sentence – PD 603 in relation to RA 8369
(a) A was 2 months below 18 years of age when he committed the crime. He was
charged with the crime 3 months later. He was 23 when he was finally convicted and
sentenced. Instead of preparing to serve a jail term, he sought a suspension of the
sentence on the ground that he was a juvenile offender. Should he be entitled to a
suspension of sentence? Reasons. (2003 Bar Question)
(b) Can juvenile offenders, who are recidivists, validly ask for suspension of
sentence? Explain. (2003 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) No, A is not entitled to a suspension of the sentence because he is no longer a minor at
the time of promulgation of the sentence. For purposes of suspension of sentence, the
offender’s age at the time of promulgation of the sentence is the one considered, not his age
when he committed the crime. So although A was below 18 years old when he committed
the crime, but he was already 23 years old when sentenced, he is no longer eligible for
suspension of the sentence.
(b) Yes, so long as the offender is still a minor at the time of the promulgation of the
sentence. The law establishing Family Courts, Rep. Act 8369, provides to this effect: that if
the minor is found guilty, the court should promulgate the sentence and ascertain any civil
liability which the accused may have incurred. However, the sentence shall be suspended
without the need of application pursuant to PD 603, otherwise known as the “Child and
Youth Welfare Code” (RA 8369, Sec. 5a). It is under PD 603 that an application for
suspension of the sentence is required and thereunder it is one of the conditions for
suspension of sentence that the offender be a first time convict: this has been displaced by
RA 8369.

Special law – Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (RA 9344) –
When applicable

Dang was a beauty queen in a university. Job, a rich classmate, was so
enamored with her that he persistently wooed and pursued her. Dang, being in
love with another man, rejected him. This angered Job. Sometime in September
2003, while Dang and her sister Lyn were on their way home, Job and his minor

Page 96 of 338
friend Nonoy grabbed them and pushed them inside a white van. They brought
them in an abandoned warehouse where they forced them to dance naked.
Thereafter, they brought them to a hill in a nearby barangay where they took turns
raping them. After satisfying their lust, Job ordered Nonoy to push Dang down a
ravine, resulting in her death. Lyn ran away but Job and Nonoy chased her and
pushed her inside the van. Then the duo drove away. Lyn was never seen again.

Will Nonoy’s minority exculpate him? 2.5% (2006 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Nonoy’s minority will exculpate him under Rep. Act 9344, referred to as the
“Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006”, if he was 15 years old or less: otherwise he
will be criminally and civilly liable considering that he acted with discernment when he
also raped the victims. At most, his minority will be appreciated as privileged mitigating
circumstance.

Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Persons
exempt from criminal liability

Dennis leased his apartment to Myla for P10,000 a month. Myla failed to pay
the rent for 3 months. Gabriel, the son of Dennis, prepared a demand letter falsely
alleging that his father had authorized him to collect the unpaid rentals. Myla paid
the unpaid rentals to Gabriel who kept the payment.

A. Can Gabriel invoke his relationship with Dennis to avoid criminal liability?
Explain. (3%) (2008 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

If Gabriel would be made criminally liable for falsification of a private document, he
cannot invoke his relationship with Dennis, his father, to avoid criminal liability because
Art. 332 of the Revised Penal Code provides exemption from criminal liability in crimes
against property only for theft, swindling or malicious mischief but not for falsification of
documents.
If he would be made criminally liable for swindling, he can invoke his relationship
with Dennis because this crime cannot be complexed with falsification of a private
document. The charge could, therefore, stand alone. The exemption in Art. 332 will obtain.

Criminal law – Exempting circumstances – in comparison with justifying
circumstances; illustration of exempting circumstances; minor below
nine (9) years old;

Page 97 of 338
1. Distinguish between justifying and exempting circumstances. [3%] (1998 Bar
Question)
2. John, an eight-year old boy, is fond of watching the television program "Zeo
Rangers." One evening while he was engrossed watching his favorite television show.
Petra, a maid changed the channel to enable her to watch “Home Along the Riles."
This enraged John who got his father's revolver, and without warning, shot Petra at
the back of her head causing her instantaneous death. is John criminally liable? (2%)
(1998 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. In justifying circumstances:
a) The circumstance affects the act, not the actor;
b) The act is done within legal bounds, hence considered as not a crime;
c) Since the act is not a crime, there is no criminal;
d) There being no crime nor criminal, there is no criminal nor civil liability.

Whereas, in an exempting circumstances:
a) The circumstance affects the actor, not the act;
b) The act is felonious and hence a crime but the actor acted without voluntariness;
c) Although there is a crime, there is no criminal because the actor is regarded only as
an instrument of the crime;
d) There being a wrong done but no criminal, there is civil liability but no criminal
liability.

2. No, John is not criminally liable for killing Petra because he is only 8 years old when
he committed the killing. A minor below nine (9) years old is absolutely exempt from
criminal liability although not from civil liability. (Art. 12, par. 2, RPC).

Criminal law – Exempting circumstances – Insanity as defense

While he was on a 2-year scholarship abroad, Romeo was having an affair with
his maid Dulcinea. Realizing that the affair was going nowhere, Dulcinea told Romeo
that she was going back to the province to marry her childhood sweetheart. Clouded
by anger and jealousy, Romeo strangled Dulcinea to death while she was sleeping in
the maid’s quarters.
The following day, Romeo was found catatonic inside the maid’s quarters. He
was brought to the National Center for Mental health (NCMH) where he was
diagnosed to be mentally unstable.
Charged with murder, Romeo pleaded insanity as a defense.

a. Will Romeo’s defense prosper? Explain. (2%) (2010 Bar Question)

Page 98 of 338
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, Romeo’s defense of insanity will not prosper because, even assuming that
Romeo was “insane” when diagnosed after he committed the crime, insanity as a defense to
the commission of a crime must have existed and proven to be existing at the precise
moment when the crime was being committed. The facts of the case indicate that Romeo
committed the crime with discernment.

b. What is the effect of the diagnosis of the NCMH on the case (2%) (2010 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The effect of the diagnosis made by NCMH is possibly a suspension of the
proceedings against Romeo and his commitment to appropriate institution for treatment
until he could already understand the proceedings.

(e) Treatment of child below age of responsibility
(f) Status offenses under Sec. 57 of R.A. No. 9344
(g) Offenses not applicable to children under Sec. 58 of R.A. No. 9344

Mitigating circumstances

Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Mitigating
and aggravating circumstances

(a) The victim Dario went to the Civil Service Commission at about 11:00 a . m . to
have some documents signed, and because his efforts were frustrated, he angrily
remarked in the presence of the accused Benito that the Civil Service Commission is
a hang-out of thieves. The accused felt alluded to because he was then facing
criminal and administrative charges on several counts involving his honesty and
integrity, and pulling out a gun from his desk, he shot Dario, inflicting a fatal wound.
Benito is now invoking the mitigating circumstances of immediate vindication of
grave offense.
Decide the case. (1988 Bar Question)
(b) The robbers killed a mother and her baby, then threw the body of the baby
outside the window.
Can the aggravating circumstances of “cruelty” be considered in this case?

Page 99 of 338
Reasons. (1988 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) The mitigating circumstances of immediate vindication of grave offense cannot be
considered because to be applicable, Article 13 par. 5 requires that: “Mitigating cir-
cumstances.— xxxx 5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave
offense to the one committing the felony (delito) his spouse, ascendants, descendants,
legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters or relatives by affinity within the same
degrees.”
Instead, the circumstances of passion or obfuscation should be considered. Benito
should be charged with frustrated homicide with the mitigating circumstances of passion.

(b) Cruelty cannot be considered in this case because the aggravating circumstance of
cruelty requires deliberates prolongation of the suffering of the victim. In this case, the
baby was dead already so that there is no more prolongation to speak of.

Criminal law – Mitigating circumstances –Voluntary surrender
Hilario, upon seeing his son engaged in a scuffle with Rene, stabbed and killed the latter.
After the stabbing, he brought his son home. The Chief of Police of the town, accompanied by
several policemen, went to Hilario’s house.
Hilario, upon seeing the approaching policemen, came down from his house to
meet them and voluntarily went with them to the Police Station to be investigated in
connection with the killing. When eventually charged with and convicted of
homicide, Hilario, on appeal, faulted the trial court for not appreciating in his favor
the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Is he entitled to such a
mitigating circumstance? Explain. (1996 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Hilario is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The
crux of the issue is whether the fact that Hilario went home after the incident, but came
down and met the police officers and went with them is considered “voluntary surrender."
The voluntariness of surrender is tested if the same is spontaneous showing the intent of
the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities. This must be either (a)
because he acknowledges his guilt, or
(b) because he wishes to save them the trouble and expenses necessarily incurred in his
search and capture. (Reyes’ Commentaries, p. 303). Thus, the act of the accused in hiding
after commission of the crime, but voluntarily went with the policemen who had gone to
his hiding place to investigate, was held to be mitigating circumstance.[People vs. Dayrit,
cited in Reyes’ Commentaries, p. 299)

Page 100 of 338
Criminal law - Mitigating circumstances - Voluntary surrender and plea
of guilty; when not considered
Upon learning that the police wanted him for the killing of Polistico. Jeprox
decided to visit the police station to make inquiries. On his way, he met a policeman
who immediately served upon him the warrant for his arrest. During the trial, in the
course of the presentation of the prosecution’s evidence. Jeprox withdrew his plea of
not guilty and entered a plea of guilty.
Can he invoke the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of
guilty? Explain. (1992 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Jeprox is not entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender as his
going to the police station was only for the purpose of verification of the news that he is
wanted by the authorities. In order to be mitigating, surrender must be spontaneous and that he
acknowledges his guilt.
Neither is plea of guilty a mitigating circumstances because it was qualified plea; besides. Art.
13, par. 7 provides that confession of guilt must be done before the prosecution had started to
present evidence.

Criminal law – Mitigating circumstances – Voluntary surrender; plea of
guilty
After killing the victim, the accused absconded. He succeeded in eluding the
police until he surfaced and surrendered to the authorities about two years later.
Charged with murder, he pleaded not guilty but, after the prosecution had
presented two witnesses implicating him to the crime, he changed his plea to that
of guilty.
Should the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty
be considered in favor of the accused? (1997 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Voluntary surrender should be considered as a mitigating circumstance. After
two years, the police were still unaware of the whereabouts of the accused and the latter
could have continued to elude arrest. Accordingly, the surrender of the accused should
be considered mitigating because it was done spontaneously, indicative of the remorse
or repentance on the part of said accused and therefore, by his surrender, the accused
saved the Government expenses, efforts, and time.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Page 101 of 338
Voluntary surrender may not be appreciated in favor of the accused. Two years is too long a
time to consider the surrender as spontaneous (People vs, Ablao, 183 SCRA658). For sure the
government had already incurred considerable efforts and expenses in looking for the accused.
2. Plea of guilty can no longer be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance because the
prosecution had already started with the presentation of its evidence (Art. 13, par. 7,
Revised Penal Code).

Criminal law – Mitigating circumstances – Plea of guilty

a. In order that the plea of guilty may be mitigating, what requisites must be
complied with? (2%) (1999 Bar Question)
b. An accused charged with the crime of homicide pleaded “not guilty" during
the preliminary investigation before the Municipal Court. Upon the
elevation of the case to the Regional Trial Court the Court of competent
jurisdiction, he pleaded guilty freely and voluntarily upon arraignment.
Can his plea of guilty before the RTC be considered spontaneous and thus
entitle him to the mitigating circumstance of spontaneous plea of guilty
under Art. 13(7), RPC? (3%) (1999 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) For plea of guilty to be mitigating, the requisites are:
1. That the accused spontaneously pleaded guilty to the crime charged;

2. That such plea was made before the court competent to try the case and
render judgment; and

3. That such plea was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the
prosecution.
(b) Yes, his plea of guilty before the Regional Trial Court can be considered
spontaneous, for which he is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty. His
plea of not guilty before the Municipal Court is immaterial as it was made during
preliminary investigation only and before a court not competent to render judgment.

Criminal law - Mitigating circumstances –Voluntary surrender

When is surrender by an accused considered voluntarily, and constitutive of
the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender? (3%) (1999 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Page 102 of 338
A surrender by an offender is considered voluntary when it is spontaneous, indicative
of an intent to submit unconditionally to the authorities.

To be mitigating, the surrender must be:

(a) spontaneous, i.e., indicative of acknowledgment of guilt and not for convenience
nor conditional;
(b) made before the government incurs expenses, time and effort in tracking down the
offender's whereabouts; and
(c) made to a person in authority or the letter's agents.

Criminal law – Mitigating circumstances - No intention to commit so grave a
wrong as that committed; intoxication
Despite the massive advertising campaign in media against firecrackers and
gun-firing during the New Year's celebrations. Jonas and Jaja bought ten boxes of
super lolo and pla-pla in Bocaue, Bulacan. Before midnight of December 31,1999,
Jonas and Jaja started their celebration by having a drinking spree at Jona's place by
exploding their high-powered firecrackers in their neighborhood. In the course of
their conversation, Jonas confided to Jaja that he has been keeping a long-time
grudge against his neighbor Jepoy in view of the tatter's refusal to lend him some
money. While under the influence of liquor, Jonas started throwing lighted super
lolos inside Jepoy's fence to irritate him and the same exploded inside the tatter's
yard. Upon knowing that the throwing of the super lolo was deliberate, Jepoy
became furious and sternly warned Jonas to stop his malicious act or he would get
what he wanted. A heated argument between Jonas and Jepoy ensued but Jaja tried
to calm down his friend. At midnight, Jonas convinced Jaja to lend him his .45 caliber
pistol so that he could use it to knock down Jepoy and to end his arrogance. Jonas
thought that after all, explosions were everywhere and nobody would know who
shot Jepoy. After Jaja lent his firearm to Jonas, the latter again started started
throwing lighted super lolos and pla-plas at Jepoy’s yard in order to provoke him so
that he would come out of his house. When Jepoy came out, Jonas immediately shot
him with Jaja’s .45 caliber gun but missed his target. Instead, the bullet hit Jepoy's
five year old son who was following behind him, killing the boy instantaneously.If
you were Jonas' and Jaja’s lawyer, what possible defenses would you set up in favor of your
clients? Explain. (2%) (2000 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If I were Jonas' and Jaja's lawyer, I will use the following defenses:

(1) That the accused had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed as they

Page 103 of 338
merely intended to frighten Jepoy;

(2) That Jonas committed the crime in a state of intoxication thereby impairing his will power or
capacity to understand the wrongfulness of his act. Non-intentional intoxication is a mitigating
circumstance [People us. Forttch, 281 SCRA 600 [1997]: Art 15, RFC).

Criminal law – Mitigating circumstances –no intention to commit so grave a
wrong as that which was committed
Maryjane had two suitors - Felipe and Cesar. She did not openly show her preference
but on two occasions, accepted Cesar’s invitation to concerts by Regine and Pops. Felipe was
a working student and could only ask Mary to see a movie which was declined. Felipe felt
insulted and made plans to get even with Cesar by scaring him off somehow. One day, he
entered Cesar’s room in their boarding house and placed a rubber snake which appeared to
be real in Cesar’s backpack. Because Cesar had a weak heart, he suffered a heart attack upon
opening his backpack and seeing the snake. Cesar died without regaining consciousness. The
police investigation resulted in pinpointing Felipe as the culprit and he was charged with
homicide for Cesar’s death. In his defense, Felipe claimed that he did not know about Cesar’s
weak heart and that he only intended to play a practical joke on Cesar.
Is Felipe liable for the death of Cesar or will his defense prosper? Why? (5%) (2001 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, Felipe is liable for the death of Cesar but he shall be given the benefit of the mitigating
circumstance that he did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that which was committed (Art.
13, par. 3, RPC).
When Felipe intruded into Cesar’s room without the letter's consent and took liberty with the
letter's backpack where he placed the rubber snake, Felipe was already committing a felony. And
any act done by him while committing a felony is no less wrongful, considering that they were part
of "plans to get even with Cesar1'.

Felipe's claim that he intended only "to play a practical joke on Cesar" does not persuade,
considering that they are not friends but in fact rivals in courting Maryjane. This case is parallel to
the case of People vs. Pugay, et al.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

No, Felipe is not liable because the act of frightening another is not a crime. What he did may be
wrong, but not all wrongs amount to a crime. Because the act which caused the death of Cesar is not
a crime, no criminal liability may arise therefrom.

Page 104 of 338
Criminal law – Mitigating circumstances - Immediate vindication of a
grave offense to a descendant
A When A arrived home, he found B raping his daughter. Upon seeing A, B ran
away. A took his gun and shot B, killing him. Charged with homicide, A claimed he
acted in defense of his daughter's honor. Is A correct? If not, can A claim the benefit
of any mitigating circumstance or circumstances? (3%) (2002 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, A cannot validly invoke defense of his daughter’s honor in having killed B since the rape was
already consummated; moreover, B already ran away, hence, there was no aggression to defend
against and no defense to speak of.

A may, however, invoke the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of having acted in immediate
vindication of a grave offense to a descendant, his daughter, under par. 5, Article 13 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended.

Criminal law – Mitigating circumstances – Voluntary surrender

TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the
statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences. (5%)
(2009 Bar Question)

[b] Voluntary surrender is a mitigating circumstance in all acts and omissions
punishable under the Revised Penal Code.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

False. Voluntary surrender may not be appreciated in cases of criminal negligence
under Art. 365 since in such cases, the courts are authorized to impose a penalty without
considering Art. 62 regarding mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

Criminal law – Mitigating circumstances - Lack of intention to commit so grave
a wrong as that committed
(1) Belle saw Gaston stealing the prized cock of a neighbor and reported him to the
police. Thereafter, Gaston, while driving a car saw Belle crossing the street. Incensed that
Belle had reported him, Gaston decided to scare her by trying to make it appear that he was
about to run her over. He rewed the engine of his car and drove towards her but he applied
the brakes. Since the road was slippery at that time, the vehicle skidded and hit Belle causing
her death.

Page 105 of 338
What is the liability of Gaston? Why? (4%) (2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(1)Gaston is criminally liable for homicide in doing the felonious act which caused
Belle’s death, although the penalty therefor shall be mitigated by lack of intention to
commit so grave a wrong as that committed (Art. 13 (3), RPC). The act, having been
deliberately done with malice, is felonious and being the proximate cause of Belle’s death,
brings about criminal liability although the wrong done was different from what was
intended (Art. 4, [1], RPC).

Aggravating circumstances

Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Aggravating
circumstances
In an information for Murder against A. B, and C, the prosecution alleges Treachery as
the qualifying circumstance and the following generic aggravating circumstances: (1)
noctumity, (2) abuse of superior strength, and (3) employing means to weaken the defense.
At the trial, the prosecution, without objection from the de ofvcio counsel for the accused,
proved evident premeditation. It likewise successfully proved the qualifying and the generic
aggravating circumstances alleged in the information.
a)For the purpose of determining the appropriate penalty to be imposed upon the
accused, may the court take into account evident premeditation and the other generic
aggravating circumstances? (1991 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a. Yes, as far as evident premeditation is concerned, but only as a generic aggravating
circumstance.

Since treachery absorbs nocturnity, abuse of superior strength and employing means
to weaken the defense, they can no longer be considered as additional circumstances.

b. Supposing that treachery was not proved, may evident premeditation, which
was duly proved, be considered as the qualifying circumstances? (1991 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b. No, since it was not alleged in the information; qualifying circumstances not alleged if
proved during trial will only be considered as generic.

c. If the prosecution failed to prove treachery and did not offer any evidence to
prove evident premeditation, does acquittal of the accused follow? (1991 Bar
Question)

Page 106 of 338
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
c. No, but liability will only be for homicide, as there is no circumstances to qualify it to
murder.

Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability –Aggravating
circumstances
At about 9:30 in the evening, while Dino and Raffy were walking along Padre
Faura Street, Manila. Johnny hit them with a rock injuring Dino at the back. Raffy
approached Dino but suddenly, Bobby, Steve, Danny and Nonoy surrounded the duo.
Then Bobby stabbed Dino. Steve, Danny. Nonoy and Johnny kept on hitting Dino and
Raffy with rocks. As a result, Dino died.
Bobby, Steve, Danny, Nonoy and Johnny were charged with homicide.

Can the court appreciate the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and band? (1994 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, nighttime cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance because there is no indication
that the offenders deliberately sought the cover of darkness to facilitate the commission of the crime
or that they took advantage of nighttime (People vs. De los Reyes, 203 SCRA 707). Besides, judicial
notice can be taken of the fact that Padre Faura Street is well-lighted.
However, band should be considered as the crime was committed by more than three armed
malefactors; in a recent Supreme Court decision, stones or rocks are considered deadly weapons.

Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability –Aggravating
circumstances; cruelty; relationship
Ben, a widower, driven by bestial desire, poked a gun on his daughter Zeny,
forcibly undressed her and tied her legs to the bed. He also burned her face with a
lighted cigarrete. Like a madman, he laughed while raping her.
What aggravating circumstances are present in this case? (1994 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Cruelty, for burning the victim’s face with a lighted cigarrete, thereby deliberately
augmenting the victim’s suffering by acts clearly unnecessary to the rape, while the
offender delighted and enjoyed seeing the victim suffer in pain (People vs. Lucas, 181 SCRA
316).
b) Relationship, because the offended party is a descendant (daughter) of the offender

Page 107 of 338
and considering that the crime is one against chastity.

Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability- Aggravating
circumstances
Jose, Domingo. Manolo, and Fernando, armed with bolos, at about one o'clock in
the morning, robbed a house at a desolate place where Danilo, his wife, and three
daughters were living. While the four were in the process of ransacking Danilo’s
house, Fernando, noticing that one of Danilo’s daughters was trying to get away, ran
after her and finally caught up with her in a thicket somewhat distant from the
house. Fernando, before bringing back the daughter to the house, raped her first.
Thereafter, the four carted away the belongings of Danilo and his family.
Under the facts of the case, what aggravating circumstances may be appreciated
against the four? Explain. (1996 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The aggravating circumstances which may be considered in the premises are:

i) Band because all the four offenders are armed:
il) Noctumity because evidently the offenders took advantage of nighttime;

ill) dwelling: and
iv) Uninhabited place because the house where the crimes were committed was “at a
desolate place" and obviously the offenders took advantage of this circumstance in
committing the crime.

Criminal law – Aggravating circumstances - Evident premeditation,
treachery, nighttime and unlawful entry
The accused and the victim occupied adjacent apartments, each being a
separate dwelling unit of one big house. The accused suspected his wife of having an
illicit relation with the victim. One afternoon, he saw the victim and his wife
together on board a vehicle. In the evening of that day, the accused went to bed early
and tried to sleep, but being so annoyed over the suspected relation between his
wife and the victim, he could not sleep. Later in the night, he resolved to kill the
victim. He rose from bed and took hold of a knife. He entered the apartment of the
victim through an unlocked window. Inside, he saw the victim soundly asleep. He
thereupon stabbed the victim, inflicting several wounds, which caused his death
within a few hours.
Would you say that the killing was attended by the qualifying or aggravating

Page 108 of 338
circumstances of evident premeditation, treachery, nighttime and unlawful entry?
(1997 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Evident premeditation cannot be considered against the accused because he
resolved to kill the victim 'later in the night" and there was no sufficient lapse of time
between the determination and execution, to allow his conscience to overcome the
resolution of his will.
2. Treachery may be present because the accused stabbed the victim while the latter was
sound asleep. Accordingly, he employed means and methods which directly and specially insured
the execution of the act without risk himself arising from the defense which the victim might have
made (People us. Dequifto. 60 Phil. 279 People vs. Miranda, et aL, 90 Phil. 91).
3. Nighttime cannot be appreciated because there is no showing that the accused deliberately
sought or availed of nighttime to insure the success of his act The Intention to commit the crime was
conceived shortly before its commission (People vs. Pardo. 79 Phil. 568). Moreover, nighttime is
absorbed in treachery.
4. Unlawful entry may be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance, Inasmuch as the
accused entered the room of the victim through the window, which is not the proper place for
entrance into the house (Art. 14, par. 18, Revised Penal Code. People vs. Baruga. 61 Phil. 318).

Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Aggravating
circumstances

(a) Name the four (4) kinds of aggravating circumstances and state their effect
on the penalty of crimes and nature thereof. (3%) (1999 Bar Question)
(b) Distinguish generic aggravating circumstance from qualifying aggravating
circumstance. (1999 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) The four (4) kinds of aggravating circumstances are:

1. Generic aggravating or those that can generally apply to all crimes, and can be
offset by mitigating circumstances, but if not offset, would affect only the
maximum of the penalty prescribed by law;
2. Specific aggravating or those that apply only to particular crimes and cannot
be offset by mitigating circumstances;
3. Qualifying circumstances or those that change the nature of the crime to a
graver one, or brings about a penalty next higher in degree, and cannot be offset
by mitigating circumstances;
4. Inherent aggravating or those that essentially accompany the commission of

Page 109 of 338
the crime and does not affect the penalty whatsoever.

(b) Generic aggravating circumstances:

2. affects the nature of the crime or brings about a penalty higher in degree
than that ordinarily prescribed.
3. Can be offset by ordinary mitigating circumstances;

4. need not be alleged in the Information as long as proven during the trial,
the same shall be considered in imposing the sentence.
Qualifying circumstances:

1. must be alleged In the Information and proven during trial;
2. cannot be offset by mitigating circumstances;
3. affects the nature of the crime or brings about a penalty higher in degree
than that ordinarily prescribed.

Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Aggravating
circumstances

Roger, the leader of a crime syndicate in Malate, Manila, demanded the
payment by Antonio, the owner of a motel in that area, of P10,000 a month as
'protection money". With the monthly payments, Roger assured, the syndicate would
provide protection to Antonio, his business, and his employees. Should Antonio
refuse, Roger warned, the motel owner would either be killed or his establishment
destroyed. Antonio refused to pay the protection money. Days later, at around 3:00
in the morning, Mauro, a member of the criminal syndicate, arrived at Antonio's
home and hurled a grenade into an open window of the bedroom where Antonio, his
wife and their three year-old daughter were sleeping. All three of them were killed
instantly when the grenade exploded.

State, with reasons, the crime or crimes that had been committed as well as
the aggravating circumstances, if any, attendant thereto. (7%) (2008 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The killing is qualified by the use of an explosive (hand grenade). The treachery
attending the killing shall be separately appreciated as another aggravating circumstance
aside from the use of explosive as the qualifying circumstance.

Other aggravating circumstances which may be appreciated are:

Page 110 of 338
1. Dwelling, because the killings were committed in the home of the victims who
had not given any provocation;
2. Nocturnity, considering that the offenders carried out the killing at around 3:00
AM, indicative of a deliberate choice of nighttime for the commission of the crime;
3. Treachery, under Art. 14, par. 16, RPC, mentioned above, considering that victims
were all asleep when killed; and
4. The offense was committed by a person who belongs to an organized/syndicated
crime group under the Heinous Crimes Law (Sec. 23 R.A. 7659), amending for this purpose
Art. 62(1) of the Revised Penal Code.

Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Aggravating
circumstances

Wenceslao and Loretta were staying in the same boarding house, occupying
different rooms. One late evening, when everyone in the house was asleep,
Wenceslao entered Loretta's room with the use of a picklock. Then, with force and
violence, Wenceslao ravished Loretta. After he had satisfied his lust, Wenceslao
stabbed Loretta to death and, before leaving the room, took her jewelry.

[b] Discuss the applicability of the relevant aggravating circumstances of
dwelling, nocturnity and the use of the picklock to enter the room of the victim. (3%)
(2009 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Dwelling is aggravating because the crimes were committed in the privacy of
Loretta's room which in law is considered as her dwelling. It is well settled that "dwelling"
includes a room in a boarding house being occupied by the offended party where she
enjoys privacy, peace of mind and sanctity of an abode.

Nocturnity or nighttime is also aggravating because although it was not purposely
or especially sought for by Wenceslao, nighttime was obviously taken advantaged of by him
in committing the other crimes. Under the objective test, nocturnity is aggravating when
taken advantaged of by the offender during the commission of the crime thus facilitating
the same. The use of a picklock to enter the room of the victim is not an aggravating
circumstance under Art. 14 of the Code but punished as a crime by itself where the offender
has no lawful cause for possessing it. The use of picklocks is equivalent to force upon things
in robbery with force upon things.

Generic
Qualifying

Page 111 of 338
Criminal law – Crimes affecting criminal liability – Aggravating
circumstances; guidelines in appreciating age as a qualifying
circumstance in rape cases

B. GV was convicted of raping TC, his niece, and he was sentenced to death. It was
alleged in the information that the victim was a minor below seven years old, and
her mother testified that she was only six years and ten months old, which her aunt
corroborated on the witness stand. The information also alleged that the accused
was the victim’s uncle, a fact proved by the prosecution.

On automatic review before the Supreme Court, accused- appellant contends
that capital punishment could not be imposed on him because of the inadequacy of
the charges and the insufficiency of the evidence to prove all the elements of the
heinous crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt.

Is appellant’s contention correct? Reason briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

B. Yes, appellant's contention is correct insofar as the age of the victim is concerned.
The age of the victim raped has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt to constitute the
crime as qualified rape and deserving of the death penalty. The guidelines in appreciating
age as a qualifying circumstance in rape cases have not been met, to wit:

a) The primary evidence of the age of the victim is her birth certificate;

b) In the absence of the birth certificate, age of the victim may be proven by
authentic document, such as baptismal certificate and school records;

c) If the aforesaid documents are shown to have been lost or destroyed or
otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible of the victim’s mother or any
member of the family, by consanguinity or affinity, who is qualified to testify on matters
respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to
Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient but only under the
following circumstances: (a) If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is
sought to be proved is that she is less than 7 years old; (b) If the victim is alleged to be
below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 12 years old;
(c) If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be proved is
that she is less than 18 years old.

d) In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or the
testimony of the victim's mother or relatives concerning the victim's age under the
circumstances above-stated, complainant’s sole testimony can suffice, provided that it is
expressly and clearly admitted by the accused (People vs. Pruna, 390 SCRA 577 [2002D.

Page 112 of 338
Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Qualifying
circumstances
Diego and Pablo were both farmers residing in Barangay Damayan. On one
occasion, Diego called Pablo to come down from his house in order to ask him why
he got his (Diego’s) plow without permission. One word led to another. Diego, in a fit
of anger, unsheathed his bolo and hacked Pablo to death. Pablo’s 9-year old son,
Mario, who was inside the house, saw the killing of his father. Afraid that he might
also be killed by Diego, Mario covered himself with a blanket and hid in a comer of
the house. To conceal the killing of Pablo, Diego brought Pablo’s body inside the
house and burned it. Mario was also burned to death. What crime or crimes did
Diego commit? (1989 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Diego committed two crimes (1) homicide for the death of Pablo and (2) the special
complex crime of arson with homicide as provided in PD 1613 for the burning of the house
and the death of Mario.
The hacking of Pablo to death is homicide, the killing not being attended by any of the
qualifying circumstances of murder. It was killing in the course of a quarrel.
The burning of the house to conceal the killing of Pablo is a separate crime. Were it not
for the death of Mario, this separate offense would have been arson. But inside the house
was unknown to Diego, the resulting crime is under PD No. 1613, because the death
resulted from the arson. If by reason or on the occasion of the arson, death results, the
offense is the special complex or arson with homicide (Sec. 5, PD 1613, which expressly
repealed Art. 320 and consequently the ruling case therein, People v. Paterno (L-2665,
March 6, 1950).
If Diego knew that Mario was inside the house when he set it on fire, the crime
committed, instead of arson, would be MURDER, with fire as the qualifying circumstance.

Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Qualifying
circumstances
(b) When would qualifying circumstances be deemed, if at all, elements of a
crime? (2003 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(b) A qualifying circumstance would be deemed an element of a crime when -
1) it changes the nature of the crime, bringing about a more serious crime and a heavier
penalty;

Page 113 of 338
2) it is essential to the crime involved, otherwise some other crime is committed; and
3) it is specifically alleged in the Information and proven during the trial.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
A qualifying circumstance is deemed an element of a crime when it is specifically stated by
law as included in the definition of a crime, like treachery in the crime of murder.

(a) Decree Codifying the Laws on Illegal/Unlawful Possession,
Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or Disposition, of Firearms,
Ammunition or Explosives (P.D. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294)
as an aggravating circumstance

Criminal law- Aggravating circumstances – Special aggravating
circumstance of the use of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of a
crime

A. PH killed OJ, his political rival in the election campaign for Mayor of their town.
The Information against PH alleged that he used an unlicensed firearm in the killing
of the victim, and this was proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. The
trial court convicted PH of two crimes: murder and illegal possession of firearms.

Is the conviction correct? Reason briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

A. No, the conviction of PH for two crimes, murder and illegal possession of firearm is
not correct. Under the new law on illegal possession of firearms and explosives, Rep. Act
No. 8294, a person may only be criminally liable for illegal possession of firearm if no other
crime is committed therewith; if a homicide or murder is committed with the use of an
unlicensed firearm, such use shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.

PH therefore may only be convicted of murder and the use of an unlicensed firearm in its
commission may only be appreciated as a special aggravating circumstance, provided that
such use is alleged specifically in the information for Murder.

Page 114 of 338
Criminal law – Aggravating circumstances - Use of an unlicensed firearm
in homicide or murder

TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the
statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences. (5%)
(2009 Bar Question)

[c] The use of an unlicensed firearm in homicide is considered a generic
aggravating circumstance which can be offset by an ordinary mitigating
circumstance.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

False. Offsetting may not take place because the use of an unlicensed firearm in homicide or
murder is a specific aggravating circumstance provided for by Rep. Act No. 8294. It is not
one of the generic aggravating circumstances under Art.14 of the Revised Penal Code
(People v. Avecilla, 351 SCRA 635 [20011).

(b) The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (R.A. No. 9165)
(i) As a qualifying aggravating circumstance
(ii) Immunity from prosecution and punishment, coverage

Special penal law - The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
(R.A. No. 9165) – Chain of custody
Following his arrest after a valid buy-bust operation, Tommy was convicted of
violation of Section 5, Republic Act 9165. On appeal, Tommy questioned the
admissibility of the evidence because the police officers who conducted the buy-bust
operation failed to observe the requisite "chain of custody" of the evidence
confiscated and/or seized from him.
What is the "chain of custody" requirement in drug offenses? What is its
rationale? What is the effect of failure to observe the requirement? (3%) (2009 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

"Chain of custody" requirement in drug offenses refers to the duly recorded,
authorized movement and custody of seized dangerous drugs, controlled chemicals, plant
sources of dangerous drugs, and laboratory equipment for dangerous drugs from the time
of confiscation/seizure thereof from the offender, to its turn-over and receipt in the
forensic laboratory for examination, to its safekeeping and eventual presentation/offer in

Page 115 of 338
court as evidence of the criminal violation, and for destruction. (Dangerous Drugs Board
Regulation No.1 Series of 2002)

Its rationale is to preserve the authenticity of the corpus delicti or body of the crime
by rendering it improbable that the original item seized/confiscated in the violation has
been exchanged or substituted with another or tampered with or contaminated. It is a
method of authenticating the evidence as would support a finding beyond reasonable
doubt that the matter is what the prosecution claims it to be.

Failure to observe the "chain of custody" requirement renders the evidence
questionable, not trustworthy and insufficient to prove the corpus delicti beyond
reasonable doubt. Hence, Tommy would be acquitted on reasonable doubt.

Minor offenders
Application/Non- application of RPC provisions (Sec. 98, R.A. No.
9165) provisions (Sec. 98) cf. Art. 10, RPC
Alternative circumstances
Absolutory cause

Criminal law - Kidnapping and serious illegal detention; release of
victim, not absolutory

B. DAN, a private individual, kidnapped CHU, a minor. On the second day,
DAN released CHU even before any criminal information was filed against him. At the
trial of his case, DAN raised the defense that he did not incur any criminal liability
since he released the child before the lapse of the 3-day period and before criminal
proceedings for kidnapping were instituted.

Will DAN’S defense prosper? Reason briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

B. No. DAN's defense will not prosper. Voluntary release by the offender of the
offended party in kidnapping is not absolutory. Besides, such release is irrelevant and
immaterial in this case because the victim being a minor, the crime committed is
kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Art. 267, Revised Penal Code, to which such
circumstance does not apply. The circumstance may be appreciated only in the crime of
Slight Illegal Detention in Art. 268 Asistio v. San Diego 10 SCRA 673 [1964D.

Page 116 of 338
Persons criminally liable/Degree of participation

Criminal law – Persons criminally liable/degree of participation – Co-
conspirator; accomplice
Juan and Arturo devised a plan to murder Joel. In a narrow alley near Joel's
house, Juan will hide behind the big lamppost and shoot Joel wheri the latter passes
through on his way to work. Arturo will come from the other end of the alley and
simultaneously shoot Joel from behind. On the appointed day, Arturo was
apprehended by the authorities before reaching the alley. When Juan shot Joel as
planned, he was unaware that Arturo was arrested earlier. Discuss the criminal
liability of Arturo, if any. 15% (1998 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Arturo, being one of the two who devised the plan to murder Joel, thereby becomes a
co-principal by direct conspiracy. What is needed only is an overt act and both will incur
criminal liability. Arturo's liability as a conspirator arose from his participation in jointly
devising the criminal plan with Juan, to kill Jose. And it was pursuant to that conspiracy
that Juan killed Joel. The conspiracy here is actual, not by inference only. The overt act was
done pursuant to that conspiracy whereof Arturo is co-conspirator. There being a
conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Arturo, therefore, should be liable as a co-
conspirator but the penalty on him may be that of an accomplice only (People vs. Nierra,
96 SCRA1; People vs. Medrano, 114 SCRA 335) because he was not able to actually
participate in the shooting of Joel, having been apprehended before reaching the place
where the crime was committed.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Arturo is not liable because he was not able to participate in the killing of Joel. Conspiracy
itself is not punishable unless expressly provided by law and this is not true in the case of
Murder. A co-conspirator must perform an overt act pursuant to the conspiracy.

Criminal law – Persons criminally liable/Degree of participation - Principal by
direct participation and co-principal by indispensable cooperation
Despite the massive advertising campaign in media against firecrackers and
gun-firing during the New Year's celebrations. Jonas and Jaja bought ten boxes of
super lolo and pla-pla in Bocaue, Bulacan. Before midnight of December 31,1999,
Jonas and Jaja started their celebration by having a drinking spree at Jona's place by
exploding their high-powered firecrackers in their neighborhood. In the course of
their conversation, Jonas confided to Jaja that he has been keeping a long-time
grudge against his neighbor Jepoy in view of the tatter's refusal to lend him some

Page 117 of 338
money. While under the influence of liquor, Jonas started throwing lighted super
lolos inside Jepoy's fence to irritate him and the same exploded inside the tatter's
yard. Upon knowing that the throwing of the super lolo was deliberate, Jepoy
became furious and sternly warned Jonas to stop his malicious act or he would get
what he wanted. A heated argument between Jonas and Jepoy ensued but Jaja tried
to calm down his friend. At midnight, Jonas convinced Jaja to lend him his .45 caliber
pistol so that he could use it to knock down Jepoy and to end his arrogance. Jonas
thought that after all, explosions were everywhere and nobody would know who
shot Jepoy. After Jaja lent his firearm to Jonas, the latter again started started
throwing lighted super lolos and pla-plas at Jepoy’s yard in order to provoke him so
that he would come out of his house. When Jepoy came out, Jonas immediately shot
him with Jaja’s .45 caliber gun but missed his target. Instead, the bullet hit Jepoy's
five year old son who was following behind him, killing the boy instantaneously.
If you were the judge, how would you decide the case? Explain. (1%) (2000 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I would convict Jonas as principal by direct participation and Jaja as co-principal by
indispensable cooperation for the complex crime of murder with homicide. Jaja should be held liable
as co-principal and not only as an accomplice because he knew of Jonas' criminal design even before
he lent his firearm to Jonas and still he concurred in that criminal design by providing the firearm.

Criminal law – Persons criminally liable/ Degree of participation – Principal by
inducement; Accessory

Juan had a land dispute with Pedro for a number of years. As Juan was earning
down his house, he saw his brother, Rodolfo attack Pedro with a bolo from behind.
Rodolfo was about to hit Pedro a second time while the latter was prostrate on the
ground, when Carling, Pedro’s son, shouted, “I’ll kill you.” This distracted Rodolfo
who then turned ter Carling. Rodolfo and Carling fought with their bolos. While the
two were fighting, Juan shouted to his brother Rodolfo: “Kill them both, they are our
enemies.” Calling suffered a number of wounds and died on the spot, Pedro who was
in serious condition was rushed to the hospital. He died five days later for loss of
blood because the blood purchased from Manila which could have saved him,
according to the doctor, did not arrive on time, Jose, father of Juan and Rodolfo, told
his sons to hide in Manila and he gave them money for the purpose. When the police
investigators saw Jose, he told the police investigators that Juan and Rodolfo went to
Mindanao.

What crimes, if any, did (a) Rodolfo, (b) Juan and Jose commit? Explain your
answer and state whether the acts committed are accompanied by circumstances
affecting criminal liability. (1987 Bar Question)

Page 118 of 338
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a) Jose, father of Juan and Rodolfo, is an accessory to the crime of murder committed
by Rodolfo because he assisted him to escape to Manila. But he is not criminally liable
because of his relationship to Rodolfo (Article 20). He is not an accessory to the crime of
homicide, because this crime is not included in treason, parricide, muraer, attempt against
the life of the Chief Executive or the principal is known to be habitually guilty of some other
crime if the accessory is a private person. However, this is moot and academic because of
the relationship of Jose to Rodolfo.

Criminal law – Persons criminally liable/ Degree of participation – Principal by
inducement

Mario, a law student, wanted to avenge the death of his brother, Jose, in the hands of
Pedro and his gang. So, Mario talked to Dalmacio, known tough guy, to kill Pedro by
promising him P50,000 to be paid after he had accomplished the killing. Dalmacio agreed.
Since Pedro was to appear in court the following day at 9:00 a.m. at the city hall to attend the
hearing involving the death of Jose, Mario told Dalmacio to carry out the plan at that exact
time in the court room, to which Dalmacio assented. At 8:50 a.m., Mario went to see Captain
Malonso of the Police Department and told him that Dalmacio would kill Pedro at 9:00 a.m. at
the city hall. He asked Captain Malonso to prevent it and so the latter rushed to the city hall
but arrived at 9:05 a.m. when Dalmacio had already killed Pedro. Is Mario liable as co-
principal with Dalmacio for the killing of Pedro? Give your reasons. (1989 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Mario is a principal by inducement. By promising to give P50,000.00 to Dalmacio, which is an
agreement for a consideration for the purpose of avenging his brother's death the inducement was
made directly with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime. Furthermore, the facts
show that Dalmacio has no personal reason to kill Pedro except the inducement, which is therefore
the determining cause for the commission of the crime by Dalmacio.
Mario's change of mind and heart at the last minute, which did not, after all, prevent the
consummation of the crime, because it was too late, does not alter the course of his criminal liability
as a co-principal by inducement. Desistance from carrying out a criminal design is no defense if such
desistance has not actually and successfully prevented the commission of the crime.

Criminal law – Persons criminally liable/ Degree of participation –
Principal by inducement
A asked B to kill C because of a grave injustice done to A by C. A promised B a
reward. B was willing to kill C, not so much because of the reward promised to him

Page 119 of 338
but because he also had his own long-standing grudge against C, who had wronged
him in the past. If C is killed by B, would A be liable as a principal by inducement?
(5%) (2002 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. A would not be liable as a principal by inducement because the reward he
promised S is not the sole impelling reason which made B to kill C. To bring about criminal
liability of a co-principal, the inducement made by the inducer must be the sole
consideration which caused the person induced to commit the crime and without which
the crime would not have been committed. The facts of the case indicate that B, the killer
supposedly induced by A, had his own reason to kill C out of a long standing grudge.

Criminal law – Persons criminally liable/ Degree of participation –
accomplice and a conspirator

a.) Distinguish between an accomplice and a conspirator. (2007 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) The distinctions between an accomplice and a conspirator are:

1. An accomplice incurs criminal liability by merely cooperating in the execution of
the crime without participating as a principal, by prior or simultaneous acts; whereas a
conspirator participates in the commission of a crime as a co-principal.

2. An accomplice incurs criminal liability in an individual capacity by his act alone of
cooperating in the execution of the crime; while a conspirator incurs criminal liability not
only for his individual acts in the execution of the crime but also for the acts of the other
participants in the commission of the crime collectively. The acts of the other participants
in the execution of the crime are considered also as acts of a conspirator for purposes of
collective criminal responsibility.

3. An accomplice participates in the execution of a crime when the criminal design
or plan is already in place; whereas a conspirator participates in the adoption or making of
the criminal design.

4. An accomplice is subjected to a penalty one degree lower than that of a principal;
whereas a conspirator incurs the penalty of a principal.

Criminal law - Persons criminally liable/Degree of participation -
principal by indispensable cooperation; principal by inducement

Page 120 of 338
To secure a release of his brother Willy, a detention prisoner, and his cousin
Vincent, who is serving sentence for homicide, Chito asked the RTC Branch Clerk of
Court to issue an Order which would allow the two prisoners to be brought out of jail.
At first, the Clerk refused, but when Chita gave her P50,000.00, she consented.

She then prepared an Order requiring the appearance in court of Willy and
Vincent, ostensibly as witnesses in a pending case. She forged the judge's signature,
and delivered the Order to the jail warden who, in turn, allowed Willy and Vincent to
go out of jail in the company of an armed escort, Edwin. Chito also gave Edwin
P50,000.00 to leave the two inmates unguarded for three minutes and provide them
with an opportunity to escape. Thus, Willy and Vincent were able to escape.

What crime or crimes, if any, had been committed by Chito, Willy, Vincent, the
Branch Clerk of court, Edwin, and the jail warden? Explain your answer. (5%) (2009
Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The crimes committed in this case are as follows:

a. Chito committed the crimes of -
1. Delivery of Prisoners from Jail (Art. 156, RPC) for working out the escape
of prisoners Willy and Vincent;
2. Two counts of Corruption of Public Officials (Art. 212, RPC); and
3. Falsification of Public Documents, as a principal by inducement (Art. 172
[1], RPC).

c. Willy committed the crime of Delivery of Prisoners from Jail (Art. 156, RPC) as a
principal by indispensable cooperation if he was aware of the criminal plan of
Chito to have them escape from prison and he did escape pursuant to such
criminal plan; otherwise he would not be liable for said crime if he escaped
pursuant to human instinct only.

d. Vincent, being a prisoner serving sentence by final judgment, committed the
crime of Evasion of Service of Sentence (Art. 157, RPC) for escaping during the
term of his imprisonment.

e. The Branch Clerk of Court committed the crimes of:

1. Direct Bribery (Art. 210, RPC) for accepting the P50,000.00 - in
consideration of the order she issued to enable the prisoners to get out of jail;
2. Falsification of Public Document for forging the judge's signature on said
Order (Art. 171, RPC);
3. Delivery of Prisoners from Jail (Art. 156, RPC), as a co-principal of Chito by
indispensable cooperation for making the false Order and forging the judge's signature
thereon, to enable the prisoners to get out of jail;

Page 121 of 338
4. Evasion of Service of Sentence (Art. 157, RPC); as a co-principal of Vincent by
indispensable cooperation for making the false Order that enabled Vincent to evade service
of his sentence;

e. Edwin, the jail guard who escorted the prisoners in getting out of jail, committed
the crimes of –
1. Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoners, specifically conniving with or
consenting to Evasion for leaving unguarded the prisoners escorted by him and
provide them an opportunity to escape (Art. 223, RPC);
2. Direct Bribery for receiving the P50,000.00 as consideration for leaving the
prisoners unguarded and allowing them the opportunity to escape (Art. 210, RPC);

f. The jail warden did not commit nor incur a crime there being no showing that he
was aware of what his subordinates had done nor of any negligence on his part that would
amount to infidelity in the custody of prisoners.

Criminal law – Persons criminally liable/ Degree of cooperation -
Accomplice

Ponciano borrowed Ruben's gun, saying that he would use it to kill Freddie.
Because Ruben also resented Freddie, he readily lent his gun, but told Ponciano: "0,
pagkabaril mo kay Freddie, isauli mo kaagad, ha." Later, Ponciano killed Freddie, but
used a knife because he did not want Freddie's neighbors to hear the gunshot.

[a] What, if any, is the liability of Ruben? Explain. (3%) (2009 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Ruben's liability is that of an accomplice only because he merely cooperated in
Ponciano's determination to kill Freddie. Such cooperation is not indispensable to the
killing, as in fact the killing was carried out without the use of Ruben's gun. Neither may
Ruben be regarded as a co-conspirator since he was not a participant in the decision-
making of Ponciano to kill Freddie; he merely cooperated in carrying out the criminal plan
which was already in place (Art. 18, RPC).

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Ruben cannot be held liable as an accomplice in the killing of Freddie because his act
of lending his gun to Ponciano did not have a relation between the acts done by the latter to
that attributed to Ruben. Even if Ruben did not lend his gun, Poncian.o would have
consummated the act of killing Freddie. In other words, Ruben's act in lending his gun was
not a necessary act to enable Ponciano to consummate the crime.

Page 122 of 338
[b] Would your answer be the same if, instead of Freddie, it was Manuel, a
relative of Ruben, who was killed by Ponciano using Ruben's gun? Explain. (3%)
(2009 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. The answer would not be the same because Ruben lent his gun purposely for the
killing of Freddie only, not for any other killing. Ponciano's using Ruben's gun in killing a
person other than Freddie is beyond Ruben's criminal intent and willing involvement. Only
Ponciano will answer for the crime against Manuel.
It has been ruled that when the owner of the gun knew that it would be used to kill a
particular person, but the offender used it to kill another person, the owner of the gun is
not an accomplice as to the killing of the other person. While there was community of
design to kill Freddie between Ponciano and Ruben, there was none with respect to the
killing of Manuel.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Yes. The answer would be same because Ruben lent his gun to Ponciano with
knowledge that it would be used in killing a person, thus with knowledge that the gun
would be used to commit a crime. It is of no moment who was killed, so long as Ruben is
aware when he lent the gun that it would be used to commit a crime.

Criminal law – Persons criminally liable/Degree of participation - Accessory
Ricardo secured the services of Atty. Juanito to defend him in an arson case
pending in court. Juanito asked his client what actually happened. Ricardo informed
his lawyer that Sing Hua, owner of a department store, hired him to bum the store
because Sing Hua was losing heavily and wanted to get the insurance on the store.
Ricardo said that Sing Hua paid him P5,000.00, and promised an additional 10% of
the proceeds of the PI0,000,000.00 lire insurance once this was collected from the
insurance company. He further said that Sing Hna’s claim for payment of the fire
insurance was still pending and its approval depended on the outcome of the arson
case. This meant that the ABC Insurance Company would pay the claim should
Ricardo be acquitted in the arson case. Then he would also get the 10% share of the
fire insurance proceeds. He told lawyer Juanito that by depending him in the arson
case, the latter would be helping collect the 10% which would amount of
PI,000,000.00. After hearing Ricardo’s story, Atty. Juanito told him he could not
further give him professional advice or services and so Ricardo left That same day,
Juanito went to the NBI and told the NBI what Ricardo narrated him. The NBI alerted
ABC Insurance Company, which immediately denied the daim for payment of
insurance and filed a complaint for attempted estafa through arson against Sing Hua
and Ricardo.

(a) Did Juanito commit any crime? (1987 Bar Question)

Page 123 of 338
(b) Would the situation be different if at the time Ricardo secured the
professional services of Juanito, ABC Insurance Company had already paid Sing Hua
the insurance and the latter had in turn paid Ricardo 10% thereof? (1987 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a) Juanito did not commit any crime. By telling Ricardo that he could not give him
professional advice or services, after being informed that the owner of the department
store hired him to bum the store because it was losing heavily and wanted to get the
insurance on the store, and that he was paid already P5,000 with a promise of an
additional 10% of the proceeds of the PI0,000,000 fire insurance once collected from
the insurance company, Atty. Juanito complied with his obligation as a lawyer to
report to the authorities whatever knowledge he has regarding the commission of a
crime.
b) Juanito will be liable as an accessory because by accepting 10% of the insurance
proceeds even in payment of the professional services, he profited or assisted the
principal, Ricardo, to profit from the proceeds of the commission of the crime.

Criminal law – Persons criminally liable/ Degree of participation –
Principals; accessory
Emilio and Andres were walking home from the farm at 8:00 o’clock in the evening
when they met Asiong whom Emilio suspected as the one who stole his fighting cock two (2)
days before; Emilio confronted Asiong and after a heated discussion, a bolo fight between the
two (2) ensued. Asiong sustained fatal wounds and died. Emilio asked Andres to help him
carry the body of Asiong and bury it behind the bushes. After burying Asiong, Emilio picked
up the jute bag Asiong was then holding and found inside P600 which Emilio and Andres
divided each getting P300. A week after the investigation by the police, a complaint was filed
in the Office of Provincial Fiscal against Emilio and Andres for robbery with homicide with
the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and uninhabited place. If you were the fiscal,
what information or informations will you file against Emilio and Andres? What are their
respective criminal liabilities? (1989 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If I were the fiscal, I would file two separate informations against Emilio and Andres,
one for homicide with Emilio as principal and Andres as accessory, and another for theft
against both Emilio and Andres as principals. This is so because of the following reasons:
1. The killing of Asiong by Emilio is homicide. It is not attended by any qualifying
circumstance of murder. It was a killing at the spur of the moment, in the course of a bolo
fight, as an aftermath of a heated discussion.
2. Neither was the killing by reason of or on the occasion of a robbery. There was no
intention of either Emilio or Andres to rob Asiong either prior to or in the course of the
killing. The taking of Asiong’s P600.00 was only an AFTERTHOUGHT, after the killing was

Page 124 of 338
already perpetrated. There is no causal or other connection between the act of killing and
the act of taking the money.
3. Andres is liable as an accessory in the homicide case because he had no
participation either as co-principal or accomplice in the killing of Asiong who died solely
because of the wounds inflicted on him in his bolo-fight with Emilio, the principal.
However, when Andres agreed to help Emilio carry the body of Asiong and bury it behind
the bushes, thus concealing or destroying the body of the crime (corpus delicti) to prevent
its discovery, he became an accessory to the crime of homicide (Art. 19, RPC).
With respect to the taking of the P600.00 which Emilio and Andres divided between
themselves, they committed the crime of theft as co-principals. Theft because with intent
to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons no force upon things, they
took personal property of another without the latter’s consent. They acted with unity of
purposes and intention, thus making them co-principals by direct participation.

Criminal law – Persons criminally liable/Degree of participation-
Accessory

B. DCB, the daughter of MCB, stole the earrings of XYZ, a stranger. MCB pawned the
earrings with TBI Pawnshop as a pledge for P500 loan. During the trial, MCB raised the
defense that being the mother of DCB, she cannot be held liable as an accessory.

Will MCB’s defense prosper? Reason briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

B. No, MCB’s defense will not prosper because the exemption from criminal liability of
an accessory by virtue of relationship with the principal does not cover accessories who
themselves profited from or assisted the offender to profit by the effects or proceeds of the
crime. This non-exemption of an accessory, though related to the principal of the crime, is
expressly provided in Art. 20 of the Revised Penal Code.

Criminal law – Persons criminally liable/ Degree of participation -
Accessory

Immediately after murdering Bob, Jake went to his mother to seek refuge. His
mother told him to hide in the maid's quarters until she finds a better place for him
to hide. After two days, Jake transferred to his aunt's house. A week later, Jake was
apprehended by the police. Can Jake's mother and aunt be made criminally liable as
accessories to the crime of murder? Explain. (3%) (2010 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Page 125 of 338
Obviously, Jake's mother was aware of her son's having committed a felony, such
that her act of harboring and concealing him renders her liable as an accessory. But being
an ascendant of Jake, she is exempt from criminal liability by express provision of Article
20 of the Revised Penal Code.
On the other hand, the criminal liability of Jake's aunt depends on her knowledge of
the felony committed by Jake. If she had knowledge of his commission of the felony, her act
of harboring and concealing Jake would render her criminally liable as accessory to the
crime of murder; otherwise without knowledge of Jake's commission of the felony, she
would not be liable.

Criminal law – Persons criminally liable/ Degree of participation –
Accessory

Mancolo revealed to his friend Domeng his desire to kill Cece. He likewise
confided to Domeng his desire to borrow his revolver. Domeng lent it. Manolo shot
Cece in Manila with Domeng's revolver. As his gun was used in the killing, Domeng
asked Mayor Tan to help him escape. The mayor gave Domeng P5,000 and told him
to proceed to Mindanao to hide. Domeng went to Mindanao. The mayor was later
charged as an accessory to Cece's murder.

a) Can he be held liable for the charge? Explain. (4%) (2008 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a) Giving Domeng the benefit of a milder criminal responsibility of an accomplice,
not of a co-principal by indispensable cooperation of Manolo, Mayor Tan could not be liable
as an accessory to Cece's murder. To incur criminal liability of an accessory for helping or
assisting in the escape of an offender, he must be a principal of the crime committed. Unless
Domeng would be considered as a co-principal by indispensable cooperation in the
commission of the murder, the Mayor, by assisting him to escape, would be an accessory to
the felony.

a) Decree Penalizing Obstruction of Apprehension and Prosecution of Criminal
Offenders (P.D. 1829)
Punishable acts

Criminal law – Persons criminally liable/ Degree of participation;
Special penal law - Obstruction of justice

Page 126 of 338
Mancolo revealed to his friend Domeng his desire to kill Cece. He likewise
confided to Domeng his desire to borrow his revolver. Domeng lent it. Manolo shot
Cece in Manila with Domeng's revolver. As his gun was used in the killing, Domeng
asked Mayor Tan to help him escape. The mayor gave Domeng P5,000 and told him
to proceed to Mindanao to hide. Domeng went to Mindanao. The mayor was later
charged as an accessory to Cece's murder.

b) Can he be held liable for any other offense? Explain fully. (3%) (2008 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

b) Although the Mayor may not be held liable as an accessory to the killing of Cece,
he may be held liable for obstruction of justice under Presidential Decree No. 1829 for
assisting Domeng, who was involved in the commission of a crime, to escape from Manila to
Mindanao.

Compare with Art. 20, RPC (accessories exempt from criminal liability)
Penalties

Criminal law – Penalties – Classes of penalties under the Revised Penal
Code

State the two classes of penalties under the revised Penal Code. Define each. (1988
Bar Question)
May censure be included in a sentence of acquittal? Why or why not? (1988 Bar
Question)
What offenses, if any, may be punished with the death penalty in our jurisdiction at
present? Explain. (1988 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) The two classes of penalties under Article 25 of the Revise Penal Code are as
follows:
1. Principal
2. Accessory

A principal penalty is defined as that provided for a felony and which is imposed by
court expressly upon conviction.

Page 127 of 338
An accessory penalty is defined as that deemed included in the imposition of the
principal penalty.
b) Censure may not be included in a sentence of acquittal, because a censure is a
penalty. Censure is repugnant and is essentially inconsistent and contrary to an acquittal
(People vs. Abellera, 69 Phil. 623.)
c) At present, no offense may be punished with the death penalty in our jurisdiction at
present. The 1987 Constitution has abolished the death penalty and the abolition affects
even those who has already been sentenced to death penalty. Therefore, unless Congress
enacts a law, no offense may be punished with the death penalty at present. But until today,
Congress has not yet passed a law to this effect.

Criminal law – Penalties – Subsidiary penalty; penalty in lieu of the penalty
imposed in the sentence
Pedro was convicted of the crime of damage to property through reckless
imprudence for bumping the car of Jose and the court of sentenced him to pay a fine of
P3,Q00. Pedro failed to pay die amount of the fine for he was insolvent. Later, the court
ordered the incarceration of Pedro so that the latter could serve subsidiary imprisonment to
satisfy the fine. Pedro filed a petition for habeas corpus alleging that his confinement is
illegal. Will the petition prosper? Give your reasons. (1989 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The petition for habeas corpus will prosper. Subsidiary penalty is not an accessory penalty
which inheres to a principal penalty and may therefore be imposed even if it is not expressly
provided in the sentence. It is a penalty in lieu of the penalty imposed in the sentence. Hence, unless
the judgment or sentence expressly provides for subsidiary imprisonment, the culprit cannot be
made to undergo the same (People vs. Fajardo, 65 Phil. 639).
In this case, the court merely sentenced Pedro to pay a P3,000.00 fine. It was only
LATER that the Court ordered the incarceration of Pedro to serve subsidiary
imprisonment AFTER Pedro failed to pay the amount of the fine. Subsidiary imprisonment
cannot be imposed unless it is expressly provided in the sentence.

Criminal law – Penalties – Factors to consider to arrive at the correct
penalty
Imagine that you are a Judge trying a case, and based on the evidence presented
and the applicable law, you have decided on the guilt of two (2) accused. Indicate the
five (5) steps you would follow to determine the exact penalty to be imposed. Stated
differently, what are the factors you must consider to arrive at the correct penalty?
(1991 Bar Question)

Page 128 of 338
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1. Determine the crime committed;
2. Stage of execution and degree of participation;
3. Determine the penalty;
4. Consider the modifying circumstances;
5. Determine whether Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable or not.

NOTE ON QUESTIONS VI, VII and VIII

In answering the three succeeding problems below, you may need to recall the following
ranges of penalty:
DEATH
Reclusion Perpetua
Reclusion Temporal: 12 years and 1 day to 20 years
Minimum 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and
8 months
Medium 14 years, 8 months and 1 day to 17
years and 4 months Maximum 17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 20
years
Prision Mayor: 6 years and 1 day to 12 years
Minimum 6 years and 1 day to 8 years
Medium 8 years and 1 day to 10 years
Maximum 10 years and 1 day to 12 years

Prision Correcional: 6 months and 1 day to 6 years
Minimum 6 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months
Medium 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months
Maximum 4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 6 years

Arresto Mayor: 1 month and 1 day to 6 months
Minimum 1 month and 1 day to 2 months
Medium 2 months and 1 day to 4 months
Maximum 4 months and 1 day to 6 months

Criminal law – Penalties - Reclusion perpetua
A and B pleaded guilty to the crime of parricide. The court found three
mitigating circumstances, namely, plea of guilty, lack of instruction and lack of
intent to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. The prescribed penalty for
parricide is reclusion perpetua to death.

Impose the proper principal penalty. (1997 Bar Question)

Page 129 of 338
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. Even if there are two or more mitigating
circumstances, a court cannot lower the penalty by one degree (Art. 63. par. 3, Revised
Penal Code; People vs. Formigones, 87 Phil. 685). In U.S. vs. Relador, 60 Phil. 593, where
the crime committed was parricide with the two (2) mitigating circumstances of illiteracy
and lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong, and with no aggravating circumstance,
the Supreme Court held that the proper penalty to be imposed is reclusion perpetua.

Criminal law – Penalties – Prision correctional as minimum, prision
mayor maximum as maximum
A was convicted of the complex crime of death through falsification of public
document. Since the amount involved did not exceed P200.00, the penalty
prescribed by law for estafa is arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods.
The penalty prescribed by law for falsification of public document is prision mayor
plus fine not to exceed P5.000.00.

Impose the proper prison penalty. (1997 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The proper penalty is ANY RANGE WITHIN prision correccional (six (6) months and
one (1) day to six (6) years) as MINIMUM, to ANY RANGE within prision mayor maximum
(ten (10) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years) as MAXIMUM. This is in accordance
with People vs. Gonzales, 73 Phil. 549. where it was ruled that for the purpose of
determining the penalty next lower in degree, the penalty that should be considered as a
starting point is the whole of prision mayor, it being the penalty prescribed by law, and not
prision mayor in its maximum period, which is only the penalty actually applied because of
Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty next lower in degree therefor is prision
correctional and it is within the range of this penalty that the minimum should be taken.

Criminal law – Penalties – Arresto mayor as minimum, prision correctional in its
maximum as maximum
Assume In the preceding problem that there were two mitigating circumstances and no
aggravating circumstance. Impose the proper prison penalty. (1997 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

There being two (2) mitigating circumstances without any aggravating circumstance, the
proper prison penalty is arresto mayor (in any of Its periods, le. ranging from one (1) month and one
(1) day to six (6) months) as MINIMUM to prision correctional in its maximum period four (4) years,

Page 130 of 338
two (2) months, and one (1) day to six (6) years as MAXIMUM. Under Art. 64, par. 5 of the Revised
Penal Code, when a penalty contains three periods, each one of which forms a period In accordance
with Article 76 and 77 of the same Code, and there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no
aggravating circumstances, the penalty next lower in degree should be Imposed. For purposes of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty next lower In degree should be determined without regard
as to whether the basic penalty provided by the Revised Penal Code should be applied In its
maximum or minimum period as circumstances modifying liability may require. The penalty next
lower In degree to priskm correctional Therefore, as previously stated, the minimum should be within
the range of arresto mayor and the maximum is within the range of prision correccional maltnits
maximum period.

Criminal law – Penalty – Crime of homicide; one aggravating circumstance
and four mitigating circumstances

Homer was convicted of homicide. The trial court appreciated the following modifying
circumstances: the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity and the mitigating
circumstances of passion and obfuscation, no intent to commit so grave a wrong,
illiteracy and voluntary surrender. The imposable penalty for homicide is reclusion
temporal the range of which is twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20)
years.
Taking into account the attendant aggravating and mitigating circumstances,
and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, determine the proper penalty to be
imposed on the accused. (1995 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
It appears that there is one aggravating circumstance (noctumity), and four mitigating
circumstances (passion and obfuscation, no intent to commit so grave a wrong as that
committed and voluntary surrender). Par. 4, Art. 64 should be applied. Hence there will be
off-setting of modifying circumstances, which will now result in the excess of three
mitigating circumstances. This will therefore justify in reducing the penalty to the
minimum period.
The existence of an aggravating circumstance, albeit there are four aggravating, will
not justify the lowering of the penalty to the next lower degree under paragraph 5 of said
Article, as this is applicable only if THERE IS NO AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE present.
Since the crime committed is Homicide and the penalty therefor is reclusion temporal,
the MAXIMUM sentence under the Indeterminate Sentence Law should be the minimum of
the penalty, which is 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months. The MINIMUM penalty
will thus be the penalty next lower in degree, which is prision mayor in its full extent (6
years and 1 day to 12 years).
Ergo, the proper penalty would be 6 years and 1 day, as minimum, to 12 years and 1
day, as maximum. I believe that because of the remaining mitigating circumstances after

Page 131 of 338
the off-setting it would be very logical to impose the minimum of the MINIMUM sentence
under the ISL and the minimum of the MAXIMUM sentence.

a) General principles

Criminal law – Penalties – death penalty

What are the instances when the death penalty could not be imposed, although it
should otherwise ordinarily be meted out? (1997 Bar Question)

Answer:

1. When the guilty party is below 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the
crime or when the offender is more than 70 years of age.

2. When upon appeal or automatic review of the case by the Supreme Court, the
required majorityvoteisnot obtained for the imposition of the penalty, in which
case the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua.

Criminal law – Penalties – Death penalty
(a) When was the constitutional proscription against the imposition of the death
penalty lifted? (1995 Bar Question)
(b)When is the execution of the death penalty suspended under the Revised Penal
Code? (1995 Bar Question)
(c) When is the death penalty commuted under the same Code? (1995 Bar Question)

Answer:

1. (a) The constitutional proscription against the imposition of the death penalty was
lifted with the enactment of RA 7659, otherwise known as the Heinous Crimes Law, which
took effect fifteen (15) days after publication on December
16,1993,thatisonDecember31,1993 {People vs. Martin Simon, 234 SCRA 555).
(b) Death penalty shall not be executed (a) upon a woman within three years after date
of the sentence, (b) while she is pregnant, (c) upon a person over 70 years old (Art. 83
RPC), or (4) upon a convict who becomes insane after final sentence (Art. 79. RPC).
(c) When the convict reaches the age of 70 years the death sentence is commuted to
reclusion perpetua (Art. 83, RPC).

Page 132 of 338
Criminal law – Penalties – Death penalty; when death penalty cannot be
inflicted

A. The death penalty cannot be inflicted under which of the following
circumstances:

1. When the guilty person is at least 18 years of age at the time of the
commission of the crime.

2. When the guilty person is more than 70 years of age.

3. When, upon appeal to or automatic review by the Supreme Court, the
required majority for the imposition of the death penalty is not obtained.

4. When the person is convicted of a capital crime but before execution becomes
insane.

5. When the accused is a woman while she is pregnant or within one year after
delivery.

Explain your answer or choice briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

A. Understanding the word “inflicted" to mean the imposition of the death
penalty, not its execution, the circumstance in which the death penalty cannot be inflicted
is no. 2: “when the guilty person is more than 70 years of age” (Art. 47, Revised Penal
Code). Instead, the penalty shall be commuted to reclusion perpetua, with the accessory
penalties provided in Article 40, RPC.

In circumstance no. I when the guilty person is at least 18 years of age at the time of
the commission of the crime, the death penalty can be imposed since the offender is
already of legal age when he committed the crime.

Circumstance no. 3 no longer operates, considering the decision of the Supreme
Court in People vs. Etfren Mateo (G.R. 147678-87, July 7, 2004) providing an intermediate
review for such cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment before they are elevated to the Supreme Court.

In circumtances nos. 4 & 5, the death penalty can be imposed if prescribed by the
law violated although its execution shall be suspended when the convict becomes insane
before it could be executed and while he is insane.

Page 133 of 338
Likewise, the death penalty can be imposed upon a woman but its execution shall be
suspended during her pregnancy and for one year after her delivery.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

A. The word "INFLICTED" is found only in Art. 83 to the effect that the death
penalty may not be “INFLICTED" upon a pregnant woman, such penalty is to be suspended.

If “INFLICTED" is to be construed as “EXECUTION", then No. 5 is the choice.

Special law – Penalties – Grave offense; life imprisonment

A. RR represented to AA, BB, CC and DD that she could send them to London to
work there as sales ladies and waitresses. She collected and received from them
various amounts of money for recruitment and placement fees totalling P400.000.
After their dates of departure were postponed several times, the four prospects got
suspicious and went to POEA (Phil. Overseas Employment Authority). There they
found out that RR was not authorized nor licensed to recruit workers for
employment abroad. They sought refund to no avail.

Is RR guilty of any grave offense? Explain briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

A. Yes. RR is guilty of a grave offense, having engaged in illegal recruitment
constituting the offense of economic sabotage which is punishable with life imprisonment
and a fine of P100,000.00.

Economic sabotage is an offense defined in 38(b) of the Labor Code, as amended by
Pres. Decree No. 2018, which is incurred when the illegal recruitment is carried out in large
scale or by a syndicate. It is in a large scale when there are three or more aggrieved parties,
individually or as a group. And it is committed by a syndicate when three or more persons
conspire or cooperate with one another in carrying out the illegal transaction, scheme or
activity.

Criminal law - Penalties – Fine; imprisonment; subsidiary imprisonment
E and M are convicted of a penal law that imposes a penalty of fine or imprisonment or both
fine and imprisonment. The judge sentenced them to pay the fine, jointly and severally, with
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

a) Is the penalty proper? Explain.

Page 134 of 338
b) May the judge impose an alternative penalty of fine or imprisonment? Explain.
(4%) (2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1. a) Imposing the penalty of fine jointly and severally on the two convicted accused is not proper.
The penalty should be imposed individually on every person accused of the crime. Any of the
convicted accused who is insolvent and unable to pay the fine, shall serve the subsidiary
imprisonment.
b) The judge may not validly impose an alternative penalty. Although the law may prescribe an
alternative penalty for a crime, it does not mean that the court may impose the alternative penalties
at the same time. The sentence must be definite, otherwise the judgment cannot attain finality.
2. The accused was found guilty of 10 counts of rape for having carnal knowledge with the same
woman. In addition to the penalty of imprisonment, he was ordered to pay indemnity in the
amount of P50,000.00 for each count. On appeal, the accused questions the award of civil
indemnity for each count, considering that the victim is the same woman.
How would you rule on the contention of the accused? Explain. (3%) (2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

3. The contention of the accused is without merit. Each count of rape is a violation of the
person of the victim and thus gives rise to corresponding criminal and civil liabilities.
The trial court is correct in imposing a penalty for each rape and awarding
corresponding civil indemnity for each count even though the victim is the same
woman. Rape is not a continued crime.

Criminal law – Penalties – Reclusion perpetua; pecuniary penalties;
pecuniary liabilities

Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act (RA)
No. 7659, reclusion perpetua shall be from 20 years and 1 day to 40 years. Does this
mean that reclusion perpetua is now a divisible penalty? Explain. (2%) (2005 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(2) No, reclusion perpetua is still an indivisible penalty although it has been
given a fixed duration by R.A. No. 7659 (an act to impose the Death Penalty on certain
Heinous crimes). In an en banc ruling of the Supreme Court in People v. Conrado Lucas
240 SCRA 66 (1995), it was held that reclusion perpetua has remained an indivisible
penalty as there is no clear legislative intention to make the penalty divisible.
(3) Distinguish pecuniary penalties from pecuniary liabilities. (2%) (2005

Page 135 of 338
Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(3) Pecuniary penalties are those which a convicted offender may be required
to pay in money to the Government. These are:

1. fine; and
2. costs of the proceedings.

Pecuniary liabilities, on the other hand, are those which a convicted offender is
required to pay in money to the offended party and to the Government. They are:

1. reparation of the damage caused;
2. indemnification of consequential damages;
3. fine; and
4. costs of the proceedings (Art. 38, RPC)

The first two liabilities (nos. 1 and 2) are payable as civil indemnity to the private
parties offended by the crime; while the last two (nos. 3 and 4) are payable to the
Government.

Criminal law – Penalties - Reclusion perpetua from life imprisonment

Differentiate reclusion perpetua from life imprisonment. (1994 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Reclusion perpetua is that penalty provided for in the Revised Penal Code for crimes defined
in and penalized therein except for some crimes defined by special laws which impose reclusion
perpetua, such as violations of Republic Act 6425, as amended by Republic Act 7659 or of PD 1860;
while life imprisonment is a penalty usually provided for in special laws. Reclusion perpetua has a
duration of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to forty (40) years under Republic Act 7659, while life
imprisonment has no duration; reclusion perpetua maybe reduced by one or two degrees; reclusion
perpetua has accessory penalties while life imprisonment does not have any accessory penalties
(People vs. Baguio. 196 SCRA 459, People vs. Panellos, 205 SCRA 546).

Criminal law – Penalties – Reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment
After trial. Judge Juan Laya of the Manila RTC found Benjamin Garcia guilty
of Murder, the victim having sustained several bullet wounds In his body so that he
died despite medical assistance given in the Ospital ng Maynlla Because the weapon
usfed by Benjamin was unlicensed and the qualifying circumstance of treachery was

Page 136 of 338
found to be present, Judge Laya rendered his decision convicting Benjamin and
sentencing him to "reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment".
Are "reclusion perpetua" and life imprisonment the same and can be imposed
interchangeably as in the foregoing sentence? Or are they totally different? State
your reasons. (3%) (2001 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a) The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the penalty of life imprisonment are totally different
from each other and therefore, should not he used interchangeably.
Reclusion perpetua is a penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code, with a fixed duration of
imprisonment from 20 years and 1 day to 40 years, and carries it with accessory penalties.
Life imprisonment, on the other hand, is a penalty prescribed by special laws, with no fixed
duration of imprisonment and without any accessory penalty.

Criminal law – Fundamental principles – Mala prohibita and mala in se
b) Briefly state what essentially distinguishes a crime
mala prohibita from a crime mala in se. (2%) (2001 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) Crimes mala prohibita are distinguished from crimes mala insets follows, to wit:

In crimes mala prohibita, the acts are not by nature wrong, evil or bad. They are punished
only because there is a law prohibiting them for public good, and thus good faith or lack of
criminal intent in doing the prohibited act is not a defense.

In crimes mala in se, the acts are by nature wrong, evil or bad, and so generally
condemned. The moral trait of the offender is involved; thus, good faith or lack of criminal
intent on the part of the offender is a defense, unless the crime is the result of criminal
negligence. Correspondingly, modifying circumstances are considered in punishing the
offender.

Criminal law – Penalties – Life imprisonment and Reclusion perpetua

TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the
statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences. (5%)
(2009 Bar Question)

Page 137 of 338
[a] Life imprisonment is a penalty more favorable to the convict than
reclusion perpetua.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

False. Life imprisonment is unfavorable to a convict because the penalty is without a
fixed duration, unlike the penalty of reclusion perpetua which has a fixed duration of 40
years and the convict may be eligible for pardon after 30 years of imprisonment (People v.
Penillos, 205 SCRA 546 (1992).

(i) Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines (R.A. No.
9346)
b) Purposes
c) Classification
d) Duration and Effect
e) Application
(i) Indeterminate Sentence Law (R.A. No. 4103, as amended)

Special law - Indeterminate Sentence Law – Disqualified offenders
Under what circumstances is the Indeterminate Sentence Law not applicable?
(2%) (1999 Bar Question)
A was convicted of illegal possession of grease guns and two Thompson sub-
machine guns punishable under the old law (RA No.4) with imprisonment of from
five (5) to ten (10) years. The trial court sentenced the accused to suffer
imprisonment of five (5) years and one (1) day.
Is the penalty thus imposed correct? Explain. (3%) (1999 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply to:
1. Persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life
imprisonment*
2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason;
3. Those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage;
4. Those convicted of piracy;
5. Those who are habitual delinquents;
6. Those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence;

Page 138 of 338
7. Those who violated the terms of conditional pardon granted to them by the
Chief Executive;
8. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year;
9. Those who, upon the approval of the law (December 5, 1933), had been
sentenced by final judgment;
10. Those sentenced to the penalty of destierro or suspension.
The penalty imposed, being only a straight penalty, is not correct because it does
not comply with the Indeterminate Sentence Law which applies to this case. Said law
requires that if the offense is punished by any law other than the Revised Penal Code,
the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of
which shall not exceed the maximum penalty fixed by the law and the minimum shall
not be less than the minimum prescribed by the same.

Special law – Indeterminate Sentence Law – Application thereof

State the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. (1988 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Indeterminate Sentence Law applies in cases where the penalty imposed is
more than one year and the ISL shall apply where there is a minimum penalty which is not
lower than the penalty next lower in degree provided by law and the maximum not higher
than the maximum penalty provided by law in cases of felonies but when it comes to
statutory offenses it must be lower than the minimum penalty provided by law and not
higher than the maximum penalty provided by law except in the following cases as
provided by section 2 of Art. 4103:
1. life imprisonment
2. those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason
3. to those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage
4. to those convicted of piracy
5. those who are habitual delinquents
6. to those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence
7. to those who having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive
shall have violated the terms thereof
8. to those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year,
not to those already sentenced by final judgment at the time of approval of this Act,
except as provided in Section 5 hereof.

Special law - Indeterminate Sentence Law – applicable to offenses
punished by special laws
Andres is charged with an offense defined by a special law. The penalty
prescribed for the offense is imprisonment of not less than five (5) years but not

Page 139 of 338
more than ten (10) years. Upon arraignment, he entered the plea of guilty. In the
imposition of the proper penalty, should the Indeterminate Sentence Law be
applied? If you were the judge trying the case, what penalty would you impose on
Andres? (1989 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The Indeterminate Sentence Law should be applied in this case. By express provision
of said law (section 1) it is applicable to offenses punished by special laws. The indeter-
minate sentence in such cases shall consist of a maximum term which shall not exceed the
maximum fixed by the special law and a minimum term which shall not be less than the
minimum term pescribed by the same.
If I were the judge trying the case, I would impose a penalty consisting of any duration
not less than 5 years as minimum term and any duration not more than 10 years as
maximum term. It could be five years and 1 day to 7 years; 7 years, six months and 1 day
to 9 years; or any other sentence where the minimum term is not less than 5 years and the
maximum term not more than 10 years.
The plea of guilty cannot be considered as a mitigating circumstance in this case. The
imposition of the indeterminate penalty in a special law rests upon the discretion of the
court. Also, the pleas of guilty as a mitigating circumstance under the Revised Penal Code is appre-
ciated only in a divisible penalty. It cannot be applied to a penalty which is not divisible into periods
of fixed duration, like the penalty provided in special laws.

Special law – Indeterminate Sentence Law – determination of the proper
penalty to constitute the maximum term of an indeterminate sentence

Jose is charged with bigamy. The Revised Penal Code prescribes the penalty of prision
mayor for this offense. The information filed against Jose alleged one aggravating cir-
cumstance. Upon being arraigned, he entered the plea of guilty and invoked the additional
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender which the trial fiscal admitted. If you were
the judge trying the case, from what range of the prescribed penalty would you determine
the proper penalty (to constitute the maximum term of an indeterminate sentence) to be
imposed on Jose? (1989 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I would take the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence from the range of prision
mayor in its minimum period. This is so because while there are two ordinary mitigating
circumstances present, one of them is offset by an aggravating circumstance. Consequently, it is as
if the crime is attended by only one ordinary circumstance and this will result in the imposition of
the minimum period of the penalty prescribed by law.
The presence of two or more ordinary mitigating circumstances will give rise to a privileged
mitigating circumstance only if there is no aggravating circumstance present and the penalty

Page 140 of 338
prescribed by law is divisible. In this case, while the penalty of prision mayor is divisible, and
while there are two ordinary mitigating circumstances present, there is an aggravating
circumstance. This precludes the reduction of the penalty by one degree lower inasmuch as the
two ordinary mitigating circumstances cannot be considered as a privileged mitigating
circumstance.

Special law – Indeterminate Sentence Law – when applicable
A was charged with homicide. During the trial, uncontradicted evidence consisting of
medical certificates were presented showing that the accused had sustained injuries in ten
(10) previous occasions while engaged in fisticuffs with different persons. He was also
confined at the National Mental Hospital for mental ailment diagnosed as “homicidal and
suicidal instincts.” During his second confinement thereat, he escaped. Upon conviction, the
prosecutor objected to the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law contending that
the accused is a habitual delinquent and an escapee from the National Mental Hospital.

If you are the Judge, rule on the objection. (1991 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Being an escapee from the Mental Hospital will not disqualify him from the
application of the ISL as Section 2 thereof contemplates having escaped from confinement
or evaded sentence. Confinement presupposes imprisonment by virtue of a final judgment.

Criminal law – Indeterminate Sentence Law – when inapplicable
When would the Indeterminate Sentence Law be inapplicable? (2003 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable to:
(1) those persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life-
imprisonment or reclusion perpetua;
(2) those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason;
(3) those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage;
(4) those convicted of piracy;
(5) those who are habitual delinquents;
(6) those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence;

Page 141 of 338
(7) those who having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive shall
have violated the terms thereof;
(8) those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year;
(9) those already sentenced by final judgment at the time of approval of this Act; and
(10) those whose sentence imposes penalties which do not involve imprisonment, like
distierro.

Special law – Indeterminate Sentence Law – Disqualified offenders

Carlos was charged and convicted of murder. He was sentenced to life
imprisonment and to indemnify the offended party in the amount of P30.000. He
sought a reconsideration of the penalty on the ground that he should be entitled to
the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Decide with reasons. (1990 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Carlos is not entitled to avail of the Indeterminate Sentence Law because Section 2 of said law
specifically disqualifies and disallows application thereof to persons sentenced to life imprisonment.

Special law - Indeterminate Sentence Law – When not applicable

Macky, a security guard, arrived home late one night after rendering overtime.
He was shocked to see Joy, his wife, and Ken, his best friend, in the act of having
sexual intercourse. Macky pulled out his service gun and shot and killed Ken. Macky
was charged with murder for the death of Ken.

The court found that Ken died under exceptional circumstances and
exonerated Macky of murder but sentenced him to destierro, conformably with
Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. The court also ordered Macky to pay
indemnity to the heirs of the victim in the amount of P50,000.

(b) While serving his sentence, Macky entered the prohibited area and had a
pot session with Ivy, (Joy's sister). Is Macky entitled to an indeterminate sentence in
case he is found guilty of use of prohibited substances? Explain your answer. (2007
Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Page 142 of 338
(b) No, Macky is not entitled to the benefit of the Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act
4103, as amended) for having evaded the sentence which banished or placed him on
destierrro. Sec. 2 of the said law expressly provides that the law shall not apply to those
who shall have "evaded sentence".

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

No, because the penalty for use of any dangerous drug by a first offender is not
imprisonment but rehabilitation in a government center for a minimum period of six (6)
months (Sec. 15, R.A. 91651. The Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply when the
penalty is imprisonment not exceeding one year.

Special law - Indeterminate Sentence Law – application on the imposed
sentence
Itos was convicted of an offense penalized by a special law. The penalty
prescribed is not less than six years but not more than twelve years. No modifying
circumstance attended the commission of the crime.
If you were the judge, will you apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law? (1994 Bar
Question)

If so, how will you apply it? (1994 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

If I were the judge, I will apply the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as
the last sentence of Section I Act 4103, specifically provides the application thereof for
violations of special laws.
Under the same provision, the minimum must not be less than the minimum provided
therein (six years and one day) and the maximum shall not be more than the maximum
provided therein, i.e. twelve years. (People vs. Rosalind Reyes, 186 SCRA 184)

Special law - Indeterminate Sentence Law – Application on the imposed
sentence
Harold was convicted of a crime defined and penalized by a special penal law where
the imposable penalty is from 6 months, as minimum, to 3 years, as maximum.
State with reasons whether the court may correctly impose the following penalties:

a) a straight penalty of 10 months;
b) 6 months, as minimum, to 11 months, as maximum;

Page 143 of 338
c) a straight penalty of 2 years. (5%) (2005 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a) The court may validly impose a straight penalty of 10 months imprisonment because the
penalty prescribed by law is imprisonment of 6 months to 3 years, and the Indeterminate Sentence
Law does not apply when the penalty imposed is imprisonment which does not exceed one year.
b) A prison term of 6 months as minimum, to 11 months, as maximum may not be imposed by
the court because the Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply when the penalty imposed as
maximum of the sentence is imprisonment which does not exceed one (1) year. Obviously the
Indeterminate Sentence Law has been applied where the sentence imposed reflects a minimum and
a maximum.
c) The court may not validly impose a straight penalty of two years because the Indeterminate
Sentence Law requires the court to set a minimum and a maximum of the sentence where the
imprisonment to be imposed already exceeds one (1) year, unless the offender is disqualified from
the benefits of the said Law.

SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

a) Yes, the trial Court may impose a straight penalty of ten months. The Indeterminate
Sentence Law applies to crimes punished either by the Revised Penal Code or by special laws, where
the maximum period of imprisonment exceeds one year.
b) No, because the Indeterminate Sentence Law cannot be applied where the maximum
period of imprisonment imposed, which is eleven months, does not exceed one year.
c) No, because a straight penalty may be imposed only up to a maximum imprisonment
of one (1) year. Here, it is two years. Hence, there is a need to impose an indeterminate sentence, the
minimum term of which shall not be less than 6 months while the maximum term shall not exceed 3
years. (People v. Pena, 80 SCRA 589[1977]).

Special law - Indeterminate Sentence Law – Application on the imposed
sentence as defined by special law
Andres is charged with an offense defined by a special law. The penalty
prescribed for the offense is imprisonment of not less than five (5) years but not
more than ten (10) years. Upon arraignment, he entered a plea of guilty. In the
imposition of the proper penalty, should the Indeterminate Sentence Law be
applied? If you were the judge trying the case, what penalty would you impose on
Andres? (4%) (1999 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, the Indeterminate Sentence Law should be applied because the minimum
imprisonment is more than one (I) year.

Page 144 of 338
If I were the Judge, I will impose an indeterminate sentence, the maximum of which
shall not exceed the maximum fixed by law and the minimum shall not be less than the
minimum penalty prescribed by the same. I have the discretion to impose the penalty
within the said minimum and maximum.

Special law - Indeterminate Sentence Law – Application on the imposed
sentence

[a] In a conviction for homicide, the trial court appreciated two (2) mitigating
circumstances and one (1) aggravating circumstance. Homicide under Article 249 of
the Revised Penal Code is punishable by reclusion temporal, an imprisonment term
of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. Applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, determine the appropriate penalty to be imposed.
Explain. (3%) (2009 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum of the sentence shall be
anywhere within the range of 6 years and 1 day to 12 years imprisonment while the
maximum of the sentence shall be anywhere within the range of Reclusion Temporal
minimum i.e., not lower than 12 yrs. and 1 day to not more than 14 yrs. and 8 months.

[b] Will your answer be the same if it is a conviction for illegal possession of
drugs under R.A. 9165 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), the prescribed penalty of
which is also imprisonment for a term of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty
(20) years? Why or why not? (3%) (2009 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. My answer will not be the same because violations of Rep. Act 9165 are mala
prohibita in which mitigating and aggravating circumstances are not appreciated. Although
in People v. Simon (234 SCRA 555 [1994]), it was held that Art. 64 can be applied if the
special law adopted the nomenclature of penalties provided under the RPC, such
pronouncement cannot be applied in the instant case because the penalties for illegal
possession of drugs under RA 9165 do not follow the technical nomenclature of penalties in
the RPC and thus, cannot be divided into periods. Hence, the existence of mitigating and
aggravating circumstances cannot be appreciated.

Special law – Penalties – Indeterminate Sentence Law (RA 4103); Maximum
and the minimum terms of the indeterminate sentence

How are the maximum and the minimum terms of the indeterminate sentence for
offenses punishable under the Revised Penal Code determined? (3%) (2002 Bar Question)

Page 145 of 338
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
For crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, the maximum term of the
indeterminate sentence shall be the penalty properly imposable under the same Code
after considering the attending mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances according
to Art. 64 of said Code. The minimum term of the same sentence shall be fixed within the
range of the penalty next lower in degree to that prescribed for the crime under the said
Code.

Special law- Indeterminate Sentence Law (R.A. No. 4103, as amended) –
Penalty imposable for the crime of homicide

An agonizing and protracted trial having come to a close, the judge found A
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide and imposed on him a straight penalty
of SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) day of prision mayor.
The public prosecutor objected to the sentence on the ground that the proper
penalty should have been TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of reclusion
temporal.
The defense counsel chimed in, contending that application of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law should lead to the imposition of a straight penalty of SIX
(6) months and ONE (1) day of prision correccional only. Who of the three is on the
right track? Explain (3%) (2010 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

None of the contentions is correct because the Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act
4103, as amended) has not been followed.
The imposition of penalty for the crime of homicide, which is penalized by
imprisonment exceeding one (1) year and is divisible, is covered by the Indeterminate
Sentence Law. The said law requires that the sentence in this case should reflect a
minimum term for purposes of parole, and a maximum term fixing the limit of the
imprisonment. Imposing a straight penalty is incorrect.

(a) Application on the imposed sentence
(b) Coverage
(c) Conditions of parole

Criminal law – Penalties – Disqualified offenders for parole; heinous
crimes

Page 146 of 338
Because of the barbarity and the hideousness of the acts committed by the
suspects/ respondents in cutting off their victims’ appendages, stuffing their torsos,
legs, body parts into oil drums and bullet-riddled vehicles and later on burying these
oil drums, vehicles with the use of backhoes and other earth-moving machinery, the
Commission on Human Rights (CHR) investigating team recommended to the panel
of public prosecutors that all respondents be charged with violation of the Heinous
Crimes Law. The prosecution panel agreed with the CHR. As the chief prosecutor
tasked with approving the filing of the information, how will you pass upon the
recommendation? Explain? (5%) (2010 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The CHR is correct in describing the crimes committed as “heinous crimes”, as
defined in the preamble of the “Heinous Crimes Law” (Rep. Act No. 7659), despite the
passage of Rep. Act No. 9346 prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty.
However, the “Heinous Crimes Law” does not define crimes; it is only an
amendatory law increasing the penalty for the crimes specified therein as heinous, to a
maximum of death. Thus, the heinous crimes committed shall be prosecuted under the
penal law they are respectively defined and penalized, such as the Revised Penal Code as
the case may be. The circumstances making the crimes heinous may be alleged as
qualifying or generic aggravating, if proper. The crime shall be designated as defined and
punished under the penal law violated and the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua without
the benefit of parole or life imprisonment without the benefit of parole, as the case maybe
in lieu of the death penalty.

(ii) Three-fold rule
(iii) Subsidiary imprisonment
Execution and service

Criminal law – Penalties - Execution of the civil aspect of the decision.
Jose Lopez was convicted for the crime of serious physical injuries and, taking into
account two (2) mitigating circumstances, was sentenced to suffer imprisonment of four (4)
months and twenty (20) days, and to indemnify the victim in the amount of P25,000.00 as
actual and compensatory damages. He applied for probation, which was granted by the
court; however, the order of probation directed him to pay in installment, at the rate of
P1,000.00 a month, the damages awarded to the offended party. Jose was able to pay only
three (3) monthly installments. Because of such failure, the offended party filed a motion for
the execution of the civil aspect of the decision.

a) Is the order directing the payment of the damages in installment valid? Did it not
modify the decision after it had become final? (1991 Bar Question)

Page 147 of 338
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Yes, the order directing payment in installment is proper. It did not modify the final decision
but only in the manner of its execution. (Similarly situated in the case of Agustin vs. Court of
Appeals).

b) Should the motion for execution be granted? (1991 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) Execution should be granted as the decision is final and executory, following the dissenting
opinion of Justice I. Cruz in said case.

Criminal law – Penalties – Simultaneous service of penalties

What are the penalties that may be served simultaneously? (2007 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The penalties that may be served simultaneously are imprisonment/ destierro and:
1. Perpetual absolute disqualification;
2. Perpetual special disqualification;
3. Temporary absolute disqualification;
4. Temporary special disqualification;
5. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, and the right to
follow a profession or calling;
6. Fine; and any principal penalty with its accessory penalties.

(i) Probation Law (P.D. 968, as amended)

Special law – Probation law - Legal effect of application for probation on the
judgment of conviction
Johnny Gitara was convicted of the crime of estafa by the Regional Trial Court of
Manila. He was imposed the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 3 years, 2 months and
1 day as minimum and six years as maximum, both of prision correccional and was ordered
to imdemnify the offended party in the amount of P3.000.00. He filed an application for
probation upon the promulgation of the judgment.
What is the legal effect of his application for probation on the judgment of
conviction? Does said application interrupt the running of the period of appeal?
(1992 Bar Question)

Page 148 of 338
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The filing of the application for probation is considered as a waiver of the right of
the accused to appeal; the decision has become final. In view of the finality of the decision
there is no period of appeal to speak of.

Definition of terms
Purpose

Special law – Probation law – Purpose of probation law
“A” was charged with theft and upon arraignment, pleaded guilty to the charge.
He was detained for failure to post bail. After “two (2) months, a decision was
rendered, sentencing “A” to an indeterminate sentence of six (6) months and one (1)
day as a minimum, to one (1) year and one (1) month as maximum, and to pay the
offended party the amount of P700. On January 16, 1985, the very day the sentence
was read to “A,” the Judge issued a Commitment Order addressed to the Provincial
Jail Warden. On January 28, 1985, “A applied for probation but his application was
denied on the ground that the sentence of conviction became final and executory on
January 16, 1985, when “A” commence to serve his sentence, a) Is “A” eligible for
probation? b) What is the purpose of the probation law? (1989 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a) The purposes of the Probation Law are:
1. to promote the correction and rehabilitation of an offender by providing him with
individualized treatment;
2. to provide an opportunity for the reformation of a penitent offender which might
be less probable if he were to serve a prison sentence; and
3. to prevent the commission of offenses.

Grant of probation, manner and conditions

Special law - Probation Law of 1976 - Grant of probation
The accused was found guilty of grave oral defamation in sixteen (16) Informations
which were tried jointly and was sentenced in one decision to suffer in each case a prison
term of one (1) year and one (1) day to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision
correccional. Within the period to appeal, he filed an application for probation under the
Probation Law of 1976, as amended. Could he possibly qualify for probation? (1997 Bar
Question)

Page 149 of 338
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes. In Francisco vs. Court of Appeals, 243 SCRA 384, the Supreme Court held that in
case of one decision imposing multiple prison terms, the totality of the prison terms should
not be taken into account for the purposes of determining the eligibility of the accused for
the probation. The law uses the word "maximum term", and not total term. It is enough
that each of the prison terms does not exceed six years. The number of offenses is
immaterial for as long as the penalties imposed, when taken individually and separately,
are within the probationable period.

Special law –Execution and service – Probation Law (PD 968, as
amended); grant of probation, manner and conditions
A. May a probationer appeal from the decision revoking the grant of probation
or modifying the terms and conditions thereof?
(2%) (2002 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. Under Section 4 of the Probation Law, as amended, an order granting or denying
probation is not appealable.

Special law – Probation law – improper denial thereof
a) Boyet Mar was charged with consented abduction by a 17-year old
complainant. The accused made wedding arrangements with the girl, but her
parents insisted on the prosecution of the case. To avoid further embarrassment of a
court trial for him and the girl, the accused entered a plea of guilty. He then filed a
petition for probation before serving sentence, but the court denied the petition on
the ground that “it would be better for the accused to serve sentence so that he
would reform himself and avoid the scandal in the community that would be caused
by the grant of the petition."
The accused served sentence but he brought the matter to the Supreme Court in
a petition for certiorari.
Did the trial court act correctly in denying the petition for probation? (1991 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The trial court acted incorrectly. In Balleta vs. Leviste, 92 SCRA 719, the Judge
precisely denied the petition for probation on the same excuse stated in the problem. The
Supreme Court held that an accused must fall within any one of the disqualifications stated

Page 150 of 338
in Section 9 of P.D. 960 in order to be denied probation.

(d) Criteria of placing an offender on probation

Special law – Probation law – Criteria of placing an offender on
probation

B. PX was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment of thirty days and a fine of
one hundred pesos. Previously, PX was convicted of another crime for which the
penalty imposed on him was thirty days only.

Is PX entitled to probation? Explain briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

B. Tes, PX may apply for probation. His previous conviction for another crime with a
penalty of thirty days imprisonment or not exceeding one (1) month does not disqualify
him from applying for probation; the penalty for his present conviction does not disqualify
him either from applying for probation, since the imprisonment does not exceed six (6)
years (Sec. 9, Pres. Decree No. 968).

Special law – Probation law - Eligibility for probation
“A” was charged with theft and upon arraignment, pleaded guilty to the charge.
He was detained for failure to post bail. After “two (2) months, a decision was
rendered, sentencing “A” to an indeterminate sentence of six (6) months and one (1)
day as a minimum, to one (1) year and one (1) month as maximum, and to pay the
offended party the amount of P700. On January 16, 1985, the very day the sentence
was read to “A,” the Judge issued a Commitment Order addressed to the Provincial
Jail Warden. On January 28, 1985, “A applied for probation but his application was
denied on the ground that the sentence of conviction became final and executory on
January 16, 1985, when “A” commence to serve his sentence, a) Is “A” eligible for
probation? b) What is the purpose of the probation law? (1989 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

b) A is still eligible for probation since he filed his application for probation within 15
days from the promulgation of the judgment. Under the Probation Law; the accused may
apply for probation WITHIN THE PERIOD FOR PERFECTING AN APPEAL which is 15 days
from promulgation or notice thereof.
The judge committed an error in issuing a Commitment Order on the same day of

Page 151 of 338
promulgation. A commitment order for the convict to begin serving his sentence can be
validly issued only if the period for perfecting an appeal has expired with no appeal being
taken. The fact that in compliance with such-order, which is void, the accused commenced
to serve his sentence does not bar him from availing himself of the benefits of the
Probation Law.
It is true that under the new Rules on Criminal Procedure it is provided that a
judgment in a criminal case becomes final after the lapse of the period for perfecting an
appeal, or when the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served, or the
accused has applied for probation (Sec. 7, Rule 120). But Section 9 of the same Rule
provides that “nothing in this Rule shall be construed as affecting any existing provision in
the law governing suspension of sentence, probation or parole.”
The probation law does not speak of filing an application for probation BEFORE
judgment has become final. It only speaks of filing the application WITHIN THE PERIOD
FOR PERFECTING AN APPEAL. There is nothing in the Probation Law that bars an accused
who has commenced to serve his sentence from filing an application for probation
provided he does so WITHIN THE PERIOD FOR PERFECTING AN APPEAL.
What the Probation Law provides is that no application for probation shall be
entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected an appeal from the judgment or
conviction. It does not say that no application shall be entertained if the judgment has
become final because the convict has commenced to serve his sentence.

Special law – Probation law – Eligibility for probation

Joe was 17 years old when he committed homicide in 2005. The crime is
punishable by reclusion temporal. After two years in hiding, he was arrested and
appropriately charged in May 2007. Since Republic Act 9344 (Juvenile Justice and
Welfare Act of 2006) was already in effect, Joe moved to avail of the process of
intervention or diversion.

[el Suppose Joe was convicted of attempted murder with a special aggravating
circumstance and was denied suspension of sentence, would he be eligible for
probation under Presidential Decree (PD) 968, considering that the death penalty is
imposable for the consummated felony? Explain. (2%) (2009 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes. He would be eligible for probation because the penalty imposable on Joe will
not exceed 6 years imprisonment.

Page 152 of 338
Even if it would be considered that the crime committed was punishable by death,
the penalty as far as Joe is concerned can only be reclusion perpetua because Rep. Act 9344
forbids the imposition of the capital punishment upon offenders thereunder.

The murder being attempted only, the prescribed penalty is two degree lower than
reclusion perpetua; hence, prision mayor. Because Joe was 17 years old when he
committed the crime, the penalty of prision mayor should be lowered further by one
degree because his minority is a privileged mitigating circumstance; hence, prision
correccional or imprisonment within the range of six months and 1 day to 6 years is the
imposable.

Disqualified offenders

Special law – Probation Law – Disqualified offenders

Carlos was charged and convicted of murder. He was sentenced to life
imprisonment and to indemnify the offended party in the amount of P30.000. And
instead of filing a motion for reconsideration he applies for probation. If you were the judge,
will you grant the same? Explain your answer. (1990 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I will not grant the application for probation as it is clear in the Probation Law that the benefits
thereof shall not apply to those sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than
six (6) years. (P.D. 1990).

Criminal law – Probation law – Disqualified offenders

Who are the offenders disqualified from availing themselves of the benefits of the
probation law (P.D. 968, as amended)? (1988 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The following offenders are disqualified from availing of the benefits of the Probation
Law:
1. those sentenced to serve maximum term of imprisonment of more than six
years;
2. those convicted of subversion or any crime against the national security of the
public order;
3. those who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense
punished by imprisonment of not less than one month and one day and or a fine of
not less than two hundred pesos;

Page 153 of 338
4. those who have been once on probation under the provisions of this decree;
and
5. those who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive provisions
of this decree applicable pursuant to Section 33 of P.D. 968.

Special law – Probation law – Disqualified offenders
On February 3, 1986, Roberto was convicted of arson through reckless imprudence
and sentenced to pay a fine of P15,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of in-
solvency By the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. On February 10, 1986, he appealed to the
Court of Appeals. Several months later, he filed a motion to withdraw the appeal on the
ground that he is applying for probation. On May 7, 1987, the Court of Appeals granted the
motion and considered the appeal withdrawn.
On June 10, 1987, the records of the case were remanded to the trial court. Roberto
filed a “Motion for Probation" praying that execution of his sentence be suspended, and that a
probation officer be ordered to conduct an investigation and to submit a report on his
probation.
The judge denied the motion on the ground that pursuant to Presidential Decree No.
1990, which took effect on July 16, 1986, no application for probation shall be entertained or
granted if the defendant has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction.
Is the denial of Roberto’s motion correct? (1994 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. Even if at the time of his conviction Roberto was qualified for probation but that at the
time of his application for probation, he is no longer qualified, he is not entitled to probation. The
qualification for probation must be determined as of the time the application is filed in Court (Ber-
nardo vs. Judge. etal, GRNo. L86561, Nov. 10, 1992; Edwtn de la Cruz vs. Judge CaUejo, et al, SP-
19655, April 18, 1990, citing Llamado vs. CA, et al., GR No. 84859, June 28. 1989; Bernardo vs. Judge
Balagot, et aL GR 86561, Nov. 10.1992

Special law – Probation Law – Disqualified offenders
Juanito was found guilty of Robbery by the RTC of Manila and sentenced to
four (4) Years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correctional as minimum to
eight (o) years and twenty (20) days of prision mayor as maximum.
Juanito appealed to the Court of Appeals which found him guilty only of Theft and
sentenced him to a straight penalty of one (1J Year. The decision of the appellate court was
promulgated in May, 1993.

Is Juanito entitled to the benefits of the Probation Law which became effective on Jan.
3, 1978? Why?

Page 154 of 338
Suppose the prison term imposed by the RTC in the above example is only two (2)
years as minimum to six (6) years as maximum and Juanito did not appeal. When he
applied for probation, it was discovered that in March, 1960, a Municipal Court has
sentenced him to a six-month imprisonment for less serious physical injuries which
he fully served. May his application for probation be granted? Reason out.(1993 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Juanito is not entitled to probation because the law, as amended, requires the filing of the
application within the period for perfecting an appeal.

He is not entitled to the Probation Law because Section 9 (c) provides that probation shall not
be extended to those "who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense
punishable by imprisonment of not less than one (1) month and one (1) day or a fine of not more
than P200.00."

Special law – Probation law – Disqualified offenders
In a case for violation of Sec. 8, RA 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous
Drugs Act, accused Vincent was given the benefit of the mitigating circumstances of
voluntary plea of guilt and drunkenness not otherwise habitual. He was sentenced
to suffer a penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day and to pay a fine of P6.000.00
with the accessory penalties provided by law, plus costs. Vincent applied for
probation. The probation officer favorably recommended his application.
1. If you were the judge, what action will you take on the application? Discuss
fully. (1995 Bar Question)
Suppose that Vincent was convicted of a crime for which he was sentenced to
2.
a maximum penalty of ten (10) years. Under the law, he is not eligible for probation.
He seasonably appealed his conviction. While affirming the judgment of conviction,
the appellate court reduced the penalty to a maximum of four (4) years and four (4)
months taking into consideration certain modifying circumstances. Vincent now
applies for probation.
How will you rule on his application? Discuss fully. (1995 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1. If I were the judge, I will deny the application for probation. The accused is not
entitled to probation as Sec. 9 of the Probation Law. PD NO. 968, as amended, specifically
mentions that those who “are sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of
more than six years" are not entitled to the benefits of the law.
2. The law and jurisprudence are to the effect that appeal by the accused from a
sentence of conviction forfeits his right to probation.(Sec. 4. PD No. 968, as amended by PD

Page 155 of 338
1990; Bernardo vs. Balagot; Francisco vs. CA; Llamado vs. CA; De la Cruz vs. Judge Callejo.
CA case).

N.B to No. 2

This Is the second consecutive year that this question was asked. It is the sincere belief of the
Committee that there is a need to re-examine the doctrine. Firstly, much as the accused wanted to
apply for probation he is proscribed from doing so as the maximum penalty is NOT
PROBATIONABLE. Secondly, when the maximum penalty was reduced to one which aUows
probation it is but fair and j ust to grant him that right because it is apparent that the trial judge
committed an error and for which the accused should not be made to suffer. Judicial tribunals in
this jurisdiction are not only courts of law but also of equity. Thirdly, the judgment of the appellate
court should be considered a new decision as the trial court’s decision was vacated: hence, he
could take advantage of the law when the decision is remanded to the trial court for execution
(Please see Dissenting opinion in Francisco us.
CA).
It is suggested, therefore, that an examinee answering in this tenor should be credited with
some points.

Special law – Probation Law – Disqualified offenders

A, a subdivision developer, was convicted by the RTC of Makati for failure to
issue the subdivision title to a lot buyer despite full payment of the lot, and
sentenced to suffer one year imprisonment. A appealed the decision of the RTC to
the Court of Appeals but his appeal was dismissed. May A still apply for probation?
Explain. (5%) (2001 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. A is no longer qualified to apply for probation after he appealed from the judgment of
conviction by the RTC. The probation law (PD 968. as amended by PD1990) now provides that no
application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the accused has perfected an appeal from
the judgment of conviction (Sec. 4. PD 968).

Special law – Probation Law – Disqualified offenders
Juan was convicted of the Regional Trial Court of a crime and sentenced to
suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a minimum of eight years. He appealed both
his conviction and the penalty imposed upon him to the Court of Appeals. The
appellate court ultimately sustained Juan's conviction but reduced his sentence to a
maximum of four years and eight months imprisonment. Could Juan forthwith file an
application for probation? Explain. (2003 Bar Question)

Page 156 of 338
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Juan can no longer avail of the probation because he appealed from the
judgment of conviction of the trial court, and therefore, cannot apply for probation
anymore. Section 4 of the Probation Law, as amended, mandates that no application for
probation shall be entertained or granted if the accused has perfected an appeal from the
judgment of conviction.

Criminal law – Execution and service – Probation Law (PD 968, as amended);
Disqualified offenders

B. A was charged with homicide. After trial, he was found guilty and sentenced to six
(6) years and one (1) day in prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1)
day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Prior to his conviction, he had been found guilty of
vagrancy and imprisoned for ten (10) days of arresto menor and fined fifty pesos (P50.00).
Is he eligible for probation? Why? (3%) (2002 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, he is not eligible. The benefits of the Probation Law (PD 968, as amended) does
not extend to those sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six
years (Sec. 9a).
It is of no moment that in his previous conviction A was given a penalty of only ten (10)
days of arresto mayor and a fine of P50.00.

(f) Period of probation

Special law – Probation law – Period; termination
(1) Maganda was charged with violation of Bouncing Checks Law (BP 22)
punishable by imprisonment of not less than 30 days but not more than 1 year or a
fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the check, which fine
shall not exceed P200.000.00, or both. The court convicted her of the crime and
sentenced her to pay a fine of P50,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, and to pay the private complainant the amount of the check. Maganda
was unable to pay the fine but filed a petition for probation. The court granted the
petition subject to the condition, among others, that she should not change her
residence without the court’s prior approval.

a) What is the proper period of probation?

b) Supposing before the Order of Discharge was issued by the court but after the
lapse of the period of probation, Maganda transferred residence without prior

Page 157 of 338
approval of the court. May the court revoke the Order of Probation and order her to
serve the subsidiary imprisonment? Explain. (5%) (2005 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(1) a) The period of probation shall not be less than the total number of days of
subsidiary imprisonment or more than twice the said number of days as computed at the
rate established under the Revised Penal Code, which is one (1) day imprisonment for
every P8.00 fine but not to exceed six (6) months. (P.D. 968, Sec. 14[b] (establishing a
Probation System) in correlation with Art. 39, RPC)

c) Yes, the court may revoke the Order of Probation and order the convicted
accused to serve the subsidiary imprisonment, because she violated the condition of her
probation before the Order of Discharge was issued by the court. The conditions of
probation are not co-terminous with the period of probation; such conditions continue
even after the period of probation had ended and thus requires faithful compliance or
fulfillment, for as long as the court which placed the convict on probation has not issued
the Order of Discharge that would release her from probation. {Bala v. Martinez, 181 SCRA
459 [1990D

(g) Arrest of probationer
(h) Termination of probation; exception
(i) The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (R.A. No. 9165)

Special penal law - Section 24 of RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous
Drug Act of 2002)

Matt was found guilty of drug trafficking while his younger brother Jeff was
found guilty of possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other
paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under Section 12 of Republic Act No. 9165.
Matt filed a petition for probation. Jeff appealed his conviction during the
pendency of which he also filed a petition for probation.
The brothers' counsel argued that they being first time offenders, their
petitions for probation should be granted. How would you resolve the brothers'
petitions for probation? Explain. (3%) (2010 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The brothers' petition for probation should both be denied.
Matt's petition for probation shall be denied because he was convicted for drug-
trafficking. Section 24 of RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of 2002) expressly
provides, "Any person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing under this Act, regardless
of the penalty imposed by the court, cannot avail of the privilege granted by the Probation

Page 158 of 338
Law or Presidential Decree No. 968, as amended." On the other hand, Jeff's application for
probation cannot also be entertained or granted because he has already appealed his
conviction by the trial court (Section 4, P.D. 968, as amended).

(ii) Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (R.A. No. 9344); also
refer to Child and Youth Welfare Code (P.D. 603, as amended)
(a) Definition of child in conflict with the law
(b) Exemption from criminal liability
(c) Juvenile justice and welfare system

Special law -Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act - Processes of intervention and
diversion

Joe was 17 years old when he committed homicide in 2005. The crime is
punishable by reclusion temporal. After two years in hiding, he was arrested and
appropriately charged in May 2007. Since Republic Act 9344 (Juvenile Justice and
Welfare Act of 2006) was already in effect, Joe moved to avail of the process of
intervention or diversion.

[a] What is intervention or diversion? Is Joe entitled to intervention or diversion?
Explain. (3%) (2009 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The two terms are different.

"Intervention" refers to a series of activities which are designed to address issues
that caused the child to commit an offense. It may take the form of an individualized
treatment program which may include counseling, skills training, education, and other
activities that will enhance his/her psychological, emotional and psycho-social well-being.
This is available to a child 15 years old or less at the time of the commission of the crime or
although over 15 but below 18 years old at the time of commission of the crime, the child
acted without discernment.

"Diversion" refers to an alternative, child-appropriate process of determining the
responsibility and treatment of a child in conflict with the law on the basis of his/her social,
cultural, economic, psychological or educational background without resorting to formal
court proceedings. This process governs when the child is over 15 years old but below 18
at the time of the commission of the crime and he acted with discernment.

Yes. Joe is entitled to diversion. Being only 17 years old at the time he committed the
crime of homicide, he is treated as a child in conflict with the law under RA 9344.

Page 159 of 338
[b] Suppose Joe's motion for intervention or diversion was denied, and he was
convicted two (2) years later when Joe was already 21 years old, should the judge
apply the suspension of sentence? Explain. (2%) (2009 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. The judge should not suspend sentence anymore because Joe was already 21
years old. Suspension of sentence is availing under Rep. Act 9344 only until a child reaches
the maximum age of twenty-one (21) years.

Execution and service – Application for suspended sentence

There are at least 7 instances or situations in criminal cases wherein the
accused, either as an adult or as a minor, can apply for and/or be granted a
suspended sentence. Enumerate at least 5 of them. 5% (2006 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Instances when sentence may be suspended are: (at least 7 instances)
a) where the accused became insane before sentence could be promulgated
(Art. 79, RPC);
b) where the offender, upon conviction by the trial court, filed an application
for probation which has been granted (Baclayon v. Mutia, 129 SCRA 148119841);
c) where the offender needs to be confined in a rehabilitation center because
of drug-dependency although convicted of the crime charged;
d) where the offender is a youthful offender under Art. 192, PD 603,
otherwise referred to as the Child and Youth Welfare Code; and
e) where the, crime was committed when the offender is under 18 years of
age and he is found guilty thereof in accordance with Rep. Act 9344, otherwise
known as the "Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006", but the trial court subjects
him to appropriate disposition measures as prescribed by the Supreme Court in the
Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law.
f) the death sentence shall be suspended upon a woman while she is
pregnant or within one year after delivery. (Art. 83, Revised Penal Code)
g) Section 66 of RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002)

SECTION 66. Suspension of Sentence of a First-Time Minor Offender. - An
accused who is over fifteen (15) years of age at the time of the commission of the
offense mentioned in Section 11 of this Act, but not more than eighteen (18) years of
age at the time when judgment should have been promulgated after having been
found guilty of said offense, may be given the benefits of a suspended sentence,
subject to the following conditions:

Page 160 of 338
(a) He/she has not been previously convicted of violating any provision of
this Act, or of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended; or of the Revised Penal
Code; or of any special penal laws;
(b) He/she has not been previously committed to a Center or to the care of a
DOH-accredited physician; and
(c) The, Board favorably recommends that his/her sentence be suspended
xxx"

"SECTION 66. Suspension of Sentence of a First-Time Minor Offender. - An
accused

h) When the sentence is death, its execution may be suspended or postponed
by the Supreme Court, through the issuance of a RO upon the ground of supervening
events (Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice, 301 SCRA 96 [19991).

Modification and extinction of criminal liability

Criminal law – Modification and extinction of criminal liability – Pardon;
effect

B. TRY was sentenced to death by final judgment. But subsequently he was
granted pardon by the President. The pardon was silent on the perpetual
disqualification of TRY to hold any public office.

After his pardon, TRY ran for office as Mayor of APP, his hometown. His
opponent sought to disqualify him. TRY contended he is not disqualified because he
was already pardoned by the President unconditionally.

Is TRY’S contention correct? Reason briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

B. No, TRY's contention is not correct. Article 40 of the Revised Penal Code
expressly provides that when the death penalty is not executed by reason of commutation
or pardon, the accessory penalties of perpetual absolute disqualification and civil
interdiction during thirty (30) years from the date of the sentence shall remain as effects
thereof, unless such accessory penalties have been expressly remitted in the pardon. This is
because pardon only excuses the convict from serving the sentence but does not relieve
him of the effects of the conviction unless expressly remitted in the pardon.

Criminal law - Modification and extinction of criminal liability – Pardon and Amnesty

Page 161 of 338
1. Enumerate the differences between pardon and amnesty. 2.5% (2006
Bar Question)
2. Under Presidential Proclamation No. 724, amending Presidential
Proclamation No. 347, certain crimes are covered by the grant of amnesty.
Name at least 5 of these crimes. 2.5%
3. Can former DSWD Secretary Dinky Soliman apply for amnesty? How
about columnist Randy David? (You are supposed to know the crimes or
offenses ascribed to them as published in almost all newspapers for the past
several months.) 2.5% (2006 Bar Question)
4. General Lim and General Querubin of the Scout Rangers and
Philippine Marines, respectively, were charged with conduct unbecoming an
officer and a gentleman under the Articles of War. Can they apply for amnesty?
2.5% (2006 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The differences between pardon and amnesty are –

In pardon:

The convict is excused from serving the sentence but the effects of conviction
remain unless expressly remitted by the pardon; hence, for pardon to be valid there
must be a sentence already final and executory at the time the same is granted.
Moreover, the grant is in favor of individual convicted offenders, not to a class of
convicted offenders; and the crimes subject of the grant may be common crimes or
political crimes. Finally, the grant is a private act of the Chief Executive which does
not require the concurrence of any other public officer or office.

In amnesty;

The criminal complexion of the act constituting the crime is erased, as though
such act was innocent when committed; hence, the effects of the conviction are
obliterated. Amnesty is granted is in favor of a class of convicted offenders, not to
individual convicted offenders; and the crimes involved are generally political
offenses, not common crimes. Amnesty is a public act that requires the conformity
or concurrence of the Philippine Senate.

2. Crimes covered by the grant of amnesty, under Presidential
Proclamation No. 724: (at least 5)
a. Rebellion or insurrection
b. Coup d'etat
c. Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, insurrection or coup
d'etat
d. Disloyalty' of public officers or employs
e. Inciting to rebellion or insurrection
f. Sedition

Page 162 of 338
g. Conspiracy to commit sedition
h. Inciting to sedition
i. Illegal assembly
j. Illegal association
k. Direct Assault
I. Indirect Assault
m. Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or agents of
such persons
n. Tumults and other disturbances of public order
o. Unlawful use of means of publication and unlawful utterances
p. Alarms and scandals
q. Illegal poSsession of firearms, ammunitions, and explosives,
committed in furtherance of, incident to, or in connection with the crimes of
rebellion and insurrection
r. Violations of Articles of War:
r.1. Art. 59 (Desertion)
r.2. Art. 62 (Absence without Leave)
r.3. Art. 67 (Mutiny or Sedition)
r.4. Art. 68 (Failure to Suppress Mutiny or Sedition)
r.5. Art. 94 (Various Crimes)
r.6. Art. 96 (Conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman)
r.7. Art. 97 (General Article)

ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Crimes covered by the grant of amnesty are: (at least 5)
Illegal assembly;
Alarms and scandal;
Illegal association;
Disloyalty by public officers/employees;
Illegal possession of firearms.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

3. Both Dinky Soliman and Randy David may apply for amnesty because the
crime respectively imputed to them are crimes against public order which are
among the crimes covered by amnesty.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes. General Lim and General Querubin of the Scout Rangers and Philippine
Marines can apply for amnesty. Violation of conduct unbecoming an officer and a
gentleman under Article 96 of the Articles of War is explicitly enumerated in Section
1 of Presidential Proclamation No 724 as one of the crimes that are covered by the
grant of amnesty.

Page 163 of 338
a) Prescription of crime; Prescription of Violations of Special Laws (Act. No.
3326)

Criminal law – Prescription for violation of special laws - Petition for forfeiture
under Republic Act No. 1379
Maloling is a public official who resigned from the service on February 1, 1984. On
February 15, 1990, the Solicitor General filed a petition in court for the forfeiture of the
property of Maloling which was allegedly unlawfully acquired.
a) If you were the counsel of Maloling, what defense or defenses would you interpose?
Explain your answer. (1990 Bar Question)
b) Besides property unlawfully acquired found to be in the name of Maloling, what are
the other properties not in his name which may nevertheless be considered unlawfully
acquired? Explain your answer. (1990 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) I would interpose the defense of prescription as the right to file a petition for forfeiture under
Republic Act No. 1379 Section 2 prescribes in four (4) years from the date of resignation.
b) Property which may still be considered as unlawfully acquired, though not in the name of
Maloling at the time of filing of the petition for forfeiture, shall include:

1) Property unlawfully acquired by the respondent but its ownership concealed
by being recorded in the name of, or held by, the respondent’s spouse, ascendants,
descendants, relatives or any other person; and
2) Property unlawfully acquired by the respondent, but transferred by him to
another person/s. (R-A. 1379 Section 1(b)).

Prescription of penalties

Criminal law – Extinction of penalties – Presciption of crime of estafa
thru falsification of public document

B imitated the signature of A, registered owner of a lot, in special power of
attorney naming him (B) as the attorney- in-fact of A On February 13, 1964, B
mortgaged the lot to a bank using the special power of attorney to obtain a loan of
P8.500.00. On the same day, both the special power of attorney and the mortgage
contract were duly registered in the Registry of Deeds. Because of B’s failure to pay.
The bank foreclosed the mortgage and the lot was sold to X in whose name a new

Page 164 of 338
title was issued. In March, 1974, A discovered that the property was already
registered in the name of X because of an ejectment case filed against him by X.
If you were the lawyer of A, with what crime or crimes would you charge B?
Explain.(1993 Bar Question)
If you were the counsel of B. what would be your defense? Discuss.(1993 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime committed is estafa thru falsification of public document.
My defense will be prescription because the crime was committed in 1964 and
almost twenty nine years had already elapsed since then. Even if we take Falsification and
Estafa individually, they have already prescribed. It is to be noted that when it comes to
discovery, the fact that the crime was discovered in 1964 will be of no moment because the
offended party is considered to have constructive notice on the forgery after the Deed of
Sale where his signature had been falsified was registered in the office of the Register of
Deeds (Cabral vs. Pu.no, 70 SCRA 606).

Criminal law – Extinction of penalties – Prescription for the crime of
plunder; Recovery by the State of properties unlawfully acquired by
public officers
Through kickbacks, percentages or commissions and other fraudulent
schemes/conveyances and taking advantage of his position, Andy, a former mayor of
a suburban town, acquired assets amounting to P10 billion which is grossly
disproportionate to his lawful income. Due to his influence and connections and
despite knowledge by the authorities of his ill-gotten wealth, he was charged with
the crime of plunder only after twenty (20) years from his defeat in the last elections
he participated in.
May Andy still be held criminally liable? Why? (1993 Bar Question)
Can the State still recover the properties and assets that he illegally acquired, the
bulk of which is in the name of his wife and children? Reason out. .(1993 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Andy will not be criminally liable because Section 6 of RA 7080 provides that the
crime punishable under this Act shall prescribe in twenty years and the problem asked
whether Andy can still be charged with the crime of plunder after 20 years.
Can the State still recover? Yes, because Section 6 provides that recovery of
properties unlawfully acquired by public officers from them or their nominees or
transferees shall not be barred by prescription, laches or estoppel.

Page 165 of 338
Criminal law – Extinction of criminal liability – Prescription of penalty; Bigamy
Joe and Marcy were married in Batanes in 1955. After two years, Joe left Marcy and
settled in Mindanao where he later met and married Linda on 12 June 1960. The second
marriage was registered in the civil registry of Davao City three days after its celebration. On
10 October 1975 Marcy who remained in Batanes discovered the marriage of Joe to Linda.
On 1 March 1976 Marcy filed a complaint for bigamy against Joe.

The crime of bigamy prescribed in fifteen years computed from the day the crime is
discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents. Joe raised the defense of
prescription of the crime, more than fifteen years having elapsed from the celebration of the
bigamous marriage up to the filing of Marcy’s complaint. He contended that the registration
of his second marriage in the civil registry of Davao City was constructive notice to the whole
world of the celebration thereof thus binding upon Marcy.

Has the crime of bigamy charged against Joe already prescribed? Discuss fully. (1995
Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The prescriptive period for the crime of bigamy is computed from the time the crime was
discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents. The principle of constructive notice
which ordinarily applies to land or property disputes should not be applied to the crime of bigamy,
as marriage is not property. Thus when Marcy filed a complaint for bigamy on 7 March 1976, it
was well within the reglamentary period as it was barely a few months from the time of
discovery on 10 October 1975. (Sermonia vs. CA, 233 SCRA 155)

Criminal law – Extinction of criminal liability – Prescription of penalties
A was charged in an information with the crime of grave oral defamation but after trial,
the court found him guilty only of the offense of simple slander. He filed a motion for
reconsideration contending that, under the law, the crime of simple slander would have
prescribed in two months from commission, and since the information against him was filed
more than four months after the alleged commission of the crime, the same had already
prescribed.
The Solicitor General opposed the motion on two grounds: first, in determining the
prescriptive period, the nature of the offense charged in the information should be
considered, not the crime proved; second, assuming that the offense had already prescribed,
the defense was waived by the failure of A to raise it in a motion to quash.

Resolve the motion for reconsideration. (1997 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Page 166 of 338
The motion for reconsideration should be granted.
a) The accused cannot be convicted of the offense of simple slander although it is
necessarily included in the offense of grave slander charged in the information, because,
the lesser offense had already prescribed at the time the information was filed (People vs.
Rarang, (CA) 62 O.G. 6468; Francisco vs. CA, 122 SCRA 538; Magat vs. People, 201SCRA 21)
otherwise prosecutors can easily circumvent the rule of prescription in light offenses by
the simple expediment of filing a graver offense which includes such light offense.
b)While the general rule is the failure of an accused to file a motion to quash before
he pleads to the complaint or information, shall be deemed a waiver of the grounds of a
motion to quash, the exceptions to this are: (1) no offense was charged in the complaint or
information; (2) lack of jurisdiction;
(2) extinction of the offense or penalty; and (4) double jeopardy. Since the ground invoked
by the accused in his motion for reconsideration is extinction of the offense, then it can be
raised even after plea. In fact, it may even be invoked on appeal (People vs. Balagtas)

Criminal law - Extinction of criminal liability – Prescription of penalties
One fateful night in January 1990, while 5-year old Albert was urinating at the back of
their house, he heard a strange noise coming from the kitchen of their neighbor and
playmate, Ara. When he peeped inside, he saw Mina, Ara’s stepmother, very angry and
strangling the 5-year old Ara to death. Albert saw Mina carry the dead body of Ara, place it
inside the trunk of her car and drive away. The dead body of Ara was never found. Mina
spread the news in the neighborhood that Ara went to live with her grandparents in Ormoc
City. For fear of his life, Albert did not tell anyone, even his parents and relatives, about what
he witnessed. Twenty and a half (20 & 1/2) years after the incident, and right after his
graduation in Criminology, Albert reported the crime to NBI authorities. The crime of
homicide prescribes in 20 years. Can the state still prosecute Mina for the death of Ara
despite the lapse of 20 & 1/2 years? Explain. (5%) (2000 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, the State can still prosecute Mina for the death of Ara despite the lapse of 20 & 1/2 years.
Under Article 91. RPC, the period of prescription commences to run from the day on which the crime
is discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents. In the case at bar, the commission
of the crime was known only to Albert, who was not the offended party nor an authority or an agent
of an authority. It was discovered by the NBI authorities only when Albert revealed to them the
commission of the crime. Hence, the period of prescription of 20years for homicide commenced to
run only from the time Albert revealed the same to the NBI authorities.

Criminal law – Prescription of crimes - Concubinage

Page 167 of 338
On June 1, 1988, a complaint for concubinage committed in February 1987 was
filed against Roberto in the Municipal Trial Court of Tanza, Cavite for purposes of
preliminary investigation. For various reasons, it was only on July 3, 1998 when the
Judge of said court decided the case by dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction since the
crime was committed in Manila. The case was subsequently filed with the City Fiscal
of Manila but it was dismissed on the ground that the crime had already prescribed.
The law provides that the crime of concubinage prescribes in ten (10) years.

Was the dismissal by the fiscal correct? Explain. (5%) (2001 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the Fiscals dismissal of the case on alleged prescription is not correct. The filing of the
complaint with the Municipal Trial Court, although only for preliminary investigation, interrupted
and suspended the period of prescription in as much as the jurisdiction of a court in a criminal case
is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information, not by the result of proof. (People
vs. Galano, 75 SCRA 193)

Criminal law – Extinction of criminal liability – Prescription of crimes

A. OW is a private person engaged in cattle ranching. One night, he saw AM
stabbed CV treacherously, then throw the dead man’s body into a ravine. For 25
years, CVs body was never seen nor found; and OW told no one what he had
witnessed.

Yesterday after consulting the parish priest, OW decided to tell the authorities what
he witnessed, and revealed that AM had killed CV 25 years ago.

Can AM be prosecuted for murder despite the lapse of 25 years? Reason
briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

A. Yes, AM can be prosecuted for murder despite the lapse of 25 years, because
the crime has not yet prescribed and legally, its prescriptive period has not even
commenced to run.

The period of prescription of a crime shall commence to run only from the day on
which the crime has been discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents
(Art. 91, Revised Penal Code). OW, a private person who saw the killing but never disclosed
it, is not the offended party nor has the crime been discovered by the authorities or their
agents.

Page 168 of 338
Criminal law – Extinction of criminal liability – Prescription of penalties

Baldo killed Conrad in a dark corner, at midnight, on January 2, 1960.
Dominador witnessed the entire incident, but he was so scared to tell the authorities
about it.

On January 2, 1970, Dominador, bothered by his conscience, reported the
matter to the police. After investigation, the police finally arrested Baldo on January
6, 1980. Charged in court, Baldo claims that the crime he committed had already
prescribed.

Is Baldo's contention correct? Explain. (3%) (2009 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Baldo's contention is not correct because the crime committed has not yet
prescribed. The prescriptive period of the crime committed commenced to run only after it
was reported to the police on January 2, 1970, not on the date it was clandestinely
committed on January 2, 1960. Under the discovery rule, which governs when a crime is
not publicly committed, the prescriptive period of a crime commences to run only from the
day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents:
in this case, from January 2, 1970 when it was made known to the police authorities until
January 6, 1980, when Baldo was arrested and charged. The killing committed, whether it
be homicide or murder, is punishable by an afflictive penalty which prescribes in twenty
(20) years, whereas only around ten (10) years had lapsed from January 2, 1970 (when the
authorities discovered the commission of the crime) to January 6, 1920 (when the accused
was charged in court).

Criminal law – Extinction of criminal liability – Prescription of offenses

A killed his wife and buried her in their backyard. He immediately went into
hiding in the mountains. Three years later, the bones of A's wife were discovered by
X, the gardener. Since X had a standing warrant of arrest, he hid the bones in an old
clay jar and kept quiet about it. After two years, Z, the caretaker, found the bones and
reported the matter to the police. After 15 years of hiding, A left the country but
returned three years later to take care of his ailing sibling. Six years thereafter, he
was charged with parricide but raised the defense of prescription.
A. Under the Revised Penal Code, when does the period of prescription of a
crime commence to run? (1%) (2010 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Generally, the period of prescription of a crime commences to run from the date it
was committed; but if the crime was committed clandestinely, the period of prescription of

Page 169 of 338
the crimes under the Revised Penal Code commence to run from the day on which the
crime was discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents (Art 91, RPC).

B. When is it interrupted? (1%) (2010 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The running of the prescriptive period of the crime is interrupted when "any kind of
investigative proceeding is instituted against the guilty person which may ultimately lead
to his prosecution" (Panaguiton, Jr. v. Dept. of Justice, G.R. No. 167571, Nov. 25, 2008).

C. Is A's defense tenable? Explain. (3%) (2010 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the defense of prescription of the crime is not tenable. The crime committed is
parricide which prescribes in twenty (20) years (Art 90, RPC). It was only when the care-
taker, Z, found the victim's bones and reported the matter to the police that the crime is
deemed legally discovered by the authorities or their agents and thus the prescriptive
period of the crime commenced to run.
When A left the country and returned only after three (3) years, 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).
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 when A was out
of the Philippines should be deducted from the 10 years after the prescription starts
running. Adding the 7 years of prescription and the 6 years that lapsed before the case was
filed, only a total of thirteen (13) years of the prescriptive period had lapsed. Hence the
crime has not yet prescribed.

c) Pardon by offended party
d) Pardon by the Chief Executive

Criminal law – Modification and extinction of criminal liability –Pardon
by the Chief Executive
Rina, who was a suspended Clerk of Court, was convicted of malversation and was
sentenced to imprisonment, to pay a fine of P5.000.00 and to indemnify the government in
the same amount. Pending appeal in the Court of Appeals, she was extended an absolute
pardon by the President. Thus, she applied for reinstatement, payment of backwages, and
absolution from payment of the One and indemnify.

Page 170 of 338
Decide the issue with reasons. (1990 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Rina cannot apply for reinstatement, etc. as there was no effective pardon by the President. It is
basic that pardon can only be granted after final conviction (Barrioquinto v. Fernandez, 85 Phil. 642).

Criminal law - Modification and extinction of criminal liability – Pardon by the
Chief Executive
Linda was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of estafa through falsification of public
document. She was sentenced accordingly and ordered to pay, among others, P5,000.00
representing the balance of the amount defrauded.
The case reached the Supreme Court which affirmed the judgment of conviction.
During the pendency of Linda’s motion for reconsideration in the said Court, the President
extended to her an absolute pardon which she accepted.
By reason of such pardon, she wrote the Department of Finance requesting that she be
restored to her former post as assistant treasurer, which is still vacant.
The Department ruled that Linda may be reinstated to her former position without
the necessity of a new appointment and directed the City Treasurer to see to it that the sum of
P5.000.00 be satisfied.
Claiming that she should not be made to pay P5,000.00, Linda appealed to the Office of
the President.
The Office of the President dismissed the appeal and held that acquittal, not absolute
pardon, is the only ground for reinstatement to one's former position and that the
absolute pardon does not exempt the culprit from payment of civil liability.
IS Linda entitled to reinstatement? (1994 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Linda is not entitled to reinstatement to her former position inasmuch as her
right thereto had been relinquished or forfeited by reason of her conviction. The absolute
pardon merely extinguished her criminal liability, removed her disqualification, and
restored her eligibility for appointment to that office. She has to reapply for such position
and under the usual procedure required for a new appointment. Moreover, the pardon
does not extinguish the civil liability arising from the crime. (Monsanto vs. Factoran, Jr., 170
SCRA 191); see Art. 36. RPC)

e) Amnesty

Criminal law – Modification and extinction of criminal liability - Amnesty

Page 171 of 338
Antero Makabayan was convicted of the crime of Rebellion. While serving
sentence, he escaped from jail. Captured, he was charged with, and convicted of,
Evasion of Service of Sentence. Thereafter, the President of the Philippines issued an
amnesty proclamation for the offense of Rebellion. Antero applied for and was
granted the benefit of the amnesty proclamation.
Antero then filed a petition for habeas corpus, praying for his immediate
release from confinement. He claims that the amnesty extends to the offense of
evasion of Service of Sentence. As judge, will you grant the petition? Discuss fully.
(4%) (2009 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, I will grant the petition because the sentence that was evaded proceeded from
the crime of Rebellion which has been obliterated by the grant of amnesty to the offender
(Art. 89 [3], RPC).
Since the amnesty erased the criminal complexion of the act committed by the
offender as a crime of rebellion and rendered such act as though innocent, the sentence lost
its legal basis. The purported evasion thereof therefore cannot subsist (People v. Patriarca,
341 SCRA 464[2000]).
Amnesty obliterates, not only the basis of conviction, but also all the legal effects
thereof.

Book II (Articles 114-365, RPC) and specifically included Special Laws

Crimes Against National Security (Arts. 114-123)

Criminal law – Crimes against national security – Qualified piracy

The inter-island vessel M/ V Viva Lines I, while cruising off Batanes, was
forced to seek shelter at the harbor of Kaoshiung, Taiwan because of a strong
typhoon. While anchored in said harbor, Max, Baldo and Bogart arrived in a
speedboat, fired a bazooka at the bow of the vessel, boarded it and divested the
passengers of their money and jewelry. A passenger of M/ V Viva Lines I, Dodong,
took advantage of the confusion to settle an old grudge with another passenger, and
killed him. After their apprehension, all four were charged with qualified piracy
before a Philippine court.

a) Was the charge of qualified piracy against the three persons (Max, Baldo
and Bogart) who boarded the inter-island vessel correct? Explain. (4%) (2008 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Page 172 of 338
a) The charge is correct. Qualified Piracy was committed when the offenders seized
the vessel by firing on or boarding the same. In the problem, they even went further by
divesting the passengers of their money and jewelry. The vessel was anchored in the
harbor of Kaoshiung, Taiwan and it is submitted that the crime was committed within the
territorial jurisdiction of another country. The Supreme Court has ruled that the high seas
contemplated under Art. 122 of the Revised Penal Code includes the three-mile limit of any
state (People v. Lol-lo, et al., 43 Phil. 1911922]). Moreover, piracy is an offense that can be
tried anywhere because it is a crime against the Law of Nations.

Criminal law – Crimes against National Security – Misprision of treason

Because peace negotiations on the Spratlys situation had failed, the People's
Republic of China declared war against the Philippines. Myra, a Filipina who lives
with her Italian expatriate boyfriend, discovered e-mail correspondence between
him and a certain General Tung Kat Su of China.
On March 12, 2010, Myra discovered that on even date her boyfriend had sent
an e-mail to General Tung Kat Su, in which he agreed to provide vital information on
the military defense of the Philippines to the Chinese government in exchange for P1
million and his safe return to Italy. Two weeks later, Myra decided to report the
matter to the proper authorities. Did Myra commit a crime? Explain. (3%) (2010 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, Myra committed the crime of Misprision of Treason under Art. 116 of the
Revised Penal Code, for failing to report or make known "as soon as possible" to the
governor or provincial fiscal or to the mayor or fiscal of the City where she resides, the
conspiracy between her Italian boyfriend and the Chinese General to commit treason
against the Philippine Government in time of war. She decided to report the matter to the
proper authorities only after two (2) weeks.

Include:
a) Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery (P.D. 532)

Special law - Highway Robbery under Presidential Decree No. 532 – difference
with Robbery committed on a highway
a) Distinguish Highway Robbery under Presidential Decree No. 532 from Robbery
committed on a highway. (3%) (2000 Bar Question)

Page 173 of 338
b) A, B, C, D and E were in a beerhouse along MacArthur Highway having a drinking
spree. At about 1 o’clock in the morning, they decided to leave and so asked for
the bill. They pooled their money together but they were still short of P2.Q00.00.
E then orchestrated a plan whereby A, B, C and D would go out, flag a taxicab and
rob the taxi driver of all his money while E would wait for them in the beerhouse.
A, B, C and D agreed. All armed with balisongs, A, B, C and D hailed the first taxicab
they encountered. After robbing X, the driver, of his earnings, which amounted to
PI,000.00 only, they needed P1,000.00 more to meet their bill. So, they decided to
hail another taxicab and they again robbed driver Y of his hard-eamed money
amounting to PI,000.00. On their way back to the beerhouse, they were
apprehended by a police team upon the complaint of X, the driver of the first cab.
They pointed to E as the mastermind. What crime or crimes, if any, did A, B, C, D
and E commit? Explain fully. (3%) (2000 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a)Highway Robbery under Pres. Decree 532 differs from ordinary Robbery
committed on a highway in these respects:

1) In Highway Robbery under PD 532, the robbery is committed indiscriminately
against persons who commute in such highways, regardless of the potentiality
they offer; while in ordinary Robbery committed on a highway, the robbery is
committed only against predetermined victims;
2) It is Highway Robbery under PD 532, when the offender is a brigand or one
who roams in public highways and carries out his robbery in public highways as
venue, whenever the opportunity to do so arises. It is ordinary Robbery under
the Revised Penal Code when the commission thereof in a public highway is
only incidental and the offender is not a brigand; and
3) In Highway Robbery under PD 532, there is frequency in the commission of the
robbery in public highways and against persons travelling thereat; whereas
ordinary Robbery In public highways is only occasional against a predetermined
victim, without frequency in public highways.
b) A, B, C, D and E are liable for two (2) counts of robbery under Article 294 of the Rev. Penal
Code; not for highway Robbery under PD 532. The offenders are not brigands but only committed
the robbery to raise money to pay their bill because it happened that they were short of money to
pay the same.

(i) Definition of terms
(ii) Punishable acts

Special law – Anti-Piracy and Anti- Highway Robbery (PD 532) –

Page 174 of 338
punishable acts
Police Sgt. Diego Chan, being a member of the Theft and Robbery Division of the
Western Police District and assigned to the South Harbor, Manila, was privy to and
more or less familiar with the schedules, routes and hours of the movements of
container vans, as well as the mobile police patrols, from the pier area to the
different export processing zones outside Metro Manila. From time to time, he gave
valuable and detailed information on these matters to a group interested in those
shipments in said container vans. On several instances, using the said information as
their basis, the gang hijacked and pilfered the contents of the vans. Prior to their
sale to “fences” in Banawe, Ouezon City and Bangkal, Makati City, the gang informs
Sgt. Chan who then inspects the pilfered goods, makes his choice of the valuable
items and disposes of them through his own sources or “fences”. When the
highjackers were traced on one occasion and arrested, upon custodial investigation,
they implicated Sgt. Chan and the fiscal charged them all, including Sgt. Chan as co-
principals. Sgt. Chan, in his defense, claimed that he should not be charged as a
principal but only as an accessory after the fact under P.D. 532, otherwise known as
the Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Act of 1972.
Is the contention of Sgt. Chan valid and tenable? Explain. (5%) (2001 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the contention of Sgt. Chan is not valid or tenable because by express provision of P.D. 532,
Section 4, a person who knowingly and in any manner, aids or protects highway robbers/brigands,
such as giving them information about the movement of police officers or acquires or receives
property taken by brigands, or who directly or indirectly abets the commission of highway
robbeiy/brigandage, shall be considered as accomplice of the principal offenders and punished in
accordance with the rules in the Revised Penal Code.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, the contention of Sgt. Chan that he should be charged only as accessory after the fact is not
tenable because he was a principal participant in the commission of the crime and in pursuing the
criminal design.

An accessory after the fact involves himself in the commission of a crime only after the crime
had already been consummated, not before. For his criminal participation in the execution of the
highjacking of the container vans, Sgt. Chan is a co-principal by indispensable cooperation.

b) Anti-Hijacking Law (P.D. 6235)
(i) Punishable acts
c) Human Security Act of 2007 (R.A. No. 9372)

Page 175 of 338
(i) Punishable acts of terrorism
(ii) Who are liable
Crimes Against the Fundamental Laws of the State (Articles 124-133)

Criminal law – Crimes against the fundamental law of the State -
Violation of domicile
Alberto, Bernado and Carlos were looking for a person named Virgilio whom
Carlos suspected of stealing his fighting cock. Alberto and Bernardo were policemen,
while Carlos was a caretaker of fighting cocks. Carlos requested Alberto and
Bernardo, then in uniform, to accompany him to Virgilio’s house to look for the
fighting cock. Alberto, Bernardo and Carlos went to Virgilio’s house. When the
policemen knocked on the door, Virgilio’s wife, Maria, opened it. The policemen told
Maria that they came to inquire about a lost fighting cock. Before Maria could utter a
word, the trio barged inside, the house. Once inside, the policemen told Maria that
Carlos was suspecting her husband, Virgilio, to have stolen his fighting cock. Maria
protested and immediately required the three to leave. The policemen refused.
Instead, they started searching the house for the fighting cock over the objections of
Maria who said that she would file a complaint against them after her husband
comes from work. As they did not see any fighting cock, the three left. What crimes, if
any, did Alberto, Bernardo and Carlos commit? (1989 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Alberto and Bernardo, being policemen, committed the crime of VIOLATION OF
DOMICILE (Art. 128, RPC). There are three ways by which a public officer or employee may
commit this crime, namely:
By entering any dwelling against the will of the owner. The door having been opened by Maria,
although Alberto, Bernardo and Carlos barged inside the house before Maria could utter a word, they
did not enter against Maria’s will, there being no opposition or prohibition against entrance whether
express or implied. Without the consent is not against the will (People vs. Sane, CA 40 OG Supp 5,
113).
1. By searching papers or other effects found therein without the previous consent of such
owner. Maria had objected to the search for the fighting cock inside her dwelling, but
despite said objection, the policemen searched the house. This makes them criminally
liable for the second way of committing the crime of VIOLATING OF DOMICILE.
2. By refusing to leave the premises, after having surreptitiously entered said dwelling and
after having been required to leave the same. Although the policemen were ordered to leave
the house, they did not enter it surreptitiously, meaning clandestinely or secretly.
Insofar as Carlos is concerned, not being a public officer or employee, he cannot
commit the crime of VIOLATION OF DOMICILE. He is not guilty of trespass to dwelling,
either because he did not enter the dwelling AGAINST THE WILL of the owner, which is

Page 176 of 338
the essential element of Trespass.

Criminal law – Crimes against the Fundamental Law of the State –
Violation of domicile

TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the
statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences. (5%)
(2009 Bar Question)

[e] A policeman who, without a judicial order, enters a private house over the
owner's opposition is guilty of trespass to dwelling.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

False. The crime committed by the policeman in this case is violation of domicile
because the official duties of a policeman carry with it an authority to make searches and
seizure upon judicial order. He is therefore acting under color of his official authority (Art.
128, RPC).

Criminal law – Crimes against fundamental law of the State - Delay on the
Delivery of Detained Persons to the Proper Judicial Authorities; in relation
with Slight disobedience which is a crime against public order
Amy was apprehended and arrested by Patrolman Bart for illegal parking. She
was detained at the police precint, underwent investigation, and released only after
48 hours.
a)Patrolman Bart liable for any offense? Explain your answer. (1990 Bar
Question)
Suppose Amy resisted the arrest and grappled with patrolman Bart, is she
b)
criminally liable thereby? State your reasons. (1990 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a)Patrolman Bart is liable for violation of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code -
Delay on the Delivery of Detained Persons to the Proper Judicial Authorities.
b)She is criminally liable for slight disobedience under Article 151 of the Revised
Penal Code - Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of such
person.

Criminal law – Crimes against fundamental law of the State; violation of

Page 177 of 338
domicile – Crimes against personal liberty and security; trespass to dwelling

What is the difference between violation of domicile and trespass to dwelling? (2%)
(2002 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The differences between violation of domicile and trespass to dwelling are:

a. The offender in violation of domicile is a public officer acting under color of authority; in trespass to
dwelling, the offender is a private person or public officer acting in a private capacity.

b. Violation of domicile is committed in 3 different ways: (1) by entering the dwelling of another
against the will of the latter; (2) searching papers and other effects inside the dwelling without the
previous consent of the owner; or (3) refusing to leave the premises which he entered
surreptitiously, after being required to leave the premises.

Trespass to dwelling is committed only in one way; that is, by entering the dwelling of another
against the express or implied will of the latter.

Criminal law – Crimes against the Fundamental Law of the State –
Arbitrary detention

1. What are the 3 ways of committing arbitrary detention? Explain each. 2.5% (2006
Bar Question)
2. What are the legal grounds for detention? 2.5% (2006 Bar Question)
3. When is an arrest by a peace officer or by a private person considered lawful?
Explain. 5% (2006 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1. Three (3) ways of committing arbitrary detention
are:
a) by detaining or locking up a person without any legal cause or ground
therefor purposely to restrain his liberty (RPC, Art. 124);
b) by delaying delivery to the proper judicial authority of a person lawfully
arrested without a warrant (RPC, Art. 125); and
c) by delaying release of a prisoner whose release has been ordered by
competent authority (RPC, Art. 126).

In all the above-stated ways, the principal offender should be a public officer acting
under color of his authority.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Page 178 of 338
2. The legal grounds for detention are;
a) commission of a crime;
b) violent insanity or other ailment requiring compulsory confinement in an
institution established for such purpose.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Arrest by a peace officer or by a private person is lawful –

a) when in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
b) when an offense has just been committed and he has probable, cause to
believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be
arrested has committed it; and
c) when the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from penal
establishment or place where he is serving sentence or is temporarily confined
while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another (Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 113, Sec. 5).

Include:
a) Human Security Act of 2007 (R.A. No. 9372)
(i) Period of detention
b) Anti-Torture Act of 2009 (R.A. No. 9745)
(i) Punishable acts
(ii) Who are liable
Crimes Against Public Order (Articles 134-160)

Criminal law – Crimes against public order – Illegal association
What would have been the legal effect of the repeal of P.D. No. 1835
(Codifying The Various Laws on Anti- Subversion and Increasing the Penalties For
Membership in Subversive Organizations) as amended by P.D. No. 1975, if RA. No.
1700 (An Act to Outlaw The Communist Party of the Philippines and Similar
Associations. Penalizing Membership Therein and For Other Purposes) were not
revived? (1991 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If the repeal of P.D. 1835 as amended by RA 1735, is absolute, without reviving RA.
1700, the original provision on illegal associations under Art. 147 of the Revised Penal

Page 179 of 338
Code would be the pertinent provision to be taken into account. Hence, it must be proved
that the purpose of the organization is to commit any crime punishable by the code or for
some purpose contrary to public morals.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
a)If Rep. Act No. 1700 were not revived by Executive Order No. 167, the repeal of P.D.
No. 1835 and P.D. No. 1975 would have created a vacuum in the sense that membership in
subversive organizations would no longer be punishable.

Criminal law – Crimes against public interest - forgery of a private
document; falsification of a private document
In a civil case for recovery of a sum of money filed against him by A. B
interposed the defense of payment. In support thereof, he identified and offered in
evidence a receipt which appears to be signed by A On rebuttal. A denied having
been paid by B and having signed the receipt. He presented a handwriting expert
who testified that the alleged signature of A on the receipt is a forgery and that a
comparison thereof with the specimen signatures of B clearly shows that B himself
forged the signature of A.
a) Is B liable for the crime of using a falsified document in a judicial proceeding
(last paragraph of Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code)? (1991 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a) No,B should not be liable for the crime of using a falsified document, under the last
paragraph of Art. 172, Revised Penal Code. He would be liable for forgery of a private document
under the second mode of falsification under Art. 172, Revised Penal Code. Being the possessor and
user of the falsified document he is presumed to be the forger or falsifier and the offense of
introducing falsified document is already absorbed in the main offense of forgery or falsification.

b) If he is not, what offense or offenses may he be charged with? (1991 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

b) B should be charged for the crime of falsification of a private document, since the document
falsified is a private document and done with intent to cause damage. Although there was an attempt
on the part of B to defraud A thru the use of the false document, such deceit cannot give rise to estafa
because this crime cannot co-exist or be complexed with the crime of falsification when the docu-
ment falsified is a private document.

Additional Answer:
a) If he testified on the genuineness of the document, he should also be held liable under Art.

Page 180 of 338
182, which is false testimony in civil cases.

Criminal law – Crimes against public interest - Forgery and
falsification

(a) How are “forging” and “falsification” committed? (3%) (1999 Bar Question)

(b) Is mere possession of false money bills punishable under Article 168 of the
Revised Penal Code? Explain. (3%) (1999 Bar Question)

(c) The accused was caught in possession of 100 counterfeit P20 bills. He could
not explain how and why he possessed the said bills. Neither could he explain what
he intended to do with the fake bills. Can he be held criminally liable for such
possession? Decide. (3%) (1999 Bar Question)

(d) A falsified official or public document was found in the possession of the
accused. No evidence was introduced to show that the accused was the author of the
falsification. As a matter of fact, the trial court convicted the accused of falsification
of official or public document mainly on the proposition that “the only person who
could have made the erasures and the superimposition mentioned is the one who
will be benefited by the alterations thus made” and that “he alone could have the
motive for making such alterations”.

Was the conviction of the accused proper although the conviction was premised
merely on the aforesaid ratiocination? Explain your answer. (3%) (1999 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) Forging or forgery is committed by giving to a treasury or bank note or any
instrument payable to bearer or to order the appearance of a true and genuine document;
or by erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, or altering by any means the figures, letters,
words or signs contained therein.

Falsification, on the other hand, is committed by:

1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric;
2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when
they did not in fact so participate;
3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements
other than those in fact made by them;

Page 181 of 338
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;

5. Altering true dates;

6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its
meaning;
7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original
document when no such original exists, or including in such copy a statement contrary to,
or different from, that of the genuine original; or
8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol,
registry, or official book.

(b) No. Possession of false treasury or bank note alone without an intent to use it, is
not punishable. But the circumstances of such possession may indicate intent to utter,
sufficient to consummate the crime of illegal possession of false notes.
(c) Yes. Knowledge that the note is counterfeit and intent to use it may be shown by
the conduct of the accused. So, possession of 100 false bills reveal: (a) knowledge that the
bills are fake; and (b) intent to utter the same.

(d) Yes, the conviction is proper because there is a presumption in law that the
possessor and user of a falsified document is the one who falsified the same.

Criminal law – Crimes against public order – Evasion of sentence;
penalty of destierro
Manny killed his wife under exceptional circumstances and was sentenced by the
Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City to suffer the penalty of destierro during which he was
not to enter the city.
While serving sentence, Manny went to Dagupan City to visit his mother. Later, he was
arrested in Manila.
1. Did Manny commit any crime? [3%] (1998 Bar Question)
2. If so, where should he be prosecuted? [2%] (1998 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1. Yes, Manny committed the crime of evasion of service of sentence when he went
to Dagupan City, which he was prohibited from entering under his sentence of destierro.

A sentence imposing the penalty of destierro is evaded when the convict enters
any of the place/places he is prohibited from entering under the sentence or come within
the prohibited radius. Although destierro does not involve imprisonment, it is nonetheless

Page 182 of 338
a deprivation of liberty. (People vs. Abilong, 82 Phil. 172).
2. Manny maybe prosecuted in Dagupan City or in Manila where he was arrested.
This is so because evasion of service of sentence is a continuing offense, as the convict is a
fugitive from justice in such case. (Parulan vs. Dir. of Prisons, L-28519, 17 Feb. 668)

Criminal law – Crimes against public order - Delivery of prisoner from jail
A. A, a detention prisoner, was taken to a hospital for emergency medical treatment. His
followers, all of whom were armed, went to the hospital to take him away or help him escape.
The prison guards, seeing that they were outnumbered and that resistance would endanger
the lives of other patients, decided to allow the prisoner to be taken by his followers. What
crime, if any, was committed by A’s followers? Why? (3%) (2002 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A’s followers shall be liable as principals in the crime of delivery of prisoner from jail (Art
156, Revised Penal Code).

The felony is committed not only by removing from any jail or penal establishment
any person confined therein but also by helping in the escape of such person outside of
said establishments by means of violence, intimidation, bribery, or any other means.

Criminal law- Crimes against persons – Murder; complex crime of homicide
with assault upon a person in authority

1. On his way to buy a lotto ticket, a policeman suddenly found himself surrounded by four
men. One of them wrestled the police officer to the ground and disarmed him while the
other three companions who were armed with a hunting knife, an ice pick, and a
balisong, repeatedly stabbed him. The policeman died as a result of the multiple
stab wounds inflicted by his assailants.

What crime or crimes were committed? Discuss fully. (1995 Bar Question)
2. Pascual operated a rice thresher in Barangay Napnud where he resided. Renato,
a resident of the neighboring Barangay Guihaman, also operated a mobile rice
thresher which he often brought to Barangay Napnud to thresh the palay of the
farmers there. This was bitterly resented by Pascual. One afternoon Pascual, and
his two sons confronted Renato and his men who were operating their mobile
rice thresher along a feeder road in Napnud. A heated argument ensued. A
barangay captain who was fetched by one of Pascual’s men tried to appease
Pascual and Renato to prevent a violent confrontation. However, Pascual
resented the intervention of the barangay captain and hacked him to death.
What crime was committed by Pascual? Discuss fully. (1995 Bar Question)

Page 183 of 338
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1. All the assailants are liable for the crime of murder, qualified by treachery, (which
absorbed abuse of superior strength) as the attack was sudden and unexpected and the
victim was totally defenseless. Conspiracy is obvious from the concerted acts of the
assailants. Direct assault would not complex the crime, as there is no showing that the
assailants knew that the victim was a policeman; even if there was knowledge, the fact is
that he was not in the performance of his official duties, and therefore there is no direct
assault.
2. Pascual committed the complex crime of homicide with assault upon a person in
authority (Arts. 148 and 249 in relation to Art. 48. RPC). A barangay chairman, is in law
(Art. 152), a person in authority and if he is attacked while in the performance of his
official duties or on the occasion thereof the felony of direct assault is committed.
Art. 48, RPC. on the other hand, provides that if a single act produces two or more grave or
less grave felonies, a complex c.rime is committed. Here, the single act of the offender in hacking the
victim to death resulted in two felonies, homicide which is grave and direct assault which is less
grave.

Criminal law – Crimes against public order - Direct assault upon a person in
authority; direct assault with serious physical injuries
Pablo, disobeying a judicial order, was punished by an RTC Judge of Manila for
contempt. He waited for the judge to go out into the street. Upon seeing the judge, Pablo
hurriedly approached him, and without saying a word struck him with his fist causing a slight
contusion on the face of the Judge. Rex came to the rescue of the Judge but because he was
taller and bigger than Pablo, the latter used a knife in attacking Rex. Pablo limited his assault
to the arms of Rex inflicting lesions graves which incapacitated Rex from labor for forty five
(45) days.

If you were the prosecutor called to institute a criminal action against Pablo, with what crime
or crimes would you charge him? Explain. (1993 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The crime of direct assault upon a person in authority with respect to the slight contusion on
the face of the Judge.
Direct assault with serious physical injuries with respect to the assault on Rex.

Criminal law – Crimes against public order – Direct assault; Resistance
and Disobedience

Page 184 of 338
A, a teacher at Mapa High School, having gotten mad at X, one of his pupils,
because of the latter’s throwing paper clips at his classmates, twisted his right ear. X
went out of the classroom crying and proceeded home located at the back of the
school. He reported to his parents Y and Z what A had done to him. Y and Z
immediately proceeded to the school building and because they were running and
talking in loud voices, they were seen by the barangay chairman, B, who followed
them as he suspected that an untoward incident might happen. Upon seeing A inside
the classroom, X pointed him out to his father, Y, who administered a fist blow' on A,
causing him to fail down. When Y was about to kick A, B rushed towards Y and
pinned both of the latter’s arms. Seeing his father being held by B, X went near and
punched B on the face, which caused him to lose his grip on Y. Throughout this
incident, Z shouted words of encouragement at Y, her husband, and also threatened
to slap A. Some security guards of the school arrived, intervened and surrounded X,
Y and Z so that they could be investigated in the principal’s office. Before leaving, Z
passed near A and threw a small flower pot at him but it was deflected by B.

a. What, if any, are the respective criminal liability of X, Y and Z? (6%) (2001
Bar Question)

b. Would your answer be the same if B were a barangay tanod only? (4%)
(2001 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a) X is liable for Direct Assault only, assuming the physical injuries inflicted on B, the Barangay
Chairman, to be only slight and hence, would be absorbed in the direct assault. A Barangay Chairman
is a person in authority (Art. 152, RPC) and in this case, was performing his duty of maintaining
peace and order when attacked.
T is liable for the complex crimes of Direct Assault with Less Serious Physical Injuries for the
fistblow on A, the teacher, which caused the latter to fall down. For purposes of the crimes in Arts.
148 and 151 of the Revised Penal Code, a.teacher is considered a person in authority, and having
been attacked by Y by reason of his performance of official duty, direct assault is committed with the
resulting less serious physical injuries completed.
Z, the mother of X and wife of Y may only be liable as an accomplice to the complex crimes of
direct assault with less serious physical injuries committed by Y. Her participation should not be
considered as that of a coprincipal, since her reactions were only incited by her relationship to X and
Y, as the mother of X and the wife of Y.
b) If B were a Barangay Tanod only, the act of X of laying hand on him, being an agent of a
person in authority only, would constitute the crime of Resistance and Disobedience under Article
151, since X, a high school pupil, could not be considered as having acted out of contempt for
authority but more of helping his father get free from the grip of B. Laying hand on an agent of a
person in authority is not ipso facto direct assault, while it would always be direct assault if done to a
person in authority in defiance to the latter is exercise of authority.

Page 185 of 338
Criminal law - Crimes against public order - Direct assault

A, a lady professor, was giving an examination. She noticed B, one of the students,
cheating. She called the student’s attention and confiscated his examination booklet,
causing embarrassment to him. The following day, while the class was going on, the
student, B, approached A and, without any warning, slapped her. B would have
inflicted further injuries on A had not C, another student, come to A’s rescue and
prevented B from continuing his attack. B turned his ire on C and ounched the latter.
What crime or crimes, if any, did B commit? Why? (5%) (2002 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B committed two (2) counts of direct assault: one for slapping the professor, A, who was
then conducting classes and thus exercising authority; and another one for the violence on
the student C, who came to the aid of the said professor.

By express provision of Article 152, in relation to Article 148 of the Revised Penal Code,
teachers and professors of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges and
universities in the actual performance of their professional duties or on the occasion of
such performance are deemed persons in authority for purposes of the crimes of direct
assault and of resistance and disobedience in Articles 148 and 151 of said Code. And any
person who comes to the aid of persons in authority shall be deemed an agent of a person
in authority. Accordingly, the attack on C is, in the eyes of the law, an attack on an agent of
a person in authority, not just an attack on a student.

Criminal law – Crimes against public order - Rebellion

An armed group, avowed to overthrow the duly constituted authorities, captured
five officers and five members of the armed forces and held them in their mountain
lair for seventy-five days and then voluntarily released them in consideration of the
promise of medical treatment to be given to some of their comrades who were
under detention by the authorities.
What crime or crimes had been committed? Reasons. (1988 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Rebellion was committed because their purpose was to overthrow the government
and all other acts committed in the further of this purpose are absorbed by rebellion.
The armed group committed the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention
in violation of Aticle 267 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that “kidnapping and
serious illegal detention.— Any private individual who shall kidnap another, or in any
other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death...”.

Page 186 of 338
Criminal law – Crimes against public order - Rebellion
a) Ka Jacinto, who is an NPA commander, was apprehended with unlicensed firearms
and explosives. He was accordingly charged with illegal possession of said firearms and
explosives. He now questions the filing of the charges on the ground that they are deemed
absorbed in a separate charge of rebellion filed against him. Decide the issue. (1990 Bar
Question)
b) Suppose Ka Jacinto, using one of the unlicensed firearms, shot and killed his
neighbor in an altercation. May the charge of murder and illegal possession of firearms be
deemed absorbed in the separate charge of rebellion filed against him? Resolve the matter
with reasons. (1990 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a) The charge of illegal possession of firearms and explosives is deemed absorbed in the
crime of rebellion, such possession being a necessary means for the perpetration of the latter
crime. [EUas v. Rodriguez, 107 Phil. 659).
b) The charges here could not be absorbed in the separate charge of rebellion as it is clear
that the act of murder, coupled with the possession of an unlicensed firearm, was not in
furtherance of the rebellion.

Criminal law – Crimes against public order - Rebellion
On May 5, 1992, at about 6:00 a.m., while Governor Alegre of Laguna was on
board his car traveling along the National Highway of Laguna, Joselito and Vicente
shot him on the head resulting in his instant death. At that time, Joselito and Vicente
were members of the liquidation squad of the New People's Army and they killed
the governor upon orders of their senior officer. Commander Tiago. According to
Joselito and Vicente, they were ordered to kill Governor Alegre because of his
corrupt practices.
If you were the prosecutor, what crime will you charge Joselito and Vicente?
[5%] (1998 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

If I were the prosecutor, I would charge Joselito and Vicente with the crime of
rebellion, considering that the killers were members of the liquidation squad of the New
People's Army and the killing was upon orders of their commander; hence, politically-
motivated. This was the ruling in People vs. Avila, 207 SCRA 1568, involving identical facts
which is a movement taken judicial notice of as engaged in rebellion against the

Page 187 of 338
Government.

Alternative Answer:
If I were the prosecutor, I would charge Joselito and Vicente for the crime of murder
as the purpose of the killing was because of his “corrupt practices”, which does not appear
to be politically motivated. There is no indication as to how the killing would promote or
further the objective of the New Peoples Army. The killing is murder because it was
committed with treachery.

Alternative Answer:

The crime should be rebellion with murder considering that Art. 135 of the Revised
Penal Code has already been amended by Rep. Act No. 6968, deleting from said Article,
common crimes which used to be punished as part and parcel of the crime of rebellion.
The ruling in People us. Hernandez, 99 Phil. 515 (1994). that rebellion may not be
completed with common crimes committed in furtherance thereof, was because the
common crimes were then penalized in Art. 135 together with the rebellion, with one
penalty and Art. 48 of the Rev. Penal Code cannot be applied. Art. 135 of said Code
remained exactly the same when the case of Entile us. Salazar. 186 SCRA 217 (1990) was
resolved. Precisely for the reason that Art. 48 cannot apply because the common crimes
were punished as part of rebellion in Ant. 135. that this Article was amended, deleting
the common crimes therefrom. That the common crimes were deleted from said Article,
demonstrates a clear legislative intention to treat the common crimes as distinct from
rebellion and remove the legal impediment to the application of Art. 48.
It is noteworthy that in Enrile vs. Salazar (supra) the Supreme Court said these:
"There is an apparent need to restructure the law on rebellion, either to
raise the penalty therefor or to clearly define and delimit the other offenses to
be considered as absorbed thereby, so that if cannot be conveniently utilized as
the umbrellafor every sort of illegal activity undertaken in its name. The Court
has no power to effect such change, for it can only interpret the law as it stands
at any given time, and what is needed lies beyond interpretation. Hopefully,
Congress will perceive the need for promptly seizing the initiative in this
matter, which is purely within its province."
And significantly the said amendment to Art. 135 of the Rev. Penal Code was made
at around the time the ruling in Salazar was handled down, obviously to neutralize the
Hernandez and the Salazar rulings. The amendment was sort of a rider to the coup d'etat
law, Rep. Act No. 6968.

Criminal law – Crimes against public order - Coup d’etat

1. How is the crime of coup d’etat committed? [3%] (1998 Bar Question)
2. Supposing a public school teacher participated in a coup d’etat using an

Page 188 of 338
unlicensed firearm. What crime or crimes did he commit? [2%] (1998 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1. The crime of coup d'etat is committed by a swift attack, accompanied by violence,
intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth against the duly constituted authorities of the
Republic of the Philippines, military camps and installations, communication networks,
public utilities and facilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of power,
carried out singly or simultaneously anywhere in the Philippines by persons belonging to
the military or police or holding public office, with or without civilian support or
participation, for the purpose of seizing or diminishing state power. (Art. 134-A, RPC).

2. The public school teacher committed only coup d'etat for his participation therein.
His use of an unlicensed firearm is absorbed in the coup d'etat under the hew firearms law
(Rep. Act No. 8294). A prosecution for illegal possession of firearm under the new law is
allowed only if the unlicensed firearm was not used in the commission of another crime.

Criminal law – Crimes against public order - Coup d'etat
A. If a group of persons belonging to the armed forces makes a swift attack,
accompanied by violence, intimidation and threat against a vital military installation
for the purpose of seizing power and taking over such installation, what crime or
crimes are they guilty of? (3%) (2002 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The perpetrators, being persons belonging to the Armed Forces, would be guilty of
the crime of coup d’etat, under Article 134-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
because their attack was against vital military installations which are essential to the
continued possession and exercise of governmental powers, and their purpose is to seize
power by taking over such installations.
B. If the attack is quelled but the leader is unknown, who shall be deemed the
leader thereof? (2%) (2002 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The leader being unknown, any person who in fact directed the others, spoke for
them, signed receipts and other documents issued in their name, or performed similar acts,
on behalf of the group shall be deemed the leader of said coup d'etat (Art 135, R.P.C.)

Criminal law – Crimes against public order - Coup d'etat and rebellion
In the early morning of 25 October 1990, the troops of the Logistics Command

Page 189 of 338
(LOG COM) of the AFP at Camp General Emilio Aguinaldo headed by their Operations
Officer, Col.Rito Amparo, withdrew firearms and bullets and, per prior agreement,
attacked, in separate teams, the offices of the Chief of Staff, the Secretary of National
Defense, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, the Deputy Chief of Staff for
Intelligence and other offices, held hostage the Chief of Staff of LOGCOM and other
officers, killed three (3) pro-Govemment soldiers, inverted the Philippine flag,
barricaded all entrances and exits to the camp, and announced complete control of
the camp. Because of the superiority of the pro-Govemment forces, Col. Amparo and
his troops surrendered at 7:00 o’clock in the morning of that day.

a) Did Col. Amparo and his troops commit the crime of coup d'etat (Article 134-
A, Revised Penal Code or of rebellion? (1991 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a) Under the facts stated, the crime committed would be coup d’etat (Republic Act No.
6988 incorporating Art. 134-A).

However, since the law was not yet effective as of October 25, 1990, as the effectivity
thereof (Section 8) is upon its approval (which is October 24, 1990) and publication in at
least two (2) newspapers of general circulation, the felony committed would be rebellion.

Comment:
If the answer given is coup d’etat substantial credit should be given as the tenor of the
question seems to indicate that coup d’etat as a felony was already existing.

b) Distinguish rebellion from coup d'etat (1991 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

b) Rebellion distinguished from coup d’etat:
1. AS TO OVERT ACTS:
In rebellion, there is public uprising and taking up arms against the Government. In coup
d'etat public uprising is not necessary. The essence of the crime is a swift attack, accompanied
by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, directed against duly constituted
authorities of the Government, or any military camp or installation, communication networks,
public utilities or facilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of government
power;

2. OBJECTIVE OR PURPOSE:
In rebellion, the purpose is to remove from the allegiance of the Philippines, the
whole or any part or the Philippines or any military or naval camps, deprive the Chief Executive
or Congress from performing their functions. In coup d'etat the objective is to seize or diminish
state powers.

Page 190 of 338
3. PARTICIPATION
In rebellion, any person. In coup d'etat any person belonging to the military or police
or holding public office, with or without civilian participation.

Criminal law – Crimes against public order - rebellion and coup d’etat

Distinguish clearly but briefly: (10%) (2004 Bar Question)

Between rebellion and coup d’etat based on their constitutive elements as criminal
offenses.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Rebellion is committed when a multitude of persons rise publicly in arms for the
purpose of overthrowing the duly constituted government, to be replaced by a government
of the rebels. It is carried out by force and violence, but need not be participated in by any
member of the military, national police or any public officer.

Coup d’etat is committed when members of the military, Philippine National Police,
or public officer, acting as principal offenders, launched a swift attack thru strategy, stealth,
threat, violence or intimidation against duly constituted authorities of the Republic of the
Philippines, military camp or installation, communication networks, public facilities or
utilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of governmental powers, for the
purpose of seizing or diminishing state powers.

Unlike rebellion which requires a public uprising, coup d’etat may be carried out
singly or simultaneously and the principal offenders must be members of the military,
national police or public officer, with or without civilian support. The criminal objective
need not be to overthrow the existing government but only to destabilize the existing
government

Criminal law – Crimes against public order – Inciting to sedition

What are the different acts of inciting to sedition? (2007 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The different acts which constitute the crime of inciting to sedition are:

Page 191 of 338
1. Inciting others through speeches, writings, banners and other media of
representation to commit acts which constitute sedition;

2. Uttering seditious words, speeches or circulating scurrilous libels against the
Government of the Philippines or any of its duly constituted authorities, which tend to
disturb or obstruct the performance of official functions, or which tend to incite others to
cabal and meet for unlawful purposes;

3. Inciting through the same media of representation rebellious conspiracies or
riots;

4. Stirring people to go against lawful authorities, or disturb the peace and public
order of the community or of the Government; or

5. Knowingly concealing any of the aforestated evil practices (Art. 142, Rev. Penal
Code).

Criminal law – Crimes against public order - DIRECT ASSAULT UPON A
PERSON IN AUTHORITY or RESISTANCE OR DISOBEDIENCE TO AN
AGENT OF A PERSON in authority
Edgardo, a policeman, accompanied by Florencio went ' to serve a warrant of
arrest on Emilio, a professional boxer, at the latter’s apartment. Upon seeing
Edgardo, Emilio immediately boxed him. Edgardo fell flat on the floor. As Florencio
tried to help Edgardo on his feet, Emilio also boxed Florencio. The injuries inflicted
upon Edgardo and Florencio required medical attendance for nine (9) days. What
crime or crimes were committed by Emilio? Give your reasons. (1989 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

If Emilio was not aware that Edgardo was a police officer who was going serve a
warrant of arrest on him,
Emilio would be guilty only of slight physical injuries on two counts, one against Edgardo
and the second against Florencio.
If Emilio knew Edgardo as a policeman and of the latter’s purpose to serve a warrant
of arrest on him, and that is why he boxed Edgardo, then he will be guilty of either DIRECT
ASSAULT UPON A PERSON IN AUTHORITY or RESISTANCE OR DISOBEDIENCE TO AN
AGENT OF A PERSON in authority, depending on the degree of force employed by him. A
person who attacks, employs force makes a serious intimidation or makes a serious
resistance against a person in authority or his agent, if at the time of the assault the latter
is engaged in the actual performance of his official duties, the offended party knowing that
the person he is assaulting is a person in authority or his agent, it liable for the crime of
DIRECT ASSAULT. A policeman is an agent of a person in authority.
As for Florencio, the crime committed by Emilio against him would be indirect Assault

Page 192 of 338
provided that Emilio has committed DIRECT ASSAULT against Edgardo. This is so because
any person who shall make use of force or intimidation upon any person coming to the aid
of the authorities or their agents on occasion of the commission of the crime of DIRECT
ASSAULT, is criminally liable for the crime of INDIRECT ASSAULT. However, if Emilio is
guilty only of RESISTANCE or disobedience as against Edgardo; then his crime against
Florencio would only be slight physical injuries.

Criminal law – Crimes against public interest - Falsification of a Private
Document
Oscar, a former welder and painter at the Caloocan Motor Works owned by Arturo,
went to the Downtown Hardware Store where Arturo gets materials on credit, and
presented to its manager a typewritten order for two (2) cans of “Dietsler” car paint. The
signature of Arturo on the order was falsified. After receiving the paint, Oscar sold them and
kept the proceeds therefrom. If you were the investigating fiscal, what charge or charges will
you file against Oscar? Explain. (1989 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The proper charge against Oscar is Falsification of a Private Document. This is so for
the following reasons:
By forging the signature of Arturo on the typewritten purchase order for two cans of
car paint, Oscar committed the crime of falsification. The document falsified by him, how-
ever, is a private document. A typewritten purchase order is neither a public, official or
commercial document. It is a private document. Falsification of a private document,
however, is not a crime unless there is' damage or intent to cause damage. When Oscar
used the falsified private document to obtain the two cans of paint from the hardware
store, the element of damage arose, thus consummating the crime of FALSIFICATION OF A
PRIVATE DOCUMENT.
Precisely because damage is an essential element of the crime of falsification of a
private document, Oscar cannot be convicted of the complex.crime of ESTAFA THRU
FALSIFICATION OF PRIVATE DOCUMENT. Only one single crime of FALSIFICATION OF
PRIVTE DOCUMENT is committed here. The damage to another is caused by the
commission of said crime. The intent to defraud in using falsified private document is part
and parcel of said crime and cannot give rise to the crime of estafa, because damage, which
is also an essential element of estafa, is caused by, and becomes the element of, the crime
of falsification of private document. The crime of estafa is not committed, as it cannot exist
without its own element of damage.
If the private document in the case was falsified, not to induce the offended party to
part with something of value but to cover up or conceal a defraudation previously made,
then the crime committed would be ESTAFA. The falsification would be absorbed in said
offense, the element of damage in one being the same as that required in the other.

Criminal law – Crimes against public order - Qualified Direct Assault with

Page 193 of 338
Serious Physical Injuries
Jose was charged with slight physical injuries before a Municipal Trial Judge. He
listened attentively as the Judge read the sentence. When the Judge reached the
dispositive portion and pronounced Jose guilty, the latter was enraged, got hold of
an ashtray, and threw it at the Judge hitting him in the eye. As his defense lawyer
Pedro attempted to restrain him, Jose boxed him and knocked him down. The judge
became blind in one eye as a consequence.

What crime or crimes did Jose commit? (1987 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Jose is liable for Qualified Direct Assault with Serious Physical Injuries. The
throwing of the ashtray at the Judge hitting him in the eye is laying of hands on the Judge
who is a person in authority while in the performance of duties. Jose is also liable for
qualified direct assault when he boxed his defense lawyer, knocking him down while in
the act of restraining him. Under Batas 873 a lawyer is considered a person in authority
if assaulted while in the performance of duties.

Criminal law – Crimes against public order - Complex crime of direct assault
with murder

a) Who are deemed to be persons in authority and agents of persons in
authority? (3%) (2000 Bar Question)

b) Because of the approaching town fiesta in San Miguel, Bulacan, a dance
was held in Barangay Camias. A, the Barangay Captain, was invited to
deliver a speech to start the dance. While A was delivering his speech, B,
one of the guests, went to the middle of the dance floor making obscene
dance movements, brandishing a knife and challenging everyone present
to a fight. A approached B and admonished him to keep quiet and not to
disturb the dance and peace of the occasion. B, instead of heeding the
advice of A, stabbed the latter at his back twice when A turned his back to
proceed to the microphone to continue his speech. A fell to the ground and
died. At the time of the incident A was not armed. What crime was
committed? Explain. (2%) (2000 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a) Persons in authority are persons directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an
individual or as a member of some court or government corporation, board, or

Page 194 of 338
commission. Barrio captains and barangay chairmen are also deemed persons in
authority. (Article 152, RPC)

Agents of persons in authority are persons who by direct provision of law or by
election or by appointment by competent authority, are charged with maintenance of
public order, the protection and security of life and property, such as barrio councilman,
barrio policeman, barangay leader and any person who comes to the aid of persons in
authority (Art.. 152, RPC).

In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151 of the Rev Penal Code, teachers,
professors and persons charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized private
schools, colleges and universities, and lawyers in the actual performance of their
professional duties or on the occasion on such performance, shall be deemed persons in
authority. (P.D. No. 299, and Batas Pambansa Big. 873).

a) The complex crime of direct assault with murder was committed. A, as a Barangay Captain, is a
person in authority and was acting in an official capacity when he tried to maintain peace and order
during the public dance in the Barangay, by admonishing B to keep quiet and not to disturb the
dance and peace of the occasion. When B, instead of heeding A's advice, attacked the latter, B acted in
contempt and lawless defiance of authority constituting the crime of direct assault, which
characterized the stabbing of A And since A was stabbed at the back when he was not in a position to
defend himself nor retaliate, there was treachery in the stabbing. Hence, the death caused by such
stabbing was murder and having been committed with direct assault a complex crime of direct
assault with murder was committed by B.

Criminal law – Crimes against public order – Direct assault

Rigoberto gate-crashed the 71st birthday party of Judge Lorenzo. Armed with
a piece of wood commonly known as dos por dos, Rigoberto hit Judge Lorenzo on the
back, causing the latter's hospitalization for 30 days. Upon investigation, it appeared
that Rigoberto had a grudge against Judge Lorenzo who, two years earlier, had cited
Rigoberto in contempt and ordered his imprisonment for three (3) days.

[a] Is Rigoberto guilty of Direct Assault? Why or why not? (3%) (2009 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, Rigoberto is not guilty of Direct Assault because Judge Lorenzo has ceased to be
a judge when he was attacked. He has retired (71 yrs. old) from his position as a person in
authority when he was attacked. Hence, the attack on him cannot be regarded as against a
person in authority anymore.

Page 195 of 338
[b] Would your answer be the same if the reason for the attack was that when
Judge Lorenzo was still a practicing lawyer ten years ago, he prosecuted Rigoberto
and succeeded in sending him to jail for one year? Explain your answer. (3%) (2009
Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes. Rigoberto is guilty of Direct Assault because the employment of violence was
by reason of an actual performance of a duty by the offended party acting as a practicing
lawyer. Lawyers are considered persons in authority by virtue of Batas Pambansa Big. 873,
which states that lawyers in the actual performance of their professional duties or on the
occasion of such performance shall be deemed persons in authority. But the crime having
been committed 10 years ago, may have already prescribed because it is punishable by a
correctional penalty.

Include:
a) Decree Codifying the Laws on Illegal/Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing
in, Acquisition or Disposition of Firearms, Ammunition or Explosives (P.D. 1866,
as amended by R.A. No. 8294), as further amended by the Comprehensive
Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act (R.A. No. 10591).

Special law -Crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition-
Elements of the crime
A has long been wanted by the police authorities for various crimes committed by
him. Acting on an information by a tipster, the police proceeded to an apartment where A
was often seen. The tipster also warned the policemen that A was always armed. At the given
address, a lady who introduced herself as the elder sister of A, opened the door and let the
policemen in. Inside, the team found A sleeping on the floor. Immediately beside him was a
clutch bag which, when opened, contained a .38 caliber paltik revolver and a hand grenade.
After verification, the authorities discovered that A was not a licensed holder of the .38
caliber paltik revolver. As for the hand grenade, it was established that only military
personnel are authorized to carry hand grenades. Subsequently, A was charged with the
crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition. During trial, A maintained that the
bag containing the unlicensed firearm and hand grenade belonged to A, his friend, and that
he was not in actual possession thereof at the time he was arrested. Are the allegations
meritorious? Explain. (3%) (2000 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a) A’s allegations are not meritorious. Ownership is not an essential element of the crime of

Page 196 of 338
illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. What the law requires is merely possession, which
includes not only actual physical possession but also constructive possession where the firearm and
explosive are subject to one’s control and management. [People us. De Grecia, 233 SCRA 716; U.S. vs.
Juan, 23 Phil, 105; People vs. Soyag, 110 Phil. 565).

b) Human Security Act of 2007 (R.A. No. 9372)
(i) Punishable acts of terrorism
(ii) Who are liable
(iii) Absorption principle in relation to complex crimes
Crimes Against Public Interest (Articles 161-187)

Criminal law – Crimes against public interest – Falsification of private
document

Fe is the manager of a rice mill in Bulacan. In order to support a gambling
debt, Fe made it appear that the rice mill was earning less than it actually was by
writing in a "talaan" or ledger a figure lower than what was collected and paid by
their customers. Fe then pocketed the difference. What crime/s did Fe commit, if
any? Explain your answer. (2007 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The crimes committed by Fe are theft and falsification of private document because
Fe’s possession of the proceeds of the rice mill was only physical, not juridical, possession,
and having committed the crimes with grave abuse of confidence, it is qualified theft. The
falsification is a separate crime from the theft because it was not committed as a necessary
means to commit the theft but resorted to only to hide or conceal the unlawful taking.

Criminal law – Crimes against public interest - Falsification of
commercial documents

Upon opening a letter containing 17 money orders, the mail carrier forged the
signatures of the payees on the money orders and encashed them. What crime or
crimes did the mail carrier commit? Explain briefly. (6%) (2008 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The mail carrier's act of forging the signatures of the payees of said money orders
constitutes falsification of commercial documents. It was made to appear that the payees

Page 197 of 338
signed them when in fact they did not. When the mail carrier encashed the money orders,
he defrauded and caused damage to the remitters who gave the cash. The mail carrier
further incurred the crime of estafa through falsification of commercial documents.

Criminal law – Crimes against public interest – Falsification of a private
document

Dennis leased his apartment to Myla for P10,000 a month. Myla failed to pay
the rent for 3 months. Gabriel, the son of Dennis, prepared a demand letter falsely
alleging that his father had authorized him to collect the unpaid rentals. Myla paid
the unpaid rentals to Gabriel who kept the payment.

a) Did Gabriel commit a crime? Explain. (4%) (2008 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes. Gabriel committed a crime; it was either the crime of falsification of a private
document (if damage or at least intent to cause damage could be proved) or the crime of
swindling only. It could not be both falsification and swindling or a complex crime of estafa
through falsification since the document falsified is a private document. The two crimes
cannot go together.

Criminal law – Crimes against public interest - Falsification of public
documents

Andrea signed her deceased husband’s name in endorsing his three treasury
warrants which were delivered to her directly by the district supervisor who knew
that her husband had already died, and she used the proceeds to pay for the
expenses of her husband’s last illness and his burial. She knew that her husband had
accumulated vacation and sick leaves the money value of which exceeded that value
of the three treasury warrants, so that the government suffered no damage. Andrea’s
appeal is based on her claim of absence of criminal intent and of good faith.
Should she be found guilty of falsification? Discuss briefly.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Andrea should be held guilty of falsification of public documents. Her claim of absence of
criminal intent and of good faith cannot be considered because she is presumed to know
that her husband is dead. The element of damage required in falsification does not refer to
pecuniary damage but damage to public interest.
Executive clemency can however be sought for by Andrea.

Page 198 of 338
Criminal law – Crimes against public interest - introducing a false document in
a judicial proceeding
M was forced by a policeman to sign a document entitled “Sinumpaang
Salaysay” in which M implicated X as the brain behind the robbery of a bank
where P500,000.00 were lost. The document was prepared by the policeman upon
advice of B, the bank’s lawyer, who was present when the policeman asked M to
sign the document. As M refused to sign it, the policeman held him by the neck and
forced him to sign, which he did as he was afraid he might be bodily harmed.
During the hearing of the robbery before the Fiscal’s Office, B submitted the
“Sinumpaang Salaysay” as evidence, on the basis of which X was included in the
information filed by the Fiscal in court.

When M testified in court, he repudiated the document and told the court
there was no truth to its contents as he was merely forced to sign it.

(a) May M be held liable for perjury? (1987 Bar Question)
(b) Did lawyer B commit any crime when he used the “Sinumpaang Salaysay”
as evidence? (1987 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a) M is not liable for perjury. He did not sign the document freely and voluntarily but due
to the force employed by the policeman. Peijury refers to deliberate distortion of truth. The
facts of the problem do not state that the documents was signed before an officer
authorized to administer oath. It is, therefore, doubtful that the facts would constitute
perjury.

a) The lawyer would be liable under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code for the offense of
introducing a false document in a judicial proceeding, as he knew the same to be false.

Criminal law – Crimes against public interest - Mutilation of coins

Two Japanese were passing through immigration and customs preparatory to
their departure for Japan at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport. A bundle of
P2,000 peso bills was discovered in one of them, and to prevent their being delayed,
his companion took the bundle of bills and then and there tore up the bills.
As City Fiscal of Pasay, what crimes, if any, would you charge the two Japanese?
Explain. (1988 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Page 199 of 338
The two Japanese cannot be charged of any crime. They committed no crime.
Article 164 of the Revised Penal Code on mutilation of coins cannot be applied to the
Japanese because said article refers to coins and not to bills.

Include:
a) R.A. No. 9194 – Anti-Money Laundering Act

Special penal law –How to establish liability under Anti-Money
Laundering Act

TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the
statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences. (5%)
(2009 Bar Question)

[e] For a person who transacts an instrument representing the proceeds of a
covered unlawful activity to be liable under the Anti-Money Laundering Act (R.A.
9160, as amended), it must be shown that he has knowledge of the identities of the
culprits involved in the commission of the predicate crimes.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

False. There is nothing in the law which requires that the accused must know the
identities of the culprits involved in the commission of the predicate crimes. To establish
liability under RA 9160, it is sufficient that proceeds of an unlawful activity are transacted,
making them appear to have originated from legitimate sources.

Special penal law – Anti-Money Laundering Act – Issuance of freeze
order

There being probable cause to believe that certain deposits and investments in a
bank are related to an unlawful activity of smuggling by Alessandro as defined under
Republic Act (RA) No. 9160, as amended (Anti- Money Laundering Act) an
application for an order to allow inquiry into his deposit was filed with the Regional
Trial Court.
After hearing the application, the court granted the application and issued a
freeze order.
Pass upon the correctness of the court’s order. Explain. (3%) (2010 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Page 200 of 338
The freeze order issued by the Regional Trial Court is not correct, because
jurisdiction to issue said freeze order is now vested with the Court of Appeals under Rep
Act 9194, amending the Anti-Money Laundering Act (Rep. Act No. 9160). The Regional Trial
Court is without jurisdiction to issue a freeze order of the money involved.

Special penal law –Anti-Money Laundering Act – “Money laundering;” stages

B. Define Money laundering. What are the three (3) stages in money laundering?
(3%) (2010 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Money Laundering is the process by which a person conceals the existence of
unlawfully obtained money and makes it appear to have originated from lawful sources.
The intention behind such a transaction is to hide the beneficial owner of said funds and
allows criminal organizations or criminals to enjoy proceeds of such criminal activities.”

The three (3) stages in money laundering are:
a. Placement/ infusion or the physical disposal of criminal proceeds
b. Layering or the separation of the criminal proceeds from their source by creating
layers of financial transactions to disguise such proceeds as legitimate and avoid
audit trail; and
c. Integration or the provision of apparent legitimacy to the criminal proceeds.

(i) Punishable acts

Special penal law - Money laundering under Rep. Act 9160 (Anti- Money
Laundering Act of 2001), as amended by Rep. Act 9194 – Punishable
acts; money proceeds from an unlawful activity are transacted as
though coming from a legitimate source; continued use of proceeds
despite knowledge of unlawful source thereof

Don Gabito, a philanthropist, offered to fund several projects of the Mayor. He
opened an account in the Mayor’s name and regularly deposited various amounts
ranging from P500,000.00 to PI Million. From this account, the Mayor withdrew and
used the money for constructing feeder roads, barangay clinics, repairing schools
and for all other municipal projects. It was subsequently discovered that Don Gabito
was actually a jueteng operator and the amounts he deposited were proceeds from
his jueteng operations.

What crime/s were committed? Who are criminally liable? Explain.
(6%)(2005 Bar Question)

Page 201 of 338
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1) Money laundering under Rep. Act 9160 (Anti- Money Laundering Act of 2001), as
amended by Rep. Act 9194, since the money proceeds from an unlawful activity, i.e.,
jueteng are transacted as though coming from a legitimate source; (crime committed by
Don Gabito)

1) Money laundering under the same laws above- mentioned if after learning that
the money deposited in his account were proceeds of jueteng, he still continued using said
funds; (crime committed by the Mayor)

(ii) Covered Transactions
(iii) Suspicious Transactions
Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs

Special law – Crimes relative to opium and other prohibited drugs –
Possible crimes which can be committed by an evidence custodian of
the PNP Forensic Chemistry Section

During a PNP buy-bust operation, Cao Shih was arrested for selling 20 grams
of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) to a poseur-buyer. Cao Shih, through
an intermediary, paid Patrick, the Evidence Custodian of the PNP Forensic
Chemistry Section, the Evidence Custodian of the PNP Forensic Chemistry Section,
the amount of P500.000.00 in consideration for the destruction by Patrick of the
drug. Patrick managed to destroy the drug.

State with reasons whether Patrick committed the following crimes:

a) Direct bribery;

b) Indirect bribery;

c) Section 3(e) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act);

d) Obstruction of Justice under PD 1829; (7%) (2005 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Patrick committed the crimes of direct bribery under Article 210 of the Revised
Penal Code, Violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A.
3019), and Obstruction of Justice under Section 1(b) of PD 1829.

Page 202 of 338
Direct bribery was committed by Patrick when, for a consideration of
P500.000.00, he committed a violation ofPD 1829 by destroying the drugs which were
evidence entrusted to him in his official capacity.

Indirect bribery is not committed, because he received the P500,000.00 as a
consideration for destroying the evidence against the offender, which was under his
official custody as a public officer. The money was not delivered to him simply as a gift or
present by reason of his public office.

Patrick also violated Section 3(e), R.A. 3019 causing undue injury to the
government through evident bad faith, giving unwarranted benefit to the offender by
destroying evidence of a crime.

Obstruction of justice under Section 1 (b) of P.D. 1829 is committed by destroying
evidence intended to be used in official proceedings in criminal case.

a) The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (R.A. No. 9165)
(i) Punishable acts

Special law – RA 9165 – punishable acts and penalties thereof
Manny was apprehended in a buy-bust operation during which one (1) deck of shabu
(methamphetamine hydrochloride) was delivered by him to the policeman posing as buyer
and another deck of shabu was taken from his pocket after his body was frisked before he
was actually brought to the police precint. Convicted of violating sections 15 (sale and
distribution of regulated drugs) and 16 (possession or use of regulated drugs) of the
Dangerous Drugs Law, he was sentenced to thirty (30) years of life imprisonment and
payment of a fine of P20,000.00 (for violating sec. 15) and to imprisonment of eight (8) years
and payment of fine of P6,000.00 (for violating sec. 16). He then sought the reversal of the
decision, on the following grounds:
First, he could not be convicted of having violated sec. 15 because he has not yet
received the money from the buyer and the sale is not yet consummated;
Second, his conviction under sec. 16 is erroneous because his possession of
shabu is absorbed in the charge of illegal sale or delivery; and
Third, it is unbelievable that he would sell the confiscated shabu in a sari-sari
store near the national road open to the public view and to a stranger.
If you were the Solicitor General, how would you rebut the arguments of the
accused? Discuss fully. .(1993 Bar Question)
Give your comment with regard to the penalties imposed.(1993 Bar Question)

Page 203 of 338
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Manny is liable. The law provides, “shall sell, dispense, deliver, transport or
distribute".
Yes, he is also liable because the shabu taken from his possession or pocket is
different from the shabu he was to deliver to the seller.
As to the third reason, it is not unbelievable because although it is a public place,
this kind of sale can always be clandestinely be made. (People vs. Rey Bernardino, Jan. 28,
1991)
With respect to the penalty imposed, life imprisonment should not be limited to 30
years; and 8 years is wrong, it should be indeterminate. (People vs. Angeles, because of
Eliginio vs. Alvarez (1992)

Special penal law - Crimes relative to opium and other prohibited drugs -
Rep. Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002;
plea-bargaining in prosecutions of drug-related cases is no longer
allowed

MNO, who is 30 years old, was charged as a drug pusher under the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. During pre-trial, he offered to plead guilty to the lesser
offense concerning use of dangerous drugs.

Should the Judge allow MNO’s plea to the lesser offense? Explain briefly. (5%)
(2004 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the Judge should not allow MNO’s plea to a lesser offense, because plea-bargaining in
prosecutions of drug-related cases is no longer allowed by Rep. Act No. 9165, the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, regardless of the imposable penalty.

Special law – Crimes relative to opium and other prohibited drugs – RA
9165
Superintendent Al Santiago. Chief of the Narcotics Division, Western Police
District, received information that a certain Lee Lay of No. 8 Tindalo Street. Tondo.
Manila is a member of the 14K Gang selling shabu and marijuana. SPO1 Lorenzo and
SP03 Peralta were instructed to conduct surveillance and buy-bust operations
against Lay. Their informant contacted Lay and a meeting was arranged at T. Pinpin
Restaurant at 2:00 in the afternoon on February 14, 1993. SPOl Lorenzo and SP03
Peralta, acting as poseur- buyers, purchased from Lay 10 sticks of marijuana and

Page 204 of 338
paid P500. Later, Lay agreed to sell to them one kilo of dried marijuana fruiting tops
which he gave them at his residence.

The policemen arrested Lay and a search was conducted. Found were 356
grams of marijuana seeds. 932 grams of marijuana fruiting tops and 50 sticks of
marijuana cigarettes.
What offense or offenses did Lay commit? [5%] (1998 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Lay committed the offenses of illegal selling of dangerous drugs and illegal possession
of dangerous drugs which should be made subject of separate informations.
The crime of illegal selling of dangerous drugs is committed as regards the 10 sticks of
marijuana and as regards the one (1) kilo of dried marijuana fruiting tops, which should be
subject of two (2) separate informations because the acts were committed at different
times and in different places.
The crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs is committed as regards the
marijuana seeds, marijuana fruiting tops and marijuana cigarettes which are not the
subject of the sale. Another information shall be filed for this.

Special law – Crimes related to opium and other prohibited drugs - Sale
of a prohibited drug
Pat. Buensuceso, posing as a buyer, approached Ronnie, a suspected drug
pusher, and offered to buy P300.00 worth of shabu. Ronnie then left, came back five
minutes later and handed Pat. Buensuceso an aluminum foil containing the shabu .
However, before Pat. Buensuceso was able to deliver the marked money to Ronnie,
the latter spotted a policeman at a distance, whom Ronnie knew to be connected
with the Narcotics Command of the Police. Upon seeing the latter, Ronnie ran away
but was arrested thirty minutes later by other policemen who pursued him.
Under the circumstances, would you consider the crime of sale of a prohibited
drug already consummated? Explain. (1996 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. The sale of prohibited drug is already consummated although the marked money was
not yet delivered. When Ronnie handed the aluminum foil containing the shabu to Pat. Buensuceso
pursuant to their agreed sale, the crime was consummated. Payment of the consideration is not an
clement of requisite of the crime. If ever, the marked money is only evidentiary to strengthen the
case of the prosecution.

Page 205 of 338
Special penal law – Crimes relative to opium and other prohibited drugs
–RA 9165; Punishable acts; mere possession of illegal drugs; non-
availability of plea-bargaining

Obie Juan is suspected to have in his possession an unspecified amount of
methamphetamlne hydrochloride or “shabu". An entrapment operation was
conducted by police officers, resulting in his arrest following the discovery of 100
grams of the said dangerous drug in his possession. He was subjected to a drug test
and was found positive for the use of marijuana, another dangerous drug. He was
subsequently charged with two crimes: Violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165
for the possession of “shabu" and violation of Section 15, Article II of RA 9165 for the
use of marijuana.

a) Are the charges proper? Explain.

b) So as not to be sentenced to death, Obie Juan offers to plead guilty to a lesser
offense. Can he do so? Why? (5%) (2005 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a) The charge of possession of shabu is proper as the mere possession of such drug
is punishable, but the charge of use of marijuana is not proper as Section 15 of Rep. Act
9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) expressly excludes penalties for
“use” of dangerous drugs when the person tested is also found to have in possession such
quantity of any dangerous drug" provided for in Section 11 of such Act.

b) No, because Section 23 of R.A. 9165 expressly provides that "Any person charged
under any provision of this Act regardless of the imposable penalty shall not be allowed to
avail of the provision on plea-bargaining. ” For this reason, Obie Juan cannot be allowed to
plead guilty to a lesser offense.

Special law – Crimes relative to opium and other prohibited drugs –
Misappropriation and failure to account for the confiscated or seized
dangerous drugs; the illegal importation or bringing into the Philippines
of the dangerous drugs

After receiving a reliable information that Dante Ong, a notorious drug
smuggler, was arriving on PAL Flight No. PR181, PNP Chief Inspector Samuel Gamboa
formed a group of anti-drug agents. When Ong arrived at the airport, the group
arrested him and seized his attache case. Upon inspection inside the Immigration
holding area, the attache case yielded 5 plastic bags of heroin weighing 500 grams.
Chief Inspector Gamboa took the attache case and boarded him in an unmarked car
driven by P03 Pepito Lorbes. On the way to Camp Crame and upon nearing White

Page 206 of 338
Plains comer Edsa. Chief Inspector Gamboa ordered P03 Lorbes to stop the car. They
brought out the drugs from the case in the trunk and got 3 plastic sacks of heroin.
They then told Ong to alight from the car. Ong left with the 2 remaining plastic sacks
of heroin. Chief Inspector Gamboa advised him to keep silent and go home which the
latter did. Unknown to them, an NBI team of agents had been following them and
witnessed the transaction. They arrested Chief Inspector Gamboa and P03 Lorbes.
Meanwhile, another NBI team followed Ong and likewise arrested him. All of them
were later charged

What are their respective criminal liabilities? 5% (2006 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The two police officers are criminally liable for violation of Sec. 27, R.A. 9165 of the
same law for misappropriation and failure to account for the confiscated or seized
dangerous drugs.
On the other hand, Dante Ong is criminally liable for the illegal importation or
bringing into the Philippines of the dangerous drugs. (Article 11, Sec. 4, RA 9165)

(ii) Who are liable

Special penal law – Crimes relative to opium and other prohibited drugs
– R.A. No. 9165, otherwise known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002”; “Protector/Coddler”

After receiving a reliable information that Dante Ong, a notorious drug
smuggler, was arriving on PAL Flight No. PR181, PNP Chief Inspector Samuel Gamboa
formed a group of anti-drug agents. When Ong arrived at the airport, the group
arrested him and seized his attache case. Upon inspection inside the Immigration
holding area, the attache case yielded 5 plastic bags of heroin weighing 500 grams.
Chief Inspector Gamboa took the attache case and boarded him in an unmarked car
driven by P03 Pepito Lorbes. On the way to Camp Crame and upon nearing White
Plains comer Edsa. Chief Inspector Gamboa ordered P03 Lorbes to stop the car. They
brought out the drugs from the case in the trunk and got 3 plastic sacks of heroin.
They then told Ong to alight from the car. Ong left with the 2 remaining plastic sacks
of heroin. Chief Inspector Gamboa advised him to keep silent and go home which the
latter did. Unknown to them, an NBI team of agents had been following them and
witnessed the transaction. They arrested Chief Inspector Gamboa and P03 Lorbes.
Meanwhile, another NBI team followed Ong and likewise arrested him. All of them
were later charged

What are their respective criminal liabilities? 5% (2006 Bar Question)

Page 207 of 338
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Chief Inspector Samuel Gamboa and P03 Pepito Lorbes incur criminal liability under
Art. 11, Sec. 4 last par., R.A. No. 9165, otherwise known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002”. They acted as “protector/coddler” to the unlawful bringing into the
Philippines of the dangerous drugs. A “protector/ coddler” refers to any person who uses
his power or position in, inter alia, facilitating the escape of any person whom he knows or
believes, has violated the Dangerous Drugs Law, in order to prevent the arrest, prosecution
and conviction of the violator.

Special penal law - Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs
- Sec. 7 of Rep. Act. 9165 on the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs of
2002; Who are liable as offenders

Tuburcio asked Anastacio to join their group for a "session". Thinking that it
was for a mahjong session Anastacio agreed. Upon reaching Tiburcio's house,
Anastacic discovered that it was actually a shabu session. At that precise time, the
place was raided by the police, and Anastacio was among those arrested.

What crime can Anastacio be charged with, if any? Explain your answer. (2007
Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Anastacio may not be charged of any crime.

Sec. 7 of Rep. Act. 9165 on the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs of 2002 punishes
employees and visitors of a den, dive or resort where dangerous drugs are used in any
form. But for a visitor of such place to commit the crime, it is a requisite that he "is aware of
the nature of the place as such and shall knowingly visit the same." These requisites are
absent in the facts given.

Attempt or conspiracy, effect on liability
Immunity from prosecution and punishment

Custody and disposition of confiscated, seized and/or surrendered
dangerous drugs (Section 21, R.A. No. 9165)
b) Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165

Crimes Against Public Morals (Articles 200-202)

Page 208 of 338
Criminal law – Crimes against public morals – Sending of indecent booklet to
an individual

Juan and Petra are officemates. Later, intimacy developed between them. One day,
Juan sent to Petra a booklet contained in a pay envelope which was securely sealed. The
booklet is unquestionably indecent and highly offensive to morals. Juan was thereafter
charged under par. 3 of Art. 201 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by P.D. 969, which
provides that the penalty of prision mayor or a fine from P6.000to P12,000, or both such
imprisonment and fine shall be imposed upon those who shall sell, give away or exhibit films,
prints, engravings, sculpture or literature which are offensive to morals. Is Juan guilty of the
crime charged? Reasons. (1989 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. Juan is not guilty of the crime charged because the law (Art. 201, RPC) covers only the
protection of public moral and not only the moral of an individual.

Criminal law – Crimes against public morals – Grave scandal
Pia, a bold actress living on top floor of a plush condominium in Makati City sunbathed
naked at its penthouse every Sunday morning. She was unaware that the business
executives holding oifice at the adjoining tall buildings reported to office every Sunday
morning and, with the use of powerful binoculars, kept on gazing at her while she sunbathed.
Eventually, her sunbathing became the talk of the town.

1) What crime, if any, did Pia commit? Explain. (1996 Bar Question)

2) What crime, if any, did the business executives commit? Explain. (1996 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1) Pia did not commit a crime. The felony closest to making Pia criminally liable is Grave
scandal, but then such act is not to be considered as highly scandalous and offensive against decency
and good customs. In the first place, it was not done in a public place and within public knowledge or
view. As a matter of fact it was discovered by the executives accidentally and they have to use
binoculars to have public and full view of Pia sunbathing in the nude.

2) The business executives did not commit any crime. Their acts could not be acts of
lasciviousness (as there was no overt lustful act), or slander, as the eventual talk of the town,
resulting from her sunbathing, is not directly imputed to the business executives, and besides such
topic is not intended to defame or put Pia to ridicule.

Page 209 of 338
Include:
a) P.D. 1602 – Anti-Gambling Act as amended by R.A. 9287 – Illegal Numbers
Game – which repealed Articles 195-199 of the RPC
(i) Punishable acts
b) Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 (R.A. No. 9208)
(i) Punishable acts
Crimes Committed by Public Officers (Articles 203-245)

Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers – Dereliction of duty
After SP02 Cirio Cellado heard the story of the two girls, he took aside Mrs. Cortes
and made this proposition: “Let me tell you what I plan to do. Since the D.O.M. is
probably well-known in his community, he will not want his reputation tarnished. I'll
tell him that you have reported him to us and you are all set to file criminal charges
against him at the Prosecutor's Office. But if he will give us P50,300.00, you may be
persuaded not to file the suit anymore. Actually, after he gives that amount, which he
surely will, I shall visit him regularly for more. We shall then divide equally the
money we shall get from him.
Suppose Cellado proceeds to carry out his plan and is caught by his Chief with
incontrovertible evidence, what action or actions may be brought by his superiors to
penalize him and to recover whatever sums of money he may have received from his
victim? (1992 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Likewise. Cellado can be held liable under Art. 208, RPC, he being a public officer
who maliciously refrained from instituting prosecution against violators of the law. An
agent of a person in authority charged with the apprehension and investigation of a crime
is an integral part of the prosecution of offenses.

Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers - Crime of falsification of
a public document; invalid defenses
L, a Municipal Mayor, issued an appointment in favor of his legitimate son, S, as meat
inspector in the Office of the Municipal Treasurer. He also issued a certification that S is
not related to him within the third degree of consanguinity. The Civil Service
Commission approved the appointment.
L, was charged and found guilty of falsification of public document. In his
appeal, he argued that his conviction is erroneous because he had no legal obligation

Page 210 of 338
to disclose the truth about his relationship with the appointee and that he was in
good faith as he later on revoked the appointment.
Resolve his plea, supporting your resolution with reasons. (1993 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The conviction is correct. L had the legal obligation to issue a certification to the
effect that the appointee is not related to him within the third degree of consanguinity
(Laino vs. Sandiganbayan). The revocation of the appointment did not extinguish the
incipient criminal liability of L, the crime having been already consummated. Besides, good
faith may not be invoked in the crime of falsification of a public document as criminal intent
and the will to commit the crime are presumed to exist unless the contrary appears
(Manuel Siquuian vs People, 171 SCRA 223).

Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers – Malversation of
public funds or property
Randy, an NBI agent, was issued by the NBI an armalite rifle (Ml6) and a Smith
and Wesson Revolver, Cal. 38. After a year, the NBI Director made an inspection of all
the firearms issued. Randy, who reported for work that morning, did not show up
during the inspection. He went on absence without leave (AWOL). After two years, he
surrendered to the NBI the two firearms issued to him. He was charged with
malversation of government property before the Sandiganbayan.
Randy put up the defense that he did not appropriate the armalite rifle and
the revolver for his own use, that the delay in accounting for them does not
constitute conversion and that actually the firearms were stolen by his friend,
Chiting.
Decide the case. (1994 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Randy is guilty as charged under Art. 217, RPC. He is accountable for the firearms they issued
to him in his official capacity. The failure of Randy to submit the firearms upon demand created the
presumption that he converted them for his own use. Even if there is no direct evidence of
misappropriation, his failure to account for the government property is enough factual basis for a
finding of malversation. Indeed, even his explanation that the guns were stolen is incredible. For if the
firearms were actually stolen, he should have reported the matter immediately to the authorities.
(People vs. Baguiran, 20 SCRA 453; Felicilda vs. Grospe, GR No. 10294, July 3, 1992)

Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers - Malversation thru
falsification of official documents; Frauds against the public treasury

Page 211 of 338
and similar offenses

(a) A public official charged with purchasing rice stocks under government
subsidy falsely reported that his stocks of rice worth PI 7 million on board two
barges sank off a neighboring island on their way to their destination and were
completely lost. Menwhile, the rice was surreptitiously sold to rice warehouses in
the provinces.
What is the criminal liability of this government official? Explain. (1988 Bar
Question)

(b) A city official ordered one million pesos (P1M) worth of T-shirts at public
expense for the underprivileged residents of his city. After full payment with city
funds was made, it was discovered that only a fourth of the T-shirts had been
delivered and that the rest of the deliveries were so- called “ghost deliveries.”

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) The government official being an accountable officer can be charged with
malversation thru falsification of official documents.

(b) (1) The city official is liable for violation of Article 213 of the Revised Penal Code
which provides that:
Article 213. Frauds against the public treasury and similar offenses.—The penalty of
prision correccional in its medium period to prision mayor in its minimum period, or a
fine ranging from P200 to P10,000 shall be imposed upon any public officer who:
1. In his official capacity, in dealing with any person with regard to furnishing
supplies, the making of contracts, or the adjustment or settlement of accounts relating to
public property of funds, shall enter into an agreement with any interested party or
speculator or make use of any other scheme, to defraud the government;
2. Being entrusted with the collection of taxes, licenses, fees and other impost, shall
be guilty of any of the following acts or omissions:
(a) Demanding, directly or indirectly, the payment of sums different from or larger
than those authorized by law.
(b) Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided by law, for any sum of money
collected by him officially.
(c) Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by way of payment or otherwise,
things or objects of a different nature from that provided by law.
When the culprit is an officer or employee of the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the
Bureau of Customs, the provisions of the Administrative Code shall be applied; and
violation of:
(b) (2) Act 3019 sec. 3 (g) which provides that:
Corrupt practices of public officers “IN ADDITION” to acts or omissions of public

Page 212 of 338
officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices
of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful.”

Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers - Malversation
Pedro, a municipal treasurer, received from the Provincial Treasurer of the
Province five (5) brand new typewriters for use in the municipal treasurer’s office.
Each typewriter is valued at PI0,000.00. Since Pedro needed money for the
hospitalization of his sick son, he sold four (4) of the typewriters to his friend,
Rodolfo, a general merchant in San Isidro for P2 000.00 each or a total of P8,000.00.
Rodolfo as a general merchant knew that one typewriter could easily be between
P6,000.00 to PI0,000.00, and for this reason he readily agreed to buy the four
typewriters. Rodolfo then resold the typewriters at P6,000.00 thus making a profit
of PI6,000.00. Two months after the transaction, Pedro was audited and the
investigation as to his accountabilities led to the discovery that Rodolfo bought the
four (4) typewriters from Pedro.

What crime did Pedro commit? (1987 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Pedro committed malversation. The five (5) brand new typewriters received by him
from the Provincial Treasurer for use in the Municipal Treasurer’s Office were under his
custody for which he was accountable as Municipal Treasurer. Selling four (4) of the
typewriters to Rodolfo, a general merchant, because he needed the money for the
hospitalization of his son constitutes misappropriation as he applied the same for his
personal benefit.

Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers - Malversation of
public funds and illegal use of public funds

Elizabeth is the municipal treasurer of Masinloc, Zambales. On January 10,
1994, she received, as municipal treasurer, from the Department of Public Works
and Highways, the amount of P 100,000.00 known as the fund for construction,
rehabilitation, betterment, and improvement (CRBI) for the concreting of Barangay
Phanix Road located in Masinloc, Zambales, a project undertaken on proposal of the
Barangay Captain. Informed that the fund was already exhausted while the
concreting of Barangay Phanix Road remained unfinished, a representative of the
Commission on Audit conducted a spot audit of Elizabeth who failed to account for
the P 100.000.00 CRBI fund. Elizabeth, who was charged with malversation of public
funds, was acquitted by the Sandiganbayan of that charge but was nevertheless

Page 213 of 338
convicted, in the same criminal case, for illegal use of public funds. On appeal,
Elizabeth argued that her conviction was erroneous as she applied the amount of
P50,000.00 for a public purpose without violating any law or ordinance appro-
priating the said amount for any specific purpose. The absence of such law or
ordinance was, in fact, established.
Is the contention of Elizabeth legally tenable? Explain. (1996 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Elizabeth’s contention that her conviction for illegal use of public funds (technical
malversation) was erroneous, is legally tenable because she was charged for malversation of public
funds under Art. 217 of the Revised Penal Code but was convicted for illegal use of public funds
which is defined and punished under Art. 220 of said Code. A public officer charged with
malversation may not be validly convicted of illegal use of public funds (technical malversation)
because the latter crime is not necessarily included nor does it necessarily include the crime of
malversation. The Sandiganbayan should have followed the procedure provided in Sec. 11, Rule 119
of the Rules of Court and order the filing of the proper Information. [Panmgao vs. Sandiganbayan.
197 SCRA 173.) From the facts, there is no showing that there is a law or ordinance appropriating
the amount to a specific public purpose. As a matter of fact, the problem categorically states that
“The absence of such law or ordinance was, in fact, established." So, procedurally and substantially,
the Sandiganbayan’s decision suffers from serious infirmity.

Criminal law - Crimes committed by public officers – Malversation of public
funds; when not present; prohibited transactions

Dencio, who is the Municipal Treasurer of the town, was also the treasurer of a charity
ball of the church. Because he was short of payroll funds for the municipal employees, he
used part of the church funds to replenish the payroll funds with the intention of returning
the same when the public funds came.

a) Is Dencio guilty of malversation under the revised Penal Code? State your
reasons. (1990 Bar Question)
b) Assuming that he failed to replenish the church funds, may he be held
criminally liable thereby? Explain. (1990 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a) No. The church funds used by Dencio do not constitute public funds which are the proper
subject of malversation. Neither does said funds constitute the so-called private funds, which could
be the proper subject of malversation under Article 222, Revised Penal Code which pertain to private
property placed in the custody of public officers by reason of their office.

Page 214 of 338
b) Yes, momentary use of funds, since there is defraudation, is tantamount to estafa under
Article 215 of the Revised Penal Code. This is because he received the funds in his fiduciary capacity
as treasurer and there was temporary damage caused. Personal benefit is not an element of the
crime of estafa.

Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers - Malversation of
public funds or property; restitution

What constitutes the crime of malversation of public funds or property? (2%)
(1999 Bar Question)

How is malversation distinguished from estafa?

A Municipal Treasurer, accountable for public funds or property, encashed with
public funds private checks drawn in favor of his wife. The checks bounced, the
drawer not having enough cash in the drawee bank. The Municipal Treasurer, in
encashing private checks from public funds, violated regulations of his office.
Notwithstanding restitution of the amount of the checks, can the Municipal
Treasurer nevertheless be criminally liable? What crime did he commit? Explain.
(2%) (1999 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Malversation of public funds or property is committed by any public officer who,
by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall
take or misappropriate or shall consent, or through abandonment or negligence, shall
permit any other person to take such public funds or property, wholly or partially, or
shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or
property. (Art. 217, RPC)
Malversation differs from estafa in that malversation is committed by an
accountable public officer involving public funds or property under his custody and
accountability; while estafa is committed by non-accountable public officer or private
individual involving funds or property for which he is not accountable to the
government.
Tes, notwithstanding the restitution of the amount of the check, the Municipal
Treasurer will be criminally liable as restitution does not negate criminal liability
although it may be considered as a mitigating circumstance similar or analogous to
voluntary surrender. (People vs. Velasquez, 73 Phil 98). He will be criminally liable for
malversation. However, if the restitution was made immediately, under vehement
protest against an imputation of malversation and without leaving the office, he may not
be criminally liable.

Page 215 of 338
Criminal law - Crimes committed by public officers - Malversation of
public property
Accused Juan Santos, a deputy sheriff in a Regional Trial Court, levied on the
personal properties of a defendant in a civil case before said court, pursuant to a
writ of execution duly issued by the court. Among the properties levied upon and
deposited inside the "evidence room" of the Clerk of Court for Multiple KIC Salas
were a refrigerator, a stock of cassette tapes, a dining table set of chairs and several
lampshades. Upon the defendant’s paying off the judgment creditor, he tried to claim
his properties but found out that several items were missing, such as the cassette
tapes, chairs and lampshades. After due and diligent sleuthing by the police
detectives assigned to the case, these missing items were found in the house of
accused Santos, who reasoned out that he only borrowed them temporarily.

If you were the fiscal/prosecutor, what would be the nature of the information
to be filed against the accused? Why? (5%) (2001 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

If I were the fiscal/prosecutor, I would file an Information for Malversation against Juan Santos
for the cassette tapes, chairs and lampshades which he, as deputy sheriff, levied upon and thus under
his accountability as a public officer. Said properties being under levy, are in custodia legis and thus
impressed with the character of public property, misappropriation of which constitutes the crime of
malversation although said properties belonged to a private individual (Art. 222, RPC).
Juan Santos misappropriated such properties when, in breach of trust, he applied them to his
own private use and benefit. His allegation that he only borrowed such properties is a lame excuse,
devoid of merit as there is no one from whom he borrowed the same. The fact that it was only "after
due and diligent sleuthing by the police detectives assigned to the case", that the missing items were
found in the house of Santos, negates his pretension.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

An Information for Theft may be filed, considering that the sheriff had already deposited the
properties levied upon in the "evidence room" of the Clerk of Court and may have already been
relieved of his accountability therefor.
If Juan Santos was no longer the public officer who should be accountable for the properties
levied upon and found In his house, his taking of such properties would no longer constitute
Malversation but Theft, as there was taking with intent to gain, of personal property of another
without the consent of the latter.

Page 216 of 338
Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers - Malversation of
public property
Alex Reyes, together with Jose Santos, were former warehousemen of the Rustan
Department Store. In 1986, the PCGG sequestered the assets, fund and properties of the
owners-incorporators of the store, alleging that they constitute “ill-gotten wealth" of the
Marcos family. Upon their application, Reyes and Santos were appointed as fiscal agents of
the sequestered firm and they were given custody and possession of the sequestered
building and its contents, including various vehicles used in the firm's operations. After a few
months, an inventory was conducted and it was discovered that two (2) delivery vans were
missing. After demand was made upon them, Reyes and Santos failed to give any
satisfactory explanation why the vans were missing or to turn them over to the
PCGG; hence, they were charged with Malversation of Public Property. During the
trial, the two accused claimed that they are not public accountable officers and, if
any crime was committed, it should only be Estafa under Art. 315, par. 1(b) of the
Revised Penal Code.

What is the proper offense committed? State the reason(s) for your answer.
(5%) (2001 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The proper offense committed was Malversation of public property, not estafa, considering that
Reyes and Santos, upon their application, were constituted as fiscal agents" of the sequestered firm
and were "given custody and possession" of the sequestered properties, including the delivery vans
which later they could not account for. They were thus made the depositary and administrator of
properties deposited by public authority and hence, by the duties of their office/position, they are
accountable for such properties. Such properties, having been sequestered by the Government
through the PCGG, are in custodia Iegis and therefore impressed with the character of public
property, even though the properties belong to a private individual (Art. 222, RPC).

The failure of Reyes and Santos to give any satisfactory explanation why the vans were missing,
is prima facie evidence that they had put the same to their personal use.

Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers – Malversation by
abandonment or negligence

Allan, the Municipal Treasurer of the Municipality of Gerona, was in a hurry
to return to his office after a day-long official conference. He alighted from the
government car which was officially assigned to him, leaving the ignition key and
the car unlocked, and rushed to his office. Jules, a bystander, drove off with the car
and later sold the same to his brother, Danny for P20.000.00, although the car was
worth P800,000.00.

a) What is the crime committed by Allan? Explain. (2005 Bar Question)

Page 217 of 338
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a) Allan committed the crime of malversation by abandonment or negligence in
leaving the government car assigned to him for his official use and for which
he was accountable, with the ignition key in the car unlocked.

Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers – Malversation;
defenses; prescription; suspension from office

1. In 1982, the Philippine National Bank (PNB), then a government banking
institution, hired Henry dela Renta, a CPA, as Regional Bank Auditor. In 1992, he
resigned and was employed by the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC),
another government-owned and controlled corporation. In 1995, after the PNB
management unearthed many irregularities and violations of the bank's rules and
regulations, dela Renta was found to have manipulated certain accounts involving
trust funds and time deposits of depositors. After investigation. he was charged with
malversation of public funds before the Sandiganbayan. He filed a motion to dismiss
contending he was no longer an employee of the PNB but of the PDIC.

Is dela Renta's contention tenable? 2.5% (2006 Bar Question)

2. After his arraignment, the prosecution filed a motion for his suspension
pendente lite, to which he filed an opposition claiming that he can no longer be
suspended as he is no longer an employee of the PNB but that of the PDIC.

Explain whether he may or may not be suspended. 2.5% (2006 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1. No, dela Renta's contention is not tenable for these reasons:
a) His contention that he is no longer an employee of PNB but of PDIC has no
merit since both PNB and FDIC are government institutions and the funds thereof
belong to the same Government who suffers from the malversation; (Sec. 4, PD
1606, as amended).
b) Resignation or separation from office is not a ground for extinguishing
criminal liability under Art. 89 of the Revised Penal Code, for any crime committed
while the offender was connected with the office; and
c) The crime of malversation was discovered only in 1995 and so, the
prescriptive period of the crime only commenced to run from then. Obviously, the
amount misappropriated exceeds P200.00 and so the prescribed penalty is within
the range of prision mayor already. Crimes punishable by prision mayor prescribes
in 15 years. From 1995 to the present is only around 11 years. Hence the crime can
still be prosecuted.

Page 218 of 338
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

2. The accused may be validly suspended from office in PDIC because PDIC is a
government-owned and controlled corporation; hence a public office. When the
Information charges the accused with acts of fraud involving Government funds, the
suspension of the accused pendente lite assumes a mandatory character and the court may
order the suspension of the accused regardless of whether the prosecution files a motion
for the preventive suspension of the accused, or the motion is filed by the counsel of the
government agency concerned, with or without the conformity of the public prosecutor
(Robles et al., v. Layosa et al., 436 SCRA 337 12 Aug 04).

Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers - Malversation

Eliseo, the deputy sheriff, conducted the execution sale of the property of
Andres to satisfy the judgment against him in favor of ABC Corporation, a
government-owned or controlled corporation with an original charter. However, the
representative of the corporation failed to attend the auction sale. Gonzalo, the
winning bidder, purchased the property for P100,000 which he paid to Eliseo.
Instead of remitting the amount to the Clerk of Court as ex-officio Provincial Sheriff,
Eliseo lent the amount to Myrna, his officemate, who promised to repay the amount
within two months, with interest thereon. However, Myrna reneged on her promise.
Despite demands of ABC Corporation, Eliseo failed to remit the said amount.

a) State with reasons, the crime or crimes, if any, committed by Eliseo. (4%)
(2008 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a) The crime committed by Eliseo is malversation since he is a public officer who
received the amount in his official capacity; thus he is accountable for it.

b) Would your answer to the first question be the same if ABC Corporation were a
private corporation? Explain. (3%) (2008 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

b) The crime would still be malversation even if ABC Corporation, in whose favor
the judgment was rendered, were a private corporation. This is because the P100,000.00
came from the sale of property levied upon or seized upon execution ordered by the court.
The property was in custodia legis. Although not strictly public property, it has become
impressed with the character of public property when Eliseo, in his official capacity,
conducted the execution sale and received it proceeds. As long as Eliseo has not accounted
for and turned over the proceeds officially, he is not relieved of his official accountability.

Page 219 of 338
Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers – Direct bribery; indirect
bribery;
Special law - RA. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
a. Melda, who is the private secretary of Judge Tolits Naya, was persuaded by a litigant,
Jumbo, to have his case calendared as early as possible for a consideration of P500.00. May
she be held criminally liable for this accommodation? Explain your answer. (1990 Bar
Question)
b. What will be the criminal liability of Melda if she volunteered to persuade Judge
Tolits Naya to rule in Jumbo’s favor without asking any consideration? Explain your answer.
(1990 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a. The answer would depend/be qualified by the implication of the phrase “to have his case
calendared as early as possible".
If the phrase is interrupted as an unjust act and in violation of the rule to give priority to the
older cases, then she would be liable under direct bribery for an act which does not constitute a
crime but is unjust He may also be held liable under Section 3(e) of RA. 3019, the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act, as amended: “x x x giving any private party any unwarranted benefits".
If you interpret the phrase as a non-violation of the rules and regulations then he can only be
held liable for direct bribery.
b. Melda is not criminally liable because the act of volunteering to persuade is not a criminal act
It is the act of persuading that is considered a criminal act. The act does not fall under Article 210 of
the Revised Penal Code on Direct Bribery nor does it fall under Article 211 of the RPC on Indirect
Bribery. Neither does it fall under the Anti- Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Section 3(a) of RA. 3019
refers to acts of persuading another public official to violate rules and regulations.

Criminal law - Crimes committed by public officers – Direct bribery; indirect
bribery; corruption of Public Officials
Deputy Sheriff Ben Rivas received from the RTC Clerk of Court a Writ of
Execution in the case of Ejectment filed by Mrs. Maria Estrada vs. Luis Ablan. The
judgment being in favor of Estrada, Rivas went to her lawyer’s office where he was
given the necessary amounts constituting the sheriffs fees and expenses for
execution in the total amount of P550.00, aside from P2.000.00 in consideration of
prompt enforcement of the writ from Estrada and her lawyer. The writ was successfully
enforced.

a) What crime, if any, did the sheriff commit? (3%) (2001 Bar Question)

Page 220 of 338
b) Was there any crime committed by Estrada and her lawyer and If so, what crime?
(2%) (2001 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a) The sheriff committed the crime of Direct Bribery under the second paragraph of Article
210, Revised Penal Code, since the P2,000.00 was received by him "in consideration" of the prompt
enforcement of the writ of execution which is an official duty of the sheriff to do.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
a) On the premise that even without the P2,000.00, Sheriff Ben Rivas had to carry out the writ
of execution and not that he would be implementing the writ only because of the P2,000.00, the
receipt of the amount by said sheriff may be regarded as a gift received by reason of his office and not
as a "consideration" for the performance of an official duty; hence, only Indirect Bribery would be
committed by said sheriff.

b) On the part of the plaintiff and her lawyer as giver of the bribe-money, the crime is
Corruption of Public Officials under Article 212, Revised Penal Code.

Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers - Consenting or
conniving to evasion

A chief of police of a municipality, believing in good faith that a prisoner serving
a ten-day sentence in the municipal Jail, would not escape, allowed said prisoner to
sleep at the latter’s house because the municipal jail was so congested and there was
no bed space available. Accordingly, the prisoner went home to sleep every night
but returned to jail early each morning, until the ten-day sentence had been fully
served.
Did the Chief of Police commit any crime? Explain. (1996 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The Chief of Police is guilty of violation of Art. 223, RPC, consenting or conniving to
evasion, the elements of which are (a) he is a public officer, (b) he is in charge or custody of
a prisoner, detention or prisoner by final judgment, (c) that the prisoner escaped, and (d)
there must be connivance.
Relaxation of a prisoner is considered infidelity, thus making the penalty ineffectual;
although the convict may not have fled (US us. Bandlno, 9 Phil. 459) it is still violative of
the provision. It also includes a case when the guard allowed the prisoner, who is serving a
six-day sentence in the municipal jail, to sleep in his house and eat there (People vs.
Revilla).

Page 221 of 338
Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers - Maliciously
refraining from instituting prosecution for punishment of violators of
the law; removing and cancelling public document entrusted to his
custody.

A, an Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Cebu, was assigned to conduct the
preliminary investigations of two criminal cases: (1) for rape against X. and (2) for
estafa against Y. Unknown to the complainants, both respondents were schoolmates
of A in their high school years in Lanao del Norte. Despite the overwhelming
evidence against X. A dismissed the rape case. Despite the overwhelming evidence
against Y. A did not file the information for estafa because according to him. the
folder of the case to which were attached the dishonored checks and other
documents offered in evidence by the complainant was stolen. Contrary to such
claim, the folder was kept in a safe in his house.
What offense or offenses under the Title on Crimes Committed By Public
Officers of Book Two of the Revised Penal Code may A be charged with? (1991 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Art. 208 is violated, that is maliciously refraining from instituting prosecution for
punishment of violators of the law. Likewise, the prosecutor is liable under Art. 226 for
removing and cancelling public document entrusted to his custody.

Criminal law –Crimes committed by public officers - EVASION THRU
NEGLIGENCE; in relation with crimes against public order - DELIVERING
PRISONERS FROM JAILS; EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE

Ernani was accused of estafa. Unable to post a bail bond for his provisional
liberty pending trial of his case, he was detained in the city jail. On the date of the
hearing of the estafa case, Daniel, a policeman detailed in the city jail, escorted
Ernani to the city hall for the trial. Daniel removed the handcuffs of Ernani and
allowed him to sit on one of the chairs inside the courtroom. As Daniel was talking to
a lawyer inside the courtroom, Ernani, with the help of a cigarette vendor,
Meynardo, who used his cigarette container as cover, surreptitiously moved out of
the room and escaped. Ernani and Meynardo went to the comfort room for a while,
then went down the stairs and lost themselves in the crowd. What crime or crimes
were committed by Ernani, Daniel and Meynardo? Give your reasons. (1989 Bar
Question)

Page 222 of 338
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1. Daniel, the policeman, committed the crime of EVASION THRU NEGLIGENCE, one of
the forms of Infidelity in the custody of Prisoner (Art. 224), the essential elements of which
offense are:
(1) That the offender is a public officer.
(2) That he has in his custody or charge a prisoner, either detention prisoner or
prisoners by final judgement.
(3) That such prisoner escaped from his custody thru his negligence.

All of these elements are present, Daniel, a policeman detailed in the city jail, is a public officer.
As the escort for Ernani in the latter’s trial, he had custody of charge of a detention prisoner. Ernani’s
escape was thru his negligence because after removing Eraani’s handcuffs and allowing him to sit in
one of the chairs inside the courtroom, he should have taken the necessary precautions to prevent
Ernani’s escape by keeping an eye on him. Instead, he provided the opportunity for the escape by
talking with a lawyer and not keeping watch over his prisoner.

2. Meynardo, not being a public officer, is guilty of the crime of DELIVERING
PRISONERS FROM JAILS (Art. 156), which is committed by any person who either removes
from any jail or penal establishment any person confined therein, or WHO HELPS the
escape of such person by means of violence, intimidation, bribery of OTHER MEANS. The
act of Meynardo in giving to Ernani his cigarette container is helping in the latter’s escape
by OTHER MEANS.
3. Ernani, the escaped prisoner himself is not criminally liable for any offense. The
detention prisoner who escapes from detention does not commit any crime. If he were a
convict by final judgment who is serving a sentence which consists of deprivation of liberty
and he escapes during term of his sentence, he would be liable for EVASION OF SERVICE
OF SENTENCE (Art. 157).

Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers - Infidelity in the
custody of a prisoner

During a town fiesta. A, the chief of police, permitted B, a detention prisoner and
his compadre, to leave the municipal jail and entertain visitors in his house from 10:00
a.m. to 8:00 p.m. B returned to the municipal jail at 8:30 p.m.

Was there any crime committed by A? (1997 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, A committed the crime of infidelity in the custody of a prisoner. Since B is a detention
prisoner. As Chief of Police, A has custody over B. Even if B returned to the municipal jail at 8:30 p.m.

Page 223 of 338
A, as custodian of the prisoner, has maliciously failed to perform the duties of his office, and when he
permits said prisoner to obtain a relaxation of his imprisonment, he consents to the prisoner
escaping the punishment of being deprived of his liberty which can be considered real and actual
evasion of service under Article 223 of the Revised Penal Code (People vs. Leon Bandino, 29 Phil 459).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No crime was committed by the Chief of Police. It was only an act of leniency or laxity in the
performance of his duty and not in excess of his duty (People vs. Evangelista (CA) 38
O.G. 158).

Criminal law - Crimes Committed by Public Officers - Direct Bribery;
Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoners; Evasion of Service of Sentence;
Delivery of Prisoners from Jail; Falsification of Public Document

To secure a release of his brother Willy, a detention prisoner, and his cousin
Vincent, who is serving sentence for homicide, Chito asked the RTC Branch Clerk of
Court to issue an Order which would allow the two prisoners to be brought out of jail.
At first, the Clerk refused, but when Chita gave her P50,000.00, she consented.

She then prepared an Order requiring the appearance in court of Willy and
Vincent, ostensibly as witnesses in a pending case. She forged the judge's signature,
and delivered the Order to the jail warden who, in turn, allowed Willy and Vincent to
go out of jail in the company of an armed escort, Edwin. Chito also gave Edwin
P50,000.00 to leave the two inmates unguarded for three minutes and provide them
with an opportunity to escape. Thus, Willy and Vincent were able to escape.

What crime or crimes, if any, had been committed by the Branch Clerk of
court, Edwin, and the jail warden? Explain your answer. (5%) (2009 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The crimes committed in this case are as follows:

f. The Branch Clerk of Court committed the crimes of:

1. Direct Bribery (Art. 210, RPC) for accepting the P50,000.00 - in
consideration of the order she issued to enable the prisoners to get out of jail;
2. Falsification of Public Document for forging the judge's signature on said
Order (Art. 171, RPC);
3. Delivery of Prisoners from Jail (Art. 156, RPC), as a co-principal of Chito by
indispensable cooperation for making the false Order and forging the judge's signature
thereon, to enable the prisoners to get out of jail;

Page 224 of 338
4. Evasion of Service of Sentence (Art. 157, RPC); as a co-principal of Vincent by
indispensable cooperation for making the false Order that enabled Vincent to evade service
of his sentence;

e. Edwin, the jail guard who escorted the prisoners in getting out of jail, committed
the crimes of –
1. Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoners, specifically conniving with or
consenting to Evasion for leaving unguarded the prisoners escorted by him and
provide them an opportunity to escape (Art. 223, RPC);
2. Direct Bribery for receiving the P50,000.00 as consideration for leaving the
prisoners unguarded and allowing them the opportunity to escape (Art. 210, RPC);

f. The jail warden did not commit nor incur a crime there being no showing that he
was aware of what his subordinates had done nor of any negligence on his part that would
amount to infidelity in the custody of prisoners.

Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers – Qualified bribery

What is the crime of qualified bribery? (2%) (2010 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Qualified bribery is a crime committed by a public officer who is entrusted with law
enforcement and who, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift of offer, refrains from
arresting or prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime punishable by reclusion
perpetua and/ or death (art. 211-A, RPC)

May a judge be charged and prosecuted for such felony? How about a public
prosecutor? A police officer? Explain (5%) (2010 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, a judge may not be charged of this felony because his official duty as a public
officer is not law enforcement but the determination of cases already filed in court.
On the other hand, a public prosecutor may be prosecuted for this crime in respect
of the bribery committed, aside from dereliction of duty committed in violation of Art. 208
of the Revised Penal Code, should be refrain from prosecuting an offender who has
committed a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua and / or death in consideration of any
offer, promise, gift or present.
Meanwhile, a police officer who refrains from arresting such offender for the same
consideration above stated, may be prosecuted for this felony since he is a public officer
entrusted with law enforcement.

Page 225 of 338
Include:
a) Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019, as amended)
(i) Coverage
(ii) Punishable acts

Special law – Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019, as amended) –
Preventive suspension

A month after the arraignment of Brad Kit Commissioner of the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board, who was charged with violation of Section 3 (h) of Republic Act 3019
(Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) before the Sandiganbayan, the Office of the
Special Prosecutor filed a Motion to Suspend Accused Pendente Lite pursuant to
Section 13 of the Anti-Graft Law. The Court granted the motion and suspended
accused Brad Kit for a period of 90 days. Accused assailed the constitutional validity
of the suspension order on the ground that it partakes of a penalty before judgment
of conviction is reached and is thus violative of his constitutional right to be
presumed innocent. He also claimed that this provision of the law on suspension
pendente lite applies only to electiye officials and not to appointed ones like him.
Rule with reasons. (5%) (2000 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The suspension order does not partake of a penalty and is thus not violative of Brad
Kit's constitutional right to be presumed innocent. Under the law, the accused public
officers shall be suspended from office while the criminal prosecution is pending in court
(Sec. 13, R.A. 3019). Such preventive suspension is mandatory to prevent the accused from
hampering the normal course of the investigation (Rios vs. Sandiganbayan, 279SCRA
581J1997): Bunye vs. Escareal 226 SCRA 332 [19931).

Neither is there merit in Brad Kit's claim that the provision on suspension pendente
lite applies only to elective officials and not to appointed ones like him. It applies to all
public officials indicted upon a valid information under R. A. No. 3019, whether they be
appointive or elective officials; or permanent or temporary employees, or pertaining to the
career or non-career service (Segovia vs. Sandiganbayan, 288 SCRA 328 [1998]).

Special law – RA 3019 - Attempted or frustrated stage of the violation
charged is not punishable, but the accused be nevertheless convicted for
an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code

Mr. Carlos Gabisi, a customs guard, and Mr. Rico Yto, a private individual, went
to the office of Mr. Diether Ocuarto, a customs broker, and represented themselves

Page 226 of 338
as agents of Moonglow Commercial Trading, an importer of children’s clothes and
toys. Mr. Gabisi and Mr. Yto engaged Mr. Ocuarto to prepare and file with the Bureau
of Customs the necessary Import Entiy and Internal Revenue Declaration covering
Moonglow’s shipment Mr. Gabisi and Mr. Yto submitted to Mr. Ocuarto a packing list,
a commercial invoice, a bill of lading and a Sworn Import Duty Declaration which
declared the shipment as children’s toys, the taxes and duties of which were
computed at P60,000,00. Mr. Ocuarto filed the aforementioned documents with the
Manila International Container Port However, before the shipment was released, a
spot check was conducted by Customs Senior Agent James Bandldo, who discovered
that the contents of the van (shipment) were not children’s toys as declared in the
shipping documents but 1.000 units of video cassette recorders with taxes and
duties computed at P600,000.00. A hold order and warrant of seizure and detention
were then issued by the District Collector of Customs. Further investigation showed
that Moonglow is non-existent. Consequently, Mr. Gabisi and Mr. Yto were charged
with and convicted for violation of Section 3(e) of RA. 3019 which makes it unlawful
among others, for public officers to cause any undue injuiy to any party, including
the Government, in the discharge of official functions through manifest partiality,
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. In their motion for
reconsideration, the accused alleged that the decision was erroneous because the
crime was not consummated but was only at an attempted stage, and that in fact the
Government did not suffer any undue injury.

a) Is the contention of both accused correct? Explain.(3%) (2000 Bar Question)

b) Assuming that the attempted or frustrated stage of the violation charged is
not punishable, may the accused be nevertheless convicted for an offense punished
by the Revised Penal Code under the facts of the case? Explain. (3%) (2000 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Yes, the contention of the accused that the crime was not consummated is correct.
R.A. 3019 is a special law punishing acts mala prohibita. As a rule, attempted violation of
a special law is not punished. Actual injury is required.

b) Yes, both are liable for attempted estafa thru falsification of commercial
documents, a complex crime. They tried to defraud the Government with the use of false
commercial and public documents. Damage is not necessary.

Criminal law – Complex crimes - Malversation through falsification

Roger and Jessie, Municipal Mayor and Treasurer, respectively, of San Rafael,
Leyte, caused the disbursement of public funds allocated for their local development
programs for 2008. Records show that the amount of P2-million was purportedly
used as financial assistance for a rice production livelihood project. Upon

Page 227 of 338
investigation, however, it was found that Roger and Jessie falsified the disbursement
vouchers and supporting documents in order to make it appear that qualified
recipients who, in fact, are non-existent individuals, received the money.

Roger and Jessie are charged with violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019 for
causing undue injury to the government. Discuss the propriety of the charge filed
against Roger and Jessie. Explain. (4%) (2009 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

They should be charged of violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act 3019 for the breach
of public trust and undue injury caused to the Government. The violation is a crime malum
prohibitum.

Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers – Indirect bribery; in
relation with special law (RA 6713)

Arevalo, a judge who heard a civil case, received gifts from Maricel, the plaintiff
therein, but rendered judgment in favor of Julie, the defendant therein. Who are
criminally liable, and for what crime or crimes? Explain. (1993 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Arevalo, the Judge, is liable for indirect bribery (Art. 210 RPC) and for violation of the Code of Conduct
and Ethical Standard (Sec. 7 (d) RA 6713 and also PD 46).

Maricel is liable for corruption of public officer (Art. 212, RPC and PD 46).

Criminal law - Crimes committed by public officers – Indirect bribery

A, who is the private complainant in a murder case pending before a Regional Trial
Court judge, gave a judge a Christmas gift, consisting of big basket of assorted canned goods
and bottles of expensive wines, easily worth P10.000.00. The judge accepted the gift
knowing it came from A.
What crime or crimes, if any, were committed? (1997 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The judge committed the crime of indirect bribery under Art. 211 of the Revised Penal Code.
The gift was offered to the judge by reason of his office. In addition, the judge will be liable for the
violation ofP.D. 46 which punishes the receiving of gifts by pubic officials and employees on
occasions like Christmas

Page 228 of 338
Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers – Indirect bribery;

Special penal law - Violation of Rep. Act 6713 (Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees)

Don Gabito, a philanthropist, offered to fund several projects of the Mayor. He
opened an account in the Mayor’s name and regularly deposited various amounts
ranging from P500,000.00 to PI Million. From this account, the Mayor withdrew and
used the money for constructing feeder roads, barangay clinics, repairing schools
and for all other municipal projects. It was subsequently discovered that Don Gabito
was actually a jueteng operator and the amounts he deposited were proceeds from
his jueteng operations.

What crime/s were committed? Who are criminally liable? Explain.
(6%)(2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

2) Corruption of public officials under Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code for
having given the amounts that were deposited in an account which he opened in the
Mayor’s name for no reason but the public position or office held by the Mayor; (crime
committed by Don Gabito)

2) Indirect Bribery for accepting such moneys deposited in his account by using
them when they were given to him for no other reason except for his public position as a
Mayor. (crime committed by the Mayor)

3) Violation of Rep. Act 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees) for receiving such gift from someone who may be affected by the
functions of his office. (crime committed by the Mayor)

Special law - RA No. 3019, the Anti- Graft and Corrupt Practices Act -
Suspension pendente lite

(a) Who are public officers? (2%) (1999 Bar Question)
(b) A public officer was accused before the Sandiganbayan of a violation of
Section 3 (e) of RA No. 3019, the Anti- Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Just
after arraignment and even before evidence was presented, the
Sandiganbayan issued an order for his suspension pendente lite. The accused
questioned the said Order contending that it is violative of the constitutional
provision against an ex post facto law. Will you sustain the objection of the

Page 229 of 338
accused? Why? (2%) (1999 Bar Question)

(c) What pre-conditions are necessary to be met or satisfied before preventive
suspension may be ordered? (2%) (1999 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Public Officers are persons who, by direct provision of the law, popular election
or appointment by competent authority, takes part in the performance of public functions
in the Government of the Philippines, or performs in said Government or in any of its
branches public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank or class
(Art. 203, RPC)

(b) No, I will not sustain the objection of the accused. Suspension of the accused
pendente lite is not violative of the constitutional provision against ex-post facto
law. Ex-post facto law means making an innocent act a crime before it is made
punishable.
(c) The pre-conditions necessary to be met or satisfied before a suspension may be
ordered are: (1) there must be proper notice requiring the accused to show
cause at a specific date of hearing why he should not be ordered suspended from
office pursuant to RA 3019, as amended; and (2) there must be a determination
of a valid information against the accused that warrants his suspension.

Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers - Indirect bribery;
Special penal law - Republic Act No. 3019- directly or indirectly
requesting or receiving any gift, present, percentage, or benefit in
connection with any contract or transaction x x x wherein the public
officer, in his official capacity, has to intervene under the law

Charina, Clerk of Court of an RTC Branch, promised the plaintiff in a case
pending before the court that she would convince the Presiding Judge to decide the
case in plaintiff's favor. In consideration therefor, the plaintiff gave Charina
P20,000.00.
Charina was charged with violation of Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No. 3019,
prohibiting any public officer from directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any
gift, present, percentage, or benefit in connection with any contract or transaction x
x x wherein the public officer, in his official capacity, has to intervene under the law.
While the case was being tried, the Ombudsman filed another information
against Charina for Indirect Bribery under the Revised Penal Code. Charina
demurred to the second information, claiming that she can no longer be charged
under the Revised Penal Code having been charged for the same act under R.A. 3019.

Page 230 of 338
Is Charina correct? Explain. (3%) (2009 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, Charina is not correct. Although the charge for violation of Rep. Act No. 3019 and
the charge for Indirect Bribery (Art. 211, RPC) arose from the same act, the elements of the
violation charged under Rep. Act No. 3019 are not the same as the felony charged for
Indirect Bribery under the Rev. Penal Code (Mejia v. Pamaran, 160 SCRA 457 [1988]).
Hence, the crimes charged are separate and distinct from each other, with different
penalties. The two charges do not constitute a ground for a motion to dismiss or motion to
quash, as there is no jeopardy against the accused.

Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers - direct bribery;
Special penal law - Republic Act No. 3019

May a public officer charged under Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. 3019
[“directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage or
benefit, for himself of for any other person, in connection with any contract or
transaction between the government and any other party, wherein the public officer
in his official capacity has to intervene under the law”] also be simultaneously or
successively charged with direct bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal
Code? Explain. (4%) (2010 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, a public officer charges under Sec. 3 (b) of Rep. Act 3019 (Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act) may also be charged simultaneously or successively for the crime of
direct bribery under Art. 210 of the Revised Penal Code, because two crimes are essentially
different and are penalized under distinct legal philosophies. Whereas violation of Sec. (b)
of R.A. 3019 is a malum prohibitum, the crime under Art. 210 of the Code is a malum in se.

Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officer - Republic Act No.
3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)
The Central Bank (Bangko Sentralna Pilipinas), by a resolution of the
monetary board, hires Thereof Sto. Tomas, a retired manager of a leading bank as a
consultant. Thereof later receives a valuable gift from a bank under investigation by
the Central Bank. May Thereof be prosecuted under Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) for accepting such a gift? Explain. (2003 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Page 231 of 338
No, Thereof may not be prosecuted under Rep. Act 3019, but may be prosecuted for
violation of Pres. Decree No. 46, under which such act of receiving a valuable gift is
punished.
Although Thereof is a “public officer” within the application of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019), yet his act of receiving such gift does not appear to be
included among the punishable acts under Rep. Act 3019), yet his act of receiving such gift
does not appear to be included among the punishable acts under Rep. Act not to intervene
in his official capacity in the investigation of the bank which gave the gift. Penal laws must
be strictly construed against the State. In any case, Thereof is administratively liable.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, Thereof may be prosecuted under Rep. Act 3019 because he is a “public officer'
within the purview of said law, and Thereof received the valuable gift from a bank which is
under investigation by the Central Bank where he is employed as a “public officer.
Receiving gift, directly or indirectly by a public officer from a party who has a transaction
with the Government is wrong, more so when the gift-giver is under investigation by the
government office to which the public officer is connected.

Special law - RA No. 3019 – “corrupt practices” in relation to the
requirement of “undue injury”

A, the Director of the Southern Islands Hospital in Cebu City, a government
training hospital, instructed the withholding of the salaries of Y, one of the Medical
Specialists of the hospital, for the months of January, February and March 1989 due
to Y’s failure to submit his daily time records, and his salary for the period 1 to 15
April 1989 which was the period covered by his application for sick leave which A
disapproved when he found out that Y was not actually sick. A likewise ordered the
removal of Y’s name from the plantilla because of the former’s dissatisfaction with
the services of the latter who continued teaching, even during office hours, in a
medical college in Cebu City. Nevertheless, after Y submitted his daily time records
in May 1989, his salaries were released. Also, his name was later re-included in the
final plantilla.
A was charged before the City Prosecutor’s Office of Cebu City for violation of
Section 3, paragraph (c) of RA No. 3019, as amended, which considers as among the
corrupt practices of any public officer and declares unlawful the following: “causing
any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party
any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official,
administrative or judicial functions through partiality, evident bad faith, or gross
inexcusable negligence, x x x”
If you were the investigating prosecutor, how would you resolve the case? (1991
Bar Question)

Page 232 of 338
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Liable, I will file the information as one of the corrupt practices is causing undue
injury to any party, including the government due to evident bad faith, Sec. 3(e), RA No.
3019.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The Director is not liable under Sec.3(e), RA 3019, because there was no “undue
injury” suffered by Y.

Special penal law – Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019,
as amended) – act considered as corrupt practice

Proserfina, an assistant public high school principal, acted to facilitate the
release of salary differentials and election duty per diem of classroom teachers with
the agreement that they would reimburse her for her expenses.
Did Proserfina commit a crime? Explain. (5%) (2010 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, Proserfina committed violation of Sec. 3(b) of Rep. Act No. 3019 which
considers as corrupt practice, the act of:
“(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share,
percentage, or benefit, for himself or for any other person, in connection with any contract
or transaction between the Government and any other party, wherein the public officer in
his official capacity has to intervene under the law. “
Being the assistant public high school principal, it is her duty to intervene in the
release of salary differentials and per diem of classroom teachers under her. Her act of
doing so, made a request for a share or benefit therefor constitutes graft or corrupt practice
under Sec 3(b) of Rep. Act No. 3019. Considering that the acts prohibited or punished
under this law are mala prohibita, and thus punishable thereunder, whether done with
criminal intent or not.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

In the case of Jaravata v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 56170, January 31, 1984), which
has identical set of facts as the present case, the Supreme Court ruled that there is no law
which invests an assistant principal with the power to intervene in the payment of the
salary differentials of classroom teachers or anyone for that matter.” Accordingly, since in
his official capacity as the assistant principal he is not required by law to intervene in the
payment of the salary differentials, the assistant principal cannot be said to have violated
Sec 3 (b) of Reo. Act No. 3019 although he exerted efforts to facilitate the payment of the
salary differentials.

Page 233 of 338
Special penal law - Violation of Rep. Act 6713 (Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees)

Don Gabito, a philanthropist, offered to fund several projects of the Mayor. He
opened an account in the Mayor’s name and regularly deposited various amounts
ranging from P500,000.00 to PI Million. From this account, the Mayor withdrew and
used the money for constructing feeder roads, barangay clinics, repairing schools
and for all other municipal projects. It was subsequently discovered that Don Gabito
was actually a jueteng operator and the amounts he deposited were proceeds from
his jueteng operations.

What crime/s were committed? Who are criminally liable? Explain.
(6%)(2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

2) Corruption of public officials under Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code for
having given the amounts that were deposited in an account which he opened in the
Mayor’s name for no reason but the public position or office held by the Mayor; (crime
committed by Don Gabito)

2) Indirect Bribery for accepting such moneys deposited in his account by using
them when they were given to him for no other reason except for his public position as a
Mayor. (crime committed by the Mayor)

3) Violation of Rep. Act 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees) for receiving such gift from someone who may be affected by the
functions of his office. (crime committed by the Mayor)

Special penal law– Violation of Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials (RA 6713) - Requesting donations of gifts

Commissioner Marian Torres of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) wrote
solicitation letters addressed to the Filipino-Chinese Chamber of Commerce and
Industry and to certain CEOs of various multinational corporations requesting
donations of gifts for her office Christmas party. She used the Bureau's official
stationery. The response was prompt and overwhelming so much so that
Commissioner Torres' office was overcrowded with rice cookers, radio sets, freezers,
electric stoves and toasters. Her staff also received several envelopes containing
cash money for the employees' Christmas luncheon.

Page 234 of 338
Has Commissioner Torres committed any impropriety or irregularity? What
laws or decrees did she violate? 5% (2006 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, Commissioner Torres committed an impropriety. She violated Sec. 7(d) of Rep.
Act 6713 otherwise known as the “Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees”. Sec. 7(d) mandates that public officials and employees shall not
solicit or accept directly or indirectly any gift, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of
monetary value from any person in the course of£ her official duties or any transaction
which may be affected by the functions of their office.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The solicitation for her office Christmas Party violates Pres. Decree 46 which makes it
punishable for any public official or employee to receive, directly or indirectly, any gift,
present or other valuable thing on any occasion, including Christmas when such gift or
present is given by reason of her official position.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, Commissioner Torres committed an impropriety and violated Art. 211 of the
Revised Penal Code on indirect bribery. She accepted gifts by reason of her office.

(iii) Exceptions
b) Anti-Plunder Act (R.A. No. 7080, as amended)
(i) Definition of terms
(ii) Ill-gotten wealth
(iii) Plunder
(iv) Series/Combination
(v) Pattern
c) Human Security Act of 2007 (R.A. No. 9372)
(i) Failure to deliver suspect to proper judicial authority
(ii) Infidelity in the custody of detained persons
(iii) False prosecution
Crimes Against Persons (Articles 246-266)

Page 235 of 338
Criminal law - Crimes against persons - Death caused in a tumultuous
affray

During a town fiesta, a free-for-all fight erupted in the public plaza. As a result
of the tumultuous affray, A sustained one fatal and three superficial stab wounds.
He died a day after. B. C. D and E were proven to be participants in the "rumble",
each using a knife against A, but it could not be ascertained who among them,
inflicted the mortal injury.

Who shall be held criminally liable for the death of A and for what? (1997 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

B, C, D, and E being participants in the tumultuous affray and having been proven to
have inflicted serious physical injuries, or at least, employed violence upon A, are
criminally liable for the latter's death. And because it cannot be ascertained who among
them inflicted the mortal injury on A, there being a free-for-all fight or tumultuous affray,
B, C, D. and E are all liable for the crime of death caused in a tumultuous affray under
Article 251 of the Revised Penal Code.

Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Parricide; murder; homicide

A, a young housewife, and B, her paramour, conspired to kill C, her husband, to whom
she was lawfully married. A and B bought pancit and mixed it with poison. A gave the food
with poison to C, but before C could eat it, D, her illegitimate father, and E, her legitimate son
arrived. C, D and E shared the food In the presence of A who merely watched them eating. C,
D and E died because of having partaken of the poisoned food.
What crime or crimes did A and B commit? (1997 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

A committed the crime of multiple parricide for the killing of C. her lawful husband, D, her
illegitimate father, and E, her legitimate son. All these killings constitute parricide under Article246of
the Revised Penal Code because of her relationship with the victims.
B committed the crime of murder as a co-conspirator of A in the killing of C because the killing
was carried out by means of poison (Art 248, par. 3, Revised Penal Code). But for feloniously causing
the death of D and E. B committed two counts of homicide. The plan was only to kill C.

Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Parricide; homicide
In 1975, Pedro, then a resident of Manila, abandoned his wife and their son, Ricky, who

Page 236 of 338
was then only three years old. Twenty years later, an affray took place in a bar in Olongapo
City between Pedro and his companions, on one hand, and Ricky and his friends, upon the
other, without the father and son knowing each other. Ricky stabbed and killed Pedro in the
fight, only to find out, a week later, when his mother arrived from Manila to visit him in jail,
that the man whom he killed was his own father.

1) What crime did Ricky commit? Explain. (1996 Bar Question)
Suppose Ricky knew before the killing that Pedro is his father, but he
2)
nevertheless killed him out of bitterness for having abandoned him and his mother,
what crime did Ricky commit? Explain. (1996 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1) Ricky committed parricide because the person killed was his own father, and the
law punishing the crime (Art. 246, RPC) does not require that the crime be “knowingly"
committed. Should Ricky be prosecuted and found guilty of parricide, the penalty to be
imposed is Art. 49 of the Revised Penal Code for Homicide (the crime he intended to
commit) but in its maximum period.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Ricky should be held criminally liable only for homicide not parricide because the
relationship which qualified the killing to parricide is virtually absent for a period of
twenty years already, such that Ricky could not possibly be aware that his adversary was
his father. In other words, the moral basis for imposing the higher penalty for parricide is
absent

2)The crime committed should be parricide if Ricky knew before the killing that
Pedro is his father, because the moral basis for punishing the crime already exists. His
having acted out of bitterness for having been abandoned by his father may be considered
mitigating.

Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Parricide; homicide; murder;
infanticide
Who may be guilty of the crime of parricide? (3%) (1999 Bar Question)

A killed: (1) a woman with whom he lived without benefit of clergy, (2) their child
who was only two days old, (3) their daughter, and (4) their adopted son.
What crime or crimes did A commit? (3%) (1999 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Page 237 of 338
(a) Any person who kills his father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate,
or his ascendants or descendants, or spouse, shall be guilty of parricide. (Art. 246, RPC)
(b) A committed the following crimes:
1. Homicide or murder as the case may be, for the killing of his common-law
wife who is not legally considered a “spouse”

2. Infanticide for the killing of the child as said child is less than three (3) days
old. (Art. 255, RPC) However, the penalty corresponding to parricide shall be
imposed since A is related to the child within the degree defined in the crime of
parricide.

3. Parricide for the killing of their daughter, whether legitimate or illegitimate,
as long as she is not less than three (3) days old at the time of the killing.

4. Murder for the killing of their adopted son as the relationship between A and
the said son must be by blood in order for parricide to arise.

Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Frustrated homicide; less serious
physical injuries
At about 11:00 in the evening, Dante forced his way inside the house of Mamerto. Jay,
Mamerto’s son, saw Dante and accosted him. Dante pulled a knife and stabbed Jay on his
abdomen. Mamerto heard the commotion and went out of his room. Dante, who was about to
escape, assaulted Mamerto. Jay suffered injuries which, were it not for the timely medical
attendance, would have caused his death. Mamerto sustained injuries that incapacitated him
for 25 days.
What crime or crimes did Dante commit? (1994 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Dante committed qualified trespass to dwelling, frustrated homicide for the stabbing of Jay,
and less serious physical injuries for the assault on Mamerto.
The crime of qualified trespass to dwelling should not be complexed with frustrated
homicide because when the trespass is committed as a means to commit a more serious offense,
trespass to dwelling is absorbed by the greater crime, and the former constitutes an aggravating
circumstance of dwelling [People us. Abedoza, 53 Phil.788).
Dante committed frustrated homicide for the stabbing of Jay because he had already
performed all the acts of execution which would have produced the intended felony of homicide
were it not for causes independent of the act of Dante. Dante had the intent to kill judging from the
weapon used, the manner of committting the crime and the part of the body stabbed. Dante is guilty

Page 238 of 338
of less serious physical injuries for the wounds sustained by Mamerto. There appears to be no intent
to kill because Dante merely assaulted Mamerto without using the knife.

Criminal law – Crimes against persons –Homicide; incomplete self-defense

1) A security guard, upon seeing a man scale the wall of a factory compound which he
was guarding, shot and killed the latter. Upon investigation by the police who thereafter
arrived at the scene of the shooting, it was discovered that the victim was unarmed. When
prosecuted for homicide, the security guard claimed that he merely acted in self-defense of
property and in the performance of his duty as a security guard.
If you were the judge, would you convict him of homicide? Explain. (1996 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, I would convict the security guard for Homicide if I were the judge, because his claim of
having acted in defense of property and in performance of a duly cannot fully be justified. Even
assuming that the victim was scaling the wall of the factory compound to commit a crime inside the
same, shooting him is never justifiable, even admitting that such act is considered unlawful
aggression on property rights. In People us. Narvaes, 121 SCRA 329, a person is justified
to defend his property rights, but all the elements of self-defense under Art. 11, must be
present. In the instant case, just like in Narvaes, the second element (reasonable necessity
of the means employed) is absent. Hence, he should be convicted of homicide but entitled
to incomplete self-defense.

Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Homicide; slight physical injuries
Aki and Ben, while walking together, met Caloy. There was an altercation between Ben
and Caloy so that Ben chased and stabbed Caloy with a knife hitting his right aim thereby
causing slight physical injury. Ben desisted from further assaulting Caloy, but Aki lunged at
Caloy and felled him this time with a bolo which mortally wounded Caloy. Thus, he died.
a) What is the criminal liability of Aki? How about that of Ben? Explain your answers.
(1990 Bar Question)
b)Assuming conspiracy is established, will your answer in problem (a) be the same?
Explain your answer. (1990 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a) Aki is liable for homicide because, while it is clear that he intentionally caused the death of

Page 239 of 338
Caloy, none of the circumstances attendant to murder are present. Intent to kill is clear as Aki lunged
at Caloy, after the latter was inflicted a wound at the right arm, and gave him a mortal wound.
Ben is guilty only of slight physical injuries as it is evident from the wound he inflicted upon
Caloy that he did not intend to kill the latter. Also, there was no other act on the part of Ben to show
such intent.
b) No, there being no conspiracy each will be liable for their own individual act. This time both
will be liable for homicide because in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all (People v. Damaso, G.R.
Nos. L-30116-7, 20 November 1978).

Criminal law – Crimes against persons - Homicide

Vicente hacked Anacleto with a bolo but the latter was able to parry it with his
hand, causing upon him a two-inch wound on his right palm. Vicente was not able to
hack Anacleto further because three policemen arrived and threatened to shoot
Vicente if he did not drop his bolo. Vicente was accordingly charged by the police at
the prosecutor’s office for attempted homicide. Twenty-five days later, while the
preliminary investigation was in progress, Anacleto was rushed to the hospital
because of symptoms of tetanus infection on the two-inch wound inflicted by
Vicente. Anacleto died the following day.

Can Vicente be eventually charged with homicide for the death of Anacleto? Explain.
(1996 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, Vicente may be charged of homicide for the death of Anacleto, unless the tetanus infection
which developed twenty five days later, was brought about by an efficient supervening cause.
Vicente’s felonious act of causing a two- inch wound on Anacleto’s right palm may still be regarded
as the proximate cause of the latter’s death because without such wound, no tetanus infection could
develop from the victim’s right palm, and without such tetanus infection the victim would not have
died with it.

Criminal law – Crimes against persons - Murder
Fidel and Fred harbored a long standing grudge against Jorge who refused to marry
their sister Loma, after the latter got pregnant by Jorge. After weeks of surveillance, they
finally cornered Jorge in Ermita, Manila, when the latter was walking home late at night. Fidel
and Fred forcibly brought Jorge to Zambales where they kept him hog-tied in a small nipa
house located in the middle of a rice field. Two days later, they killed Joige and dumped his
body into the river.
What crime or crimes did Fidel and Fred commit? Explain. (1996 Bar Question)

Page 240 of 338
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Fidel and Fred committed the crime of Murder under Art. 248, RPC. the killing being qualified by
evident premeditation. This is due to the long standing grudge entertained by the two
accused occasioned by the victim’s refusal to marry their sister after impregnating her.
In People vs. Alfeche, 219 SCRA 85, the intention of the accused is determinative of the
crime committed. Where the intention is to kill the victim and the latter is forcibly taken to
another place and later killed, it is murder. There is no indication that the offenders
intended to deprive the victim of his liberty. Whereas, if the victim is kidnapped, and taken
to another situs and killed as an afterthought, it is kidnapping with homicide under Art.
267, RPC.

Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Murder

A, a 76-year old woman, was brought to the hospital in a coma with slight cerebral
hemorrhage. An endotracheal tube was inserted in her mouth to facilitate her breathing. B, a
hospital janitor, who had no business in the emergency room, for reasons known only to
himself, removed the plaster holding the tube in place. A doctor saw him and told him to get
out of the room. The plaster was replaced. But when the doctor was gone, B came back and
removed the tube. The victim started to convulse and bleed in the mouth. Only the timely
arrival of the nurse prevented the patient’s death. The patient was then transferred to
another hospital where she died the next day of cardiorespiratory arrest. Is B criminally
liable? If you believe so, what crime was committed by B, if any? (1991 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, B is criminally liable for Murder (qualified by treachery) because the death of A appears to
be the proximate cause of the overt acts of B.
A died of cardio-respiratory arrest which evidently was brought about by the convulsion and
bleeding in the mouth of the victim due to the removal by B of the endoctracheal tube twice. The two
acts of B can be considered as the result of one criminal design.
In People vs. Umaging, 107 SCRA 166, the Supreme Court ruled that removal of the
endothracheal tube is attempted murder, qualified by treachery, because the patient did not die.

Criminal law –Crimes against persons –Murder; homicide
Define murder. What are the elements of the crime?
(3%) (1999 Bar Question)

The accused, not intending to kill the victim, treacherously shot the victim while the

Page 241 of 338
victim was turning his back to him. He aimed at and hit the victim only on the leg. The victim,
however, died because of loss of blood. Can the accused be liable for homicide or murder,
considering that treachery was clearly involved but there was no attempt to kill? Explain
your answer. (3%) (1999 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a person which otherwise would constitute only homicide,
had it not been attended by any of the following circumstances:

1. With treachery or taking advantage of superior strength, or with the aid of armed men,
or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford
impunity;

2. In consideration of a price, reward or promise;
3. By means or on the occasion of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck,
stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, or
by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great
waste and ruin;

4. On occasion of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone,
epidemic or other public calamity;

5. With evident premeditation;

6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the
victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.
(b) The elements of murder are: (1) that a person was unlawfully killed; (2) that
such a killing was attended by any of the above-mentioned circumstances; (3)
that the killing is not parricide nor infanticide; and (4) that the accused killed the
victim.

The accused is liable for the death of the victim even though he merely aimed and
fired at the latter's leg, “not intending to kill the victim", considering that the gunshot was
felonious and was the proximate cause of death. An offender is liable for all the direct,
natural, and logical consequences of his felonious act although different from what he
intended.

However, since specific intent to kill is absent, the crime for said death is only
homicide and not murder (People vs. Pugay and Samson, 167 SCRA 439)

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The accused is liable for the death of the victim in as much as his act of shooting the
victim at the leg is felonious and is the proximate cause of death. A person performing a

Page 242 of 338
felonious act is liable for all the direct, natural, and logical consequences of such act
although different from what he intended. And since such death was attended by
treachery, the same will constitute murder but the accused should be given the benefit of
the mitigating circumstance that he did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that
which was committed (Art. 13(3), RPC)

Special law - Anti-Rape Law of 1997 – Rape as crime against person;
extinguishment of criminal liability by subsequent marriage

A. What other acts are considered rape under the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, amending the
Revised Penal Code? (3%) (2002 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The other acts considered rape under the Anti-Rape Law of 1997 are:
1. having carnal knowledge of a woman by a man by means of fraudulent machination or
grave abuse of authority;
2. having carnal knowledge of a demented woman by a man even if none of the circumstances
required in rape be present; and
3. committing an act of sexual assault by inserting a person’s penis into the victim’s mouth or
anal orifice, or by inserting any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.
B. The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 reclassified rape from a crime against honor, a private offense, to
that of a crime against persons. Will the subsequent marriage of the offender and the offended party
extinguish the criminal action or the penalty imposed? Explain. (2%) (2002 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. By express provision of Article 266-C of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the subsequent
valid marriage between the offender and offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the
penalty imposed, although rape has been reclassified from a crime against chastity, to that of a crime
against persons.

Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Rape; Crimes against chastity - Acts of
Lasciviousness
Mrs. Lydia Cortes presented herself to Special Police Officer 2 (SPO 2) Cirio Cellado at
the Northern Police Headquarters with her niece Nani, age 17, and the latter’s friend,
Chabeng. age 16, asking for help in filing a criminal case. It appears that while working as
househelp in the home of Col. Rolando Donido (retired), the latter would call them al-
ternately, lock them up with him in a room and force his lustful desires upon them. Sobbing
violently, Nani narrated how finally her employer succeeded in having sexual intercourse

Page 243 of 338
with her because he kept on threatening to kill her if she refused to submit to him or if she
told Mrs. Donido about what was happening. On the other hand, Chabeng described how
their employer took liberties with her body, destroying her virginity. If they so much as re-
sisted, they were subjected to a lot of verbal abuse and harassment. Unable to bear it any
longer, both of them ran away. Nani got married immediately to a former boyfriend to save
herself from the humiliation of appearing in their hometown, pregnant but still single. She
ended her story saying that no housegirl ever stayed long in that household “kasi walang
patawad iyang D.O.M. (Dirty Old Man ) na iyan".
a. What crime has Col. Donido committed against Nani? What crime has he committed
against Chabeng? Explain fully. (1992 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a. Against Nani, the crime committed by Col. Donido is rape, because he had sexual intercourse
with her with the attendant circumstance of force and intimidation. (Art. 335, par. 1). As far as
Chabeng is concerned, since Col. Donido only took liberties on her body, short of sexual
intercourse, he is liable of Acts of Lasciviousness under Art. 336, RPC which is
committed by any person who commit acts of lasciviousness upon other persons of
either sex, under any of the circumstances in Rape.

Criminal law – Crimes against persons - Rape
AJ, a medical student, was a boarder in the house of Mr. and Mrs. M who had a
good-looking 25-year old retarded daughter with the mental age of an 11-year old
giri. One day when the couple were out, Perlita, the retarded daughter, entered AJ’s
room, came near him and started kissing him. He tried to avoid her. But she
persisted. They had sexual intercourse. This was repeated every time Perlita’s
parents were out until Perlita got pregnant. Mr and Mrs. M riled a complaint of rape
against AJ who claimed that it was Perlita who seduced him; that Perlita was
intelligent, clearly understood what she was doing; and that since Perlita was
already 25 years old did not herself file the complaint, her parents had no
personality to file tne complaint for rape.
How would you resolve the case? (1987 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The contention of AJ cannot be sustained. Sexual intercourse with Perlita, who is a
mental retardate, although 25 years old but with a mental age of 11-year old girl is rape.
She is the same class as a woman deprived of reason or others wise unconscious. (People
vs. Sunga L-45683 June 24, 1985). Since she is suffering from an incapacity, being
incompetent on account of her mental age, the parents have the right to file the complaint
for rape.

Page 244 of 338
Criminal law – Crimes against persons - Rape

Three policemen conducting routine surveillance of a cogonal area in Antipolo chanced
upon Ruben, a 15-year old tricycle driver, on top of Rowena who was known to be a child
prostitute. Both were naked from the waist down and appeared to be enjoying the sexual
activity. Ruben was arrested by the policemen despite his protestations that Rowena enticed
him to have sex with her in advance celebration of her twelfth birthday. The town physician
found no semen nor any bleeding on Rowena’s hymen but for a healed scar. Her hymenal
opening easily admitted two fingers showing that no external force had been employed on
her.

Is Ruben liable for any offense? Discuss fully. (1995 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Ruben is liable for rape, even if force or intimidation is not present. The
gravamen of the offense is the carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve years of
age (People vs. Dela Cruz, 56 SCRA 84) since the law doesn’t consider the consent
voluntary and presumes that a girl below twelve years old does not and cannot have
a will of her own. In People vs. Perez, CA 37 OG 1762, it was held that sexual
intercourse with a prostitute below twelve years old is rape.
Similarly, the absence of spermatozoa does not disprove the consummation as
the important consideration is not the emission but the penetration of the female
body by the male organ (People vs. Jose 37 SCRA 450; People vs. Carandang, 52 SCRA
259).

Criminal law – Crimes againt persons – Rape; serious physical injuries

Gavino boxed his wife Alma for refusing to sleep with him. He then violently threw her
on the floor and forced her to have sexual intercourse with him. As a result Alma suffered
serious physical injuries.

(a) Can Gavino be charged with rape? Explain. (1995 Bar Question)
(b) Can Gavino be charged with serious physical injuries? Explain. (1995 Bar Question)
(c) Will your answers to (a) and (b) be the same if before the incident Gavino and Alma
were legally separated? Explain. (1995 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Page 245 of 338
1. (a) No. A husband cannot be charged with the rape of his wife because of the matrimonial
consent which she gave when she assumed the marriage relation, and the law will not permit her
to retract in order to charge her husband with the offense (Sate vs. Haines, 11 La. Ann. 731 So.
372; 441 RA 837).
(b) Yes. He may be guilty of serious physical injuries. This offense is specially mentioned in Art.
263 (4), paragraph 2 which imposes a higher penalty for the crime of physical injuries in cases where
the offense shall have been committed against any of the persons enumerated in Art 246 (the
crime of parricide).

(c) No. my answer will not be the same.

If Gavino, and Alma were legally separated at the time of the incident, then Gavino
could be held liable for rape.
A legal separation is a separation of the spouses from bed and board [U.S. vs. Johnson
27 Phil. 477, cited in II Reyes, RPC, p. 853, 1981 edition).
In the crime of rape, any crime resulting from the infliction of physical injuries
suffered by the victim on the occasion of the rape, is absorbed by the crime of rape. The
injuries suffered by the victim may, however, be considered in determining the proper
penalty which shall be imposed on the offender. Serious physical injuries cannot be
absorbed in rape; it can be so if the injury is slight.

Criminal law – Crimes against persons - Rape
The complainant, an eighteen-year old mental retardate with an intellectual
capacity between the ages of nine and twelve years, when asked during the trial how
she felt when she was raped by the accused, replied “Masarap, it gave me much
pleasure."

With the claim of the accused that the complainant consented for a fee to the sexual
intercourse, and with the foregoing answer of the complainant, would you convict the
accused of rape if you were the Judge trying the case? Explain. (1996 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, I would convict the accused of rape. Since the victim is a mental retardate with an
intellectual capacity of a child less than 12 years old, she is legally incapable of giving a valid consent
to the sexual intercourse. The sexual intercourse is tantamount to a statutory rape because the level
of intelligence is that of a child less than twelve years of age. Where the victim of rape is a mental
retardate, violence or intimidation is not essential to constitute rape. (People vs. Ttimor, G.R.
106541-42,31 Mar 95) As a matter of fact, RA No. 7659, the Heinous Crimes Law, amended Art. 335,
RPC, by adding the phrase "or is demented.”

Page 246 of 338
Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Rape; effect of pardon by the offended
party
a) A complaint for rape was filed by the victim against her father. When the victim was
about to finish her testimony, she and her aunt (her closest relative) executed separate
affidavits of desistance wherein they stated that they are forgiving the accused. The judge
dismissed the case. Is the dismissal proper? (1991 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a) No, the dismissal of the case is not proper. While the affidavit of desistance executed by the
victim amounts to a pardon, the same does not extinguish criminal liability. In the crime of rape and
other private crimes, pardon by the offended party only bars prosecution if given before the
institution of the criminal action. After the criminal action had been instituted, such pardon only
waives the civil liability but not the criminal liability of the offender.

Criminal law – Crimes against persons - Rape
Flordeluna boarded a taxi on her way home to Quezon City which was driven by
Roger. Flordeluna noticed that Roger was always placing his car freshener in front of
the car aircon ventilation but did not bother asking Roger why. Suddenly. Flordeluna
felt dizzy and became unconscious. Instead of bringing her to Quezon City, Roger
brought Flordeluna to his house in Cavite where she was detained for two (2) weeks.
She was raped for the entire duration of her detention. May Roger be charged and
convicted of the crime of rape with serious illegal detention? Explain. (5%) (2000
Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, Roger may not be charged and convicted of the crime of rape with serious illegal
detention. Roger may be charged and convicted of multiple rapes. Each rape is a distinct
offense and should be punished separately. Evidently, his principal intention was to abuse
Flordeluna; the detention was only incidental to the rape.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, Roger may not be charged and convicted of the crime of rape with serious illegal detention,
since the detention was incurred in raping the victim during the days she was held. At most, Roger
may be prosecuted for forcible abduction for taking Flordeluna to Cavite against the latter’s will and
with lewd designs. The forcible abduction should be complexed with one ofthe multiple rapes
committed, and the other rapes should be prosecuted and punished separately, in as many rapes
were charged and proved.

Page 247 of 338
Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Rape through sexual assault

A. A, a male, takes B, another male, to a motel and there, through threat and
intimidation, succeeds in inserting his penis into the anus of B. What, if any, is A’s
criminal liability? Why?
(3%) (2002 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A shall be criminally liable for rape by committing an act of sexual assault against B, by
inserting his penis into the anus of the latter.
Even a man may be a victim of rape by sexual assault under par. 2 of Article 268-Aof the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, “when the offender’s penis is inserted into his mouth or
anal orifice.”

Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Parricide
The conduct of wife A aroused the ire of her husband B. Incensed with anger
almost beyond his control, B could not help but inflict physical injuries on A.
Moments after B started hitting A with his fists, A suddenly complained of severe
chest pains. B, realizing that A was indeed in serious trouble, immediately brought
her to the hospital. Despite efforts to alleviate A’s pains, she died of heart attack. It
turned out that she had been suffering from a lingering heart ailment. What crime, if
any, could B be held guilty of? (2003 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

B could be held liable for parricide because his act of hitting his wife with fist blows
and therewith inflicting physical injuries on her, is felonious. A person committing a
felonious act incurs criminal liability although the wrongful consequence is different from
what he intended (Art. 4, par. 1, Revised Penal Code).
Although A died of heart attack, the said attack was generated by B’s felonious act of
hitting her with his fists. Such felonious act was the immediate cause of the heart attack,
having materially contributed to and hastened A’s death. Even though B may have acted
without intent to kill his wife, lack of such intent is of no moment when the victim dies.
However, B may be given the mitigating circumstance of having acted without intention to
commit so grave a wrong as that committed (Art. 13, par. 3, Revised Penal Code).

Page 248 of 338
Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Attempted homicide; Slight
physical injury
In a free-for-all brawl that ensued after some customers inside a night club
became unruly, guns were fired by a group, among them A and B, that finally put the
customers back to their senses. Unfortunately, one customer died. Subsequent
investigation revealed that A's gunshot had inflicted on the victim a slight wound
that did not cause the deceased’s death nor materially contribute to it. It was B’s
gunshot that inflicted a fatal wound on the deceased. A contended that his liability
should, if at all, be limited to slight physical injury. Would you agree? Why? (2003
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. I beg to disagree with A’s contention that his liability should be limited to slight
physical injury only. He should be held liable for attempted homicide because he inflicted
said injury with the use of a firearm which is a lethal weapon. Intent to kill is inherent in
the use of a firearm. (Araneta, Jr. v. Court of Appeals. 187 SCRA 123 [1990])
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, I would agree to A’s contention that his criminal liability should be for slight
physical injury only, because he fired his gun only to pacify the unruly customers of the
night club and therefore, without intent to kill. B’s gunshot that inflicted a fatal wound on
the deceased may not be imputed to A because conspiracy cannot exist when there is a
free-for-all brawl or tumultuous affray. A and B are liable only for their respective act.

Criminal law – Crimes against persons - Death under exceptional
circumstances
At 10:00 o’clock in the evening of 10 November 1990, upon his arrival from Cebu City,
Marco surprised his wife, Rosette, and her former boyfriend, Raul, both naked and in the act
of illicit copulation. Raul got his revolver and, upon seing the revolver, Marco ran toward the
street, took a pedicab and proceeded to the house of his brother, a policeman, from whom he
borrowed a revolver. With the weapon, he returned to his residence. Unable to find Raul and
Rosette, Marco proceeded to a disco jointly owned and operated by Raul. It was already
11:00 o’clock that evening when he arrived at the joint. Upon seeing Raul with two (2) male
companions, A and B, drinking beer at one of the tables, Marco fired two (2) shots at Raul,
who was hit on his forehead with one of the bullets; the other bullet hit A, injuring him on his
stomach. As a consequence of the gunshot wound, Raul died instantaneously. Due to the
timely medical attention given to him, A survived; he was, however, hospitalized for 45 days.
Marco was prosecuted for Murder for the death of Raul and for frustrated murder in the case
of A. The informations in both cases allege the qualifying circumstances of evident
premeditation and treachery and the generic aggravating circumstance of nighttime.

Page 249 of 338
You are Marco’s lawyer. What would be your defense(s)? (1991 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The defense with respect to the death of Raul is death under exceptional circumstances (Art.
247, People vs. Abarca, 153 SCRA 735). Although the killing happened one hour after having
surprised the spouse, that would still be within the context of “immediately thereafter”.
With respect to the wounding of the stranger, the defense of lawful exercise of a right is a
justifying circumstance. Under Article 11, par. 5 could be invoked. At the time accused shot Raul, he
was not committing a felonious act and therefore could not have been criminality liable under Art. 4.
RPC.

Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Death inflicted under
exceptional circumstances

Pete, a security guard, arrived home late one night after rendering overtime.
He was shocked to see Flor, his wife, and Benjie, his best friend, completely naked
having sexual intercourse. Pete pulled out his service gun and shot and killed Benjie.
Pete was charged with murder for the death of Benjie. Pete contended that he acted
in defense of his honor and that, therefore, he should be acquitted of the crime.

The court found that Benjie died under exceptional circumstances and
exonerated Pete of the crime, but sentenced him to destierro, conformably with
Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. The court also ordered Pete to pay indemnity
to the heirs of the victim in the amount of P50,000.00.

a) Is the defense of Pete meritorious? Explain.

b) Under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, is destierro a penalty?
Explain.

c) Did the court correctly order Pete to pay indemnity despite his
exoneration under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code? Explain. (5%) (2005 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a) The defense of Pete lacks merit. He could not have acted in defense of honor,
because there was no unlawful aggression against him. At most, what Benjie did could be
regarded only as sufficient provocation to Pete. The Court correctly ruled that Benjie’s
killing was done under the exceptional circumstances provided for in Article 247 of the
Revised Penal Code.

Page 250 of 338
b) Destierro is one of the principal penalties under Article 25 of the Revised
Penal Code, but under the exceptional circumstances provided for in Article 247 of the
Code, destierro is not intended as a penalty but a means to remove the accused from the
vicinity, for his protection against possible reprisal from the family or relatives of the
other spouse or those of the paramour or mistress. (People v. Coricort 79 Phil 672 [1947]).

c) Yes, the court correctly ordered Pete to pay indemnity, because the legal
consequence of the exceptional circumstance in Article 247 of the Code is that of an
exempting circumstance where generally there is civil liability although there may be no
criminal liability.

SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

c) Pete may not be made to pay indemnity because this is part of civil liability
which arises only when there is criminal liability. He is not civilly liable, because he is not
criminally liable.

Criminal law – Crimes against person - Homicide

On July 1, 2004, Jet Matulis, a pedophile, gave P1,000.00 to Sherly, an
orphan and a prostitute and brought her to a motel. He inserted a rusty and
oversized vibrator into her vagina with such force that she bled profusely. Jet
panicked and fled. Sherly was brought to the hospital and died a few days later
because of shock caused by hemorrhage.

a) What crime or crimes did Jet Matulis commit? Explain. (2005 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a) Jet Matulis should be liable only for the crime of homicide for the death of
Sherly, assuming that she was not a minor (in the light of the following
question) since the sexual assault was committed without any of the
circumstances mentioned in of Article 266-A (1) of the Revised Penal Code as
rape. It appears that the offender and the offended party went to the hotel for
mutual sexual gratification.

Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Murder; serious physical
injuries

Mang Jose, a septuagenarian, was walking with his ten- year old grandson along
Paseo de Roxas and decided to cross at the intersection of Makati Avenue but both
were hit by a speeding CKV Honda van and were sent sprawling on the pavement, a

Page 251 of 338
meter apart. The driver, a Chinese mestizo stopped his car after hitting the two
victims but then reversed his gears and ran over Mang Jose’s prostrate body anew
and third time by advancing his car forward. The grandson suffered broken legs
only and survived but Mang Jose suffered multiple fractures and broken ribs,
causing his instant death. The driver was arrested and charged with Murder for the
death of Mang Jose and Serious Physical Injuries through Reckless Imprudence with
respect to the grandson.

Are the charges correct? Explain. (5%) (2001 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, the charges are correct.
For deliberately running over Mang Jose's prostrate body after having bumped him and his
grandson, the driver indeed committed Murder, qualified by treachery. Said driveris deliberate
intent to kill Mang Jose was demonstrated by his running over the latteris body twice, by up
the van and driving it forward, whereas the
victim was helpless and not in a position to defend himself or to retaliate.

As to the serious physical injuries sustained by Mang Jose's 10-year old grandson, as a result of
having been hit by the speeding vehicle of said driver, the same were the result of reckless
imprudence which is punishable as a quasi-offense in Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code. The
charge of Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Serious Physical Injuries is correct. The penalty next
higher in degree to what ordinarily should be imposed is called for, since the driver did not lend help
on the spot, which help he could have given to the victims.

Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Homicide;

Special penal law - Child abuse; Special Protection of Children Against
Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination (RA 7610, as amended)

On July 1, 2004, Jet Matulis, a pedophile, gave P1,000.00 to Sherly, an orphan
and a prostitute and brought her to a motel. He inserted a rusty and oversized
vibrator into her vagina with such force that she bled profusely. Jet panicked and
fled. Sherly was brought to the hospital and died a few days later because of shock
caused by hemorrhage.
If Sherly were a minor when she died, would your answer be the same?
Explain. (5%) (2005 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

If Sherly were a minor when she died, the crimes of homicide and child abuse in

Page 252 of 338
violation of Rep. Act 7610 (Special Protection of Children against abuse, exploitation,
discrimination and for other purposes), are committed by Jet Matulis, provided Sherly is
not less than 12 years old. If Sherly was less than 12 years old then, the crime committed
by Matulis is rape (through sexual assault) with Homicide, a special complex crime under
Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code.

Criminal law – Crimes against persons - Murder

Juan had a land dispute with Pedro for a number of years. As Juan was earning
down his house, he saw his brother, Rodolfo attack Pedro with a bolo from behind.
Rodolfo was about to hit Pedro a second time while the latter was prostrate on the
ground, when Carling, Pedro’s son, shouted, “I’ll kill you.” This distracted Rodolfo
who then turned ter Carling. Rodolfo and Carling fought with their bolos. While the
two were fighting, Juan shouted to his brother Rodolfo: “Kill them both, they are our
enemies.” Calling suffered a number of wounds and died on the spot, Pedro who was
in serious condition was rushed to the hospital. He died five days later for loss of
blood because the blood purchased from Manila which could have saved him,
according to the doctor, did not arrive on time, Jose, father of Juan and Rodolfo, told
his sons to hide in Manila and he gave them money for the purpose. When the police
investigators saw Jose, he told the police investigators that Juan and Rodolfo went to
Mindanao.

What crimes, if any, did (a) Rodolfo, (b) Juan and Jose commit? Explain your
answer and state whether the acts committed are accompanied by circumstances
affecting criminal liability. (1987 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Rodolfo committed murder regarding the killing of Pedro since Pedro was attacked from
behind. The killing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The mode of
attack deprived Pedro of any chance to defend himself or to retaliate. Rodolfo is also liable
for homicide regarding the killing of Calling, Pedro’s son as that is the result of a right, both
of them being aimed with bolos.

Although Pedro died five days later, since the blood purchased which would have saved him
did not arrive on time, Rodolfo is still liable for the death of Pedro as that is the direct, natural and
logical result of the wound inflicted by him.

Juan, the brother of Rodolfo, has no criminal liability. What he shouted to Rodolfo “Kill
them both, they are our enemies,” when Rodolfo and Carling were fighting, was not the
only reason why Carling was killed; and hence, he cannot be a principal by inducement.
The doctrine is to be a principal by inducement, the inducement must be the only reason
why the crime is committed. (People vs. Kiichi et. al. 61 Phil. 609).

Page 253 of 338
Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Murder; homicide
Boy Bala was a notorious gang leader who had previously killed a policeman. The Chief
of Police ordered his vice squad headed by Captain Aniceto, to arrest Boy Bala and shoud he
resist arrest, to shoot and kill him. Acting upon an informer's tip, Aniceto and two (2) of his
trusted men went to the Corinthian nightclub where they saw Boy Bala dancing with a
hostess. Without any warning, Aniceto shot Boy Bala who slumped on the dance floor. As
Aniceto aimed another shot at Boy Bala, the brother of the latter, Pedro, who was seated at a
table nearby, got hold of a table knife and stabbed Aniceto killing him instantly. The Chief of
Police filed a homicide case against Pedro for the death of Aniceto. On the other hand, Pedro
filed a complaint for murder against the Chief of Police for the death of Boy Bala alleging that
the issuance of the shoot-to-kill order was illegal and the Chief of Police was liable as a
principal by inducement. How tenable are the respective claims of the Chief of Police and
Pedro? Explain. (1989 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The charge for murder against the Chief of Police for the death of Boy Bala is not tenable.
Although, the Chief of Police is the superior on Captain Aniceto who shot Boy Bala in cold blood, he
cannot be held accountable for the act of Aniceto. His order was specific; to arrest Boy Bala and
should he resist arrest, to shoot and kill him. Aniceto did not act in compliance with this order. He
shot Boy Bala without warning, without even attempting to make an arrest. Consequently, it could
not be said that the killing of Bala by Aniceto was induced by the Chief of Police so as to make the
latter criminally liable as a co-principal by inducement. The liability for the death of Bala is individual
and not collective.
On the other hand, the charge of homicide against Pedro for the stabbing of Aniceto is likewise
not tenable.
Pedro acted in legitimate defense of relative, he being the brother of Boy Bala. All the requisites
of this justifying circumstance are present. Thus:

1. There was unlawful aggression. At the time that Pedro stabbed Aniceto, the latter had
already shot at Boy Bala and was in the act of shooting him for the second time. The aggression is
unlawful although Aniceto is a police officer and Boy Bala is notorious gangster. By shooting Boy Bala
without warning instead of attempting to arrest him first, Aniceto became an unlawful agressor.
2. There was reasonable necessity of the means employed by Pedro to prevent or repel
unlawful aggression. The use of a knife against a gun for defense is reasonable.
3. Assuming that Boy Bala had provoked that attack on his person by Aniceto because of his
having earlier killed a policeman, it does not appear that Pedro, the one making the defense had
taken any part in said provocation.

Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Murder; homicide

Candido stabbed an innocent bystander who accidentally bumped him. The

Page 254 of 338
innocent bystander died as a result of the stabbing. Candido was arrested and was
tested to be positive for the use of “shabu" at the time he committed the stabbing.

What should be the proper charge against Candido? Explain. (3%) (2005 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Candido should be charged with murder qualified by treachery because the
suddenness of the stabbing caught the victim by surprise and was totally defenseless.
Being under the influence of dangerous drugs is a qualifying aggravating circumstance in
the commission of a crime (Sec. 25, Rep Act 9165 Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of
2002); hence, the penalty for murder shall be imposed in the maximum.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Candido should be charged with homicide only because the incident which gave
rise to the stabbing- occurred accidentally. There is no conscious and deliberate adoption
of the means, method and manner of attack. However, the penalty for homicide shall be
imposed in the maximum period because Candido was under the influence of dangerous
drugs when he committed the crime, which is a qualifying circumstance under Section 25
of Rep. Act 9165.

Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Homicide; when justified; when
aggravated
Lucresia, a store owner, was robbed of her bracelet in her home. The
following day, at about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, a neighbor. 22-year old Jun-Jun,
who had an unsavory reputation, came to her store to buy bottles of beer. Lucresia
noticed her bracelet wound around the right arm of Jun-Jun. As soon as the latter
left, Lucresia went to a nearby police station and sought the help of a policeman on
duty. Pat. Willie Reyes. He went with Lucresia to the house of Jun- Jun to confront the
latter. Pat Reyes introduced himself as a policeman and tried to get hold of Jun-Jun
who resisted and ran away. Pat Reyes chased him and fired two warning shots in the
air. Jun-Jun continued to run and when he was about 7 meters away, Pat. Reyes shot
him in the right leg. Jun-Jun was hit and he fell down but he crawled towards a fence,
intending to pass through an opening underneath. When Pat. Reyes was about 5
meters away, he fired another shot at Jun-Jun hitting him at the right lower hip. Pat.
Reyes brought Jun-Jun to the hospital, but because of profuse bleeding, he
eventually died. Pat Reyes was subsequently charged with homicide. During the
trial, Pat Reyes raised the defense, by way of exoneration, that he acted in the

Page 255 of 338
fulfillment of a duty. Is the defense tenable? Explain. (3%)
a) Rico, a member of the Alpha Rho fraternity, was killed by Pocholo, a
member of the rival group, Sigma Phi Omega. Pocholo was prosecuted for homicide
before the Regional Trial Court in Binan, Laguna. During the trial, the prosecution
was able to prove that the killing was committed by means of poison in
consideration of a promise or reward and with cruelty. If you were the Judge, with
what crime will you convict Pocholo? Explain. (2%) (2000 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a) No, the defense of Pat. Reyes is not tenable. The defense of having acted in the
fulfillment of a duty requires as a condition, inter alia, that the injury or offense committed
be the unavoidable or necessary consequence of the due performance of the duty (People
us. Oanis, etaL, 74PhiL 257). It is not enough that the accused acted in fulfillment of a duty.
After Jun-Jun was shot in the right leg and was already crawling, there was no need
for Pat. Reyes to shoot him further. Clearly, Pat. Reyes acted beyond the call of duty which
brought about the cause of death of the victim.
b. Pocholo should be convicted of the crime of homicide only because the
aggravating circumstances which should qualify the crime to murder were not
alleged in the information.
The circumstances of using poison, in consideration of a promise or reward, and cruelty
which attended the killing of Rico could only be appreciated as generic aggravating circumstances
since none of them have been alleged in the Information to qualify the killing to murder. A qualifying
circumstance must be alleged in the Information and proven beyond reasonable doubt during the
trial to be appreciated as such.

Criminal law - Crimes against persons - Homicide

Eddie brought his son Randy to a local faithhealer known as "Mother Himala."
He was diagnosed by the faithhealer as being possessed by an evil spirit. Eddie
thereupon authorized the conduct of a "treatment" calculated to drive the "spirit"
from the boy's body. Unfortunately, the procedure conducted resulted in the boy's
death.

The faithhealer and three others who were part of the healing ritual were
charged with murder and convicted by the lower court. If you were the appellate
court Justice, would you sustain the conviction upon appeal? Explain your answer.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Page 256 of 338
No, because none of the circumstances qualifying the killing to murder in Art. 248
attended the crime. The faithhealer and his co-accused should only be liable for homicide,
because they are not authorized by law to practice medicine and were therefore acting
illegally although the wrongful act done was different from what they intended.

Criminal law – Crimes against persons - Death inflicted under
exceptional circumstances; serious physical injuries inflicted under
exceptional circumstances

Pedro Orsal and the wife of accused Juan Santos started having illicit relations
while the accused was in Manila reviewing for the 1983 Bar Examinations and his
wife was left behind in Davao City. In the morning of July 15, 1984, the accused went
to the bus station in Davao City to go to Cagayan de Oro City to fetch his daughter,
but after he failed to catch the first trip in the morning, and because the 2:00 o’clock
bus had engine trouble and could not leave, the accused, afer passing the residence
of his father, went home and arrive at his residence at around six o’clock in the
afternoon. Upon reaching his home, the accused found his wife Laura, and Pedro
Orsal in the act of sexual intercourse. When the wife and Pedro Orsal noticed the
accused, the wife pushed her paramour who got his revolver. The accused, who has
then peeping above the built in cabinet in their room, jumped down and ran away.
He went to the house of his PC soldier-friend, and neighbor, got his (soldier’s) M-16
rifle and immediately, it was almost 6:30 p.m. then, went back to his house. Not
finding his wife there, he went to the hangout of Pedro Orsal and found the latter
playing mahjong there. The accused fired at Pedro three times with his rifle, hit him
and two bystanders. Pedro died instantaneously of wounds in the head, trunk, and
abdomen. The two bystanders were seriously injured but survived.

a) Can Juan Santos be held guilty for homicide for the death of Pedro Orsal?
Explain. (1988 Bar Question)
b) What offense did Juan Santos commit with regard to the two bystanders?
Explain. (1988 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a) Juan Santos cannot be held guilty' of homicide for the death of Pedro Orsal. Instead,
Juan is liable for violation of Article 247 “Death inflicted under exceptional circumstances
because there was one continuous act. (People vs. Abarca).
b) With regards to the two bystanders, Juan Santos committed the crime of serious
physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. (Art. 247 Revised Penal Code;
People vs. Abarca).

Page 257 of 338
Criminal law - Crimes against persons- Exceptional circumstances

A and B are husband and wife. A is employed as a security guard at Landmark,
his shift being from 11 :00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. One night, he felt sick and cold, hence, he
decided to go home around midnight after getting permission from his duty officer.
Upon reaching the front yard of his home, he noticed that the light in the master
bedroom was on and that the bedroom window was open. Approaching the front
door, he was surprised to hear sighs and giggles inside the bedroom. He opened the
door very carefully and peeped inside where he saw his wife B having sexual
intercourse with their neighbor C. A rushed inside and grabbed C but the latter
managed to wrest himself free and jumped out of the window. A followed suit and
managed to catch C again and after a furious struggle, managed also to strangle him
to death. A then rushed back to his bedroom where his wife B was cowering under
the bed covers. Still enraged, A hit B with fist blows and rendered her unconscious.
The police arrived after being summoned by their neighbors and arrested A who
was detained, inquested and charged for the death of C and serious physical injuries
of B.

a. Is A liable for C’s death? Why? (5%) (2001 Bar Question)
b. Is A liable for B's injuries? Why? (5%) (2001 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a) Yes, A is liable for C's death but under the exceptional circumstances in Article 247
of the Revised Penal Code, where only destierro is prescribed. Article 247 governs since A
surprised his wife B in the act of having sexual intercourse with C, and the killing of C was
"immediately thereafter" as the discovery, escape, pursuit arid killing of C form one
continuous act. (U.S. vs. Vargas, 2 Phil. 194)
b) Likewise, A is liable for the serious physical injuries he inflicted on his wife B but
under the same exceptional circumstances in Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, for the
same reasons.

Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Abortion; infanticide
Ana has been a bar girl/GRO at a beer house for more than 2 years. She fell in
love with Oniok, the bartender, who impregnated her. But Ana did not inform him
about her condition and instead, went to Cebu to conceal her shame
However, her parents drove her away. So, she returned to Manila and stayed with
Oniok in his boarding house. Upon learning of her pregnancy, already in an
advanced state, Oniok tried to persuade her to undergo an abortion, but she refused.
Because of their constant and bitter quarrels, she suffered birth pangs and gave
birth prematurely to a live baby girl while Oniok was at his place of work. Upon
coming home and learning what happened, he prevailed upon Ana to conceal her
dishonor. Hence, they placed the infant in a shoe box and threw it into a nearby

Page 258 of 338
creek. However, an inquisitive neighbor saw them and with the help of others,
retrieved the infant who was already dead from drowning. The incident was
reported to the police who arrested Ana and Oniok. The 2 were charged with
parricide under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code. After trial, they were
convicted of the crime charged.
Was the conviction correct? 5% (2006 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The conviction was incorrect because:
a) Under Art. 46, Civil Code, a newborn with an intra uterine life of less than 7 months
must live for at least 24 hours before it may be considered bom and hence, before it may
acquire personality of its own;

b) The new bom, therefore was still a foetus when killed and was not yet a person.
Hence, the crime in law is abortion. It is legally a foetus who was killed, not a person/child
because legally it has no personality yet;

c) Infanticide and parricide involves a killing where the victim is already a person.

ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The conviction for parricide was correct if the infant was already three (3) days old or
more when killed because Ana and Oniok are the parents of the child. But if the child was
less than 3 days old when killed, the crime of both Ana and Oniok is infanticide and they
should be convicted for infanticide, not parricide.

Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Death caused in a tumultuous
affray

A, B and C are members of SFC Fraternity. While eating in a seaside restaurant,
they were attacked by X, Y and Z members of a rival fraternity. A rumble ensued in
which the above-named members of the two fraternities assaulted each other in
confused and tumultuous manner resulting in the death of A. As it cannot be
ascertained who actually killed A, the members of the two fraternities who took part
in the rumble were charged for death caused in a tumultuous affray. Will the charge
prosper? Explain. (4%) (2010 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the charge of death caused in a tumultuous affray will not prosper. In death
caused by tumultuous affray under Art. 251 of the Revised Penal Code, it is essential that
the persons involved did not compose groups organized for the common purpose of
assaulting and attacking each other reciprocally.

Page 259 of 338
In this case, there is no tumultuous affray since the participants in the rumble
belong to organized fraternities. The killer of A, a member of SFC Fraternity could not be
any other but member of the rival fraternity. Conspiracy is therefore present among the
attackers from the rival fraternity and thus rules out the idea of an affray. The liability of
the attackers should be collective for the crime of homicide or murder as the case may be.

Include:
a) Anti-Violence against Women and their Children Act of 2004 (R.A. No. 9262)
(i) Punishable acts
b) Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 (R.A. No. 9775)
(i) Definition of terms
(ii) Unlawful or punishable acts
c) Anti-Hazing Law (R.A. No. 8049)
(i) Hazing

Special law - Rep. Act No. 8049 (Anti-Hazing Law) – Hazing; initiation rites

A. What is hazing as defined by law? (2%) (2002 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Hazing, as defined by law, is an initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for admission
into membership In a fraternity, sorority or organization by placing the recruit, neophyte
or applicant in some embarrassing or humiliating situations such as forcing him to do
menial, silly, foolish and similar tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical
or psychological suffering or injury.

A. What does the law require before initiation rites may be performed? (3%)
(2002 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Section 2 of Rep. Act No. 8049 (Anti-Hazing Law) requires that before hazing or
initiation rites may be performed, notice to the school authorities or head of organizations
shall be given seven (7) days before the conduct of such rites. The written notice shall
indicate (a) the period of the initiation activities, not exceeding three (3) days; (b) the
names of those to be subjected to such activities, and (c) an undertaking that no physical
violence shall be employed by anybody during such initiation rites.

Page 260 of 338
(a) Definition
(b) Allowed initiation rites
(ii) Who are liable
(iii) Punishable acts
d) Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act (R.A. No. 7610, as amended)
(i) Coverage

Special law - Child abuse; Special Protection of Children Against Child
Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination (RA 7610, as amended)

On July 1, 2004, Jet Matulis, a pedophile, gave P1,000.00 to Sherly, an orphan
and a prostitute and brought her to a motel. He inserted a rusty and oversized
vibrator into her vagina with such force that she bled profusely. Jet panicked and
fled. Sherly was brought to the hospital and died a few days later because of shock
caused by hemorrhage.
If Sherly were a minor when she died, would your answer be the same?
Explain. (5%) (2005 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

If Sherly were a minor when she died, the crimes of homicide and child abuse in
violation of Rep. Act 7610 (Special Protection of Children against abuse, exploitation,
discrimination and for other purposes), are committed by Jet Matulis, provided Sherly is
not less than 12 years old. If Sherly was less than 12 years old then, the crime committed
by Matulis is rape (through sexual assault) with Homicide, a special complex crime under
Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code.

(ii) Child prostitution, punishable acts
(ii) Child trafficking, punishable acts

Special law – Special Protection of Children against Child abuse,
Exploitation and Discrimination Act – RA 7610; “Child trafficking”

Page 261 of 338
A childless couple, A and B, wanted to have a child they could call their own. C, an
unwed mother, sold her newborn baby to them. Thereafter, A and B caused their
names to be stated in the birth certificate of the child as his parents. This was done
in connivance with the doctor who assisted in the delivery of C. What are the
criminal liabilities, if any, of the couple A and B, C and the doctor? (2002 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
C, the unwed mother is criminally liable for “child trafficking”, a violation of Article IV,
Sec. 7 of Rep. Act No. 7610. The law punishes inter alia the act of buying and selling of a
child.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The couple A and B, the unwed mother C, and the doctor being all involved in the
simulation of birth of the newborn child, violate Rep. Act No. 7610. Their acts constitute
child trafficking which are penalized under Article IV of said law.

Special law – Special Protection of Children against Child abuse,
Exploitation and Discrimination Act (RA 7610 – “Child abuse,”
punishable acts
S. A, with lewd designs, took a 13-year old girl to a nipa hut in his farm and there
had sexual intercourse with her. The girl did not offer any resistance because she
was infatuated with the man, who was good looking and belonged to a rich and
prominent family in the town. What crime, if any, was committed by A? Why? (2%)
(2002 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

A committed "Child Abuse” under Rep. Act No. 7610. As defined in said law, "child abuse” includes
sexual abuse or any act which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a
child as a human being, whose age is below eighteen (18) years.

Special penal law – RA 7610 - Child abuse or exploitation, punishable acts
Sometime in December, 1992, retired Lt. Col. Agaton, celebrating the first year
of his compulsory retirement from the Armed Forces of the Philippines, had in his
company a fourteen (14) year-old girl whose parents were killed by the Mt. Pinatubo
eruption and being totally orphaned has been living or fending for herself in the
streets in Manila. They were alone in one room in a beach resort and stayed there for
two (2) nights. No sexual intercourse took place between them. Before they parted,

Page 262 of 338
retired Lt. Col. Agaton gave the girl PI,000.00 for her services. She gladly accepted it.
What crime may the retired colonel be charged with, if any? Discuss. (1993 Bar Question)
What possible defenses can he interpose? Explain. (1993 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The retired colonel may be charged with child abuse, in violation of Rep. Act 7610, a law
providing special protection against child abuse, exploitation, and discrimination.
One of the acts of child abuse or exploitation penalized under Article VI of RA 7610 is that of
keeping company of a minor who is ten (10) years or more younger than the offender in a hotel,
motel, beer house, disco joint, pension house, cabaret, sauna or massage parlor, beach resort, and
similar places. Considering that Lt Col. Agaton is a retiree pursuant to a compulsory retirement, while
the child he kept company within a private room in the beach resort, is only 14 years old, there must
be an age difference of more than 10 years between them. This fact plus the circumstance that Lt. Col.
Agaton stayed with the child, a girl, in one room at such beach resort for two nights, and thereafter he
gave her PI,000.00 “for her services", constitutes the very evil punished, among other acts, in said law.
The possible defenses Lt. Col. Agaton may interpose are that the child is related to him by
affinity, or by consanguinity within the fourth degree, or by a bond recognized in law, or local
customs and traditions, or that he was only acting in pursuance of a moral, social, or legal duty (Sec.
10(b), Art. VI. RA 7610).

Special law –Republic Act No. 7610 – Child abuse; maltreatment,
punishable acts

A. Mrs. MNA was charged of child abuse. It appears from the evidence that she
failed to give immediately the required medical attention to her adopted child, BPO,
when he was accidentally bumped by her car, resulting in his head injuries and
impaired vision that could lead to night blindness. The accused, according to the
social worker on the case, used to whip him when he failed to come home on time
from school Also, to punish him for carelessness in washing dishes, she sometimes
sent him to bed without supper.

She moved to quash the charge on the ground that there is no evidence she
maltreated her adopted child habitually. She added that the accident was caused by
her driver's negligence. She did punish her ward for naughtiness or carelessness, but
only mildly.

Is her motion meritorious? Reason briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

A. No, the motion to quash is not meritorious. It is not necessary that movant's

Page 263 of 338
maltreatment of a child be “habitual" to constitute child abuse. The wrongful acts penalized
as "Child Abuse" under Rep. Act No. 7610 refers to the maltreatment of the child, "whether
habitual or not": this is expressly stated in Sec. 2(b) of the said Law.

Mrs. MNA should be liable for child abuse.

e) Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (R.A. No. 9344), as further amended
by the Act Strengthening the Juvenile Justice System in the Philippines (R.A.
No. 10630). Read in relation with the Child and Youth Welfare Code (P.D. 603,
as amended)
(i) Punishable acts
f) Human Security Act of 2007 (R.A. No. 9372)
(i) Punishable acts of terrorism
(ii) Who are liable
Crimes Against Personal Liberty and Security (Articles 267-292)

Criminal law – Crimes against personal liberty and security – Grave
threats

a) Jorge is the owner of 10 hectares of land in the foothills which he planted to
lanzones. On his last visit there he was shocked to discover that his land had been
taken over by a group of 15 families whose members had forcibly driven away his
caretaker, had appropriated the fruits for themselves, and were now threatening to
kill him should he try to eject them.

What crime should Jorge charge these 15 families? Explain. (1988 Bar Question)

(b) Five laborers were hired by Manuel Diong to harvest coconuts from a
plantation which he told them belonged to him. Unknown to them, the ownership of
the land was in dispute, and the registered owner subsequently filed a case of
qualified theft against them.

How would you defend them? Explain briefly. (1988 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a) Jorge can charge the 15 families of 2 separate crimes namely:
1) Violation of Article 282 which provides that “Grave threats.— Any person who

Page 264 of 338
shall threaten another with the infliction upon the person, honor or property of the
latter or of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime shall suffer...” and
2) Violation of Article 312 which provides that: “Occupation of real property or
usurpation of real rights in property.— Any person who, by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons, shall take possession of any real property or shall usurp any real
rights in property belonging to another, in addition to the penalty incurred for violence
executed by him, shall be punished by a fine from P50.00...
b) I would defend them by citing U.S. vs. Ah Chong (15 Phil. 488) on mistake of facts
and charge the owner with violation of Article 282 on grave threats. In U.S. vs. Ah Chong,
the accused was exempted frdm criminal liability because he performed an act which
would be lawful had it been true as he believed that “Grave threats.— Any person who
shall threaten another with the infliction upon the person, honor or property of the latter
or of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime, shall suffer.. ”

Criminal law –Crimes against personal liberty and security – Grave
coercion; elements
“A”, by using force, grabbed the bicycle of “B” and ran away. The following day,
“B” asked “C” to get back his bicycle from “A” and promised to pay him P100 if
successful. “C” agreed “C” went to “A’s” house but it was locked from inside. Since “A”
refused to let “C” in, “C” kicked the door open, confronted “A” and with a dagger in
hand, told “A” to give “B’s” bicycle. Intimidated, “A” gave the bicycle to “C” who, in
turn, gave it to “B” “B” paid “C” P100 for his efforts. What crime or crimes did “A”, “B”
and “C” commit, if any?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

A, by grabbing the bicycle of B and running away with it committed the crime of
THEFT, there being no showing that there was violence against or intimidation of B to
accomplish the snatching of the bicycle away from him. In a case where the accused
snatched from behind the bag the offended party was then carrying, it was held that there
being no violence against the offended party immediately before, after or at the time the
bag was snatched from her, the accused was not liable for robbery, but only for theft
(People vs. Villar, CA-GR No. 14289, July 29, 1955: People vs. Jose, CA 62 O.G. 4604). In this
case, all the elements of theft are present: intent to gain, taking of personal property of
another without the latter’s consent, and absence of violence against or intimidation of
persons or force upon things. There is intent to gain which is presumed from the unlawful
taking of the bicycle.
B is not liable for any crime. Although he promised to pay C P100 if the latter would
get back his bicycle from A, he did not induce C to commit any crime. He had no
participation in any plan to take back the bicycle by unlawful means. C’s act of kicking open
“As” door and intimidating “A” to return the bicycle is C’s act alone for which he will

Page 265 of 338
individually be liable. There is even no showing that B approved of C’s act. While A paid C
the P100.00 he promised upon the return of his bicycle, it does not appear that he knew
the manner and method by which C recovered the bicycle from A.
C committed grave coercion, attended by the aggravating circumstance of dwelling
when he forced his way into A’s house and recovered the bicycle from A at dagger-point.
This is so because he compelled A by means of intimidation to do something against his
will, whether it be right or wrong, namely to give the bicycle to him. Since his purpose is to
return the bicycle to its rightful owner, there is no intent to gain that would make the crime
robbery. The elements of the crime of grave coercion are:
1. That a person prevented another from doing something not prohibited by law, or
that he compelled him to do something against his will be it right or wrong;
2. That the prevention or compulsion be effected by violence, either by material force
or such a display of force as would produce intimidation and control the will of the
offended paty; and
3. That the offender did not act with authority of law or in the exercise of any lawful
right.

Criminal law – Crimes against personal liberty and security – Grave coercion

Isagani lost his gold necklace bearing his initials. He saw Roy wearing the said
necklace. Isagani asked Roy to return to him the necklace as it belongs to him, but
Roy refused. Isagani then drew his gun and told Roy, “If you will not give back the
necklace to me, I will kill you!" Out of fear for his life and against his will, Roy gave
the necklace to Isagani.
What offense did Isagani commit? [5%] (1998 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Isagani committed the crime of grave coercion (Art. 286, RPC) for compelling Roy, by
means of serious threats or intimidation, to do something against the latter's will, whether
it be right or wrong. Serious threats or intimidation approximating violence constitute
grave coercion, not grave threats. Such is the nature of the threat in this case because it
was committed with a gun, is a deadly weapon.
The crime is not robbery because intent to gain, which is an essential element of
robbery, is absent since the necklace belongs to Isagani.

Criminal law – Criminal law – Crimes against personal liberty and
security - Unjust vexation; in comparison with acts of lasciviousness

Page 266 of 338
When is embracing, kissing and touching a girl’s breast considered only unjust vexation
instead of acts of lasciviousness? 1994 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The acts of embracing, kissing of a woman arising either out of passion or other motive and the
touching of her breast as a mere incident of the embrace without lewd design constitutes merely
unjust vexation (People vs. Ignacio. CAr-G.RNo. 5119-R. September 30, 1950). However, where the
kissing, embracing and the touching of the breast of a woman are done with lewd design, the same
constitute acts of lasciviousness (People vs. Perdval G1lo, 10 SCRA 753).

Criminal law – Crimes against personal liberty and security - Unjust
vexation; Grave coercion

Pinky was a lessee of a market stall owned by Giovanni. When Pinky refused
to pay her rental, Giovanni nailed some wooden barricades on one of the sides of the
market stall and posted this warning: "We have closed this portion of the door. Do
not open it or else something may happen to you."

What crime/ s did Giovanni commit, if any? Explain your answer? (2007 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The crime committed by Giovanni is light coercion under Art. 287 of the Rev. Penal
Code, commonly referred to as unjust vexation. Although what was done by Giovanni could
reasonably be assumed as a retaliation to the lessee's refusal to pay rent, absent any clear
violence in the premises, such would not bring about a case of grave coercion. The situation
should be interpreted liberally in favor of the offender. The rule of pro reo precludes any
finding for grave coercion, because it would be against the offender.

The written warning which states "or else something may happen to you" is so
equivocal that it may not be interpreted as felonious. A crime is never presumed; it is the
contrary that is presumed.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

The crime committed by Giovanni is unjust vexation because barricading one of the
sides of the market stall was an act of violence deliberately done. It is not only an act of
unjust vexation or light coercion but of grave coercion.

Criminal law – Crimes against personal liberty and security – Unjust
vexation

Page 267 of 338
Eduardo Quintos, a widower for the past 10 years, felt that his retirement at the
age of 70 gave him the opportunity to engage in his favorite pastime - voyeurism. If
not using his high-powered binoculars to peep at his neighbor’s homes and domestic
activities, his second choice was to follow sweet young girls. One day, he trailed a
teenage girl up to the LRT station at EDSA-Buendia.

While ascending the stairs, he stayed one step behind her and in a moment of
bravado, placed his hand on her left hip and gently massaged it. She screamed and
shouted for help. Eduardo was arrested and charged with acts of lasciviousness. Is
the designation of the crime correct? 5% (2006 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the designation of the crime charged is not correct because the overt act
committed by Eduardo still falls short of the crime of acts of lasciviousness. The nature of
the act done does not manifest sexual desire. It is more appropriate to consider such overt
act as mere annoyance or vexation, constituting a crime of light coercion, commonly
referred to as unjust vexation. The Revised Penal Code favors a milder criminal
responsibility.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Considering Eduardo’s voyeurism and propensity for lewdness, he may be charged for
acts of lasciviousness as his criminal intent in doing the act is characterized by lewd desire.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. The designation of the crime of acts of lasciviousness is not correct. The crime
committed is Unjust Vexation. Unjust vexation includes any human conduct which,
although not productive of some physical or material harm, unjustly annoys, irritate, vex,
torment or distress the mind of an innocent person. Eduardo has indeed committed the
crime of unjust vexation when he placed his hand on the hip of a teenage girl and gently
massaged it.

Criminal law – Crimes against personal liberty and security – Coercion; illegal
detention

(a) Distinguish coercion from illegal detention. (3%) (1999 Bar Question)

(b) Forcibly brought to the police headquarters, a person was tortured and
maltreated by agents of the law in order to compel him to confess a crime imputed to him.
The agents failed, however, to draw from him a confession which was their intention to
obtain through the employment of such means.

What crime was committed by the agents of the law? Explain your answer. (3%)

Page 268 of 338
(1999 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) Coercion may be distinguished from illegal detention as follows: in coercion, the basis
of criminal liability is the employment of violence or serious intimidation approximating violence,
without authority of law, to prevent a person from doing something not prohibited by law or to
compel him to do something against his will, whether it be right or wrong; while in illegal detention,
the basis of liability is the actual restraint or locking up of a person, thereby depriving him of his
liberty without authority of law. If there was no intent to lock up or detain the offended party
unlawfully, the crime of illegal detention is not committed.

(b) Evidently, the person tortured and maltreated by the agents of the law is a
suspect and may have been detained by them. If so and he had already been booked and
put in jail, the crime is maltreatment of prisoner and the fact that the suspect was subjected
to torture to extort a confession would bring about a higher penalty, in addition to the
offender's liability for the physical injuries inflicted.

But if the suspect was forcibly brought to the police headquarters to make him admit
the crime and tortured/ maltreated to make him confess to such crime, but later released
because the agents failed to draw such confession, the crime is grave coercion because of
the violence employed to compel such confession without the offended party being
confined in jail. (US vs. Cusi, 10 Phil 143)

It is noted that the offended party was merely “brought” to the police headquarters
and is thus not a detention prisoner. Had he been validly arrested, the crime committed
would be maltreatment of prisoners.

Criminal law – Crimes against personal liberty and security - kidnapping
and serious illegal detention

A and B, conspiring with each other, kidnapped C and detained him. The duo
then called up C's wife informing her that they had her husband and would release
him only if she paid a ransom in the amount of P10,000,000.00, and that, if she were
to fail, they would kill him. The next day, C, who had just recovered from an illness
had a relapse. Fearing he might die if not treated at once by a doctor, A and B
released C during the early morning of the third day of detention.
Charged with kidnapping and serious illegal detention provided in Article 267,
RPC, A and B filed a petition for bail. They contended that since they had voluntarily
released C within three days from commencement of the detention, without having
been paid any amount of the ransom demanded and before the institution of
criminal proceedings against them, the crime committed was only slight illegal

Page 269 of 338
detention prescribed in Article 268, RPC.
After hearing, the trial court found the evidence of guilt to be strong and
therefore denied the petition for bail.
On appeal, the only issue was: Was the crime committed kidnapping and
serious detention or slight illegal detention? (1997 Bar Question)

Decide.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The crime committed by A and B is kidnapping and serious illegal detention because
they made a demand for ransom and threatened to kill C if the latter's wife did not pay the
same. Without the demand for ransom, the crime could have been slight illegal detention
only.
The contention of A and B that they had voluntary released C within three days from
the commencement of the detention is immaterial as they are charged with a crime where
the penalty prescribed is death (Asis to vs. San Diego, 10 SCRA 673).
They were properly denied bail because the trial court found that the evidence of
guilt in the information for kidnapping and serious illegal detention is strong.

Criminal law – Crimes against personal liberty and security - Kidnapping or
serious illegal detention

A charged B with the crime of rape. While the case was pending in court, B, together with
his mother and brother, overpowered A while riding a tricycle, dragged her inside a
carinderia owned by them and detained her for two (2) days. They demanded that she sign
an affidavit of desistance and reimburse B the sum of P5,000.00 which he paid to his lawyer
in the case. She was released only after she signed the affidavit asking for the dismissal of the
case and delivered to B P1,000.00. She promised to deliver the balance of P4.000.00 thirty
(30) days later. What crime or crimes was/were committed by B, his mother, and brother?
(1991 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

This is kidnapping with Ransom which is kidnapping or illegal detention committed by a
private person for the purpose of extorting ransom. Since the victim is a woman, it is serious.

Criminal law - Crimes against personal liberty and security - Kidnapping
and serious illegal detention

Page 270 of 338
B. DAN, a private individual, kidnapped CHU, a minor. On the second day,
DAN released CHU even before any criminal information was filed against him. At the
trial of his case, DAN raised the defense that he did not incur any criminal liability
since he released the child before the lapse of the 3-day period and before criminal
proceedings for kidnapping were instituted.

Will DAN’S defense prosper? Reason briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

B. No. DAN's defense will not prosper. Voluntary release by the offender of the
offended party in kidnapping is not absolutory. Besides, such release is irrelevant and
immaterial in this case because the victim being a minor, the crime committed is
kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Art. 267, Revised Penal Code, to which such
circumstance does not apply. The circumstance may be appreciated only in the crime of
Slight Illegal Detention in Art. 268 Asistio v. San Diego 10 SCRA 673 [1964D.

Criminal law – Crimes against personal liberty and security –
Kidnapping for ransom; serious illegal detention

Jaime, Andy and Jimmy, laborers in the noodles in the noodles factory of Luke
Tan, agreed to kill him due to his arrogance and miserliness. One afternoon, they
seized him and loaded him in a taxi driven by Mario. They told Mario they will only
teach Luke a lesson in Christian humility. Mario drove them to-a fishpond in Navotas
where Luke was entrusted to Emil and Louie, the fishpond caretakers, asking them
to hide Luke in their shack because he was running from the NBI. The trio then left
in Mario’s car for Manila where they called up Luke’s family and threatened them to
kill Luke unless they give a ransom within 24 hours. Unknown to them, because of a
leak, the kidnapping was announced over the radio and TV. Emil and Louie heard
the broadcast and panicked, especially when the announcer stated that there is a
shoot-to-kill order for the kidnappers. Emil and Louie took Luke to the seashore of
Dagat-dagatan where they smashed his head with a shovel and buried him in the
sand. However, they were seen by a barangay kagawad who arrested them and
brought them to the police station. Upon interrogation they confessed and pointed
to Jaime, Andy, Jimmy and Mario as those responsible for the kidnapping. Later, the
4 were arrested and charged.
What crime or crimes did the 6 suspects commit? 5% (2006 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The six (6) suspects committed the following crimes:
Jaime, Andy and Jimmy committed the crime of kidnapping for ransom having seized

Page 271 of 338
Luke and causing his detention by Emil and Louie in the latter’s place. Although the
agreement among Jaime, Andy and Jimmy was to kill Luke, the agreement appears to have
been abandoned when they left Luke to Emil and Louie to be kept and detained by the
latter, while they called up Luke’s family and demanded ransom.
Mario, the taxi driver, only cooperated as an accomplice by taking Luke to the
fishpond after having learned of the unlawful purpose disclosed to him by Jaime, Andy and
Jimmy. There was no indication, however, that Mario knew of the demand for ransom.
Hence, he may only be held liable as an accomplice to the crime of slight illegal detention
under Art. 268 of the Code.

Emil and Louie should be liable for serious illegal detention with homicide (Art. 267
last par., RPC) since the detention was attended by a killing. Their crime would have been
slight illegal detention only under Art. 268 of the Code were it not for the killing of the
victim.

Criminal law – Crimes against personal liberty and security – Grave
threats

Roger, the leader of a crime syndicate in Malate, Manila, demanded the
payment by Antonio, the owner of a motel in that area, of P10,000 a month as
'protection money". With the monthly payments, Roger assured, the syndicate would
provide protection to Antonio, his business, and his employees. Should Antonio
refuse, Roger warned, the motel owner would either be killed or his establishment
destroyed. Antonio refused to pay the protection money. Days later, at around 3:00
in the morning, Mauro, a member of the criminal syndicate, arrived at Antonio's
home and hurled a grenade into an open window of the bedroom where Antonio, his
wife and their three year-old daughter were sleeping. All three of them were killed
instantly when the grenade exploded.

State, with reasons, the crime or crimes that had been committed as well as
the aggravating circumstances, if any, attendant thereto. (7%) (2008 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

By demanding "protection money" under threat and intimidation that the
businessman (Antonio) would be killed or his establishment destroyed if he would refuse
to pay the protection money, the crime of grave threats is committed by Roger, the leader
of the crime syndicate.

Criminal law – Crimes against personal liberty and security – Unjust vexation

Page 272 of 338
At the Maligaya Disco Club, Leoncio and Evelyn were intimately dancing a very
seductive dance number. While gyrating with their bodies, Leoncio dipped his
private parts in Evelyn's buttocks. Incensed, Evelyn protested, but Leoncio continued
and tightly embraced her.

[a] What crime or crimes, if any, did Leoncio commit? Explain. (3%) (2009 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Leoncio committed the crime of unjust vexation only because the act was done in
the course of dancing. The act of dipping his private parts in Evelyn's buttocks during a
very seductive dance, although offensive to Evelyn, may be viewed as part of a dirty
dancing. Lewd intent cannot simply be presumed from the act of dirty dancing. The fact
that the act was perpetrated in a public place and with an audience, negates lewd designs
or lascivious intent, which is essential in the crime of acts of lasciviousness.

Criminal law - Crimes against personal liberty and security – Serious
illegal detention; slight illegal detention; grave coercion

Virgilio, armed with a gun, stopped a van along a major thoroughfare in
Manila, pointed the gun at the driver and shouted: "Tigil! Kidnap ito!"

Terrified, the driver, Juanita, stopped the van and allowed Virgilio to board.
Inside the van were Jeremias, a 6-year-old child, son of a multi-millionaire, and
Daday, the child's nanny. Virgilio told Juanita to drive to a deserted place, and there,
ordered the driver to alight. Before Juanita was allowed to go, Virgilio instructed him
to tell Jeremias' parents that unless they give a ransom of P10-million within two (2)
days, Jeremias would be beheaded. Daday was told to remain in the van and take
care of Jeremias until the ransom is paid. Virgilio then drove the van to his safehouse
.

What crime or crimes, if any, did Virgilio commit? Explain. (5%) (2009 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The crime committed against Jeremias, the 6 year-old child, is Kidnapping and
Serious Illegal Detention under Art 267 (4), RPC. The evident criminal intent of the
offender, Virgilio, is to lock up the child to demand ransom. Whether or not the ransom was
eventually obtained will not affect the crime committed because the demand for ransom is
not an element of the crime; it only qualifies the penalty to death but the imposition of this
penalty is now prohibited by Rep. Act. No. 9346.

Page 273 of 338
As to Daday, the nanny of the child who was told to remain in the van and take care
of the child until the ransom is paid, the crime committed is Serious Illegal Detention
because the offended party deprived of liberty is a female (Art. 267, par. 4, RPC).

As to Juanito, the driver of the van who was seriously intimidated with a gun
pointed at him and directed to stop the van and allow the gun-man to board the same, and
thereafter to drive to a deserted place, the crime committed by Virgilio is Grave Coercion
(Art. 286, RPC) and Slight Illegal Detention (Art. 268, RPC) for holding the driver before he
was allowed to go.

Criminal law – Crimes against personal liberty and security –
Exploitation of child labor; services rendered under compulsion in
payment of debt

Aling Maria received an urgent telephone call from Junior, her eldest son,
asking for P2,000.00 to complete his semestral tuition fees preparatory to his final
exams in Commerce. Distressed and disturbed, she borrowed money from her
compadre Mang Juan with the assurance to pay him within 2 months. Two months
lapsed but Aling Maria failed to settle her obligation. Mang Juan told Aling Maria that
she does not have to pay the loan if she will allow her youngest 10-year old daughter
Annie to work as a housemaid in his house for 2 months at PI,000.00 a month.
Despite Aling Maria’s objection, Mang Juan insisted and brought Annie to his house
to work as a maid.

1. Was a crime committed by Mang Juan when he brought Annie to his house as
maid lor the purpose of repaying her mother's loan? 2.5% (2006 Bar
Question)

2. If Aling Maria herself was made to work as a housemaid in Mang Juan’s
household to pay her loan, did he commit a crime? 2.5% (2006 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1. Yes, Mang Juan violated of Rep. Act No. 7610 on child abuse and exploitation, as
amended by Rep. Act 7658 prohibiting employment of children below 15 years of
age, in relation to the crime of Exploitation of Child Labor under Art. 273, Revised
Penal Code. Annie is only 10 years old and under the pretext of reimbursing himself
of a debt owed by Annie’s mother, Mang Juan took Annie to his house to work as a
maid despite her mother's objection. Annie could not have given consent to the
exploitation since she was only ten (10) year’s old and thus could not give any valid
consent.
2. If it was against her will that Aling Maria was made to work as a housemaid in Mang
Juan’s household to pay her debt to him, the latter would be committing a crime

Page 274 of 338
under Art. 274 of the Revised Penal Code, which punishes any person who shall
compel a debtor to work for him as a household servant against her will just to
enforce payment of a debt.

Criminal law – Crimes against personal liberty and security –
Exploitation of child labor

TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the
statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences. (5%)
(2009 Bar Question)

[b] The creditor who resorts to forced labor of a child under the pretext of
reimbursing himself for the debt incurred by the child's father commits the crime of
slavery.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

False. The proper offense is exploitation of child labor (Art. 273, RPC). Exploitation
of child labor is committed by a person, who under the pretext of reimbursing himself of a
debt incurred by an ascendant, guardian or person entrusted with the custody of a minor,
shall against the minor's will, retain him in his services.

Criminal law – Crimes against personal liberty and security – Light
coercions
A widower of ten years, septuagenarian Canuto felt that he had license to
engage in voyeurism. If not peeping into his neighbors’ rooms through his powerful
single-cylinder telescope, he would trail young, shapely damsels along the hallways
of shopping malls. While going up the escalator, he stayed a step behind a mini-
skirted one, and in a moment of excitement, put his hand on her left hip and
massaged it. The damsel screamed and hollered for help. Canuto was apprehended
and brought up on inquest. What charge/s if any, may he be held responsible for?
Explain (5%). (2010 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Canuto may be held liable only for the milder crime of “unjust vexation” which is a
form of light coercion under Art 287 of the Revised Penal Code, instead of the crime of acts
of lasciviousness although the offender is known for his voyeurism.
Our Revised Penal Code inclines towards milder criminal responsibility, consistent
with the presumption of innocence under our fundamental law and the rule of pro reo
permeating our system of applying penal laws. Holding the hip of a person is not per se
lascivious but undoubtedly annoys, irritates and vexed the young offended party. The

Page 275 of 338
attitude to prosecute the offender for the milder crime of unjust vexation may be proper
considering his age and civil status.

Include:
a) Anti-Wire Tapping Act (R.A. No. 4200)
(i) Punishable acts
(ii) Exceptions

Special penal law – (RA No. 4200) – Exception to punishable acts
C told his lawyer, Atty. T, to settle the criminal case he filed against L, and so Atty. T
called up through telephone L, and informed him that C is willing to have the case dismissed
provided that L pays P8,000.00 and The following day when Atty. T called up L, the
latter requested his lawyer Atty. X, who was in his (L’s) office at that time, to secretly
listen to the telephone conversation through a telephone extension.
When the P8.000.00 agreed upon on the telephone was delivered to Atty. T at
the appointed place and time, he (Atty. T) was arrested by the police for
Robbery/Extortion on complaint of L who was accompanied by his lawyer, Atty. X.
Atty. X executed an affidavit stating that he heard Atty. T demanding P8,000.00 for
the withdrawal of the criminal complaint through a telephone extension. On the
basis of this affidavit. Atty. T filed a criminal complaint against Atty. X and L for
violation of sec. 1 of RA No. 4200, otherwise known as the Anti-Wire Tapping Act,
which says:
“It shall be unlawful for any person not being authorized by all the parties to
any private conversation or spoken word to tap any wire or cable or by using any
other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept or record such
communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as dictaphone or
dictograph or detectaphone, walkie talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise
described."
If you were the Judge, would you convict or acquit his lawyer, Atty. X? Support your
decision with reasons. .(1993 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, because it is a telephone extension and those enumerated by law means an
extension with permanent recording of which a telephone extension is not. (Gaanan vs. IAC,
145 SCRA 112)

b) Human Security Act of 2007 (R.A. No. 9372)

Page 276 of 338
(i) Surveillance of suspects and interception and recording of
communications
(ii) Restriction on travel
(iii) Examination of bank deposits and documents
(a) Judicial Authorization
(b) Application
(iv) Unauthorized revelation of classified materials
c) Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 (R.A. No. 9208)
(i) Punishable acts

Crimes against Property (Articles 293-332)

Criminal law – Crimes against property - Qualified Theft of Large Cattle; Estafa
Special law - Anti-Fencing Law
At the height of the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo at around midnight, Aniceto joined some
neighbors in evacuating his family, a few possessions and two horses to higher ground.
Miguel, taking advantage of the darkness and the confusion, got one of the horses and asked
his friend Doro to accompany him to Angeles City where he sold the same to an acquaintance
Peping. Searching for his horse, Aniceto found it, with identifying brand intact, in the
possession of Peping who refused to surrender the same saying that he had paid good money
for it. Whereupon, Aniceto reported the matter to the police who promised to accompany
him to the Prosecutor’s office.
a. May Miguel and Doro be charged criminally for any offense? If you were the
counsel for both, what defense could you possibly set up for them? (1992 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a. Miguel should be charged of Qualified Theft of Large Cattle, a horse being classified as such
under Art. 310, RPC.
Doro, on the other hand, should be charged as accessory if he is aware that the horse was
stolen as he assisted the principal, Miguel, in profiting from the crime.

If I were the defense counsel, I will put up the defense of consent of the owner; hence, there is only
civil liability.

b. Suppose, before the eruption, Miguel had borrowed the horse for a couple of days

Page 277 of 338
from. Aniceto. When the eruption occurred and after evacuating his family,
Aniceto asked Miguel to return the horse to him. Miguel answered that the horse
had run away and he could not locate it. Aniceto. however, found the beast in the
possession of Peping who told him that it was sold to him (Peping) by Miguel.
What criminal offense has Miguel committed, if any? (1992 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

b. Miguel having borrowed the horse, he has obligation to return the same. His
failure to return the same upon demand will make him criminally liable for Estafa under
Art. 315. par. 1(b). RPC.
c. May Peping be indicted under the Anti-Fencing Law? Explain. (1992 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

c. Peping should be held liable for violation of the Anti- Fencing Law. P.D. No. 1612. He
brought the horse which he should have known to have been derived from robbery
or theft. The horse was duly branded; this should have forwarned Peping. Besides,
he should have demanded a certificate of ownership from Miguel.

Criminal law – Crimes against property – Robbery
Posing as a detective in the Manila Police and flashing a police badge, Jose,
jobless and without any known address and occupation, told Manding and Liling,
who were then sitting in a dark corner in the Luneta Park,‘that he was placing them
under arrest for vagrancy and taking them to the police station for booking. Manding
and Liling protested, saying that they were merely enjoying the evening alone, as
they were sweethearts and. both gainfully employed. Jose told them that they can
give their explanations at the Police Station. Not wanting to be bothered and
embarrassed, Manding offered Jose P200.00 to let them go. Jose agreed, got the
money, and left.Explain whether under the facts given Jose committed any crime.
(1987 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Jose is liable for robbery. By posing as a detective with a police badge, telling
Manding and Liling, who were sitting in a dark comer in Luneta Park that they would be
placed under arrest for vagrancy and brought to the police station for booking and by not
listening to the explanation of Manding and Liling that they were sweethearts and gainfully
employed which Jose said they could explain in the Police Station, created fear in the mind
of the couple or a sense of mental distress in view of the risk or evil or embarrassment that
is impending. This fear continued in the mind of the offended parties when they offered the
P200 to Jose which he accepted and then received the money.

Page 278 of 338
Criminal law – Crimes against property – Robbery
A, B, C D, and E were members of a gang operating in Mindanao with Gorio as
over-all leader, Gorio assigned A B, and C to get money from Pedro, a businessman
from Agusan. As instructed, A, B. and C, armed with guns, went to see Pedro and
demanded PI00,000.00. When Pedro refused, A pointed his gun at him while B hit
him with the butt of his gun. Pedro gave the amount demanded. After the three (3)
left, Pedro went to the PC Command to tel! them what happened. On the way, he met
Orlando, also a businessman. Orlando told him that D and E, week earlier, wrote him
a letter asking P50.000.00 and threatening to kill his son and wife should he fail to
give the amount. Afraid that the two would make good their threat, he gave the
money when D
called him that day. Orlando was also on his way to the PC to report what happened.

(a) What crime did A, B, and C commit? (1987 Bar Question)

(b) What crime did D and E commit? (1987 Bar Question)

If the crimes committed by A B and C on one hand and D and E on the other hand
are different. Explain why they are different when the purpose is the same, i.e. to
extort money.

(c) Did Gorio commit any crime? (1987 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a) A, B, and C committed robbery. They were able to make Pedro give them the
PI00,000 that they demanded when A pointed his gun at Pedro because he refused at first
to accede to their demand and B hit him with the butt of his gun. They employed violence
and intimidation in the taking of the money with intent to gain.

b) D and E committed Grave Threats. The reason is the intimidation employed refers
to the killings of the wife and son of Orlando should he failed to give the amount of P50,000
demanded in the latter which D and E sent him. The distinction between robbery and grave
threats when the purpose is the same, that is, to extort money, is that in robbery, the
intimidation is actual and immediate whereas on grave threats, the intimidation is future
and conditional.

c) Gorio, being the over-all leader of the group, is a principal by inducement in the
robbery committed against Pedro. He has no liability regarding the grave threats
committed by D and E against Orlando because the facts of the problem do not specifically
mention his intervention in the activities of D and E.

Criminal law – Crimes against property – Robbery
After SP02 Cirio Cellado heard the story of the two girls, he took aside Mrs. Cortes

Page 279 of 338
and made this proposition: “Let me tell you what I plan to do. Since the D.O.M. is
probably well-known in his community, he will not want his reputation tarnished. I'll
tell him that you have reported him to us and you are all set to file criminal charges
against him at the Prosecutor's Office. But if he will give us P50,300.00, you may be
persuaded not to file the suit anymore. Actually, after he gives that amount, which he
surely will, I shall visit him regularly for more. We shall then divide equally the
money we shall get from him.
Suppose Cellado proceeds to carry out his plan and is caught by his Chief with
incontrovertible evidence, what action or actions may be brought by his superiors to
penalize him and to recover whatever sums of money he may have received from his
victim? (1992 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Cellado should be charged of robbery because he took personal property from,
Donido, with intent to gain, with intimidation on the person of the latter. The money passed
into the hands of Cellado involuntarily because of fear (intimidation) on the part of the
offended party, Donido.

Criminal law – Crimes against property – When crime is considered as
squatting and not usurpation of real property
“A” and “B”, both farmers, entered the land owned by “X” and planted palay
thereon. When “X” came to know about it, he confronted "A” and “B” and inquired
why the latter occupied his land and planted palay thereon. “A”, with a bolo in hand,
replied that the land belongs to the family of “S”, and not to "X” and at the same time
said, “If you touch this land and my palay, blood will flow on this ground.” Because of
said remark, “X” went to the Chief of Police and complained. The Chief of Police filed
a complex crime of Usurpation of Real Property with Grave Threats. What crime or
crimes were committed? (1989 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The crime committed by A and B is squatting under PD 772 and not usurpation of Real
Property because in the latter crime, there must be violence against or intimidation of
persons employed in taking possession of any real property or in usurping any real rights
in property belonging to another (Art. 312, RPC). In this case, it appears that A and B
entered X’s land without the owner’s consent or against his will but without any violence
against or intimidation of persons.
The crime of squatting is committed by any person who, with the use of force,
intimidation or threat, or taking advantage of the absence or tolerance of the landowner,
succeeds in occupying or possessing the property of the latter against his will for
residential, commercial or any other purposes.
The threat uttered by A not having been used IN THE TAKING OF POSSESSION of the

Page 280 of 338
land, it is not absorbed in the crime of SQUATTING. When A threatened X that blood will
flow if X touches the land and his palay, he committed the crime of grave threats by
threatening another with the infliction of a wrong amounting to a crime. Only A is crimin-
ally liable for the crime of grave threats.

Criminal law – Crimes against property – Usurpation of real right in
property
Teresita is the owner of a two-hectare land in Bulacan which she planted to rice
and corn. Upon her arrival from a three-month vacation in the United States, she
was surprised to discover that her land had been taken over by Manuel and Teofilo
who forcibly evicted her tenant-caretaker Juliana, after threatening to kill the latter
if she would resist their taking of the land. Thereafter, Manuel and Teofilo plowed,
cultivated and appropriated the harvest for themselves to the exclusion of Teresita.

1) What crime or crimes did Manuel and Teofilo commit? Explain. (1996 Bar
Question)

2) Suppose Manuel and Teofilo killed Juliana when the latter refused to surrender
possession of the land, what crime or crimes did the two commit? Explain. (1996 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1) Manuel and Teofilo committed the crime of usurpation of real rights under Art. 312 of the
Revised Penal Code for employing violence against or intimidation of persons. The threats to kill
employed by them in forcibly entering the land is the means of committing the crime and therefore
absorbed in the felony, unless the intimidation resulted in a more serious felony.
2) The crime would still be usurpation of real rights under Art. 312, RPC, even if the said
offenders killed the caretaker because the killing is the “violence against persons" which is the means
for committing the crime and as such, determinative only. However, this gives way to the proviso
that the penalty provided for therein is “in addition to the penalty incurred in the acts of violence
(murder or homicide) executed by them. The crime is similar to a robbery where a killing is
committed by reason thereof, giving rise only to one indivisible offense (People vs. Judge Alfeche),
plus the fine mentioned therein.

Criminal law – Crimes against property - Theft
Francis Garcia, a Jollibee waiter, found a gold bracelet in front of his working place in
Makati and, upon inspecting it, saw the name and address of the owner engraved on the
inside. Remembering his parents’admonition that he should not take anything which does
not belong to him, he delivered the bracelet to PO1 Jesus Reyes of the Makati Quad precinct

Page 281 of 338
with the instruction to locate the owner and return it to him. POl Reyes, instead, sold the
bracelet and misappropriated the proceeds. Subsequent events brought out the fact that the
bracelet was dropped by a snatcher who had grabbed it from the owner a block away from
where Francis had found it and further investigation traced the last possessor as POl
Reyes. Charged with theft, POl Reyes reasoned out that he had not committed any
crime because it was not he who had found the bracelet and, moreover, it turned out
to have been stolen.

Resolve the case with reasons. (10%) (2001 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Charged with theft, POl Reyes is criminally liable. His contention that he has not committed any
crime because he was not the one who found the bracelet and it turned out to be stolen also, is
devoid of merit. It is enough that the bracelet belonged to another and the failure to restore the same
to its owner is characterized by intent to gain.
The act of POl Reyes of selling the bracelet which does not belong to him and which he only held
to be delivered to its owner, is furtive misappropriation with intent to gain.
Where a finder of lost or mislaid property entrusts it to another for delivery to the owner, the
person to whom such property is entrusted and who accepts the same, assumes the relation of the
finder to the owner as if he was the actual finder: if he would misappropriate it, he is guilty of theft
(People vs. Avila, 44 Phil. 720).

Criminal law – Crimes against property - Estafa
A entrusted her car to B for repainting at the agreed cost of P7,800.00. When the
painting job was finished, A wanted to get the car but B refused to deliver until payment is
made. When A came back the next day, the shop was already closed, and B and the car were
nowhere to be found. When finally B was located, he told A that he sold the car and applied
the amount to the repainting cost and labor.

A sued B for estafa. The information related the above facts, indicating the car as the
subject of the felony. The Regional Trial Court convicted B for the crime charged. Under the
facts, is the conviction proper? (1991 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Conviction was correct. Estafa was really committed as B had both physical and juridical
possession of the car. Having painted the car, he acquired a lien thereto, and therefore could
exercises that right against the whole world, including the owner.

Criminal law – Crimes against property – Estafa; violation of a trust
receipt agreement

Page 282 of 338
Julio obtained a letter of credit from a local bank in order to import auto tires
from Japan. To secure payment of his letter of credit, Julio executed a trust receipt in
favor of the bank. Upon arrival of the tires, Julio sold them but did not deliver the
proceeds to the bank.
Julio was charged with estafa under P.D. No. 115 which makes the violation of a
trust receipt agreement punishable as estafa under Art. 315, par. (1), subpar. (b). of
the Revised Penal Code. Julio contended that P.D. No. 115 was unconstitutional
because it violated the Bill of Rights provision against imprisonment for non-
payment of debt.
Rule on the contention of Julio. Discuss fully. (1995 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Such contention is invalid. A trust receipt arrangement doesn't involve merely a simple loan
transaction but includes likewise a security feature where the creditor bank extends financial
assistance to the debtor-importer in return for the collateral or security title as to the goods or
merchandise being purchased or imported. The title of the bank to the security is the one sought to
be protected and not the loan which is a separate and distinct agreement. What is being penalized
under P.D. No. 115 is the misuse or misappropriation of the goods or proceeds realized from the sale
of the goods, documents or instruments which are being held in trust for the entrustee-banks. In
other words, the law punishes the dishonesty and abuse of confidence in the handling of money or
goods to the prejudice of the other, and hence there is no violation of the right against imprisonment
for non-payment of debt. [People vs. Nitafan. 207 SCRA 725)

Criminal law – Crimes against property - Falsification of a Public Document
Jose Dee Kiam, a Chinese citizen bom in Macao, having applied with a recruitment
agency to work in Kuwait, went to Quezon City Hall to procure a Community Tax Certificate,
formerly called Residence Certificate. He stated therein that his name is Leo Tiampuy, A
Filipino citizen bom in Binan, Laguna. As he paid for the Community Tax Certificate, Cecille
Delicious, an employee in the office recognized him and reported to her boss that the
information written in the Community Tax Certificate were all lies.
Treat each of the above contentions separately.
a. Shortly thereafter, an information was filed against Dee Kiam alias Tiampuy. What
crime, if any, may he be indicted for? Why? (1992 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a. Dee Kiam can be indicted for the felony of Falsification of a Public Document committed by a
private individual under Art. 172 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Art. 171 thereof. A
residence certificate is a public or official document within the context of said provisions and ju-
risprudence. Since Dee Kiam made an untruthful statement in a narration of facts (Art. 171, par.

Page 283 of 338
4), and he being a private individual, he is culpable thereunder.
b. The accused moved to quash the information on the ground that it did not allege that he
had the obligation to disclose the truth in the Community Tax Certificate; that the same is
a useless scrap of paper which one can buy even in the Quiapo underpass and that he had
no intent of deceiving anybody, much less the government. If you were the trial judge,
would you grant the motion to quash the information on the basis of Dee Kiam’s
allegations? (1992 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

b) Falsification of public documents under Arts. 171 and 172, RPC, does not require that the
document is required by law. The sanctity of the public document, a residence certificate, cannot be
taken lightly as being a "mere scrap of paper". Intent to cause damage, or actual damage, is not an
indispensable requisite for falsification of public document.

Criminal law – Crimes against the fundamental law of the State –
Arbitrary detention

Major Menor, while patrolling Bago-Bago community in a police car with SP03 Caloy
Itliong, blew his whistle to stop a Nissan Sentra car which wrongly entered a one-way street.
After demanding from Linda Lo Hua, the driver, her driver’s license, Menor asked her to
follow them to the police precinct. Upon arriving there, he gave instructions to Itliong to
guard Lo Hua in one of the rooms and not to let her out of sight until he returns; then got the
car key from Lo Hua. In the meantime, the latter was not allowed to make any phone calls but
was given food and access to a bathroom.
When Menor showed up after two days, he brought Lo Hua to a private house and told
her that he would only release her and return the car if she made arrangements for the
delivery of P500,000.00 in a doctor’s bag at a certain place within the next twenty-four hours.
When Menor went to the designated spot to pick up the bag of money, he suddenly found
himself surrounded by several armed civilians who introduced themselves as NBI agents.
What criminal offense has Menor committed? Explain. (1992 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Menor is liable under Art. 124, RPC (Arbitrary Detention) he being a public officer who
detained, a person without legal grounds. Violation of a traffic ordinance by entering a one-way
street is not a valid reason to arrest and detain the driver. Such only merits the issuance of a traffic
violation ticket. Hence, when Lo Hua was ordered to follow the police officers to the precinct
(confiscating her license to compel her to do so), and confining her in a room for two days and
prohibiting her to make phone calls, is a clear case of deprivation of personal liberty. Giving her food

Page 284 of 338
and access to the bathroom will not extinguish or mitigate the criminal liability.
Menor is further liable for robbery, because money or personal properly was taken, with intent
to gain, and with intimidation. The peculiar situation of Lo Hua practically forced her to submit to the
monetary demands of the major.

May Itliong be held likewise criminally liable? (1992 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Itliong is equally liable with Menor the felony of arbitrary detention, either by conspiracy or
indispensable cooperation. He cannot successfully put up the defense of obedience to a superior
order, as the same was done for a lawful purpose.

Criminal law -Crimes against property - Estafa through falsification of
commercial documents

The accused opened a saving account with Bank A with an initial deposit of
P2.000.00. A few days later, he deposited in the savings account a Bank B check for
PI0,000.00 drawn and endorsed purportedly by C. Ten days later, he withdrew P
10,000.00 from his savings account. C complained to Bank B when the check was
deducted from his account. Two days thereafter, the accused deposited another
Bank B check of P 10,000.00 signed and endorsed allegedly by C. A week later, the
accused went to Bank A to withdraw P 10,000.00. While withdrawing the amount,
he was arrested.
Convicted under two informations of estafa and attempted estafa both through
falsification of commercial documents, he set up the defenses that, except for the
showing that the signature of C had been forged, no further evidence was presented
to establish (a) that he was the forger of the signature of C nor (b), that as to the
second charge, C suffered any damage.

Rule on the defense (1997 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The defense is not tenable; (a) the possessor of a falsified document is presumed to be the
author of the falsification [People vs. Sendaydiego, 81 SCRA 120; KohTlek vs. People, et aL. Dec. 21, 19901;
(b) In estafa. a mere disturbance of property rights, even if temporary, would be sufficient to cause
damage. Moreover, in a crime of falsification of a commercial document, damage or intent to cause
damage is not necessary because the principal thing punished is the violation of the public faith and
the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed.

Page 285 of 338
Criminal law - Crimes against property – Estafa through misappropriation or
conversion
On March 31, 1995, Orpheus Financing Corporation received from Maricar the sum of
P500.000.00 as money market placement for sixty days at fifteen (15) per cent interest, and
the President of said Corporation issued a check covering the amount including the interest
due thereon, postdated May 30, 1995. On the maturity date, however, Orpheus Financing
Corporation failed to deliver back Maricar's money placement with the corresponding
interest earned, notwithstanding repeated demands upon said Corporation to comply with
its commitment.

Did the President of Orpheus Financing Corporation incur any criminal liability for
estafa for reason of the nonpayment of the money market placement? Explain. (1996 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the President of the financing corporation does not incur criminal liability for estafa because
a money market transaction partakes of the nature of a loan, such that nonpayment thereof would
not give rise to estafa through misappropriation or conversion. In money market placement, there is
transfer of ownership of the money to be invested and therefore the liability for its return is civil in
nature [Perez vs. Court of Appeals. 127 SCRA636; Sebreno vs. Court of Appeals et aL, G.R. 84096, 26
Jan 95).

Special law - Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. 22)
Crimes against property – Estafa

Exidor issued a check in payment of goods delivered to him by Virginia. Unfortunately
the check bounced for lack of sufficient funds.
a. What is the criminal liability of Exidor? Explain your answer. (1990 Bar
Question)

b. Suppose the bouncing check was postdated, will your answer be the same?
State your reasons. (1990 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a)Exidor is liable under the Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. 22) and for estafa under
Article 315, par. 2(d), Revised Penal Code.
b) He will only be liable under the Bouncing Checks Law. (B.P. 22).

Page 286 of 338
Criminal law – Crimes against property – Estafa through abuse of
confidence
Alfredo is the corporate treasurer of Multimillion Insurance Company. As
corporate treasurer, he would have in his possession an average of P5,000,000 at
any given time. In 1984, when the money market rate of interest ranged from 35%
to 50%, Alfredo place P1 ,000,000 of the corporate funds in the money market in his
name without the knowledge of any other corporate official of the company. Upon
maturity of the money market placement, Alfredo returned the amount of P1
,000,000 to the corporation, but kept to himself the interest income of P250,000. At
the end of 1984, when audit examinations of his accounts were undertaken, the
auditors found no shortage in his accountabilities. Did Alfredo commit any crime?
(1989 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, Alfredo committed the crime of estafa thru abuse of confidence, even if he had
no intention to permanently misappropriate the corporate funds for himself. The law on
estafa is clear and does not make any distinctions between permanent and temporary
misappropriations, for as long as damage is suffered by the offended party. Damage was
suffered by the corporation in this case because if the PI million pesos had not been
withdrawn from the corporate coffers it would have earned interest for the benefit of the
company.
Estafa, and not qualified theft, is committed because as corporate treasurer. Alfredo
has juridical possession of the P5 million pesos in his custody. This was in the nature of
a trust fund entrusted to him for corporate purposes. While it is a general principle that
misappropriation of trust funds for short periods does not always amount to estafa, it
has been held that his principle cannot extend to cases where officers of corporations
converted corporate funds to their own use, (U.S. vs. Sevilla, 43 Phil. 190). Fraudulent
intent is not even necessary in such cases because the breach of confidence involved in
the misappropriation or conversion of trust funds takes the place of fraudulent intent
and is in itself sufficient.

Criminal law – Crimes against property – Exemption from criminal
liability

“A” is married to the sister of “B”, and the three (3) live together in a house
located a Caloocan City. On several occasions, “B’s” dog would bark at “A”
everytime he arrives at past midnight. One time, after arriving in the house at
around 2 o’clock in the morning, “B’s” dog barked continuously at “A.” In a fit of
anger, “A” entered the house, took a bolo and killed the dog. What crime was
committed and what is liability of “A?” Explain. (1989 Bar Question)

Page 287 of 338
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The crime committed by A is malicious mischief. The elements of this are:
(1) the offender caused damages to the property of other
(2) the damage caused did not constitute arson or any other crime involving
destruction and
(3) the damage was caused by the offender (Caballes vs. DAR, GR 78214,5 Dec. 88).
A’s act of killing the dog is characterized by malice, it being a product of anger and
resentment.
However, A is exempt from criminal liability for the crime committed by him
because he is the brother-in-law of the offended party and they are both living together
under the same roof. Under Art. 332 of the RPC, no criminal, but only civil, liability shall
result from the commission of the crime of THEFT, SWINDLING or MALICIOUS MIS-
CHIEF committed or caused mutually by among others, brothers and sisters and
brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together.

Criminal law – Crimes against property- Estafa; when committed

(a) Is there such a crime as estafa through negligence? Explain. (2%) (1999 Bar
Question)

(b) Aurelia introduced Rosa to Victoria, a dealer in jewelry who does business in
Timog, Quezon City. Rosa, a resident of Cebu City, agreed to sell a diamond
ring and bracelet to Victoria on a commission basis, on condition that, if these
items can not be sold, they may be returned to Victoria forthwith.

Unable to sell the ring and bracelet, Rosa delivered both items to Aurelia in
Cebu City with the understanding that Aurelia shall, in turn, return the items to
Victoria in Timog. Quezon City. Aurelia dutifully returned the bracelet to Victoria
but sold the ring, kept the cash proceeds thereof to herself, and issued a check to
Victoria which bounced. Victoria sued Rosa for estafa under Article 315, R.P.C.,
Victoria insisting that delivery to a third person of the thing held in trust is not a
defense in estafa.

Is Rosa criminally liable for estafa under the circumstances? Explain. (4%)
(1999 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a) There is no such crime as estafa through negligence. In estafa, the profit or gain
must be obtained by the accused personally, through his own acts, and his mere
negligence in allowing another to take advantage of or benefit from the entrusted
chattel cannot constitute estafa. (People v. Nepomuceno, CA, 460G 6135

Page 288 of 338
b) No, Rosa cannot be held criminally liable for estafa. Although she received the
jewelry from Victoria under an obligation to return the same or deliver the
proceeds thereof, she did not misappropriate it. In fact, she gave them to Aurelia
specifically to be returned to Victoria. The misappropriation was done by Aurelia,
and absent the showing of any conspiracy between Aurelia and Rosa, the latter
cannot be held criminally liable for Aurelia's acts. Furthermore, as explained above,
Rosa's negligence which may have allowed Aurelia to misappropriate the jewelry
does not make her criminally liable for estafa.

Criminal law – Crimes against property – Theft; estafa through abuse of
confidence or unfaithfulness

Fe is the manager of a rice mill in Bulacan. In order to support a gambling
debt, Fe made it appear that the rice mill was earning less than it actually was by
writing in a "talaan" or ledger a figure lower than what was collected and paid by
their customers. Fe then pocketed the difference. What crime/s did Fe commit, if
any? Explain your answer. (2007 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

If the "talaan" or ledger which Fe made to show a falsehood was a private document,
the only crime that Fe committed was estafa thru abuse of confidence or unfaithfulness.
Criminal liability for falsification of a private document does not arise without damage or at
least proof of intent to cause damage. It cannot co-exist with the crime of estafa which also
essentially requires damage or at least proof of intent to cause damage. Since the "talaan"
was falsified to cover-up or conceal the misappropriation of the amount involved, whatever
damage or intent to cause damage attends the falsification, it will be the same damage or
intent to cause damage that will attend the estafa.

If such " talaan" or ledger was' a commercial document, damage or proof of intent to
cause damage is not necessary. The falsification alone if done with intent to pervert the
truth, would bring about criminal liability for falsification of a commercial document.
Damage or intent to cause damage, would sustain the estafa independently of the
falsification of the commercial document. In this case, two (2) separate crimes are
committed; namely, estafa and falsification of the commercial document. The falsification
should not be complexed with the estafa since it was not committed as a necessary means
to commit the estafa but rather resorted to, to conceal or hide the misappropriation of the
amount she pocketed.

Criminal law – Crimes against property- Trespass to dwelling;
Exceptions

Page 289 of 338
2. Under what situations may a private person enter any dwelling, residence, or
other establishments without being liable for trespass to dwelling? 2.5% (2006 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

2. A private person may enter a dwelling, residence, or other establishment without being
liable for trespass to dwelling in the following situations:

a) where a person so enters to avoid some serious harm to himself; or
b) he did so to save or help an occupant thereof or some other person from serious
harm;
c) where a person so enters to render service to humanity or to the cause of justice;
and
d) where a person enters establishments which cater to public service while still
open for such patronage (RPC, Art. 280 last par.)
e) if a public officer or person authorized is conducting a valid arrest or valid search
and seizure (Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 113).

Criminal law – Crimes against property - Estafa or swindling

Divina is the owner of a 500-square meter residential lot in Makati City covered
by TCT No. 1998. As her son needed money for his trip abroad, Divina mortgaged her
lot to her neighbor Dino for PI,000,000. Later Divina sold the same lot to Angel for
P2,000,000. In the Deed of Sale, she expressly stated that the property is free from
any lien or encumbrance.
What crime, if any, did Divina commit? (5%) (1998 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Divina committed estafa or swindling under Art. 316, par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code
because, knowing that the real property being sold is encumbered, she still made a
misrepresentation in the Deed of Sale that the same is free from any lien or encumbrance.
There is thus a deceit or fraud causing damage to the buyer of the lot.

Criminal law – Crimes against property - Estafa

(2) DD purchased a television set for P50,000.00 with the use of a
counterfeit credit card. The owner of the establishment had no inkling that the
credit card used by DD was counterfeit.

What crime or crimes did DD commit? Explain. (5%) (2005 Bar Question)

Page 290 of 338
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(2) DD committed estafa, and a violated of Rep. Act No. 8484 referred to as
Access Devices Regulation Act of 1998.

Estafa under Article 315 [2] (a) of the Revised Penal Code is committed because
he defrauded the owner of the establishment by falsely pretending to possess credit with
the credit card company when he used a fake credit card.

DD also violated Section 9(a) of Rep. Act No. 8484 which punishes, among others,
the act of using a counterfeit access device.

Criminal law – Crimes against property – Theft; Estafa
DD was engaged in the warehouse business. Sometime in November he was in
(1)
dire need of money. He, thus, sold merchandise deposited in his warehouse to VR for
P500.000.00. DD was charged with theft, as principal, while VR as accessory. The
court convicted DD of theft but acquitted VR on the ground that he purchased the
merchandise in good faith. However, the court ordered VR to return the
merchandise to the owner thereof and ordered DD to refund the P500.000.00 to VR.
DD moved for the reconsideration of the decision insisting that he should be
acquitted of theft because being the depositary, he had juridical possession of the
merchandise. VR also moved for the reconsideration of the decision insisting that
since he was acquitted of the crime charged, and that he purchased the merchandise
in good faith, he is not obligated to return the merchandise to its owner.
Rule on the motions with reasons. (5%) (2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(2) The motion for reconsideration of DD is DENIED.

In this case, there being no proof that title to the goods was transferred to DD, only
physical possession is presumed transferred to and obtained by DD. (U.S. v. De Vera, 43
Phil. 1001 [1921]).
The principal distinction between the two crimes is that in theft the thing is taken while in
estafa the accused received the property and converts it to his own use or benefit. However, there
maybe theft even if the accused has possession of the property, if he was entrusted only with the
material or physical (natural) or de facto possession of the thing, his misappropriation of the same
constitutes theft, but if he has the juridical possession of the thing, his conversion of the same
constitutes embezzlement or estafa. (Santos v. People, 181 SCRA 487 [1990]).
The motion for reconsideration of VR is DENIED. While VR is acquitted of theft, such acquittal
does not of itself negate civil liability of VR to return the property stolen by DD. Civil liability on the
part of VR exists despite his acquittal, since his acquittal is premised on the finding that his liability is
only civil in nature. (De Guzman Alva, 510.G. 1311 [1955]). DD was unlawfully deprived of his

Page 291 of 338
personal property and as owner or possessor he may recover such movables.

Criminal law – Crimes against property - theft
Mario found a watch in a jeep he was riding, and since it did not belong to him,
he approached policeman P and delivered the watch with instruction to return the
same to whoever may be found to be the owner.
P failed to return the watch to the owner and, instead, sold it and appropriated
for himself the proceeds of the sale.
Charged with theft, P reasoned out that he cannot be found guilty because it was
not he who found the watch and, moreover, the watch turned out to be stolen
property.

Is P's defense valid? [5%] (1998 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, P's defense is not valid. In a charge for theft, it is enough that the personal
property subject thereof belongs to another and not to the offender (P). It is irrelevant
whether the person deprived of the possession of the watch has or has no right to the
watch. Theft is committed by one who, with intent to gain, appropriates property of
another without the consent of its owner. And the crime is committed even when the
offender receives property of another but acquires only physical possession to hold the
same.

Criminal law – Crimes against property - Theft

Eman, a vagrant, found a bag containing identification cards and a diamond ring
along Roxas Blvd.
Knowing that it was not his, he went to the nearest police station to seek help
in finding the owner of the bag. At the precinct P01 Melvin attended to him. In the
investigation Eman proposed to P01 Melvin, "in case you don't find the owner let's
just pawn the ring and split the proceeds fifty-fifty (50/50)." P01 Melvin then went
straight to the pawnshop and pawned the ring for P50,000. Eman never saw P01
Melvin again.

b) What is the criminal liability of P01 Melvin, if any? Explain. (3%) (2008 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Page 292 of 338
b) POI Melvin is criminally liable for theft for having pawned the ring, which he does
not own, and appropriating the proceeds thereof without the consent of the owner thus
demonstrating intent to gain.

P01 Melvin is simply substituted to the possession Eman had when the latter, found
the bag containing the ring. He was under a legal obligation to deliver it to its owner and his
failure to do so amounts to a "taking" which would constitute theft when shown to be
motivated by intent to gain (Art. 308, par. 1, RPC; People v. Avila, 44 Phil. 720, 727 [1923]).

Criminal law – Crimes against property – Qualified theft

A vehicular accident occurred on the national highway in Bulacan. Among the first
to arrive at the scene of the accident was A, who found one of the victims already
dead and the others unconscious. Before rescuers could come, A, taking advantage
of the helpless condition of the victims, took their wallets and jewelry. However, the
police, who responded to the report of the accident, caught A. What crime or crimes
did A commit? Why? (5%) (2002 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A committed the crime of qualified theft because he took the wallets and jewelry of the
victims with evident intent to gain and on the occasion of a vehicular accident wherein he
took advantage of the helpless condition of the victims. But only one crime of qualified
theft was committed although there were more than one victim divested of their valuables,
because all the taking of the valuables were made on one and the same occasion, thus constituting a
continued crime.

Criminal law – Crimes against property – Qualified theft

Forest Ranger Jay Velasco was patrolling the Balara Watershed and Reservoir when
he noticed a big pile of cut logs outside the gate of the watershed. Curious, he scouted
around and after a few minutes, he saw Rene and Dante coming out of the gate with
some more newly-cut logs. He apprehended and charged them with the proper
offense.

What is that offense? Explain. 2.5% (2006 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2. The offense committed is qualified theft, pursuant to Sec 1 of Pres. Decree No. 330, and
Sec. 68 of Pres. Decree No. 705 defining the offense committed by any person who

Page 293 of 338
directly or indirectly cuts, gathers, removes or smuggles timber or other forest
products in violation of existing laws, rules and regulations, from any public forest
reserves, and other kinds of public forest or even privately owned forest lands.

Criminal law – Crimes against property – Qualified theft

While Carlos was approaching his car, he saw it being driven away by Paolo, a thief.
Carlos tried to stop Paolo by shouting at him, but Paolo ignored him. To prevent his
car from being carnapped, Carlos drew his gun, aimed at the rear wheel of the car
and fired. The shot blew the tire which caused the car to veer out of control and
collide with an oncoming tricycle, killing the tricycle driver.

b) What is the criminal liability of Paolo, if any? Explain. (4%) (2008 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

b) Paolo is criminally liable for qualified theft because the object taken is a motor
vehicle (Art. 310, RPC) and the taking was simply without the consent of Carlos, the owner
of the motor vehicle.

Since the death of the tricycle driver was brought about by Paolo's felonious taking
of Carlos' car, Paolo is liable for homicide because his act was the proximate cause thereof.

Criminal law – Crimes against property – Situation when there is no
misappropriation
A sold a washing machine to 6 on credit, with the understanding that B could return
the appliance within two weeks if, after testing the same, B decided not to buy it.
Two weeks lapsed without B returning the appliance. A found out that B had sold the
washing machine to a third party. Is B liable for estafa? Why? (5%) (2002 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, B is not liable for estafa because he is not just an entrustee of the washing machine
which he sold; he is the owner thereof by virtue of the sale of the washing machine to him.
The sale being on credit, B as buyer is only liable for the unpaid price of the washing
machine; his obligation is only a civil obligation. There is no felonious misappropriation
that could constitute estafa.

Page 294 of 338
Criminal law – Crimes against property - Robbery

Five robbers robbed, one after the other five houses occupied by different families
located inside a compound enclosed by a six-feet high hollow block fence.
How many robberies did the five commit? Explain. (1996 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The offenders committed only one robbery in the eyes of the law because when they
entered the compound, they were impelled only by a single indivisible criminal resolution
to commit a robbery as they were not aware that there were five families inside said
compound, considering that the same was enclosed by a six-feet high hollow-block fence.
The series of robbery committed in the same compound at about the same time constitutes
one continued crime, motivated by one criminal impulse.

Criminal law – Crimes against property - Robbery

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

What is the criminal liability of A, if any? Explain. (3%) (2000 Bar Question)
Is A exempted from criminal liability under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code for being a
brother of B? Explain. (2%) (2000 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) A is criminally liable for Robbery with force upon things, because the coconut shell with the
coins inside, was taken with intent to gain and broken outside of their home. (Art 299 (b) (2). RPC).

b) No, A Is not exempt from criminal liability under Art 332 because said Article applies only to
theft, swindling or malicious mischief. Here, the crime committed is robbery.

Criminal law – Crimes against property - Robbery

A entered the house of another without employing force or violence upon things. He
was seen by a maid who wanted to scream but was prevented from doing so because
A threatened her with a gun. A then took money and other valuables and left, Is A
guilty of theft or of robbery? Explain. (3%) (2002 Bar Question)

Page 295 of 338
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A is liable for robbery because of the intimidation he employed on the maid before the
taking of the money and other valuables. It is the intimidation of person relative to the
taking that qualifies the crime as robbery, instead of simply theft The non-employment of
force upon things is of no moment because robbery is committed not only by employing
force upon things but also by employing violence against or intimidation of persons.

Criminal law – Crimes against property – Qualified theft

A fire broke out in a department store, A, taking advantage of the confusion, entered
the store and carried away goods which he later sold. What crime, if any, did he
commit? Why? (2%) (2002 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A committed the crime of qualified theft because he took the goods on the occasion of and
taking advantage of the fire which broke out in the department store. The occasion of a
calamity such as fire, when the theft was committed, qualifies the crime under Article 310
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.

Criminal law – Crimes against property – Qualified theft

Upon opening a letter containing 17 money orders, the mail carrier forged the
signatures of the payees on the money orders and encashed them. What crime or
crimes did the mail carrier commit? Explain briefly. (6%) (2008 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The mail carrier's act of opening the letter containing the 17 money orders and encashing
them constitutes a continued crime of qualified theft, because the object taken is mail
matter and the taking was with evident intent to gain (Art. 310, RPC).

Criminal law – Crimes against property – Simple theft; Qualified theft;
possession of picklocks or similar tools

Page 296 of 338
Lucas had been the stay-in houseboy of spouses Nestor and Julia for five years.
One night, while Nestor and Julia were out having dinner, Lucas and his friend Pedro
gained entry into the masters' bedroom with the use of a false key.

They found Julia's jewelry box in one of the cabinets, which was unlocked.
Lucas believed that Julia's jewelry was inside the box. Unknown to Lucas and Pedro,
the box was empty. Pedro took the box and left the bedroom with Lucas. They were
shocked when they saw Nestor in the house pointing a gun at them. Nestor ordered
them to stop hand over the box. Pedro complied. It turned out that Nestor had just
arrived in time to see Lucas and Pedro leaving masters' bedroom with the box.

State with reasons, the crime or crimes, if any, Lucas and Pedro committed.
(7%) (2008 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Lucas committed qualified theft. Pedro commit simple theft only. There was taking
of personal propel the jewelry box, belonging to another (Julia), with intent to gain and
without the consent of the owner but with violence, intimidation of persons or force upon
thin The use of a false key is legally considered as a force upon things, if used to gain entry
to the house or building not when used enter a locked room inside such house building.
Thus, the taking only constitutes theft.

The crime is qualified theft as to Lucas only, although there is evident conspiracy
between him and Pedro, but the circumstance qualifying the theft is personal only Lucas
but not to Pedro.

The theft is already consummated because offenders had already taken out of the
cabinet Julia’s jewelry box, which she intended to remain in the cable. The asportation was
completed when they succeeded taking out Julia's jewelry box from the cabinet.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Lucas and Paolo would also be liable for possession of picklocks or similar tools
under Art. 304, in relation to Art. 305 of the Penal Code.

Criminal law – Crimes against property - Estafa through falsification of
commercial documents

Upon opening a letter containing 17 money orders, the mail carrier forged the
signatures of the payees on the money orders and encashed them. What crime or
crimes did the mail carrier commit? Explain briefly. (6%) (2008 Bar Question)

Page 297 of 338
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The mail carrier's act of forging the signatures of the payees of said money orders
constitutes falsification of commercial documents. It was made to appear that the payees
signed them when in fact they did not. When the mail carrier encashed the money orders,
he defrauded and caused damage to the remitters who gave the cash. The mail carrier
further incurred the crime of estafa through falsification of commercial documents.

Criminal law - Crimes against property – Robbery with homicide

TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the
statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences. (5%)
(2009 Bar Question)

A person who, on the occasion of a robbery, kills a bystander by accident is
liable for two separate crimes: robbery and reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

False. Only one crime of robbery with homicide is constituted because the Revised
Penal Code punishes the crimes as only one indivisible offense when a killing, whether
intentional or accidental, was committed by reason or on occasion of a robbery (Art.
294[1], RPC; People v. Mabasa, 65 Phil. 568 [1938]).

Criminal law – Crimes against property – Simple theft

On her way home, Eva Marie saw an injured chow chow puppy behind a bush.
Since the puppy did not have a collar, she brought it home so she could have it as a
pet. Her son in fact begged Eva Marie to keep the puppy. The following day, Eva Marie
bought a collar for the puppy and brought it to a veterinarian for treatment.

A. Did Eva Marie incur criminal liability in bringing the puppy home as a pet?
Explain. (2%) (2010 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, Eva Marie incurred criminal liability for the crime of simple theft. The puppy is
personal property which, is susceptible of taking and has pecuniary value. Obviously, she
took it with intent to own it; hence, with intent to gain.

Did she incur civil liability? Explain. (2%) (2010 Bar Question)

Page 298 of 338
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Eva Marie may incur civil liability if the owner of the puppy would incur a loss due to non-
restitution or return thereof to the owner. Finding any property of value, legally regarded
as lost property, would constitute theft if the finder failed to deliver the same to the local
authorities or to its owner (Art 308, par. 1). Once Eva Marie is found guilty of theft, she will
incur civil liability, which consists of restitution or reparation for damage caused and
indemnification for consequential damages, Art. 100 RPC). The general rule is: a person
who is criminally liable is also civilly liable.

Criminal law – Crimes against property – Qualified theft

Paul lives with his long-time girlfriend Joan in a condominium in Makati. For more
than a year, he has been secretly saving money in an envelope under their bed to buy
her an engagement ring. One day, while Joan was cleaning their room, she found the
envelope, took the money and left Paul. As prosecutor, what crime, if any would you
charge Joan? Explain (3%) (2010 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Joan may be charged with qualified theft because she took away personal property
belonging to Paul without the latter’s consent, so obviously with intent to gain and with
grave abuse of confidence.
But Joan may invoke as a defense Art.332 of the Revised Penal Code, under with no
criminal liability but only civil liability shall result from the crime of theft, swindling or
malicious mischief committed by spouses, among others.
The reference to theft under Article embraces both simple theft and qualified theft,
and the reference to spouses includes common-law or live-in relationship (People v
Constantino, 60 O.G. 3603 [1963]}.

Criminal law – Crimes against property -Robbery

A and B are neighbors in Barangay Nuevo I, Silang, Cavite. A is a barangay Kagawad and
known to be a bully, while B is reputed to be gay but noted for his industry and economic
savvy which allowed him to amass wealth in leaps and bounds, including registered and
unregistered lands in several barangays. Resenting B’s riches and relying on his political
influence, A decided to harass and intimidate B into sharing with him some of his lands,
considering that the latter was single and living alone. One night. A broke into B's house,
forced him to bring out some titles and after picking out a title covering 200 square meters in
their barangay, compelled B to type out a Deed of Sale conveying the said lot to him for PI.00
and other valuable considerations. All the while, A carried a paltik caliber .45 in full view of B,
who signed the deed out of fear. When A later on tried to register the deed, B summoned
enough courage and had A arrested and charged in court after preliminary investigation.

Page 299 of 338
What charge or charges should be filed against A? Explain. (5%) (2001 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The charge for Robbery under Article 298 of the Revised Penal Code should be filed against A.
Said Article provides that any person who, with intent to defraud another, by means of violence or
intimidation, shall compel him to sign, execute and deliver any public instrument or document shall
be held guilty of robbery.

The paltik caliber .45 firearm carried by A was obviously intended to intimidate B and thus,
used in the commission of the robbery. If it could be established that A had no license or permit to
possess and carry such firearm, it should be taken only as special aggravating circumstance to the
crime of robbery, not subject of a separate prosecution.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

On the premise that the Deed of Sale which A compelled B to sign, had not attained the
character of a "public" instrument or document, A should be charged for the crime of
Qualified Trespass to Dwelling under Article 280 of the Revised Penal Code for having
intruded into Bis house, and for the crime of Grave Coercion under Article 286 of same
Code, for compelling B to sign such deed of sale against his will.

Criminal law – Crimes against property – Robbery by band

Christopher, John, Richard, and Luke are fraternity brothers. To protect themselves
from rival fraternities, they all carry guns wherever they go. One night, after
attending a party, they boarded a taxicab, held the driver at gunpoint and took the
latter's earnings.

What crime, if any, did the four commit? Enumerate the elements of the crime. (2%)
(2010 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The crime committed is robbery by a band since there were four (4) offenders
acting in concert in committing the robbery and all the four were armed.
The elements of this crime are:
1. unlawful taking of personal property belonging to another (the earnings of the
taxi-driver);
2. intent to gain in the taking (of the earnings which belong to the taxi-driver);
3. violence against or intimidation of person or force upon things was employed in
the taking; and

Page 300 of 338
4. there were more than three armed malefactors taking part in the commission of
the robbery (Art. 296 in relation to Art. 294, Revised Penal Code)

Include:

Special penal law – Anti – Arson law (PD 1613) – punishable acts
One early evening, there was a fight between Eddie Gutierrez and Mario Cortez.
Later that evening, at about 11 o’clock, Eddie passed by the house of Mario carrying
a plastic bag containing gasoline, threw the bag at the house of Mario who was inside
the house watching television, and then lit it. The front wall of the house started
blazing and some neighbors yelled and shouted. Forthwith, Mario poured water on
the burning portion of the house. Neighbors also rushed in to help put the fire under
control before any great damage could be inflicted and before the flames have
extensively spread. Only a portion of the house was burned. Discuss Eddie’s liability.
(3%) (2000 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Eddie is liable for destructive arson in the consummated stage. It is destructive arson because fire
was resorted to in destroying the house of Mario which is an inhabited house or dwelling. The arson
is consummated because the house was in fact already burned although not totally. In arson, it is not
required that the premises be totally burned for the crime to be consummated. It is enough that the
premises suffer destruction by burning.

Special penal law – Anti – Arson law (PD 1613) – punishable acts

CD is the stepfather of FEL. One day, CD got very mad at FEL for failing in his college
courses. In his fuiy, CD got the leather suitcase of FEL and burned it together with all
its contents.

1. What crime was committed by CD?

2. Is CD criminally liable? Explain briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1. The crime committed by CD is arson under Pres. DecreeNo. 1613 (the new
Arson Law) which punishes any person who bums or sets fire to the property of another
(Section 1 of Pres. Decree No. 1613).

2. CD is criminally liable although he is the stepfather of FEL whose property
he burnt, because such relationship is not exempting from criminal liability in the crime of
arson but only in crimes of theft, swindling or estafa, and malicious mischief (Article 332,

Page 301 of 338
Revised Penal Code). The provision (Art. 323) of the Code to the effect that burning
property of small value should be punished as malicious mischief has long been repealed
by Pres. Decree 1613; hence, there is no more legal basis to consider burning property of
small value as malicious mischief.

a) Anti-Fencing Law (P.D. 1612) and its Implementing Rules and Regulations
(i) Fencing

Special penal law – Anti-Fencing Law (PD 1612) – defenses available to
the accused

TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the
statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences. (5%)
(2009 Bar Question)

In a prosecution for fencing under R D. 1612, it is a complete defense for the
accused to prove that he had no knowledge that the goods or articles found in his
possession had been the subject of robbery.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

False. Fencing is committed if the accused "should have known" that the goods or
articles had been the subject of theft or robbery (P.D. 1612, Sec. 2[a]). Mere possession of
the stolen goods gives rise to the prima facie presumption of fencing.

Special penal law – Anti-Fencing Law – Elements; in comparison with
theft
1. What are the elements of fencing? (1995 Bar Question)
2. a) What is the difference between a fence and an accessory to theft or
robbery? Explain. (1995 Bar Question)
(c) Is there any similarity between them? (1995 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1. The elements of fencing are:
(a) a crime of robbery or theft has been committed:

(b) accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the crime, buys, receives,
possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner
deals in any article, item , object or anything of value, which has been derived from the

Page 302 of 338
proceeds of said crime;

c) the accused knows or should have known that said article, item, object or anything of
value has been derived from the from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft;
and
d) there is, on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or for another.
2. a) One difference between a fence and an accessory to theft or robbery is the penalty
involved; a fence is punished as a principal under P.D. No. 1612 and the penalty is higher,
whereas an accessory to robbery or theft under the Revised Penal Code is punished two
degrees lower than the principal, unless he bought or profited from the proceeds of theft or
robbery arising from robbery in Philippine highways under P.D. No. 532 where he is
punished as an accomplice, hence the penalty is one degree lower.
Also, fencing is a malum prohibitum and therefore there is no need to prove criminal
intent of the accused; this is not so in violations of Revised Penal Code.
(b) Yes, there is a similarity in the sense that all the acts of one who is an
accessory to the crimes of robbery or theft are included in the acts defined as fencing.
In fact, the accessory in the crimes of robbery or theft could be prosecuted as such
under the Revised Penal Code or as a fence under P.D. No. 1612. (Dizon-Pamintuan vs.
People. 234 SCRA 63)

Special law - Anti-Fencing Law (P.D. 1612) – “Fencing”- how committed

Arlene is engaged in the buy and sell of used garments, more popularly known as
“ukay-ukay”. Among the items found by the police in a raid of her store in Baguio City
were brand – new Louie Feraud blazers.
Arlene was charged with fencing. Will the charge prosper? Why or why not?
(5%) (2010 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, a charge of fencing will not prosper. “Fencing” is committed when a person, with intent
to gain for himself or for another, deals in any manner with an article of value which he
knows or should be known to him to have been derived from proceeds of theft or robbery
(Sec. 2. PD 1612). Thus, for a charge of fencing to prosper, it must first be established that a
theft or robbery of the article subject of the alleged “fencing” has been committed – a fact
which is wanting in this case.

It should be noted that the suspect is engaged in the buy and sell of used garments, which
are in the nature of personal property. In civil law, possession of personal or movable
property carries with it a prima facie presumption of ownership. The presumption of

Page 303 of 338
‘fencing’ arises only when the article or item involved is the subject of a robbery or thievery
(Sec. 5, PD 1612).

Special law - Anti- Fencing Law (P.D. No. 1612) – punishable acts

Oscar owns and operates a gift and jewelry shop. Pilar sold to him for PI,000.00 a five (5)
carat diamond ring which she stole.
a) May Oscar be held criminally liable under the Anti- Fencing Law (P.D. No. 1612)?
Explain your answer. (1990 Bar Question)
b) How can Oscar acquire immunity from criminal prosecution for purchasing the
diamond ring from Pilar and thus enable him to sell the same to the general public for a
profit? Explain your answer. (1990 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a) Yes. He is liable for fencing. The price is unconscionable. This shows that he would have
known of the fact that the ring was stolen. Section 2 of P.D. 1612.,the Anti-Fencing Law of 1979,
provides that: a. “Fencing” is
the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive x x x, sell or
dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in any article x x x of value which he
knows, or should be known to him, to have been derived from proceeds of the crime of robbery or
theft”.
b) Oscar should secure a clearance/permit to sell the second-hand ring from the proper INP
station commander pursuant to Section 6, P.D. 1612. The said section states that any person who
fails to secure the clearance or permit, upon conviction. Shall be punished as a fence.

(a) Definition
(b) Presumption of fencing

Criminal law - Anti-Fencing Law – Presumption of fencing; invalid defense
Flora, who was engaged in the purchase and sale of jeweliy, was prosecuted for the
violation of P.D. 1612, otherwise known as the Anti-Fencing Law, for having been
found to be in possession of recently stolen jewelry valued at P 100,000.00 at her
jeweliy shop at Zapote Road, Las Pinas, Metro Manila. She testified during the trial
that she merely bought the same from one named Cecilino and even produced a

Page 304 of 338
receipt covering the sale. Cecilino, in the past, used to deliver to her jewelries for
sale but is presently nowhere to be found. Convicted by the trial court for violatlon of the
Anti- Fencing Law, she argued for her acquittal on appeal, contending that the prosecution
failed to prove that she knew or should have known that the jewelries recovered from her
were the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.

Is her defense well-taken? Explain. (1996 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, Flora’s defense is not well-taken because mere possession of any article of value which has been
the subject of theft or robbery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing (P.D.No. 1612). The burden is
upon the accused to prove that she acquired the Jewelry legitimately. Her defense of having bought
the jewelry from someone whose whereabouts is unknown, does not overcome the presumption of
fencing against her (Pamintuan vs People. G.R. 111426, 11 July 1994). Buying personal property puts
the buyer on caveat because of the phrases that he should have known or ought to know that it is the
proceeds from robbery or theft. Besides, she should have followed the administrative procedure
under the decree that of getting a clearance from the authorities in case the dealer is unlicenced, in
order to escape liability.

Special penal law – Anti- Fencing Law; Presumption of fencing

Allan, the Municipal Treasurer of the Municipality of Gerona, was in a hurry to
return to his office after a day-long official conference. He alighted from the
government car which was officially assigned to him, leaving the ignition key and
the car unlocked, and rushed to his office. Jules, a bystander, drove off with the car
and later sold the same to his brother, Danny for P20.000.00, although the car was
worth P800,000.00.

a) What is the crime committed by Danny? Explain. (2005 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Danny committed the crime of fencing for having bought the car which was the proceeds
of carnapping, a crime in the nature of theft or robbery of motor vehicle. The presumption
of fencing applies to him for he paid a price so inadequate for the value of the car
suggestive that the car was not legitimately acquired by his brother.

SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Danny should be liable as an accessory, not as a fence, if the crime charged to Jules is
qualified theft because there is no accessory under the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972. (Rep
Act No. 6359)

Page 305 of 338
(ii) Exception
(a) With clearance or permit to sell
b) Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. Blg. 22), plus Administrative Circular No. 12-2000
Re: Penalty for Violation of B.P. 22 and Administrative Circular No. 13-2001
Re: Clarification of Admin. Circular No. 12-2000; and P.D. No. 1689 (Increasing
the Penalty for Certain Forms of Swindling or Estafa)

Special penal law – BP 22; Estafa

A asked financial support from her showbiz friend B who accommodated her by
issuing in her favor a post-dated check in the sum of P90,000.00. Both of them knew
that the check would not be honored because B’s account had just been closed. The
two then approached trader C whom they asked to change the check with cash, even
agreeing that the exchange be discounted at P85,000.00 with the assurance that the
check shall be funded upon maturity. Upon C’s presentment of the check for payment
on due date, it was dishonored because the account has already been closed.
What action /s may C commence against A and B to hold them to account for
the loss of her P85,000.00? Explain. (2010 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

A criminal action for violation of BP22 may be filed against B who drew the
postdated check against a closed bank account, for value paid by C, and with knowledge at
the time he issued the check that the account thereof is already closed.
A cannot be held liable under BP 22 because he was a mere endorser of B’s check to
C who exchanged the check with cash. BP22 does not apply to endorser of checks. Hence
only a civil action may be filed by C against A to recover the P85,000.00.
Although a simultaneous action for estafa is authorized by law for the issuance of a
worthless check, under the given facts, the check was discounted and thus issued in a credit
transaction for pre-existing indebtedness. Criminal liability for estafa does not arise when a
check has been issued in payment for a pre-existing debt.

Special penal law– PD No 1689 (Increasing the penalty for certain forms
of swindling or estafa)

The president, treasurer, and secretary of ABC Corporation were charged with
syndicated estafa under the following Information: That on or about the 1st week of
January 2010 or subsequent thereto in Cebu City and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together

Page 306 of 338
and all, of them mutually helping and aiding one another in a syndicated manner,
through a corporation registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC), with intention of carrying out the unlawful or illegal act, transaction,
enterprise or scheme, with intent to gain and by means of fraud and deceit, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously defraud Virna, Lana, Deborah and
several other persons by falsely or fraudulently transactions, which they made with
complainants and the public in general, to the effect that they were in a legitimate
business of foreign exchange trading successively or simultaneously operating under
the name and style of ABC Corporation and DEF Management Philippines,
Incorporated, induced and succeeded in inducing complainants and several other
persons to give and deliver to said accused the amount of at least P20,000,000.00 on
the strength of said manifestations and representations, the accused knowing fully
well that the above-named corporations registered with the SEC are not licensed nor
authorized to engage in foreign exchange trading and that such manifestations and
representations to transact in foreign exchange were false and fraudulent, that these
resulted to the damage and prejudice of the complainants and other persons, and
that the defraudation pertains to funds solicited from the public in general by such
corporations/ associations.

Will the case for syndicated estafa prosper? Explain. (5%) (2010 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, a case for syndicated estafa will not prosper because a syndicate for such crime under
Pres. Decree 1689 must be comprised of five (5) or more persons committing the estafa or
other forms of swindling defined in Arts. 315 and 316 of the Revised Penal Code; whereas
the case given involved only three (3) accused who are alleged to have conspired in the
commission of the swindling. But because the amount defrauded exceeds P100,000.00, the
case is still under the same P.D. 1689 with a lower penalty than syndicated estafa.

(i) Punishable acts

Special law – Bouncing Checks Law (Bp Blg 22) – punishable acts

Raul Doria gave in trust two acrylic paintings to Amar Solo to be sold on commission
basis for P20,000.00. Failing to sell them to George Ty, Amar consigned the paintings
to Alcanto Gallery. In the same month, Amar retrieved one painting and tried to
return in to Raul who refused to receive it without the other painting. The other
painting was bought by Mr. Lomot whose check, which Amar gave to Raul, bounced,
so that Amar paid Raul his own check of P6,500.00 promising in writing to pay the
P3,500.00 balanceless his commission.

Is Amar liable for estafa? Why? (1988 Bar Question)
How about Mr. Lomot, what crime, if any did he commit? (1988 Bar Question)

Page 307 of 338
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Amar is not liable for estafa but is liable for violation of BP 22. There is only civil liability
because as long as no case has been filed in court, an obligation can still be novated. In this
case there was novation.
Mr. Lomot is liable for violation of BP 22.

Special penal law – Bouncing Checks Law (Bp Blg 22) – in relation with
estafa which is a crime against property

Pedro Pobre sought financial assistance from his millionaire friend Joey Manriquez
who accomodated him by issuing in his favor a postdated check in the amount of P
10,000.00. Both of them knew that said check was not duly funded in the bank. The
two then approached Marie Vic Bautista and asked her to change the check with
cash, adding that even P9,500.00 will do, on the assurance that it shall be funded on
the due date. When Bautista presented the check to the bank for encashment on its
due date, it was dishonored as the account was closed.
What action may Bautista bring against Pobre and Manriquez to hold them
criminally liable to recover the P9,500.00 she gave them? Explain. (1992 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Both Pobre and Manriquez can be successfully charged of estafa under Art. 315, RPC, and
violation of BP No. 22.
Estafa, because Manriquez (in conspiracy with Pobre) issued a post-dated check in payment of a
simultaneous obligation, that is the cash of P9,500.00, and when the check was presented for
payment the same bounced. Manriquez cannot even hide behind the alibi that he issued the check as
an accommodation or as a guarantee for the obligation of Pobre. Jurisprudence are extant that
extends the sanction of bouncing checks even under those circumstances.

BP No. 22 was likewise transgressed because the postdated check was made and issued “on account
or for value”. Prosecution can be resorted to under both statutes, as the elements in the two offenses
vary, and besides Estafa is a crime against property whereas violation of the special law is an offense
against public interest.

Special law – Bouncing Checks Law (BP BLG 22) – punishable acts

Page 308 of 338
1. (a) What is a memorandum check ? (1995 Bar Question)
(b) Is a person who issues a memorandum check without sufficient funds necessarily
guilty of violating B.P. Big. 22? Explain. (1995 Bar Question)
2. Jane is a money lender. Edmund is a businessman who has been borrowing money from
Jane by rediscounting his personal checks to pay his loans. In March 1989, he borrowed
PI00,000.00 from Jane and issued to her a check for the same amount. The check was
dishonored by the drawee bankfor having been drawn against a closed account. When
Edmund was notified of the dishonor of his check he promised to raise the amount within
five days. He failed. Consequently, Jane sued Edmund for violation of the Bouncing Checks
Law (B.P. Big. 22). The defense of Edmund was that he gave the check to Jane to serve as a
memorandum of his indebtedness to her and was not supposed to be encashed.
Is the defense of Edmund valid? Discuss fully. (1995 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1. (a) A memorandum check is an ordinary check with the word “Memorandum”,
“Memo", or “Mem" written across the face, signifying that the maker or drawer engages to
pay its holder absolutely thus partaking the nature of a promissory note. It is drawn on a
bank and is a bill of exchange within the purview of Section 185 of the Negotiable Instru-
ments Law. (People vs. Nitafan, 215 SCRA 79)
(b) Yes, a person who issued a memorandum check without sufficient funds is guilty
of violating B.P. Big. 22 as said law covers all checks whether it is an evidence of
indebtedness, or in payment of a pre-existing obligation, or as deposit or guarantee.
(People vs. Nitafan)
2.The defense of Edmund is NOT valid. A memorandum check upon presentment is
generally accepted by the bank. It does not matter whether the check is in the nature of a
memorandum as evidence of indebtedness. What the law punishes is the mere issuance of
a bouncing check and not the purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and
conditions relating thereto. The mere act of issuing a worthless check is a malum
prohibitum The understanding that the check will not be presented at the bank but will be
redeemed by the maker when the loan falls due is a mere private arrangement which may
not prevail to exempt it from the penal sanction of B.P. Big. 22. (People vs. Nttafah)

Special law – Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. Big. 22) – punishable acts

1) The accused was convicted under B.P. Big. 22 for having issued several
checks which were dishonored by the drawee bank on their due date because the

Page 309 of 338
accused closed her account after the issuance of checks. On appeal, she argued that
she could not be convicted under B.P. Big. 22 by reason of the closing of her account
because said law applies solely to checks dishonored by reason of insufficiency of
funds and that at the time she issued the checks concerned, she had adequate funds
in the bank. While she admits that she may be held liable for estafa under Article
215 of the Revised Penal Code, she cannot however be found guilty of having
violated B.P. Big. 22.

Is her contention correct? Explain. (1996 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1) No, the contention of the accused is not correct. As long as the checks issued were issued to
apply on account or for value, and was dishonored upon presentation for payment to the drawee
bankfor lack of insufficient funds on their due date, such act falls within the ambit of B.P. Big. 22. Said
law expressly punishes any person who may have insufficient funds in the drawee bank when he
issues the check, but fails to keep sufficient funds to cover the full amount of the check when
presented to the drawee bank within ninety (90) days from the date appearing thereon.

Special penal law – Bouncing Checks Law (BP Blg. 22)

A and B agreed to meet at the latter's house to discuss B’s financial problems. On his
way, one of A’s car tires blew up. Before A left following the meeting, he asked B to
lend him (A) money to buy a new spare tire. B had temporarily exhausted his bank
deposits, leaving a zero balance. Anticipating, however, a replenishment of his
account soon, B issued A a postdated check with which A negotiated for a new tire.
When presented, the check bounced for lack of funds. The tire company filed a
criminal case against A and B. What would be the criminal liability, if any, of each of
the two accused? Explain. (2003 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A, who negotiated the unfunded check of B in buying a new tire for his car may only be
prosecuted for estafa if he was aware at the time of such negotiation that the check has no
sufficient funds in the drawee bank; otherwise, he is not criminally liable.
B who accommodated A with his check may nevertheless be prosecuted under BP 22 for
having issued the check, knowing at the time of issuance that it has no funds in the bank
and that A will negotiate it to buy a new tire, i.e., for value. B may not be prosecuted for
estafa because the facts indicate that he is not actuated by intent to defraud in issuing the
check which A negotiated. Obviously, B issued the postdated check only to help A: criminal
intent or dolo is absent.

Page 310 of 338
(ii) Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds

Special penal law – Bouncing Checks Law (Bp Blg 22) – memorandum check;
bouncing thereof

What is a memorandum check?(1994 Bar Question)
Is the “bouncing" thereof within the purview of BP Big. 22? (1994 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

A “Memorandum Check" is an ordinary check, with the word “Memorandum", “Memo" or “Mem"
written across its face, signifying that the maker or drawer engages to pay its holder absolutely thus
partaking the nature of a promissory note. It is drawn on a bank and is a bill of exchange within the
purview of Section 185 of the Negotiable Instruments Law (People vs. Judge David Nitafan. G.R. No.
75954, October 22. 1992).
Yes, a memorandum check is covered by Batas Pambansa No. 22 because the law covers any check
whether it is an evidence of indebtedness, or in payment of a pre-existing obligation or as a deposit
or guarantee (People versus Nitafan).

Special penal law – Bouncing Checks Law (Bp Blg 22) – Presumption of
knowledge

As security for a loan of P50.000.00 he obtained from his friend, Joseph David, payable not
later than 17 April 1990, Roger Vasquez drew and delivered to Joseph a check for
P50,000.00 dated 17 April 1990. Upon its presentment on due date, the check was
dishonored on the ground of insufficiency of funds. On the basis of the complaint of Joseph,
and after appropriate preliminaiy investigation, the City Prosecutor filed against Roger an
Information for violation of B.P. Big. No. 22 alleging therein, inter alia, that Roger “with intent
to defraud, by means of deceit, knowing fully well that he had no funds and/or sufficient
funds in the bank, for value received, did then and there, willfully and feloniously, issue the
aforesaid check” but “when the said check was presented for encashment, said check was
dishonored and returned” on the ground of insufficiency of funds.
In a decision rendered thereafter, the trial judge ruled that Roger cannot be convicted of the
offense charged because the information failed to allege that he knew, when he issued the
check, that he would have sufficient funds for its payment in full upon its presentment to the
drawee bank.

Is the Judge correct? (1991 Bar Question)

Page 311 of 338
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The Judge is not correct in dismissing the case. The allegation satisfies the legal definition of the
offense. The maker's knowledge of insufficiency of his funds is legally presumed from the dishonor
of the check for lack of funds. (People vs. Lagui, 171 SCRA 305).

Special penal law – BP Blg 22; punishable acts; presumption of
knowledge;
A, a businessman, borrowed P500.000.00 from B, a friend. To pay the loan, A issued a
postdated check to be presented for payment 30 days after the transaction. Two
days before the maturity date of the check, A called up B and told him not to deposit
the check on the date stated on the face thereof, as A had not deposited in the drawee
bank the amount needed to cover the check. Nevertheless, B deposited the check in
question and the same was dishonored of insufficiency of funds. A failed to settle the
amount with B in spite of the latter’s demands. Is A guilty of violating B.P. Big. 22,
otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law? Explain. (5%) (2002 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, A is liable for violation of B.P. Big. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law). Although knowledge by
the drawer of insufficiency or lack of funds at the time of the issuance of the check is an
essential element of the violation, the law presumes prima facie such knowledge, unless
within five (5) banking days of notice of dishonor or non-payment, the drawer pays the
holder thereof the amount due thereon or makes arrangements for payment in full by the
drawee of such checks

A mere notice by the drawer A to the payee B before the maturity date of the check will not
defeat the presumption of knowledge created by the law; otherwise, the purpose and spirit
of B.P. 22 will be rendered useless.

(iii) Preference of imposition of fine
c) Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 (R.A. No. 6539), as amended by R.A. No.
7659
(i) Registration
(iii) Who are liable

Special penal law -Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 (R.A. No. 6539), as
amended by R.A. No. 7659

Page 312 of 338
While Carlos was approaching his car, he saw it being driven away by Paolo, a thief.
Carlos tried to stop Paolo by shouting at him, but Paolo ignored him. To prevent his
car from being carnapped, Carlos drew his gun, aimed at the rear wheel of the car
and fired. The shot blew the tire which caused the car to veer out of control and
collide with an oncoming tricycle, killing the tricycle driver.

What is the criminal liability of Paolo, if any? Explain. (4%) (2008 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Paolo is criminally liable for (1) carnapping under Rep. Act No. 6539 for driving away the
motor vehicle of Carlos against the latter's will and obviously with intent to gain and (2) for
homicide for the death of the tricycle driver which resulted from the criminal act
deliberately being committed by Paolo (which is the carnapping), The homicide was the
result of praeter intentionem and not a component of the crime of carnapping or a result of
reckless imprudence or of simple negligence.

(a) Duty of Collector of Customs
(b) Duty of importers, distributors and sellers
(c) Clearance and permit
(iv) Punishable acts

Special penal law – Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972, Rep. Act 6539– Taking
of motorcycle
Samuel, a tricycle driver, plied his usual route using a Honda motorcycle with a
sidecar. One evening, Raul rode on the sidecar, poked a knife at Samuel and
instructed him to go near the bridge. Upon reaching the bridge, Raul alighted from
the motorcycle and suddenly stabbed Samuel several times until he was dead. Raul
fled from the scene taking the motorcycle with him.

What crime or crimes did Raul commit? (5%) (1998 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Raul committed the composite crime of Carnapping with homicide under Sec. 14 of Rep.
Act No. 6539, as amended, considering that the killing “in the course of” or “on the occasion
or a carnapping (People vs. De la Cruz, et al, 183 SCRA 763). A motorcycle is included in the
definition of a “motor vehicle" in said Rep. Act, also known as the ‘Anti-Camapping Act of
1972*. There is no apparent motive for the killing of the tricycle driver but for Raul to be

Page 313 of 338
able to take the motorcycle. The fact that the tricycle driver was killed brings about the
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The crime committed by Raul is carnapping, punished by Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 6539.
The killing of Samuel is not a separate crime but only an aggravating circumstance.

Special penal law - Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972, Rep. Act 6539 -
Unlawful taking of a motor vehicle

Allan, the Municipal Treasurer of the Municipality of Gerona, was in a hurry to
return to his office after a day-long official conference. He alighted from the
government car which was officially assigned to him, leaving the ignition key and
the car unlocked, and rushed to his office. Jules, a bystander, drove off with the car
and later sold the same to his brother, Danny for P20.000.00, although the car was
worth P800,000.00.

What is the crime committed by Jules? Explain. (2005 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Jules committed the crime of carnapping for the unlawful taking, with intent to gain, of the
government's motor vehicle. Unlawful taking of a motor vehicle is now governed by the
Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972, Rep. Act 6539, not by the provisions of the Revised Penal
Code on theft or robbery.

d) Human Security Act of 2007 (R.A. No. 9372)
(i) Punishable acts of terrorism
e) Anti-Arson Law (P.D. 1613)
(i) Punishable acts
Crimes Against Chastity (Articles 333-334, 336-346)

Criminal law – Crimes against chastity – Acts of lasciviousness

Mick, a gay foreigner, fondled and played with the private part of Egay, an 11 year-old boy,

Page 314 of 338
who enjoyed it and gladly received the P100.00 given him by the foreigner.
What crime, if any, was committed by the foreigner? Explain. .(1993 Bar Question)
If the act was committed on Citry, an 11 year-old girl; would your answer be the same?
Discuss. (1993 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Acts of Lasciviousness under the circumstances of rape (Art 336, RPC and RA. 7610)
Yes, acts of lasciviousness is committed irrespective of sex. (Art. 336, RPC)

Criminal law - Crimes against chastity – Qualified seduction

What are the three (3) classes of offenders in the crime of qualified seduction? Give
an example of each. (2007 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The three (3) classes of offenders in the crime of qualified seduction are:

1. Those who exercise moral influence over the victim, such as a priest who acts as
spiritual adviser of the victim, or a teacher in the school where the victim is enrolled;

2. A brother or ascendant by consanguinity of the victim, such as her uncle; and
3. Those who are regarded as "domestic" in relation to the victim, enjoying the
confidence and intimacy shared by members of the same household, such as household
helpers and boarders living under the same roof and with same household as the victim.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

The three (3) classes of offenders in the crime of qualified seduction are:

1. Those who abuse their authority. Examples: person in public authority, guardian,
teacher or a person who, in any capacity, is entrusted with the education or custody of the
woman seduced.

2. Those who abuse the confidence reposed on them. Examples: priest, house
servant, domestics.

3. Those who abuse their relationship. Examples: a brother who seduced his sister;
ascendant who seduced his descendant. (Article 337, Revised Penal Code)

Page 315 of 338
Criminal law – Crimes against chastity – Consented abduction
A, with lewd designs, took a 13-year old girl to a nipa hut in his farm and there had
sexual intercourse with her. The girl did not offer any resistance because she was
infatuated with the man, who was good looking and belonged to a rich and
prominent family in the town. What crime, if any, was committed by A? Why? (2%)
(2002 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A committed the crime of consented abduction under Article 343 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended.
The said Article punishes the abduction of a virgin over 12 and under 18 years of age,
carried out with her consent and with lewd designs. Although the problem did not indicate
the victim to be virgin, virginity should not be understood in its material sense, as to
exclude a virtuous woman of good reputation, since the essence of the crime is not the
injury to the woman but the outrage and alarm to her family (Valdepeflas vs. People, 16
SCRA 871 [1966]).

Criminal law - Crimes against chastity – Acts of lasciviousness; Penalty
imposed when committed by a public officer

Judge Red Reyes was appointed by Former President Fidel Ramos as Deputy
Ombudsman for the Visayas for a term of 7 years commencing on July 5, 1995. Six
months thereafter, a lady stenographer filed with the Office of the Ombudsman a
complaint for acts of lasciviousness and with the Supreme Court a petition for
disbarment against him. Forthwith, he filed separate motions to dismiss the
complaint for acts of lasciviousness and petition for disbarment, claiming lack of
jurisdiction over his person and office.

Are both motions meritorious? 5% (2006 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the motions filed by Judge Reyes are both without merit. Being only a Deputy
Ombudsman, he is not included among the government officials who may be removed
only by impeachment from office under the Constitution {Office of the Ombudsman v.
Court of Appeals, 452 SCRA 715 [2005]). Hence, he may be charged criminally and
administratively for the acts of lasciviousness complained of before the Office of the
Ombudsman, and for disbarment in a petition with the Supreme Court.

Criminal law – Crimes against chastity – Acts of lasciviousness

Page 316 of 338
At the Maligaya Disco Club, Leoncio and Evelyn were intimately dancing a very
seductive dance number. While gyrating with their bodies, Leoncio dipped his
private parts in Evelyn's buttocks. Incensed, Evelyn protested, but Leoncio continued
and tightly embraced her.

Would your answer be the same if, even after the music had stopped, Leoncio
continued to dance dirty, rubbing his private parts on Evelyn's buttocks? Explain.
(3%) (2009 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The crime would then be acts of lasciviousness. That the music for dancing had already
stopped, puts an end to any pretense of dancing by Leoncio. His continued dirty acts absent
the dancing as there was no music anymore is patently lewd and lascivious. More so,
Evelyn already protested Leoncio's lewd acts in the course of dancing. So where the dance
ended, Leoncio's continued dirty acts cannot be veiled as still part of dancing.

Criminal law – Crimes against chastity – Adultery

Pedro Orsal and the wife of accused Juan Santos started having illicit relations while
the accused was in Manila reviewing for the 1983 Bar Examinations and his wife was
left behind in Davao City. In the morning of July 15, 1984, the accused went to the
bus station in Davao City to go to Cagayan de Oro City to fetch his daughter, but after
he failed to catch the first trip in the morning, and because the 2:00 o’clock bus had
engine trouble and could not leave, the accused, afer passing the residence of his
father, went home and arrive at his residence at around six o’clock in the afternoon.
Upon reaching his home, the accused found his wife Laura, and Pedro Orsal in the
act of sexual intercourse. When the wife and Pedro Orsal noticed the accused, the
wife pushed her paramour who got his revolver. The accused, who has then peeping
above the built in cabinet in their room, jumped down and ran away. He went to the
house of his PC soldier-friend, and neighbor, got his (soldier’s) M-16 rifle and
immediately, it was almost 6:30 p.m. then, went back to his house. Not finding his
wife there, he went to the hangout of Pedro Orsal and found the latter playing
mahjong there. The accused fired at Pedro three times with his rifle, hit him and two
bystanders. Pedro died instantaneously of wounds in the head, trunk, and abdomen.
The two bystanders were seriously injured but survived
What offense, did the wife of Juan Santos commit, if any why? (1988 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The wife of Juan Santos committed the crime of adultery. Article 333 of the Revised Penal

Page 317 of 338
Code provides that “Who are guilty of adultery. Adultery is committed by any married
woman who shall have sexual intercourse with a man not her husband.”

Criminal law – Crimes against chastity – Adultery

In 1980, Socorro Wagas, a Filipino citizen and a resident of Cebu City, and Loven Adenauer, a
West German citizen, were married at the Sto. Rosario Catholic Church in Cebu City. In 1983,
Loven returned to West Germany where he initiated a divorce proceeding against Socorro
before a local court which, in due time, promulgated in July 1985 a decree of divorce on the
ground of failure of marriage. In September 1985, Loven returned to the Philippines
only to find out that Socorro had filed a case of legal separation against him. In
December 1985, Loven, who learned of the cohabitation of Socorro and Efren Reyes,
her childhood sweetheart, when he (Loven) was in Germany, filed a sworn complaint
for adultery against Socorro and Efren with the Office of the City Fiscal of Cebu.
Socorro’s counsel moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that under Article
344 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of adultery cannot be prosecuted except
upon a sworn complaint filed by the offended spouse, and Loven, having obtained a
divorce in Germany, had ceased to be her offended spouse.

Resolve the motion. (1991 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

In adultery or concubinage, the person who can legally file the complaint should be the
offended spouse and nobody else. Adenauer being no longer the husband because of the
divorce he initiated, he has no legal standing anymore. (PilapiL vs. Somera , 174 SCRA 653)

Criminal law – Crimes against chastity – Adultery and Concubinage
A, a married woman, had sexual intercourse with a man who was not her husband.
The man did not know she was married. What crime, if any, did each of them
commit? Why? (2%) (2002 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A, the married woman, committed the crime of adultery under Article 333 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, for having sexual intercourse with a man not her husband while
her marriage is still subsisting. But the man who had carnal knowledge of her, not knowing
her fo be married, shall not be liable for adultery.

A is married. He has a paramour with whom he has sexual relations on a more or less
regular basis. They meet at least once a week in hotels, motels and other places
where they can be alone. Is A guilty of any crime? Why? (3%) (2002 Bar Question)

Page 318 of 338
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A is guilty of the crime of concubinage by having sexual intercourse under scandalous
circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife.

Having sexual relations on a more or less regular basis in hotels, motels and other places
may be considered a scandalous circumstance that offends public conscience, giving rise to
criticism and general protest, such acts being imprudent and wanton and setting a bad
example (People vs. Santos, 86 SCRA 705 [1978]).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
A is not guilty of any crime because a married man does not incur the crime of
concubinage by merely having a paramour, unless under scandalous circumstances, or he
keeps her in the conjugal dwelling as a mistress, or cohabits with her in any other place.
His weekly meetings with his paramour does not per se constitute scandalous
circumstance.

Criminal law – Crimes against chastity - Concubinage

Al Chua, a Chinese national, filed a petition under oath for naturalization, with the
Regional Trial Court of Manila. In his petition, he stated that he is married to Leni
Chua; that he is living with her in Sampaioc, Manila; that he is of good moral
character; and that he has conducted himself in an irreproachable manner during
his stay in the Philippines. However, at the time of the filing of the petition, Leni
Chua was already living in Cebu, while Al was living with Babes Toh in Manila, with
whom he has an amorous relationship. After his direct testimony, Al Chua withdrew
his petition for naturalization.

What crime or crimes, if any, did Al Chua commit? Explain. (5%) (2005 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Concubinage (Art. 334, RPC).

The withdrawal of the petition did not have the effect of negating the crime committed. At
the time when the petition was filed, Al Chua was already living with his mistress Babes
Toh in the conjugal dwelling in Manila, thus committing concubinage.

Criminal law – Crimes against chastity – Concubinage

Page 319 of 338
Suspecting that her husband of twenty years was having an affair, Leilanie hired a
private investigator to spy on him. After two weeks, the private investigator showed
Leilanie a video of her husband having sexual intercourse with another woman in a
room of a five-star hotel. Based on what she saw on the video, Leilanie accused her
husband of concubinage. Will the case of concubinage prosper? Explain. (3%) (2010
Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, a case for concubinage will not prosper because said crime may be committed only by a
husband in three (3) ways, viz:
1.) By keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling; or
2) By having sexual intercourse with a woman not his wife under scandalous
circumstances; or 3) By cohabiting with a woman not his wife in any other place
(Art. 334, RPC).
The facts of the case given do not constitute any of the situations above-stated.

Include:
a) Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009 (R.A. No. 9995)
(i) Punishable acts
b) Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act (R.A. No. 7610, as amended)
(i) Child prostitution and other acts of abuse
(a) Punishable acts
(b) Compare prosecution for Acts of Lasciviousness under Art. 366, RPC
and R.A. No. 7610, as amended
(ii) Obscene publications and indecent shows
(a) Punishable acts
c) Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 (R.A. No. 9208)
(i) Punishable acts
d) Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (R.A. No. 9262)
(i) Punishable acts
Crimes Against Civil Status (Articles 347-352)

Criminal law – Crimes against the civil status of persons – Simulation of

Page 320 of 338
births
A childless couple, A and B, wanted to have a child they could call their own. C, an
unwed mother, sold her newborn baby to them. Thereafter, A and B caused their
names to be stated in the birth certificate of the child as his parents. This was done
in connivance with the doctor who assisted in the delivery of C. What are the
criminal liabilities, if any, of the couple A and B, C and the doctor? (2002 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The couple A and B, and the doctor shall be liable for the crime of simulation of birth,
penalized under Article 347 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The act of making it
appear in the birth certificate of a child that the persons named therein are the parents of
the child when they are not really the biological parents of said child constitutes the crime
of simulation of birth.

Criminal law – Crimes against the civil status of persons - Marriage contracted
against the provisions of the marriage law

Tong and Theresa got married before a judge. Theresa is below 18 years old. Their marriage
was effected because Theresa and her mother, Petra, at the instigation of Tong, assured the
judge who solemnized the marriage ceremony, that Theresa was 19 years old and that her
fatherwas already dead. Upon Tong’s prodding too, Petra gave her consent. The father of
Theresa, who was actually not dead, heard of what took place. Not being content in only
instituting an action for annulment of their marriage, he desired to prosecute Tong.
The father consulted you for the purpose of filing a criminal action against Tong. With what
crime would you charge Tong? Explain. (1993 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Violation of Art. 350, RPC. Marriage contracted against the provisions of the marriage law.

Criminal law – Crimes against civil status of persons – Premature marriages

At the time Josefa’s husband, Pedro Coipuz, died, she was eight months pregnant. As
she was afraid she could not support her child with Pedro, Josefa accepted Pablo’s
proposal for marriage. One week after the marriage, Josefa gave birth to a boy whom
they named, Pedro Coipuz, Jr. Prosecuted for contracting premature marriage under

Page 321 of 338
Act. 351 of the Revised Penal Code. She has engaged your services as a lawyer.

How would you argue for her acquittal? (1987 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

I would argue for the acquittal of Josefa. She is not liable for contracting premature
marriage under Article 351 of the Revised Penal Code. This article does not apply as Josefa
knew she was pregnant (eight months) when Pedro Coipuz, her husband, died. When she
married Pablo, and as a matter of fact, one week after the marriage, she gave birth to a boy
the paternity of the child was not in doubt Article 351 punishes premature marriage in
order to prevent doubtful paternity (People vs. Rosal 49 Phil. 539).

Criminal law – Crimes against the civil status of persons – Illegal
marriages

CBP is legally married to OBM. Without obtaining a marriage license, CBP contracted
a second marriage to RST.

Is CBP liable for bigamy? Reason briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Whether CBP could be held liable for bigamy or not, depends on whether the second
marriage is invalid or valid even without a marriage license. Although as a general rule,
marriages solemnized without license are null and void ab initio, there are marriages
exempted from license requirement under Chapter 2, Title 1 of the Family Code, such as in
Article 27 which is a marriage in articulo mortis. If the second marriage was valid even
without a marriage license, then CBP would be liable for bigamy.

Otherwise, CBP is not liable for bigamy but for Illegal Marriage in Art. 350 for the Revised
Penal Code, specifically designated as “Marriage contracted against provisions of laws."

Criminal law – Crimes against civil status of persons - Bigamy
Issa and Bobby, who were first cousins, were married in 1975. In 1993, Bobby was
told that his marriage to Issa was incestous under the law then in force and therefore
void ab initio. He married Caring.
Charged with bigamy, Bobby raised the defense that his first marriage is void

Page 322 of 338
ab initio and therefore, there is no previous marriage to speak of.
Will you sustain Bobby's defense? (1994 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, I will not sustain Bobby’s defense. Bobby remarried in 1993, or after the Family Code
took effect on August 3, 1988, and therefore his capacity to marry in 1993 shall be
governed by said Code. In Art. 40 of the Family Code, it is mandated that the absolute
nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis
solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void. In short, there is a need of
a judicial declaration of such nullity before Bobby may validly remarry (Dorothy Terre vs.
Jordan Terre. 211 SCRA6).

Criminal law – Crimes against civil status of persons - Bigamy

Joselito married Ramona in July, 1995, only to learn later on that Ramona was previously
married to David, from whom Ramona had been separated for more than ten years.
Believing that his marriage to Ramona was an absolute nullity, Joselito contracted a
subsequent marriage with Ana- belle.
Can Joselito be prosecuted for bigamy? Explain. (1996 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, Joselito can be prosecuted for bigamy for his subsequent marriage with Anabelle even
though his marriage with Ramona was an absolute nullity.
Despite the nullity of the first marriage, Joselito should have filed a case of dissolution of
such marriage under Art. 40, Family Code, before contracting a second marriage with
Anabelle.

Criminal law – Crimes against civil status of persons - Bigamy

Raissa and Martin are married to each other but had been separated for the last five
years. Raissa decided to wed Juan, her suitor, who had no inkling that she was
married. Raissa and Juan accomplished an application for marriage license which
they subscribed and swore to before the Local Civil Registrar. Raissa declared, in the
application, that she is single. The marriage license was issued. In due time, the
couple were married by the mayor. Raissa and Juan had their first sexual intercourse
later in the evening.

Page 323 of 338
What crime or crimes, if any, did Raissa commit? Explain briefly. (7%) (2008 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Raissa committed the crime of bigamy for contracting a second marriage while her
marriage to Martin is still subsisting. There was neither judicial declaration of dissolution
or nullity of the first marriage with Martin nor a judicial declaration of legal absence of
Martin. The falsehood she stated in the application for the license which she swore to,
although felonious, should be considered absorbed in the crime of bigamy since they are
routine incidents in contracting any marriage, including a bigamous marriage. It is
absorbed in the crime of bigamy.

Raissa also committed adultery by having sexual intercourse with Juan, who is not her
husband. She is still legally married to Martin. The intercourse cannot be absorbed in the
bigamous marriage because the crime of bigamy was already consummated when adultery
was committed. It should not be overlooked, however, that adultery is a private crime. It
requires a complaint solely from the offended spouse. A complaint from Martin is
indispensable to prosecute Raissa's adultery.

Criminal law - Crimes against the civil status of persons - Bigamy

Hubert and Eunice were married in the Philippines. Hubert took graduate studies in
New York and met his former girlfriend Eula. They renewed their friendship and
finally decided to get married. The first wife, Eunice, heard about the marriage and
secured a copy of the marriage contract in New York. Eunice filed a case of bigamy
against Hubert in the Philippines.

a) Will the case prosper? Explain. (4%) (2008 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a) No, a case for bigamy filed in the Philippines will not prosper because the
bigamous marriage appears to have been committed in New York, U.S.A., not in the
Philippines. The governing rule of procedure as to the place where the criminal action is to
be instituted directs that the criminal action should be instituted and tried in the court of
the municipality or territory where the offense was committed, or where any of its
essential ingredients occurred if it were a continuing crime. In criminal cases, the venue
where the action should be instituted is jurisdictional; if this is not complied with, it would
render the prosecution invalid or void.

b) If Eunice gave her consent to the second marriage, what will your answer
be? Explain. (3%) (2008 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Page 324 of 338
b) The answer would be the same even if the wife by the first marriage, which is
subsisting, gave her consent to the second marriage. Bigamy is a public crime and not
subject to agreement between the victim and the accused. Moreover, the legal obstacle to
the institution of a case for bigamy in the Philippines is jurisdictional and cannot be
excused or waived by the parties affected.

Crimes Against Honor (Articles 353-364)

Criminal law – Crimes against honor - libel by theatrical exhibition

In the course of proceeding during a so-called “public hearing held before a crowd in
a place open to the public, the leaders of the meeting “tried” certain public officials
and thereafter “sentenced” them to “death by assassination or ambuscades.”
Are the leaders criminally liable? Decide the case. (1988 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The leaders are criminally liable for the crime of libel by theatrical exhibition. Article 355
of the Revised Penal Code provides: “libel by means of writing or similar means.— A libel
committed by means of writing, printing lithography, engraving, radio, phornographs,
painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means, shall be
punished by prision correctional

Criminal law – Crimes against honor - slander or slight defamation

(a) Romeo Cunanan, publisher of the Baguio Daily, was sued by Pedro Aguas for
libel for the public publication of his picture with the notice that: “This is to inform
the public that Mr. Pedro Aguas whose picture appears above has ceased to be
connected with the Sincere Insurance Company as underwriter as of December 31,
1987. Any transaction entered into by him after said date will not be honored.”
Is the publication defamatory? Explain briefly. (1988 Bar Question)

For some time, bad blood had existed beween the two families of Maria Razon and
Judge Gadioma who were neighbors. First, there w&s a boundary dispute between them
which was still pending in court. Maria’s mother also filed an administrative complaint
against the judge which was however dismissed. The Razons also felt intimidated by the
position and alleged influence of their neighbor. Fanning fire to the situation was the practice
of the Gadiomas of throwing garbage and animal excrement into the Razon’s premises. In an

Page 325 of 338
explosion of anger, Maria called Judge Gadioma “land grabber'*, “shameless”, and
“hypocrite."

What crime was committed by Maria, if any? Explain briefly. (1988 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) The publication is not defamatory because the element of intent to defame is
absent. This is a mere announcement and does not carry any implication.
(b) Maria committed the crime of slander or slight defamation only because she
was under the influence of anger. When Maria called Judge Gadioma a hypocrite and land
grabber she imputed to him the commission of crimes.

Criminal law – Crimes against honor - slander by deed
Maria called Lydia names and slapped her at the dance floor in the presence of many
people because she suspected that Lydia was flirting with her boyfriend. The
following day, Lydia filed with the Fiscal’s Office a complaint for slander by deed
against Maria. After preliminary investigation, the Fiscal forgot all about the case
until the 179th day, which was a Saturday, from the commission of the crime. Since
the following day was a Sunday, the fiscal filed the information in court on Monday,
the 181st day from the commission of the crime. After trial, the Judge convicted
Maria. She engaged another lawyer who on appeal asserted that the crime of slander
by deed had prescribed because it was filed in court one day after the six-month
period of prescription under Art. 90 of the Revised Penal Code. The Fiscal argued
that since the 180th day fell on a Sunday, he could file the information the following
Monday. He also said that, in any event, Maria waived the defense of prescription
because she did not raise it during the trial of case.

Decide the case. (1987 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The crime of slander by deed has already prescribed as it was tiled one day after the six
month period of prescription. The rule is if the last day of the period of prescription of a
crime falls on a Sunday, as in the problem, the information cannot be filed on the next
working day, which is Monday as that will lengthen the period of prescription, which will
not be favorable to the accused. (Japdiangco vs. Bartolome 122 SCRA 713) The contention
of the Fiscal that Maria waived the defense of prescription because she did not raise it
during the trial of die case is untenable. It has already been settled that prescription,
although not raised in the trial may be invoked on appeal. (People vs. Balagtas 105 Phil.
1362; People vs. Castro 95 Phil 462).

Page 326 of 338
Criminal law – Crimes against honor - grave oral defamation; light slander
a. Lando and Marco are candidates in the local elections. In his speeches
Lando attacked his opponent Marco alleging that he is the son of Nanding, a robber
and a thief who amassed his wealth through shady deals. May Marco file a case
against Lando for grave oral defamation? State your reasons. (1990 Bar Question)

b. Suppose Marco also delivered a speech stating therein that he had charged Lando
of estafa through falsification in the Tanodbayan so much so that since his (Lando's) integrity
is doubtful he should not be elected. May Marco also be held liable for grave oral defamation?
State your reasons. (1990 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a) Marco cannot file a case for grave oral defamation. If at all, he may file a case for light slander.
In the case of People v. Laroga (40 O.G. 123), it was held that defamation in a political meeting, when
feelings are running high and people could not think clearly, only amount to light slander.
b) No, Marco cannot be held liable for grave oral defamation considering that Lando was
merely stating what appears in a public record, referring to the exercise of a legal right to file suit.
Moreover, his statement against Marco pertains to a person who is running for public office wherein
a wider latitude is given.

Criminal law – Crimes against honor - Oral defamation or slander

Because of a pendency of a labor dispute, two (2) belligerent labor unions had a
confrontation in a picket line during which the President and the Secretary of one
union shouted to the members and officers of the rival union composed of men and
women, the following:
“Mga supot, mga walang bayag, mga kabit ng Intsik, mga tuta, mga segunda mano."
Are the President and the Secretary of said union liable for oral defamation/slander?
Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. The President and the Secretary of the Union are not liable for oral defamation or
slander because there is no identity of the offended party. The individual defamed or
slandered was not singled out (People vs. Uy Tioco, 32 Phil. 624).

Criminal law – Crimes against honor – Libel; publication in the

Page 327 of 338
newspapers; broadcast over the radio
A was nominated Secretary of a Department in the Executive Branch of the government.
His nomination was thereafter submitted to the Commission on Appointments for
confirmation. While the Commission was considering the nomination, a group of concerned
citizens caused to be published in the newspapers a full-page statement objecting to A's
appointment. They alleged that A was a drug dependent, that he had several mistresses,
and that he was corrupt, having accepted bribes or favors from parties transacting
business in his previous office, and therefore he was unfit for the position to which he had
been nominated. As a result of the publication, the nomination was not confirmed by the
Commission on Appointments. The official sued the concerned citizens and the newspapers
for libel and damages on account of his non-confirmation. How will you decide the case?
(3%) (2002 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I will acquit the concerned citizens and the newspapers Involved, from the crime of libel,
because obviously they made the denunciation out of a moral or social duty and thus there
is absence of malice.
Since A was a candidate for a very important public position of a Department Secretary,
his moral, mental and physical fitness for the public trust in such position becomes a public
concern as the interest of the public is at stake. It is pursuant to such concern that the
denunciation was made; hence, bereft of malice.
B. If defamatory imputations are made not by publication in the newspapers but
by broadcast over the radio, do they constitute libel? Why? (2%) (2002 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, because libel may be committed by radio broadcast Article 355 of the Revised Penal
Code punishes libel committed by means, among others, of radio broadcast, Inasmuch as
the broadcast made by radio is public and may be defamatory.

Criminal law – Crimes against honor – Slander by deed; as distinguished
from maltreatment
Distinguish slander by deed from maltreatment. (1994 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Slander by deed is a crime committed when a person publicly subjects another to an act
intended or calculated to cast dishonor, discredit or contempt upon the latter. Absent the
intent to cast dishonor, discredit, contempt, or insult to the offended party, the crime is
only maltreatment under Art. 266, par. 3, where, by deed, an offender ill-treats another

Page 328 of 338
without causing injury.

Criminal law – Crimes against honor - Slander

Distinguish clearly but briefly: (10%) (2004 Bar Question)

Between oral defamation and criminal conversation.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Oral defamation, known as slander, is a malicious imputation of any act, omission,
condition or circumstance against a person, done orally in public, tending to cause
dishonor, discredit, contempt, embarrassment or ridicule to the latter. This is a crime
against honor penalized in Art. 358 of the Revised Penal Code.

Criminal conversation. The term is used in making a polite reference to sexual intercourse
as in certain crimes, like rape, seduction and adultery. It has no definite concept as a crime

Criminal law – Crimes against public interest – False testimony; when
incurred; when prescribed

Paolo was charged with homicide before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. Andrew, a
prosecution witness, testified that he saw Paolo shoot Abby during their heated argument.
While the case is still pending, the City Hall of Manila burned down and the entire records of
the case were destroyed. Later, the records were reconstituted. Andrew was again called to
the witness stand. This time he testified that his first testimony was false and the truth was
he was abroad when the crime took place.
The judge immediately ordered the prosecution of Andrew for giving a false testimony
favorable to the defendant in a criminal case.

1) Will the case against Andrew prosper? (1994 Bar Question)

2) Paolo was acquitted. The decision became final on January 10. 1987. On June 18.
1994 a case of giving false testimony was filed against Andrew. As his lawyer, what
legal step will you take? (1994 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes. For one to be criminally liable under Art. 181. RPC, it is not necessary that the criminal
case where Andrew testified is terminated first. It is not even required of the prosecution to

Page 329 of 338
prove which of the two statements of the witness is false and to prove the statement to be
false by evidence other than the contradictory statements (People vs. Arazola, 13 Court of
Appeals Report. 2nd series, p. 808).

Criminal law – Crimes against public interest – Perjury; when not considered

A, who was the client of B (a lawyer), signed a retainer agreement for the payment of
attorney’s fees. After B rendered satisfactory service, A refused to pay the attorney’s fees. B
sued. In her verified answer, A alleged that she did not owe money to plaintiff B nor did she
engage his legal services. These statements under oath were false.

B filed a criminal complaint for perjury against A, and an information was filed in court. If
you are the lawyer for accused A, what is your defense, if any? (1991 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

I will move for the dismissal of the complaint for perjury. The falsity of sworn statement must be
required or authorized by law (Flordeliz v. Himalalaon, 84 SCRA 277).

Criminal law - Crimes against public interest - Perjury
Sisenando purchased the share of the stockholders of Estrella Corporation in two
installments, making him the majority stockholder thereof and eventually, its president.
Because the stockholders who sold their stocks failed to comply with their warranties
attendant to the sale., Sisenando withheld payment of the second installment due on the
shares and deposited the money in escrow instead, subject to release once said stockholders
comply with their warranties. The stockholders concerned, in turn, rescinded the sale in
question and removed Sisenando from the Presidency of the Estrella Corporation. Sisenando
then filed a verified complaint for damages against said stockholders in his capacity as
president and principal stockholder of Estrella Corporation. In retaliation, the stockholders
concerned, after petitioning the Securities and Exchange Commission to declare the
rescission valid, further filed a criminal case for perjury against Sisenando, claiming that the
latter perjured himself when he stated under oath in the verification of his complaint for
damages that he is the President of the Estrella Corporation when in fact he had already been
removed as such.

Under the facts of the case, could Sisenando be held liable for perjury? Explain. (1996 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Page 330 of 338
No, Sisenando may not be held liable for perjury because it cannot be reasonably
maintained that he willfully and deliberately made an assertion of a falsehood when he
alleged in the complaint that he is the President of the Corporation. Obviously, he made the
allegation on the premise that his removal from the presidency is not valid and that is
precisely the issue brought about by his complaint to the SEC. It is a fact that Sisenando has
been the President of the corporation and it is from that position that the stockholders
concerned purportedly removed him, whereupon he filed the complaint questioning his
removal. There is no willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood which is a requisite of
perjury.

Criminal law - Crimes against public interest - Perjury

A, a government employee, was administratively charged with immorality for having an
affair with B, a co-employee in the same office who believed him to be single. To exculpate
himself. A testified that he was single and was willing to marry B. He induced C to testify and
C did testify that B was single. The truth, however, was that A had earlier married D, now a
neighbor of C.

Is A guilty of perjury? Are A and C guilty of subordination of perjury? (1997 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. A is not guilty of perjury because the willful falsehood asserted by him is not material to the
charge of immorality. Whether A is single or married, the charge of immorality against him as a
government employee could proceed or prosper. In other words, A's civil status is not a defense to
the charge of immorality, hence, not a material matter that could influence the charge.
There is no crime of subornation of perjury. The crime is now treated as plain perjury with the one
inducing another as the principal inducement, and the latter, as principal by direct participation
{People us. PodoL 66 Phil. 365). Since in this case A cannot be held liable for perjury, the matter that
he testified to being immaterial, he cannot therefore be held responsible as a principal by
inducement when he induced C to testify on his status. Consequently. C is not liable as principal by
direct participation in perjury having testified on matters not material to an administrative case.

Criminal law – Crimes against public interest - Perjury

Al Chua, a Chinese national, filed a petition under oath for naturalization, with the
Regional Trial Court of Manila. In his petition, he stated that he is married to Leni
Chua; that he is living with her in Sampaioc, Manila; that he is of good moral
character; and that he has conducted himself in an irreproachable manner during
his stay in the Philippines. However, at the time of the filing of the petition, Leni
Chua was already living in Cebu, while Al was living with Babes Toh in Manila, with
whom he has an amorous relationship. After his direct testimony, Al Chua withdrew

Page 331 of 338
his petition for naturalization.

What crime or crimes, if any, did Al Chua commit? Explain. (5%) (2005 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Al Chua committed (1) Perjury (Art. 183, RPC). The crime of perjury is committed by Al
Chua when he stated under oath that he was living with Leni Chua in Sampaloc when in
fact he was living with his mistress, and Leni Chua was already living in Cebu at the time of
the filing of the petition. It is a false allegation under oath, on a material matter required by
law in naturalization cases.

Criminal law – Crimes against honor – Libel or slander
During a seminar workshop attended by government employees from the Bureau of
Customs and the Bureau of Internal Revenue, A, the speaker, in the course of his
lecture, lamented the fact that a great majority of those serving in said agencies were
utterly dishonest and corrupt. The following morning, the whole group of employees
in the two bureaus who attended the seminar, as complainants, filed a criminal
complaint against A for uttering what the group claimed to be defamatory
statements of the lecturer. In court, A filed a motion to quash the information,
reciting fully the above facts, on the ground that no crime were committed. If you
were the judge, how would you resolve the motion? (2003 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

I would grant the motion to quash on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an
offense, since there is no definite person or persons dishonored. The crime of libel or
slander, is a crime against honor such that the person or persons dishonored must be
identifiable even by innuendoes: otherwise the crime against honor is not committed.
Moreover, A was not making a malicious imputation, but merely stating an opinion; he was
delivering a lecture with no malice at all during a seminar workshop. Malice being
inherently absent in the utterance, the statement is not actionable as defamatory.

Criminal law – Crimes against honor - Libel

In an interview aired on television, Cindee uttered defamatory statements against
Erika, a successful and reputable businesswoman.

What crime or crimes did Cindee commit? Explain. (3%) (2005 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Page 332 of 338
Cindee committed libel. Defamation made in a television program is penalized as libel
under Art. 355 of the Revised Penal Code. Televison falls under “similar means" in the
enumeration as “radio phonograph, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or
any similar means" in said Article. [People v. Casten, et al.t CJL G.R. No. 07924 - CR., Dec.
13, 1974)

Criminal law – Crimes against honor – Proof of truth in the crime of libel

TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the
statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences. (5%)
(2009 Bar Question)

In the crime of libel, truth is an absolute defense.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

False. Article 361 of the RPC provides that proof of truth shall be admissible in libel
cases only if the same imputes a crime or is made against a public officer with respect to
facts related to the discharge of their official duties, and moreover must have been
published with good motives and for justifiable ends. Hence, "truth" as a defense, on its
own, is not enough.

Criminal law – Crimes against honor – Libel by means of writings or
similar means

Angeline maintains a website where visitors can give their comments on the posted
pictures of the goods she sells in her exclusive boutique. Bettina posted a comment
that the red Birkin bag shown in Angelina’s website is fake and that Angelina is
known to sell counterfeit items. Angelina wants to file a case against Bettina. She
seeks your advice. What advice will you give her? (4%) (2010 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

I will advise Angelina to file a criminal case of libel against Bettina because the imputations
made by Bettina is libelous. Whether the imputation of a defect, status, or condition is real
or imaginary, if it publicly tends to discredit, dishonor or place in contempt or ridicule a
particular person who is identified, the imputation is presumed by law to be malicious and
thus penalized as libel under Art 355 of the Revised Penal Code.

Page 333 of 338
Moreover, if Bettina is engaged in similar line of trade, her statement against the goods sold
by Angelina may constitute a violation of the law on Unfair Competition (Rep. Act No.
8291.)

Include:
a) Administrative Circular 08-2008 Re: Guidelines in the Observance of a
Rule of Preference in the Imposition of Penalties in Libel Cases
(i) Preference of imposition of fine

Criminal Negligence (Article 365)

Criminal law – Criminal negligence - Simple Negligence Resulting in Less
Serious Physical Injuries; Simple Imprudence Resulting in Less Serious
Physical Injuries; Reckless imprudence resulting in less serious physical
injuries

During a concert of Gary V., and in order to prevent the crowd from rushing to the
stage, Rafael Padilla (a security guard) pointed his gun at the onrush of people. When
the crowd still pushed forward, Rafael fired his gun into the air to scare them off.
However, the bullet hit one of the metal roof supports, ricocheted and then hit one of
the stage crew members, causing injuries which resulted in the latter's confinement
in a hospital for twelve days.

What crime/ s did Rafael commit? Explain your answer (2007 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The crime committed by Rafael is Simple Negligence Resulting in Less Serious Physical
Injuries. Rafael is a security guard and was on duty when he discharged the firearm. The
discharge of the firearm was not calculated to cause alarm or danger but simply to ward off
the unruly crowd which persisted in pushing forward, thereby challenging the duty he was
to fulfill there. The discharge of the firearm, therefore, should neither constitute a crime of
Alarms and Scandal under Art. 155 of the Revised Penal Code nor may such discharge
amount to a crime of Illegal Discharge of Firearms under Art. 254 of the Code since it was
not directed towards a particular person when the firearm was discharged.

However, the physical injuries resulting from the discharge of the firearm betrays a lack of
precaution in a situation where the danger to the discharge of the firearm is not clearly
manifest, thus considered as simple imprudence only. The crime committed is Simple
Imprudence Resulting In Less Serious Physical Injuries, since the physical injuries required
only twelve (12) days of medical attention.

Page 334 of 338
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

The crime is reckless imprudence resulting in less serious physical injuries, because the
discharge of the firearm was not necessary under the circumstances and therefore, Rafael
should be aware of the possibility of injuries that could result from such discharge of the
firearm.

Criminal law – Criminal negligence – Reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide

Eddie brought his son Randy to a local faithhealer known as "Mother Himala." He
was diagnosed by the faithhealer as being possessed by an evil spirit. Eddie
thereupon authorized the conduct of a "treatment" calculated to drive the "spirit"
from the boy's body. Unfortunately, the procedure conducted resulted in the boy's
death.

The faithhealer and three others who were part of the healing ritual were charged
with murder and convicted by the lower court. If you were the appellate court
Justice, would you sustain the conviction upon appeal? Explain your answer.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the conviction for murder should not be sustained, because there is no indication that
the accused acted with intent to kill Randy. On the contrary, the facts show that the accused
acted to "treat" the victim in a way of driving the evil spirit which was believed to have
"possessed" him. Considering that proximate cause of the victim's death was the healing
ritual done by the accused which is, not recognized in law as legitimate, the accused are
criminally liable for the victim's death. As they may have overdone the "healing ritual" they
conducted on the victim's body, causing the latter's death, although the intent to kill was
absent, the accused may be held criminally liable for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
Homicide.

Criminal law – Criminal negligence – Reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide

Olimpio caught a cold and was running a fever. His doctor prescribed paracetamol.
Olimpio went to a drug store with the prescription, and the pharmacist sold him
three (3) tablets. Upon arriving home, he took a tablet. One hour later, he had a
seizure and died. The autopsy showed that the tablet he had taken was not
paracetamol but a pill to which he was allergic. The pharmacist was charged with
murder. Is the charge proper? If not, what should it be? Explain. (6%) (2008 Bar
Question)

Page 335 of 338
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The pharmacist committed a serious mistake. But the mistake could not characterize the
death as murder because the specific intent to kill the victim was absent. The pharmacist
could not be liable for murder.

The pharmacist should be charged instead with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide
(Art. 365, RPC) because Olimpio's death was the result of the pharmacist's serious
negligence or imprudence as there is no specific intent to kill and no requisite qualifying
circumstance.

Special law – RA 6805; Instances of legal use of an alias by a Filipino citizen

1. When can a Filipino citizen residing in this country use an alias legally? Give 3
instances. 2.5% (2006 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, an alias may be legally used -
a) as a pseudonym in cinema and other entertainment field;
b) as a pen name in literary composition or work;
c) as a pseudonym in television and radio broadcasting (Ursua v. CA, 256 SCRA 147
11986); RA 6085, Secs. 1 & 2;

Special Law – PD 704 – punishable acts

Upon a laboratory examination of the fish seized by the police and agents of the
Fisheries Commission, it was indubitably determined that the fish they were selling
were caught with the use of explosives. Accordingly, the three vendors were
criminally charged with the violation of Section 33 of P.D. 704 which makes it
unlawful for any person to knowingly possess, deal in, or sell for profit any fish
which have been illegally caught. During the trial, the three vendors claimed that
they bought the fish from a fishing boat which they duly identified. The prosecution
however claimed that the three vendors should nevertheless be held liable for the
offense as they were the ones caught in possession of the fish illegally caught.

On the basis of the above facts, if you were the judge, would you convict the three
fish vendors? Explain. (1996 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Page 336 of 338
No, I would not convict the three fish vendors if I were the judge. Mere possession of such
fish without knowledge of the fact that the same were caught with the use of explosives
does not by itself render the seller-possessor criminally liable under P.D. 704. Although the
act penalized in said Decree may be a malum prohibitum, the law punishes the possession,
dealing in or selling of such fish only when “knowingly" done that the fish were caught
with the use of explosives; hence criminal intent is essential. The claim by the fish vendors
that they only bought the fish from fishing boats which they “duly identified", renders their
possession of such fish innocent unless the prosecution could prove that they have
knowledge that explosives were used in catching such fish, and the accused had knowledge
thereof.

Special law - Pres. Decree Nos. 704 and 1058 - Fishing with the use of
explosives; punishable acts

Two (2) Philippine National Police (PNP) officers, X and Y, on board on motorboat with Z, a
civilian as motorman, arrested A and B who were in a banca, for dynamite fishing. The
latter’s banca was towed towards the municipality. On the way, the PNP motorboat was
intercepted by a third banca whose occupants, C, D. and E, tried to negotiate for the release of
A and B and their banca. The PNP officers refused and instead shouted at C, D, and E that they
are all under arrest. Thereupon, C, D, and E simultaneously threw dynamite sticks at the
PNP motorboats. The first explosion killed X. A and B also reacted by throwing
dynamite at the PNP motorboat: its explosion killed Y and Z.

What crime or crimes did A, B, C, D and E commit? (1991 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Firstly, A and B committed a violation of Pres. Decree No. 534 (on illegal fishing) as
amended by Pres. Decree Nos. 704 and 1058. Fishing with the use of explosives is
punishable under said Decree.

Special law – Act Defining Certain Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or
Under Custodial Investigation (RA 7438) – Rights which can be violated

Upon complaint of Baby, NBI agent Cesar invited estafador to the NBI headquarters where
Cesar showed to Estafador the sworn complaint of Baby for estafa. He thereafter began
questioning Estafador who told him that he (Estafador) is willing to submit to an
Investigation since he has nothing to hide. Thereupon, Cesar got a typewriter and took down
the statement of Estafador without informing the latter that he has a right to remain silent
and to secure the services of a lawyer. After the statement was signed by Estafador, his
fiancee, Fadora, came and asked Cesar to allow her to confer with Estafador but Cesar refused

Page 337 of 338
saying that after all. Fadora is not a lawyer, and that Estafador voluntarily gave his statement.
If you were the lawyer of Estafador, with what crime would you charge the NBI agent?
Explain. .(1993 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Violation of RA 7438, defining rights of persons arrested.
1. Failure to inform him of his right to counsel and to remain silent (Sec. 4, par. 1); and
2. Prevent an imm