You are on page 1of 18

ATENEO DE MANILA UNIVERSITY

Ateneo Law School

CRIMINAL LAW I

REVIEW GUIDE
FOR THE FINAL EXAMINATION
Atty. Lorenzo U. Padilla

1. Five different thefts were committed. It has been
proved that X, knowing that the oil which was brought to her for
sale was stolen by the persons who were seeking to sell it to her,
advised them thereupon to continue stealing oil and furnished
them vessels in which to carry it and contributed on five different
occasions to the realization of the said thefts. The physical
authors of the crime were boys under 15 years of age. They acted
upon the suggestions of X without discernment or judgment of
their own. What is the liability of X? (a) X is not criminally
liable because her act would have made her an accessory-
after-the- fact but there can be no accessory without a
principal; (b) X is a principal by inducement, which
inducement not merely favored the execution of the crime
but determined its commission; (c) X is a mere accessory-
after-the-fact for having benefitted from or assisted the
principals (albeit themselves exempt from criminal
liability) in benefitting from the proceeds of the crime; (d)
although not liable under the Revised Penal Code, under
which the liability of an accessory is subordinate to that of
the principal, she is nevertheless liable as a fence under
PD No. 1612.

2. Not among the civil liability arising ex delictu: (a)
Restitution; (b) Reparation for the damage caused; (c)
Indemnification for consequential damages; (d) Fines.

3. Does not prescribe even after ONE (1) YEAR: (a)
offenses under special penal laws punished only by fine or
by imprisonment for not more than one month or both; (b)
libel or other similar offenses; (c) light penalties; (d)
crimes punishable with arresto mayor.

4. The spouses W and Z, coming from Nasugbu, returned
to their house in Balayan, and before entering the same called to
X, W’s sister, who they knew was there. Receiving no reply, they
went up into the house, the husband leading the way and
opening the door, followed by his wife who, once inside, lit a
match and then a small kerosene lamp there was in the house. In
the meantime, the husband approached the place where X was,
1

all. with the express obligation on the part of the latter to pay to the former the proceeds of the sale of said jewels. can X plead self-defense? (a) No. she is not entitled to invoke self-defense. assuming good conduct. and perhaps did so to awaken her. she should at least be entitled to the benefit of an incomplete self-defense against what. although in the latter case their entitlement thereto is reduced to 4/5 of time spent under preventive detention. NP received from JV several jewels. far from complying with her duty. (d) being sentenced to a maximum term of imprisonment of six years and one day. 7. although the criminal act is not altogether excusable. 6. Under the circumstances. Who is entitled to good conduct time allowance? (a) all prisoners. pawned the said jewels at various dates during said 2 . whether complete or incomplete. however. whether serving sentence by final judgment or mere detention prisoners. who was near her. which is a primordial or indispensable element of this justifying circumstance. (c) having been previously convicted by final judgment of a light felony (i. in her mind. no real need of wounding with the said weapon him who had merely caught her arm. she thought to be an unprovoked unlawful aggression against her chastity. (c) detention prisoners only. she would have been perfectly justified in so acting in defense of her honor or chastity. seized a pocketknife used in spinning hemp. as she was asleep and had not replied to her sister's calls. Not a ground to deny probation: (a) having appealed the court’s judgment of conviction. even if they refused to abide by the rules applicable to prisoner serving sentence by final judgment. startled. had the facts been as she had thought them to be.who. (d) No. believing that her honor was in danger.e. Some of the jewels were owned by JV and other belonged to strangers. in the first place. because although mistaken. (c) Yes. which was in a box at her side. came from JV and were delivered to NP to be sold on commission. however. because the fact shows the actual absence of unlawful aggression. (b) Yes. a blow in the breast. assuming they have agreed to abide by the rules applicable to prisoners serving sentence by final judgment. or to return them if unsold. 5.. attacked and struck Z. (d) all detention prisoners. there was. (b) only prisoners serving sentence by final judgment. crime carrying the penalty of arresto menor and/or a fine not exceeding P200). and with it. (b) having once been or having previously undergone probation. immediately awoke and. NP. at least.

not merely concealment of crime. If the fencing would go on. but when he heard that the walls of his house were being chiselled. and therefore he should be exempt from criminal liability? (a) Yes. he arose and there he saw the fencing going on. and knowing there is a gun on the jeep. (c) JP can recover the jewels from the pawnshop only if he is willing to reimburse the pawnshop for the amount it has lent to NP. claim that he did so in defense of his person and of his rights. 8. and CI together with the two deceased DF and FR. (d) not guilty of crime. which knew nothing of the arrangement between NP and JV and had thought. to the prejudice of JV. even as an accessory-after-the fact since mere silence is not a mode of incurring criminal liability. therefore.months. the assault on MN's property amounts to unlawful aggression as contemplated by law and. As DF fell down. that they were owned by NP. he addressed the group. who is compadre of MN. FR ran towards the jeep. go ahead. gademit. knowing the identity of persons who committed the crime of arson within his jurisdiction and who merely remained silent. were fencing the land of GF. hitting him. (b) guilty of concealment of crime if shown to have abused his official position. MN was taking his rest. 9. after admitting having shot DF and FR from the window of his house with the shotgun under the foregoing circumstances. as appears from the pawn tickets issued by the owner of HF's pawnshop. A Barangay Captain who. where the jewels had been pledged.” addressing FR. So. regardless of whether the latter may have lawfully acquired the same from NP. answered: “No. DF. Under the circumstances: (a) JV can recover the jewels from the pawnshop. if possible you stop destroying my house and if possible we will talk it over what is good. At the place of the fencing is the house and rice drier of MN. is – (a) guilty as an accessory-after-the-fact for concealing the crime of arson. however. At that time. Both DF and FR died “as a result of the shooting”. (c) guilty of dereliction of duty. (b) JV can no longer recover the jewels from the pawnshop.” MN apparently lost his equilibrium and he got his gun and shot DF. GJ. The jewels were thus misappropriated. at the time of the pledge. gives occasion to the lawful exercise of defense that MN did. father of deceased DF. Can MN. likewise hitting him. MN fired at FR. and the amount of the loan granted thereon embezzled. The place was in the boundary of the highway and the hacienda owned by GF. (d) JV’s remedy has been reduced to reparation since the jewels can no longer be restored to him. MN would be prevented from getting into his house and the bodega of his ricemill. JV. (b) 3 . proceed. saying “Pare.

and her aunt. although he could be credited with the special mitigating circumstance of incomplete defense. at RP's order. at least. to be available. 10. (c) Yes. in this case. AM. without whose services the criminal determination of the mastermind could not have been conveyed to the actual perpetrators of the crime. by indispensable cooperation. FC was employed by RP. (c) penalty for the crime intended to be committed but mitigated by lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong. translating English to the native language.No. much less made upon the person of MN. whether complete or incomplete. he cooperated in the execution of the crime by previous or simultaneous act. where RP was. while the mere utterance "No. to make the woman and the girl understand RP's desire that AM remain with him as his querida or paramour. FC. VE. an army officer. which orders were translated by FC in order that it may be understood by VF. FC acted as interpreter. by shooting him. Penalty for an impossible crime: (a) penalty for the crime intended to be committed in its attempted stage. to get a girl. (d) No. go ahead" is not the unlawful aggression which entitles MN to the plea of self- defense. but as an accessory-after-the fact only as it was not 4 . defense of property is not of such importance as the right to life and defense of property can only be invoked when it is coupled with some form of attack on the person of one entrusted with said property. accompanied by several privates. he should therefore be held responsible for the death of his victims. RP spoke English and could neither speak nor understand the native language. because by serving as interpreter. arrested FB and took him to the barracks to be then turned over to VF who. but not in the manner of a principal. (c) No. there is absolutely no evidence that an attack was attempted. (d) arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to 500 pesos. MN's act in killing the deceased was not justifiable since not all the elements for justification are present. 11. (b) penalty for the crime intended to be committed in its frustrated stage. must be coupled with an attack by the one getting the property on the person defending it and. as an accomplice. into the army barracks. obeying orders from the same lieutenant. proceeded to kill the prisoner in or near the cemetery of the said town. the defense of property. (b) Yes. gademit proceed. as a principal by direct participation for acting as interpreter to convey the mastermind’s criminal determination or if not. Can FC be held liable for participating in the killing of FB? (a) Yes.

perpetual absolute disqualification and civil interdiction during thirty (30) years following the date of sentence. so that it might be understood by the actual perpetrator of the crime. (b) the higher penalty would be reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties for said penalty. amended certain provisions of P. i. that the accused is not entitled to pardon before the lapse of the forty-year period. When must the death of an offender.shown that the accused took a direct part in the crime or compelled any other person to commit it. (d) six months. or that he cooperated in its consummation by some act without which it would not have been committed. has been reduced to prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine of not less than fifteen thousand pesos (P15. (d) anytime. 14. (b) five years. (d) No.00 (representing the value of the truck and cargo thereof that were stolen by the accused): (a) under Article 25 of the Revised Penal Code. or that he lent such cooperation by means of acts prior or simultaneous to its perpetration. how is the maximum of his indeterminate sentence to be determined? (a) 5 . 13. the penalty for simple illegal possession of a low-powered firearm. Republic Act 8294 on June 6. such as "paltik". (c) reclusion perpetua but with the accessory penalties of death under Article 40 of the Revised Penal Code if the death penalty is commuted. What is the penalty two degrees higher than reclusion temporal. (c) two months. A light felony prescribes in: (a) one year. assuming a case of qualified theft involving the amount of P2. (c) on appeal. occur in order to extinguish criminal liability and his personal penalties? (a) before final judgment. in obedience to orders of his superior.800.D. 12. If the accused is entitled to the benefit of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. a special penal law penalizing illegal possession of firearms. because Article 74 proscribes the imposition of the death penalty resulting from the graduation of the penalty. which means.000. .e. With the passage of the aforementioned law. (b) after final judgment.00). because it cannot be held that the act of interpreting. constituted cooperation in the commission thereof. 1997. who is charged with a crime in court.000. (d) reclusion perpetua for forty years with the accessory penalties of death under Article 40 of the Revised Penal Code. 15. 1866.. applying Article 74. two [2] degrees higher than reclusion temporal is death. in fine. the latter's criminal determination.

(c) Yes. Should he be convicted of the offense he is charged with. (b) indeterminate sentence. (c) the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence should be that which. 17. (d) partial service of the sentence. X. (c) probation. but only to the reduced measure equivalent to four-fifths (4/5) of time spent in preventive detention. (b) the court should sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence. Does not prevent the period of prescription for crimes punishable under special penal laws from running: (a) institution of proceedings against the guilty person. 16. to the extent of the full time spent in preventive detention as his refusal to abide by the rules and regulations prescribed for convicted 6 . A disposition under which a defendant. (b) No. (d) the maximum of the indeterminate sentence could be anywhere between the minimum and the maximum term of the penalty fixed by said law. precisely because he refused to abide by the rules and regulations prescribed for convicted prisoners serving sentence in the institution in which he is detained. 18. if not known to since the day of its commission. (d) Yes. after conviction and sentence is released subject to conditions imposed by the court and to the supervision of an officer appointed by the court to investigate such referral for investigation or to supervise the convict: (a) suspended sentence. (c) dismissal of proceedings for reasons constituting jeopardy. 19. (b) commutation of sentence. should be properly imposed under the rules of the Revised Penal Code. a detention prisoner who is not otherwise a recidivist or a habitual delinquent refused to abide by the rules and regulations prescribed for convicted prisoners serving sentence in the institution in which he is detained. (c) good conduct time allowance. (d) destierro. Not a ground for partial extinction of criminal liability: (a) conditional pardon. (b) non-discovery of the crime.the court should sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence. would he be entitled to credit for time spent in preventive detention? (a) No. the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law. the maximum term of which shall be the maximum fixed by said law. because he is not a recidivist or a habitual delinquent. (d) absence of the offender from the Philippine archipelago. which disqualifies him from that benefit. in view of the attending circumstances.

particularly as co-authors thereof by inducement. because although what the four did amounted to joining in a conspiracy. only two of them went into the house to break open a trunk and carry off its contents. (d) is a mere accomplice. because their actions constituted joining in a conspiracy and where there is conspiracy. their presence at the conferences and the fact that they entered no opposition to the nefarious scheme and. he did not directly participate in robbing the house. as relatives or retainers of XA. because their presence at the conferences and the fact that they entered no opposition to the nefarious scheme. they joined with the other accused in celebrating with a fiesta. XM. the latter – (a) is merely an accomplice because he did not directly participate in the robbery nor cooperate therein in an indispensable manner and there is no proof that robbery was committed upon his inducement. 20. (b) is a principal because of conspiracy and direct participation. after all. and US. in Article [8]. being part and parcel of the development of the crime. XN. does not punish conspiracy as such. (d) No. after the commission of the murders. because while acting simultaneously with the two who went into the house to rob it. the act of one is the act of all.prisoners serving sentence in the institution in which he is detained is irrelevant. understandable and proper considering that he is a mere detention prisoner. ZS. these four did not cooperate in the commission of the crimes. 21. the four had any influence over XS and YS. (c) is not liable for the robbery by his mere presence at the scene of the crime for. criminally liable for the killing of JA and YN. his act was not indispensable. The prosecution seeks to hold four of the accused. (b) Yes. they joined with the other accused in celebrating with a fiesta. Where three persons planned to rob a house but in carrying it out. although aside from this. could be considered active participation in the commission of the crime itself. 7 . nor is it certain that. considering that they attended the conferences and entered no opposition to the nefarious scheme while. while the third merely remained downstairs to engage the owner of the house in a conversation to distract her attention. the [Revised] Penal Code. (c) Yes. and that any of the four said or did anything that determined the commission of the crimes. make them liable as principals by inducement. after the commission of the murders. Can they be considered as co-authors within the meaning of article [17] of the [Revised] Penal Code? (a) Yes.

facing downward. (b) all prisoners serving sentence by final judgment who have escaped from confinement on the occasion of disorders. however. (b) murder. EA. the medical report. considering that no qualifying or aggravating circumstance could be proved. or other calamities mentioned in Art. but who gave themselves up to the authorities within 48 hours from the issuance of a proclamation announcing 8 . She fell flat on her face". and confirmed to be positive in the Laboratory Report. RPC. while the girl was only 4 ft 11 inches tall. EP. that MB had anal intercourse with EA after she was already dead. she saw MB and EA immediately proceed to EA’s room. as long as they gave themselves up to the authorities within 48 hours from the issuance of a proclamation announcing the passing away of the calamity or catastrophe therein referred to. Although a figurine was found broken beside the victim’s head. with a broken figurine beside her head. There was no eyewitness account of the killing. he being 6 feet tall and weighing 155 lbs. earthquakes. the crime committed is: (a) homicide only. and we started wrestling on the bed. earthquakes. The next morning. It is established. naked up to the waist. RPC. 158. She found that EA was lying on her bed. 158. EP rose to wake her mistress. when MB and EA left for EA’s house. with legs spread apart. qualified by abuse of superiority and aggravated by outraging or scoffing at the corpse of the victim. qualified by outraging or scoffing at the corpse of the victim. does not show any injury or fracture of the skull and no sign of intracranial hemorrhage. She grabbed me by the throat and I picked up a statue of Jesus Christ that was sitting on the bedside stand and I hit her in the head. 22. 23. (c) murder. were together at a restaurant. until about 0:00 of the same evening. Under the circumstances. (d) murder. MB had a notorious advantage of height accused had over his hapless victim. conflagrations. clearly established the coitus after death. The muscles of the anus did not close and also the presence of spermatozoa in the anal region as testified to by the medico-legal officer. EA. Not entitled to special time allowance for good conduct: (a) detention prisoners who have escaped from confinement on the occasion of disorders. The extra-judicial confession of the accused merely stated. the housemaid of the victim. opened the door for them. conflagrations. or other calamities mentioned in Art. qualified by treachery and aggravated by abuse of superiority and scoffing or outraging at the corpse of the victim. MB and the victim. thus: "I thought she was going to do something dangerous to me so I grabbed her. She knocked at the door. however.

but filing of the complaint-affidavit before the Prosecutor’s Office for falsification of a public document was. earthquakes. (d) the criminal action has not yet prescribed because the prescriptive period may only be considered to have started to run since the victim came to know thereof (date of actual discovery) and will only be interrupted upon the filing by of the Information in court. par. The crime of falsification of a public document carries with it an imposable penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than P5. (d) all prisoners. refused to escape from confinement even on the occasion of disorders. Being punishable by a correctional penalty. which may be considered its date of commission. (c) twenty years. 90. Revised Penal Code (RPC)]. one month after the victim actually came to know thereof. (b) suspension when imposed as an accessory penalty. Where the public document allegedly falsified was a notarized deed of sale registered on May 26. conflagrations. whether serving sentence by final judgment or not. (b) the criminal action has not yet prescribed since the period of ten [10] years counted from the moment the victim came to know thereof has not yet lapsed at the time of the filing of the complaint-affidavit with the Prosecutor’s Office. 25. or other calamities mentioned in Art.(a) the criminal action has prescribed. the period of perpetual penalties is: (a) twenty years and one day to forty years. considering the lapse of ten [10] years after the document was registered with the Register of Deeds. considering the lapse of ten [10] years after the document was notarized. (b) forty years.00 [Art. who gave themselves up to the authorities after 48 hours from the issuance of a proclamation announcing the passing away of the calamity or catastrophe therein referred to. (c) all prisoners serving sentence by final judgment who. however.000. 2000 with the Register of Deeds in the name of the accused. 172. 2011. (c) the criminal action may be deemed to have prescribed. Not necessarily having a duration of six months and one day to six years: (a) prision correccional. (c) destierro. then -. (c) thirty years. 9 .the passing away of the calamity or catastrophe therein referred to. 158. 24. on account of their loyalty to the penal institution. (d) suspension when imposed as a principal penalty. this crime prescribes in ten (10) years [Art. filed only on October 18. RPC. 3 (RPC)]. 26. Under Article 70.

(c) a less grave penalty. The deceased. almost immediately after receiving the pistol shot. and C. coming upon V and L cleaning a caua said to them. (c) the father cannot be held responsible simply for uttering those words in the excitement of the moment. is: (a) a light penalty. but the other brother. or. (b) if so provided in the decision of the court. V pointed it at C wounding him in the stomach. L. (b) the father is not necessarily responsible unless sufficient facts be shown upon which to affirm that the father foresaw the use of the firearm on the part of his son when he spoke the words referred to. "Hit him! Hit him!". C's nephew. (c) if so requested by the defendant. When is the penalty of arresto menor to be served in the house of the defendant? (a) never. After the father spoke those words. (b) a grave penalty. 28. who had acted with discernment in committing the crime.00. and the death of C could only be attributed to "to the wounds". (d) if the defendant to be punished with that penalty is a minor over 15 but under 18. A brother of V. for that reason. then: (a) both V and L should be convicted and held liable as co- conspirators in causing the death of C because when 10 . that he thereby induced him to use said weapon." Immediately proceeding to the house. 29. and it was a mortal wound. "What of it if you throw away the water as I also can get water as easily as you can?" V. U. indignant at this allusion replied. (d) a correctional penalty. this likewise being a mortal wound. 27. was wounded with a bolo by L. Considering that C was wounded by a pistol fired by V. A fine of P40. his son drew a firearm and shot his adversary.000. Under those circumstances: (a) the father is responsible for the injuries committed by the son after such advice was given. or in words of encouragement. whether imposed as a single or as an alternative penalty. was also wounded. stopped her and attacked C with a bolo. C. attempted to gain possession of the revolver and was killed (probably accidentally) for his pains. (d) the father is necessarily responsible because inducement to the commission of the crime by means of which a person may be considered a principal in the same manner as he who executes the act itself can be founded in commands. The wife of C tried to succor her husband. Loading the revolver anew. 30. A father simply said to his son who was at the time engaged in combat with another. M. since arresto menor means imprisonment from one day to thirty days. under the facts presented. sometimes in advice. V procured a revolver and returned to the field. "Do you want a fight? Wait there.

while L should be acquitted as his act of inflicting the second mortal would with a bolo was no longer necessary to kill C. 19. Y. (d) not liable as a accessory-after- the fact as she merely acted as a fence. who first inflicted the mortal by firing the pistol shot. that they were present from the time VA was taken from his house until the time he was killed. (c) if the accused shall have been prosecuted for a light felony. 32. (b) if the accused shall have been prosecuted for a less grave felony. all must be acquitted. 19. who is liable. however. together with others. and deposited in another country. (b) both V and L should be convicted but held liable individually in causing the death of C because where several individuals. RPC. It appears. from criminal liability under Art. 33. a period of detention not exceeding THIRTY (30) DAYS? (a) if the accused shall have been prosecuted for a grave felony. do acts which are calculated to produce the death of another.several persons act in concert conspiracy is implied and the act of one is the act of all. being excepted from the exemption extended under Art. When is the penalty for failure to give bond to keep the peace. Under the evidence in the 11 . as such. each is responsible for the consequences of his own acts. AA. Y. 31. but it is claimed that there is no evidence to show that they took any actual part therein. would: (a) be an accessory-after-the fact under Art. assuming she knew the source of the funds but had no participation whatsoever in the commission of malversation. which were carried out of the country by his wife. 20 thereof. X. but nevertheless exempt. (d) if the accused shall have been prosecuted for grave threats or light threats under Arts. (c) be exempt as an accessory-after-the fact under the RPC. (d) V. acting independently. in view of her relationship to the principal. whenever the convict is so obligated under his sentence. (c) both V and L should be acquitted because if two or more persons acted independently. respectively. but liable for obstruction of justice under PD1829. in the killing of VA. RPC. although it is certain that one of them was guilty. under PD 1612. (b) be liable as an accessory-after-the fact under Art. malversed public funds. Under the circumstances. 282 and 283. a former Treasurer of a municipality. should be held liable for causing the death of C. 20 thereof in view of the nature of her participation. and the actual perpetrator of the homicide cannot be identified. EM. instead. RPC. and ZM were charged.

35. immediate participation in the criminal design entertained by the slayer is essential to the responsibility of one who is alleged to have taken a direct part in the killing. (c) the Sandiganbayan obviously did not err because courts can impose as many penalties as there are separate and distinct offenses committed. (b) No. The Sandiganbayan imposed a penalty that totals fifty-six (56) years and eight (8) days of imprisonment. mere presence at the scene of the crime does not give rise to criminal liability. as only then will it be possible to apply the three-fold rule. (c) the law fails to expressly provide for its retroactive application. The Sandiganbayan found AM guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. mere passive presence at the scene of another's crime. without evidence of agreement or conspiracy. An instance where a penal law favorable to the accused may not be applied retroactively: (a) the offender is a habitual delinquent. (d) No. since for every individual crime committed. can they be considered as principals? (a) No. (d) it is not obvious whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred unless the individual penalties for each convictions are known. a corresponding penalty is prescribed by law. (c) Yes. 12 .case. 3019. do not constitute the cooperation required for complicity in the commission of the crime witnessed passively. or with regard to which one has kept silent. (d) the offender is already undergoing probation at the time the law takes effect. mere silence and failure to give the alarm. even though he may not have taken an active part in its material execution. (b) the Sandiganbayan obviously erred because that the duration of the aggregate penalties for all convictions should not exceed forty [40] years. as a principal. but who has not himself inflicted an injury materially contributing to the death. one who shares the guilty purpose and aids and abets the commission of a crime by his presence at the time of its perpetration. 34. Under the circumstances: (a) the Sandiganbayan obviously erred because such penalties can be impugned as contrary to the three-fold rule. otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in all of eight (8) informations filed by the Provincial Fiscal against AM and jointly tried before the Sandiganbayan. (b) a final sentence had already been pronounced upon the offender upon publication of such law or the offender is already serving sentence by final judgment at that time. is guilty as a principal.

providing that any incumbent public officer against whom any criminal-prosecution under a valid information under this Act or under Title 7. X. the prevailing party. 36. driver of the vehicle found to be at fault. (d) one day for each amount equivalent to the highest minimum wage rate prevailing in the Philippines at the time such insolvency is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the trial court. Under the circumstances: (a) the Sandiganbayan may issue an order directing the suspension of all the accused including RB "from their public positions or from any other public office that they may be holding . 195 was passed amending. seeks to enforce the same against X’s employer. 37. Two vehicles collided at an intersection. Can X’s employer be held subsidiarily liable for the payment of civil indemnity? (a) only if X’s employer is engaged in a business or industry and does not exclusively use the automobile for private ends. RB is one of the several persons accused in more than one hundred (100) counts of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Documents before the Sandiganbayan. among others. was convicted of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property. Subsequently. as long as the informations in question are shown to be valid 13 . The rate at which fine will be converted into subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency: (a) one day for each eight pesos of fine. (b) only if X’s employer is found guilty of negligence in the selection and supervision of X. Batas Pambansa Big. (c) only if X’s employer has been charged as co-principal in the crime. (c) one day for each amount equivalent to the highest minimum wage rate prevailing in the Philippines at the time of conviction by the trial court... RB run for and was elected as mayor in a town in Cavite. unable to collect civil indemnity from X. In the meantime.. (d) only if X’s employer has been impleaded in the civil aspect of the criminal case. Book II of the Revised Penal Code or for any offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property whether as a simple or as a complex offense and in whatever stage of execution and mode of participation. On that basis and in all cases pending before the Sandiganbayan in which RB is one of the accused. (b) one day for each amount of fine equivalent to the highest minimum wage rate prevailing in the Philippines at the time of finality of the judgment of conviction. Section 13 of Republic Act No. for ninety (90) days". the prosecution filed a motion to suspend all the accused-public officers "from their public positions or from any other public office that they may be holding . for ninety (90) days ". 38. shall be suspended from office. is pending in court.. Y. 3019.

the amendatory provision of Batas Pambansa Blg. (d) being unfavorable to the accused. be applied in this case. therefore. the Sandiganbayan is not obligated to apply the provisions thereof and grant the motion. which should be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance. a 16-year old student of the Philippine Science High School. but only to scare the student demonstrators. were hit by a pillbox bomb causing the instantaneous death of FS and physical injuries to others. AR admitted throwing the pillbox. therefore. that there was no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. but unfortunately miscalculated his aim and distance. FS. (b) the Sandiganbayan can issue an order directing the suspension of all the accused including RB "from their public positions or from any other public office that they may be holding . In his signed confession. "Murder with Multiple Attempted Murder" was filed against AR. a security guard of Feati University. he miscalculated his aim and distance. 39. resulting in an explosion. (b) Yes. who threw the pillbox bomb at the student demonstrators who were then marching. therefore. such suspension deprives the people of the services of an elected official and may not. as it fell on the head of and killed the victim. because there is a demonstrated disproportion between the means he employed to attain his purpose and the result obtaining. which act was so sudden and unexpected. besides.. along with MF. which satisfies the indispensable requirement of this 14 . 195 to the herein accused would be violative of the constitutional guarantee of protection against an ex post facto law and.and regardless of when they were filed as such suspension does not constitute a penalty. If convicted of murder and multiple frustrated murder. unfortunately. 195 should be applied prospectively.. also students of the same school. tragedy struck unexpectedly. (c) Yes. since AR did not aim the pillbox at a particular student and merely wanted to scare the demonstrators. would it be necessary to consider whether AR should be credited with the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that committed? (a) Yes. for ninety (90) days" because such suspension amounts to a penalty and no penalty can be imposed which was not prescribed by law for the offense at the time of its commission. CL. On the occasion of a student demonstration being held in the vicinity of Feati University. it appears. (c) to apply the provision of Batas Pambansa Blg. as well as caused physical injuries to three other student demonstrators. and EG. because the result simply cannot be expected from the means he employed to accomplish his purpose.

the imposable penalty is already raised to the maximum of the most severe penalty for said crimes. 43. X was pardoned by the Chief Executive. (c) bond to keep the peace under Art. Not a penalty: (a) measures of prevention and safety under Art. not being subject to a condition. which is death. (b) reparation of damage caused. while the case may proceed as regards the civil liability of the accused. therefore. after his conviction for plunder. hence. (d) No. (b) X cannot run for public office because though pardon by the Chief Executive extinguished his criminal liability and the effects thereof. there should be no occasion to consider further any mitigating circumstance. RB died. (c) X cannot run for public office because although pardon extinguished his criminal liability. RPC. X wanted to run for office and feels he can do so because the terms of the pardon are silent about the matter or otherwise does not expressly prevent him from doing so. 25. (b) only the criminal aspect should be dismissed. 25. RPC. As a result: (a) both the criminal and civil aspect of the case should be dismissed as the death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes only his criminal liability but also his civil liability. (d) fines and costs of proceedings. 45. RB was charged with Rape and eventually convicted thereof. under Art. (d) fine. RPC. Not a pecuniary penalty: (a) restitution. (b) confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds or instruments of crime under Art. the obligation to respond therefor being transmissible to RB’s heirs. (d) X can run for public office because the pardon in question extinguished his criminal liability and does not expressly prevent him from running for a public office. Therefore -. should be regarded as absolute and. 41. Pending appeal of his conviction. (c) only the criminal aspect should be dismissed. the right to run for public office can only be restored if expressly remitted in the pardon.(a) X can run for public office inasmuch as the pardon. extinguished his criminal liability and all the effects thereof. while the case may proceed as regards the civil liability of the accused.mitigating circumstance. it does not erase the effects thereof. RPC. 15 . 40. (c) indemnification of consequential damages. but the obligation to respond therefor is transmissible to RB’s heirs only to the extent of what they may inherit from him. for which he was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. by committing a complex crime. 24. 42.

nor more than twice. for lack of actual participation nor indispensable cooperation therein. exercising solely its discretion on the matter. Revised Penal Code -. those who did not accompany the rest of the party to the place where the victim was killed. (c) a crime is committed but there is no 16 . 45. because probation presupposes that the accused must have been sentenced to a penalty of imprisonment not exceeding six [6] years. the equivalent number of days of subsidiary imprisonment. (b) there is neither criminal nor civil liability incurred. whether the crime be punishable under the RPC or under a special penal law.(a) there is no criminal liability incurred but there is civil liability. (c) cannot be convicted of any crime because mere presence at the scene of the crime is not sufficient to give rise to criminal liability. In case of accident under Article 12(4).(d) only the criminal aspect should be dismissed while the survival of the civil liability depends upon whether or not those who have the right to demand it insist on pursuing the civil liability against RB’s heirs. 46. (d) can be convicted as co- principals by direct participation because their voluntary presence lent moral aid to the commission of crime. (b) service of the equivalent period of subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency where the financial circumstances of the offender has improved thereafter. (b) It depends on the amount of the fine which is first converted into an equivalent number of days of subsidiary imprisonment. In a murder case committed by several persons. (d) amnesty. 44. those who were present from the time the victim was taken from his house until the time the victim was killed but who did not take actual part in the said killing. Not a mode of extinguishing the penalty of fine: (a) payment. but who were only detailed to guard the victim's companion at a point some distance from the place where the killing of the victim took place – (a) cannot be convicted as co-principals. absent proof of inducement. (c) prescription. but not indispensable thereto. are nevertheless guilty as principals. the length of which determines the period of probation. (d) It depends on the period fixed by the court but it cannot be less than. (c) It depends on the period fixed by the court. however. (b) can be convicted as accomplices for having committed acts simultaneous to the commission of murder. 47. What is the period of probation where the accused is sentenced to a fine and applies for probation? (a) None.

while it is true that the presumption of sanity exists at the outset. by conducting her by force and violence to a place apart among the trees. as the latter did with violence and intimidation – (a) is a principal by indispensable cooperation. and when the defense of insanity is not made out beyond a reasonable doubt. A wife who prepared the way for the perpetration of a crime of rape committed by her husband upon a 12-year old victim. (d) there is civil liability despite the absence of crime. theories abound and authorities are in sharp conflict. the person chiefly interested in perpetrating the crime. (d) is a principal by inducement. guilty under the Anti-Fencing Law. (c) the prosecution must prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt because. the prosecution affirms every essential ingredients of the crime charged. conviction follows. 50. 48. therefore. insanity is not to be established beyond a reasonable doubt. 49. where she called to her husband. (c) is liable as an accessory-after-the-fact if she acted with knowledge of the stolen character of the goods and is not exempt from criminal liability as such despite her relationship to the principal of the crime. (b) is liable as an accessory- after-the-fact if she acted with knowledge of the stolen character of the goods. In the Philippines. and therefore. On the question of insanity as a defense in criminal cases. and hence affirms sanity as one essential ingredients. (c) is a principal by direct participation.criminal liability incurred. The mother of a thief who helped the latter in selling stolen goods is – (a) always exempt from criminal liability as an accessory-after-the-fact by reason of her relationship to the principal of the crime. 17 . (b) is a mere accomplice. and the incidental corollaries as to the legal presumption and the kind and quantum of evidence required. (b) an affirmative verdict of insanity is to be governed by a preponderance of evidence. (d) is a fence and. delivering the victim to her husband and then going away from the scene of the crime so that her husband might freely consummate the pre-arranged rape. but is exempt from criminal liability in view of her relationship to the principal of the crime. the following theory applies: (a) insanity as a defense is a confession and avoidance and as such must be proved beyond reasonable doubt when the commission of a crime is established. (d) where the accused claims and introduces evidence to prove insanity it becomes the duty of the State to prove the sanity of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

+ + + THANK YOU – NOTHING FOLLOWS + + + 18 .