1.

Name the four (4) kinds of aggravating circumstances and state their effect on the penalty
of crimes and nature thereof.
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 the crime and do not affect the penalty
whatsoever.

2. Distinguish recidivism from habitual delinquency

Recidivism
Nature of crime First crime and the
aggravated second crime
are embraced in the same
Title of the RPC.
Time element Accused was convicted of
the first crime by final
judgment at the time of
the trial of the second
crime.
Habitual Delinquency
First, second and third crimes must be a habitual delinquency crime,
that is, serious or less serious physical injuries, theft, robbery, estafa or
falsification of document.
The accused was convicted of first habitual delinquency crime; within
ten years after conviction or release, he was found guilty or habitual-
delinquency crime for the second time; within 10 years after conviction
or release, he was found guilty of habitual-delinquency crime for the
third time or oftener.

Number of At least two crimes At least three crimes committed

Crimes committed

Nature of the Ordinary aggravating Extraordinary or special aggravating circumstance, the presence of
aggravating circumstance the which will trigger the imposition of additional penalty for the third or
circumstance presence of any of which subsequent crime.
will trigger the application This is not subject of the off-set rule
of the penalty for the
second crime committed
in its maximum period
unless it is off-set by a
mitigating circumstance

3. What is the difference between a fence and an accessory to theft or robbery? Explain. Is
there any similarity between them?
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 degreelower.

Also, fencing is a malumprohibitum and therefore there is no need to prove criminal intent of the accused; this is
not so in violations of Revised Penal Code.

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]
 FENCING ACCESSORY
Fencing is limited to theft and robbery. The terms Not limited in scope.
theft and robbery are used as a generic term to
refer to any kind of unlawful taking, not just theft
or robbery.

Mere possession of stolen items creates a There is no presumption of being an accessory.

presumption of fencing.
Fencing is a principal crime in itself. As such,
it can stand on its own. There is no need to
prove that one is guilty of theft or robbery.
It is necessary to prove that the principal
committed the crime. Hence, before an accessory
could be held liable, the principal must have been
convicted first of the crime charged.

The penalty is higher than the penalty of an Penalty is less than that imposed in fencing.
accessory.
Malumprohibitumand therefore there is no Malum in se and therefore there is a need to
need to prove criminal intent. prove criminal intent.
The fence need not be a natural person but Natural person only.
may be a firm, association, corporation or
partnership or other organization.

4. Accessories exempt from criminal liability

1. Spouse
2. Ascendant
3. Descendant
4. Legitimate, natural, or adopted brother, sister or
5. Relative by affinity within the same degree.
Except those who profit themselves or assist the offender to profit by the effects of the crime

5. Effect of minor offender under the dangerous drugs act

(1) Sec. 66, RA 9165 (First time offender)

An accused who is fifteen (15) years of age at the time of the commission of the offense mentioned in Sec. 11 of RA 9165
but not more than eighteen (18) years of age at the time of when the 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:

a. He/she has not been previously convicted of violating any provisions of this Act, or of the Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972, as amended; or of the Revised Penal Code; or 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.

(2)If the first-time minor offender violates any of the conditions of his/her suspended sentence, the applicable rules and
regulations of the Board exercising supervision and rehabilitative surveillance over him, including the rules and regulations
of the Center should confinement be required, the court shall pronounce judgment of conviction and he/she shall serve
sentence as any other convicted person

(3) The court may grant probation or community service in lieu of imprisonment in case of a first-time minor offender.
Upon promulgation of the sentence, the court may, in its discretion, place the accused under probation, even if the
sentence provided under this Act is higher than that provided under existing law on probation or impose community
service in lieu of imprisonment.
6. Award of civil indemnity for multiple counts of rape (same woman).

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.

The civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages should all be increased to P75,000.00 for each
count of rape. (People v. Marasigan, G.R. No. 215331, January 23, 2017)

7. 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 for the 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).

8. Elements of subsidiary liability for operators of PUVs

Elements under Art. 103 of the RPC

1. The employer, teacher, or person or corporation is engaged in any kind of industry;

2. Any of their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices or employees commits a felony while in the discharge of their
duties; and
3. The said employee is insolvent and has not satisfied his civil liability.

ART. 103--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).

9. Computation of loss of earning capacity.

Net earning capacity = Life expectancy x [Gross Annual Income - Living Expenses (50% of gross annual income)]

where life expectancy = 2/3 (80 - the age of the deceased)

10. New provision on the Probation Law (must memorize).

SEC. 4. Grant of Probation. — Subject to the provisions of this Decree, the trial court may, after it shall have convicted
and sentenced a defendant for a probationable penalty and upon application by said defendant within the period for
perfecting an appeal, suspend the execution of the sentence and place the defendant on probation for such period and
upon such terms and conditions as it may deem best. No application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the
defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction: Provided, That when a judgment of conviction
imposing a non-probationable penalty is appealed or reviewed, and such judgment is modified through the
imposition of a probationable penalty, the defendant shall be allowed to apply for probation based on the
modified decision before such decision becomes final. The application for probation based on the modified decision
shall be filed in the trial court where the judgment of conviction imposing a non-probationable penalty was rendered, or in
the trial court where such case has since been re-raffled.

In a case involving several defendants where some have taken further appeal, the other defendants may apply for
probation by submitting a written application and attaching thereto a certified true copy of the judgment of conviction.

11. Elements of acts punishable under the Human Security Act (RA 9372).

Acts punishable as Terrorism

a. Article 122 (Piracy in General and Mutiny in the High Seas or in the Philippine Waters);

b. Article 134 (Rebellion or Insurrection);

c. Article 134-a (Coup d' Etat), including acts committed by private persons;

d. Article 248 (Murder);

e. Article 267 (Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention);

f. Article 324 (Crimes Involving Destruction), or under

1. Presidential Decree No. 1613 (The Law on Arson);

2. Republic Act No. 6969 (Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Waste Control Act of 1990);

3. Republic Act No. 5207, (Atomic Energy Regulatory and Liability Act of 1968);

4. Republic Act No. 6235 (Anti-Hijacking Law);

5. Presidential Decree No. 532 (Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974); and,

6. Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended (Decree Codifying the Laws on Illegal and Unlawful Possession,
Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or Disposition of Firearms, Ammunitions or Explosives)

1. Sow and create a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace; or
2. Coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand (Sec. 3).
Absorption Principle in Terrorism Sec. 24 of RA 9372 states that whenever a person has been charged of terrorism or
any act punishable under RA 9372, based on the valid complaint or information, sufficient information and substance to
bring about and thereafter, he is acquitted or the case is dismissed, he can no longer be subsequently prosecuted for any
other felony or offense necessarily included in the crime charged.

12. New rules on RA 10591.

Sec. 29. Use of Loose Firearm in the Commission of a Crime

(1) when inherent in the commission of a crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code or other special laws, shall
be considered as an aggravating circumstance
(2) if the crime committed with the use of a loose firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum penalty which is
lower than that prescribed in the preceding section for illegal possession of firearm, the penalty for illegal possession of
firearm shall be imposed in lieu of the penalty for the crime charged
(3) if the crime committed with the use of a loose firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum penalty which is
equal to that imposed under the preceding section for illegal possession of firearms, the penalty of prision mayor in its
minimum period shall be imposed in addition to the penalty for the crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code or
other special laws of which he/she is found guilty.
(4) If the violation of this Act is in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with the crime of rebellion of
insurrection, or attempted coup d’ etat, such violation shall be absorbed as an element of the crime of rebellion or
insurrection, or attempted coup d’ etat.
(5) If the crime is committed by the person without using the loose firearm, the violation of this Act shall be
considered as a distinct and separate offense.

13. Definition of a loose firearm under RA 10591.

Loose firearm refers to an unregistered firearm, an obliterated or altered firearm, firearm which has been lost or stolen,
illegally manufactured firearms, registered firearms in the possession of an individual other than the licensee and those
with revoked licenses in accordance with the rules and regulations.

14. Definition of “qualified trafficking in persons” and the penalty.

Section 6. Qualified Trafficking in Persons. - The following are considered as qualified trafficking:

(a) When the trafficked person is a child;

(b) When the adoption is effected through Republic Act No. 8043, otherwise known as the "Inter-Country Adoption Act of
1995" and said adoption is for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery,
involuntary servitude or debt bondage;

(c) When the crime is committed by a syndicate, or in large scale. Trafficking is deemed committed by a syndicate if
carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed
in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group;

(d) When the offender is an ascendant, parent, sibling, guardian or a person who exercises authority over the trafficked
person or when the offense is committed by a public officer or employee;

(e) When the trafficked person is recruited to engage in prostitution with any member of the military or law enforcement
agencies;

(f) When the offender is a member of the military or law enforcement agencies; and

(g) When by reason or on occasion of the act of trafficking in persons, the offended party dies, becomes insane, suffers
mutilation or is afflicted with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) or the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).

Section 10. Penalties and Sanctions.

(c) Any person found guilty of qualified trafficking under Section 6 shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of
not less than Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00) but not more than Five million pesos (P5,000,000.00);
Note: if both large scale and syndicated, denominated as large scale trafficking in person

15. Rule on plea bargaining under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act?
- see pics

16. Crimes against Persons

1. Parricide
2. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances
3. Murder
4. Homicide
5. Frustrated parricide, murder or homicide
6. Death caused in a tumultuous affray
7. Physical injuries inflicted in a tumultuous affray
8. Giving assistance to suicide
9. Discharge of firearms
10. Infanticide
11. Intentional abortion
12. Unintentional abortion
13. Abortion practiced by the woman herself or by her parents
14. Abortion practiced by a physician or midwife and dispensing of abortives
15. Responsibilities of participants in a duel
16. Challenging to a duel
17. Mutilation
18. Serious physical injuries
19. Administering injurious substances
20. Less serious physical injuries
21. Slight physical injuries
22. Rape

17. Ways of committing rape and elements of each.

Kinds of rape under RA 8353

1. The traditional concept under Art. 335 – carnal knowledge with a woman against her will. The offended party is
always a woman and the offender is always a man.

Elements of rape by a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman:

1. Offender is a man;
2. Offender had carnal knowledge of the woman; and
3. Such act is accomplished under any of the following circumstances:
a. Through force, threat or intimidation; (BAR 1992)
b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious;
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; or
d. When the offended party is under 12 years of age or is demented, even though none of the above circumstances
mentioned above be present. (BAR 1995)

2. Sexual assault – committed with an instrument or an object or use of the penis with penetration of the mouth or anal
orifice. The offended party or offender can either be a man or a woman, that is, if the woman or a man uses an instrument
in the anal orifice of a male, she or he can be liable for rape.

Elements of rape by sexual assault (BAR 2005)

1. Offender commits an act of sexual assault;
2. The act of sexual assault is committed by any of the following means:
a. By inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or
b. By inserting any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person
3. The act of sexual assault is accomplished under any of the following circumstances:
a. By using force or intimidation, or
b. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abused of authority, or
d. When the woman is under 12 years of age or demented.

18. Definition of grooming luring and pandering under Section 4 of the Anti-Child Pornography
Act.
"Grooming" refers to the act of preparing a child or someone who the offender believes to be a child for sexual activity or
sexual relationship by communicating any form of child pornography. It includes online enticement or enticement through
any other means.

"Luring" refers to the act of communicating, by means of a computer system, with a child or someone who the offender
believes to be a child for the purpose of facilitating the commission of sexual activity or production of any form of child
pornography.(2) Bestiality;

"Pandering" refers to the act of offering, advertising, promoting, representing or distributing through any means any
material or purported material that is intended to cause another to believe that the material or purported material contains
any form of child pornography, regardless of the actual content of the material or purported material.

19. Rule if the paramour is the one who invokes self-defense when caught in the act.

If the paramour killed the husband to defend himself from the assault of the latter, the former could not invoke
self- defense. The attack made by the husband under exceptional circumstance is not a felony, hence, it is not an unlawful
aggression within the contemplation of self- defense.
In US v. Merced, G.R. No. 14170, it was held that the paramour well knew that, by maintaining unlawful relation
with a married woman, he was performing an unlawful and criminal act and exposed himself to the vengeance of the
offended husband.

20. Rule if husband kills identical twin of wife when caught in the act.

The husband is liable for homicide and the defense of death under exceptional circumstance is not applicable in
this case.

The following are the requisites of death under exceptional circumstance:

1. A legally married person or a parent surprises his spouse or daughter, the latter under 18 years of age and living with
him, in the act of committing sexual intercourse;
2. He or she kills any or both of them or inflicts upon any or both of them any serious physical injury in the act or
immediately thereafter; and
3. He has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his wife or daughter, or that he or she has not consented to the
infidelity of the other spouse.

In this case, the first requisite is not present. The husband is not legally married to the identical twin of her wife.

Alternative: Mistake of fact?

21. Crimes Against Personal Liberty and Security.

Crimes against liberty –

1. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention [art. 267]
2. Slight illegal detention [art. 268]
3. Unlawful arrest [art. 269]
4. Kidnapping and failure to return a minor [art. 270]
5. Inducing a minor to abandon his home [art. 271]
6. Slavery [art. 272]
7. Exploitation of child labor [art. 273]
8. Services rendered under compulsion in payment of debt [art. 274]

Crimes against security –

1. Abandonment of persons in danger and abandonment of one’s own victim [art. 275]
2. Abandoning a minor [art. 276]
3. Abandonment of minor by person entrusted with his custody, indifference of parents [art. 277]
4. Exploitation of minors [art. 278]
5. Trespass to dwelling [art. 280]
6. Other forms of trespass [art. 281]
7. Grave threats [art. 282]
8. Light threats [art. 283]
9. Other light threats [art. 285]
10. Grave coercion [art. 287]
11. 1Other similar coercions – (compulsory purchase of merchandise and payment of wages by means of tokens)
[art. 288]
12. Formation, maintenance and prohibition of combination of capital or labor through violence or threats [art. 289]
13. Discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence [art. 290]
14. Revealing secrets with abuse of office [art. 291]
15. Revealing of industrial secrets [art. 292

22. Persons liable for violation of the Anti-Hazing Law.

1. The following are liable as PRINCIPAL:

a. The officers and members of the fraternity, sorority or organization who actually participated in the infliction of physical
harm;

b. The parents of the officer or member of the fraternity, sorority or organization, when they have actual knowledge of the
hazing conducted in their home but failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring; and

c. The officers, former officers or alumni of the organization, group, fraternity or sorority who actually planned the hazing
although not present when the acts constituting hazing were committed (Sec. 4, RA 8049). The presence of any person
during the hazing is prima facie evidence of participation therein as principal, UNLESS he prevented the commission of
the acts punishable therein.

2. The following are liable as ACCOMPLICE:

a. The owner of the place where the hazing is conducted, when he has actual knowledge of the hazing conducted therein
but failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring; and

b. The school authorities including faculty members who consent to the hazing or who have actual knowledge thereof, but
failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring (Sec. 4, RA 8049).

23. What qualifies the offense of hazing?

RA 8049 Sec. 4
The maximum penalty herein provided shall be imposed in any of the following instances:

(a) when the recruitment is accompanied by force, violence, threat, intimidation or deceit on the person of the recruit who
refuses to join;
(b) when the recruit, neophyte or applicant initially consents to join but upon learning that hazing will be committed on his
person, is prevented from quitting;
(c) when the recruit, neophyte or applicant having undergone hazing is prevented from reporting the unlawful act to his
parents or guardians, to the proper school authorities, or to the police authorities, through force, violence, threat or
intimidation;
(d) when the hazing is committed outside of the school or institution; or
(e) when the victim is below twelve (12) years of age at the time of the hazing.
24. Attempt to commit child prostitution under Section 6 of RA 7610.

Instances when there is an attempt to commit child prostitution

1. Any person who, not being a relative of a child, is found alone with the said child inside the room or cubicle of a house,
an inn, hotel, motel, pension house, apartelle or other similar establishments, vessel, vehicle or any other hidden or
secluded area under circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to believe that the child is about to be
exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.

2. Any person is receiving services from a child in a sauna parlor or bath, massage clinic, health club and other similar
establishments (Sec. 6, RA 7610).

25. Anti-torture law.

RA 9745
Section 3 Definitions
(a) "Torture" refers to an act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted
on a person for such purposes as

- obtaining from him/her or a third person information or a confession;

- punishing him/her for an act he/she or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed;
- or intimidating or coercing him/her or a third person;
- or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the
instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a person in authority or agent of a person in authority.

It does not include pain or Buffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

(b) "Other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment" refers to a deliberate and aggravated
treatment or punishment not enumerated under Section 4 of this Act, inflicted by a person in authority or agent of a person
in authority against a person under his/her custody, which attains a level of severity causing suffering, gross humiliation or
debasement to the latter.

Section 4 Acts of Torture

a) Physical torture is a form of treatment or punishment inflicted by a person in authority or agent of a person in authority
upon another in his/her custody that causes severe pain, exhaustion, disability or dysfunction of one or more parts of the
body, such as:

(1) Systematic beating, headbanging, punching, kicking, striking with truncheon or rifle butt or other similar objects, and
jumping on the stomach;
(2) Food deprivation or forcible feeding with spoiled food, animal or human excreta and other stuff or substances not
normally eaten;
(3) Electric shock;
(4) Cigarette burning; burning by electrically heated rods, hot oil, acid; by the rubbing of pepper or other chemical
substances on mucous membranes, or acids or spices directly on the wound(s);
(5) The submersion of the head in water or water polluted with excrement, urine, vomit and/or blood until the brink of
suffocation;
(6) Being tied or forced to assume fixed and stressful bodily position;
(7) Rape and sexual abuse, including the insertion of foreign objects into the sex organ or rectum, or electrical torture of
the genitals;
(8) Mutilation or amputation of the essential parts of the body such as the genitalia, ear, tongue, etc.;
(9) Dental torture or the forced extraction of the teeth;
(10) Pulling out of fingernails;
(11) Harmful exposure to the elements such as sunlight and extreme cold;
(12) The use of plastic bag and other materials placed over the head to the point of asphyxiation;
(13) The use of psychoactive drugs to change the perception, memory. alertness or will of a person, such as:
 (i) The administration or drugs to induce confession and/or reduce mental competency; or
(ii) The use of drugs to induce extreme pain or certain symptoms of a disease; and
(14) Other analogous acts of physical torture; and

(b) "Mental/Psychological Torture" refers to acts committed by a person in authority or agent of a person in authority
which are calculated to affect or confuse the mind and/or undermine a person's dignity and morale, such as:

(1) Blindfolding;
(2) Threatening a person(s) or his/fher relative(s) with bodily harm, execution or other wrongful acts;
(3) Confinement in solitary cells or secret detention places;
(4) Prolonged interrogation;
(5) Preparing a prisoner for a "show trial", public display or public humiliation of a detainee or prisoner;
(6) Causing unscheduled transfer of a person deprived of liberty from one place to another, creating the belief that he/she
shall be summarily executed;
(7) Maltreating a member/s of a person's family;
(8) Causing the torture sessions to be witnessed by the person's family, relatives or any third party;
(9) Denial of sleep/rest;
(10) Shame infliction such as stripping the person naked, parading him/her in public places, shaving the victim's head or
putting marks on his/her body against his/her will;
(11) Deliberately prohibiting the victim to communicate with any member of his/her family; and
(12) Other analogous acts of mental/psychological torture.

26. Crimes Against Property.

1. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons (Art. 294);

2. Attempted and frustrated robbery committed under certain circumstances (Art. 297);
3. Execution of deeds by means of violence or intimidation (Art. 298);
4. Robbery in an inhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to worship (Art. 299);
5. Robbery in an inhabited place or i n a private building (Art. 302);
6. Possession of picklocks or similar tools (Art. 304);
7. Brigandage (Art. 306);
8. Aiding and abetting a band of brigands (Art. 307);
9. Theft (Art. 308);
10. Qualified theft (Art. 310);
11. Theft of the property of the N ational Library and National Museum (Art. 311);
12. Occupation of real property or usurpation of real rights in property (Art. 312);
13. Altering boundaries or landmarks (Art. 313);
14. Fraudulent insolvency (Art. 314);
15. Swindling (Art. 315);
16. Other forms of swindling (Art. 316);
17. Swindling a minor (Art. 317);
18. Other deceits (Art. 318);
19. Removal, sale or pledge of mortgaged property (Art. 319);
20. Destructive arson (Art. 320);
21. Other forms of arson (Art. 321);
22. Arson of property of small value (Art. 323);
23. Crimes involving destruction (Art. 324);
24. Burning one’s own property as means to commit arson (Art. 325);
25. Setting fire to property exclusively owned by the offender (Art. 326);
26. Malicious mischief (Art. 327);
27. Special case of malicious mischief (Art. 328);
28. Damage and obstruction to means of communication (Art. 330);
29. Destroying or damaging statues, public monuments or paintings (Art. 331).
27. Ways of committing the crime of estafa.

Ways of committing the crime of estafa.

Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). — Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned
hereinbelow

1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:

(a) By altering the substance, quantity, or quality or anything of value which the offender shall deliver by virtue of an
obligation to do so, even though such obligation be based on an immoral or illegal consideration.

(b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods, or any other personal property
received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to
make delivery of or to return the same, even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by
denying having received such money, goods, or other property.

(c) By taking undue advantage of the signature of the offended party in blank, and by writing any document above
such signature in blank, to the prejudice of the offended party or of any third person.

2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with
the commission of the fraud:

(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency,
business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.

(b) By altering the quality, fineness or weight of anything pertaining to his art or business.

(c) By pretending to have bribed any Government employee, without prejudice to the action for calumny which the
offended party may deem proper to bring against the offender. In this case, the offender shall be punished by the
maximum period of the penalty.

(d) [By post-dating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender therein were not sufficient to
cover the amount of the check. The failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the amount necessary to cover his check
within three (3) days from receipt of notice from the bank and/or the payee or holder that said check has been dishonored
for lack of insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act. (As
amended by R.A. 4885, approved June 17, 1967.)]

(e) By obtaining any food, refreshment or accommodation at a hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house, lodging house, or
apartment house and the like without paying therefor, with intent to defraud the proprietor or manager thereof, or by
obtaining credit at hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house, lodging house, or apartment house by the use of any false
pretense, or by abandoning or surreptitiously removing any part of his baggage from a hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding
house, lodging house or apartment house after obtaining credit, food, refreshment or accommodation therein without
paying for his food, refreshment or accommodation.

3. Through any of the following fraudulent means:

(a) By inducing another, by means of deceit, to sign any document.

(b) By resorting to some fraudulent practice to insure success in a gambling game.
(c) By removing, concealing or destroying, in whole or in part, any court record, office files, document or any other
papers.

28. Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act.

Concepts/terms:
* Photo or video voyeurism means the act of taking photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons
performing sexual act or any similar activity or of capturing an image of the private area of a person or persons without the
latter's consent, under circumstances in which such person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of privacy, or the act of
selling, copying, reproducing, broadcasting, sharing, showing or exhibiting the photo or video coverage or recordings of
such sexual act or similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and similar means or device without the
written consent of the person/s involved, notwithstanding that consent to record or take photo or video coverage of same
was given by such person's.

Section 4. Prohibited Acts. - It is hereby prohibited and declared unlawful for any person:

(a) To take photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons performing sexual act or any similar activity or to
capture an image of the private area of a person/s such as the naked or undergarment clad genitals, public area, buttocks
or female breast without the consent of the person/s involved and under circumstances in which the person/s has/have a
reasonable expectation of privacy;

(b) To copy or reproduce, or to cause to be copied or reproduced, such photo or video or recording of sexual act or any
similar activity with or without consideration;

(c) To sell or distribute, or cause to be sold or distributed, such photo or video or recording of sexual act, whether it be the
original copy or reproduction thereof; or

(d) To publish or broadcast, or cause to be published or broadcast, whether in print or broadcast media, or show or exhibit
the photo or video coverage or recordings of such sexual act or any similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular
phones and other similar means or device.

The prohibition under paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) shall apply notwithstanding that consent to record or take photo or video
coverage of the same was given by such person/s. Any person who violates this provision shall be liable for photo or
video voyeurism as defined herein.

Section 5. Penalties. - The penalty of imprisonment of not less that three (3) years but not more than seven (7) years and
a fine of not less than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) but not more than Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00), or both, at the discretion of the court shall be imposed upon any person found guilty of violating Section 4
of this Act.

If the violator is a juridical person, its license or franchise shall be automatically be deemed revoked and the persons
liable shall be the officers thereof including the editor and reporter in the case of print media, and the station manager,
editor and broadcaster in the case of a broadcast media.

If the offender is a public officer or employee, or a professional, he/she shall be administratively liable.

If the offender is an alien, he/she shall be subject to deportation proceedings after serving his/her sentence and payment
of fines.

29. Rules on Adultery and Concubinage.

Adultery

Adultery is a crime not only of the married woman but also of the man who had intercourse with a married woman
knowing her to be married. Even if the man proves later on that he does not know the woman to be married, at the
beginning, h e must still be included in the complaint or information. This is so because whether he knows the woman to
be married or not is a matter of defense and its up to him to ventilate that in formal investigations or a formal trial.
If after preliminary invest igation, the public prosecutor is convinced that the man did not know that the woman is married,
then he could simply file the case against the woman.

The acquittal of the woman does not necessarily result in the acquittal of her co - accused.

In order to constitute adultery, there must be a joint physical act. Joint criminal intent is not necessary. Although the
criminal intent may exist in the mind of one of the parties to the physical act, there may be no such intent in the mind of
the other party. On e may be guilty of the criminal intent, the other innocent, and yet the joint physical act necessary to
constitute the adultery may be complete. So, if the man had no knowledge that the woman was married, he would be
innocent insofar as the crime of adult ery is concerned but the woman would still be guilty; the former would have to be
acquitted and the latter found guilty, although they were tried together.

A husband committing concubinage may be required to support his wife committing adultery under the rule in pari delicto.

There is no frustrated adultery because of the nature of the offense.

For adultery to exist, there must be a marriage although it be subsequently annulled. There is no adultery, if the marriage
is void from the beginning.

Adultery is an instantaneous crime which is consummated and completed at the moment of the carnal union. Each sexual
intercourse constitutes a crime of adultery. Adultery is not a continuing crime unlike concubinage.

Concubinage

With respect to concubinage the same principle applies: only the offended spouse can bring the prosecution. This is a
crime committed by the married man, the husband. Similarly, it includes the woman who had a relationship with the
married man.

It has been asked why the penalty for adultery is higher than concubinage when both crimes are infidelities to the marital
vows. The reason given for this is that when the wife commits adultery, there is a probability that she will bring a stranger
into the family. If the husband commits concubinage, this probability does not arise because the mother of the child will
always carry the child with her. So even if the husband brings with him the child, it is clearly know n that the child is a
stranger. Not in the case of a married woman who may bring a child to the family under the guise of a legitimate child.
This is the reason why in the former crime the penalty is higher than the latter.

Unlike adultery, concubinage is a continuing crime.

Birth certificate simulation under the RPC and Anti-Trafficking Act.

Article 347. Simulation of Births, Substitution of One Child for Another, and Concealment of Abandonment of A Legitimate
Child
Acts punished

1. Simulation of births;
2. Substitution of one child for another;
3. Concealing or abandoning any legitimate child with intent to cause such child to lose its civil status.

Illustration:
People who have no child and who buy and adopt the child without going through legal adoption.

If the child is being kidnapped and they knew that the kidnappers are not the real parents of their child, then simulation of
birth is committed. If the parents are parties to the simulation by making it appear in the birth certificate that the parents
who bought the child are the real parents, the crime is not falsification on the part of the parents and the real parents but
simulation of birth.

30. Birth certificate simulation under the RPC and Anti-Trafficking Act.

Birth certificate simulation under the RPC and Anti-Trafficking Act.

Article 347. Simulation of Births, Substitution of One Child for Another, and Concealment of Abandonment of A
Legitimate Child
Acts punished

1. Simulation of births;
2. Substitution of one child for another;
3. Concealing or abandoning any legitimate child with intent to cause such child to lose its civil status.

Illustration:
People who have no child and who buy and adopt the child without going through legal adoption.

If the child is being kidnapped and they knew that the kidnappers are not the real parents of their child, then simulation of
birth is committed. If the parents are parties to the simulation by making it appear in the birth certificate that the parents
who bought the child are the real parents, the crime is not falsification on the part of the parents and the real parents but
simulation of birth.

Anti-Human Trafficking Act

Section 3. Definition of Terms. - As used in this Act:

(a) Trafficking in Persons - refers to the recruitment, transportation, transfer or harboring, or receipt of persons with or
without the victim's consent or knowledge, within or across national borders by means of threat or use of force, or other
forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the
person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another
person for the purpose of exploitation which includes at a minimum, the exploitation or the prostitution of others or other
forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs.

The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation shall also be
considered as "trafficking in persons" even if it does not involve any of the means set forth in the preceding paragraph.

(b) Child - refers to a person below eighteen (18) years of age or one who is over eighteen (18) but is unable to fully take
care of or protect himself/herself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination because of a physical or
mental disability or condition.

(c) Prostitution - refers to any act, transaction, scheme or design involving the use of a person by another, for sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct in exchange for money, profit or any other consideration.

(d) Forced Labor and Slavery - refer to the extraction of work or services from any person by means of enticement,
violence, intimidation or threat, use of force or coercion, including deprivation of freedom, abuse of authority or moral
ascendancy, debt-bondage or deception.

(e) Sex Tourism - refers to a program organized by travel and tourism-related establishments and individuals which
consists of tourism packages or activities, utilizing and offering escort and sexual services as enticement for tourists. This
includes sexual services and practices offered during rest and recreation periods for members of the military.

(f) Sexual Exploitation - refers to participation by a person in prostitution or the production of pornographic materials as a
result of being subjected to a threat, deception, coercion, abduction, force, abuse of authority, debt bondage, fraud or
through abuse of a victim's vulnerability.

(g) Debt Bondage - refers to the pledging by the debtor of his/her personal services or labor or those of a person under
his/her control as security or payment for a debt, when the length and nature of services is not clearly defined or when the
value of the services as reasonably assessed is not applied toward the liquidation of the debt.

(h) Pornography - refers to any representation, through publication, exhibition, cinematography, indecent shows,
information technology, or by whatever means, of a person engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activities or any
representation of the sexual parts of a person for primarily sexual purposes.

(i) Council - shall mean the Inter-Agency Council Against Trafficking created under Section 20 of this Act.

Section 4. Acts of Trafficking in Persons. - It shall be unlawful for any person, natural or juridical, to commit any of the
following acts:

(a) To recruit, transport, transfer; harbor, provide, or receive a person by any means, including those done under the
pretext of domestic or overseas employment or training or apprenticeship, for the purpose of prostitution, pornography,
sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
(b) To introduce or match for money, profit, or material, economic or other consideration, any person or, as provided for
under Republic Act No. 6955, any Filipino woman to a foreign national, for marriage for the purpose of acquiring, buying,
offering, selling or trading him/her to engage in prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery,
involuntary servitude or debt bondage;

(c) To offer or contract marriage, real or simulated, for the purpose of acquiring, buying, offering, selling, or trading them to
engage in prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor or slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;

(d) To undertake or organize tours and travel plans consisting of tourism packages or activities for the purpose of utilizing
and offering persons for prostitution, pornography or sexual exploitation;

(e) To maintain or hire a person to engage in prostitution or pornography;

(f) To adopt or facilitate the adoption of persons for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced
labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;

(g) To recruit, hire, adopt, transport or abduct a person, by means of threat or use of force, fraud, deceit, violence,
coercion, or intimidation for the purpose of removal or sale of organs of said person; and

(h) To recruit, transport or adopt a child to engage in armed activities in the Philippines or abroad.

31. Elements and rules in libel

Libel

Libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission,
condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or
to blacken the memory of one who is dead.

Commission of libel
Libel is a defamation committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting or
theatrical or cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means.

Elements (BAR 2005, 2010)

1. There must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status
or circumstance;
2. Imputation must be made publicly; (BAR 2003)
3. It must be malicious;
4. It must be directed at a natural or juridical person, or one who is dead; (BAR 2002) and
5. It must tend to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of the person defamed.

1. JURISDICTION
a). Actions based on libel, whether civil or criminal, are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court even if
the penalty is within the Jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Courts.

b).The civil case must also be tried in the RTC trying the criminal case (No separate civil action)

c) If the libel imputes any of the private crimes, the Prosecution must be upon a complaint filed by the offended party

2. Venue:
General rule: the action for libel shall be in the RTC of the province/city where the article was first printed and published
(Rule of Place of First Print and Publication) but it may also be filed elsewhere as follows:

a). If a private person: in the RTC of the province/city where he resides

b). If a public official and holding office in Manila: In the RTC of Manila
c) If a public official holding office outside Manila: in the RTC of the province/city where he holds office

Self-defense in libel – Physical assault may be justified when the libel is aimed at the person’s good name, and while the
libel is in progress, one libel deserves another.

Persons liable for libel

1. Any person who shall publish, exhibit or cause the publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing or by similar
means; or
2. The author or editor of a book or pamphlet, or the editor or business manager of a daily newspaper, magazine or serial
publication, for defamation contained therein to the same extent as if he were the author thereof.

No necessity in naming the person accused

In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim be identifiable although it is not necessary that he be named.
It must be shown that at least a third person could identify him as the object of the libelous publication (Borjal v. CA, G.R.
No. 126466 January 14, 1999). It is enough if by intrinsic reference the allusion is apparent or if the publication contains
matters of description or reference to facts and circumstances from which others reading the article may know the person
alluded to, or if the latter is pointed out by extraneous circumstances so that those knowing such person could and did
that he was the person referred to (Diaz v. People, G.R. No. 159787, May 25, 2007).

Test to determine whether a statement is defamatory

To determine “whether a statement is defamatory, the words used are to be construed in their entirety and should be
taken in their plain, natural and ordinary meaning as they would naturally be understood by persons reading them, unless
it appears that they were used and understood in another sense.” Moreover, charge is sufficient if the words are
calculated to induce the hearers to suppose and understand that the person or persons against whom they were uttered
were guilty of certain offenses or are sufficient to impeach the honesty, virtue or reputation or to hold the person or
persons up to public ridicule (Lopez y Aberasturi v. People and Escalante, G.R. No. 172203, February 14, 2011). The
intention or meaning of the writer is immaterial. It is the meaning that the words in fact conveyed on the minds of persons
of reasonable understanding, discretion and candor, which should be considered.

PO3 B entered the dwelling of T against the latter’s will on suspicion that T keeps unlicensed firearms in his home. What
was the crime committed by PO3 B? Violation of Domicile

26) BA and BB had been married for more than six months. They lived together with the children of BB frim her first
husband. BA had sexual relationship with C, the 14 year old daughter of BB. C loves BA very much that is why she
willingly gave in to the intercourse. What was the crime committed by BA, if any? Qualified Seduction

27) Mida, after being berated by her mother, left their house. Tupeng, who was a neighbour of Mida, invited the latter
to his apartment to spend the night therein to which Mida voluntarily agreed. Tupeng led Mida to a room where she was to
sleep. Ten minutes after leaving the room, Tupeng returned and sat on the bed in the evening of the same day,
completely naked. He then had carnal knowledge with Mida against her will. After gratifying his lust, Tupeng warned Mida
not to tell anyone about the incident and warned her that her mother would condemn her for sleeping at his apartment.
Mida was padlocked inside the house for five days until she was rescued. Was the complex crime of serious illegal
detention with rape committed?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: NO, Tupeng is guilty only of rape and not of serious illegal detention. The original and primordial
intention of Tupeng in keeping Mida in his apartment was to rape her and not to deprive her of her liberty. Forcible
abduction is absorbed in the crime of rape if the real objective of the accused is to rape the victim. Hence, Tupeng is guilty
only of rape under Article 335, paragraph 1of the Revised Penal Code, and not of the complex crime of serious illegal
detention with rape under Article 267, in relation to Articles 335 and 48 of the Code. Although Mida initially agreed to stay
at appellant’s apartment, she did so because she had nowhere to go and she believed, at that time, that she was safe
with Tupeng, who was her neighbor. (PEOPLE vs. SABARDAN, G.R. No.132135. May 21, 2004.)

28) 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 home 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 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?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The conviction of Ana and Oniok is not correct. They are liable for infanticide because they
killed a child less than three days of age (Art. 255, Revised Penal Code).

29) Insulted when he was called macho by the manager of the bank where he was employed as security guard, B,
enraged, shot the former, who died on the spot. As B was about to leave the bank premises, he noticed the vault open.
He entered it, forced a locked container and got the jewelry therein. The prosecutor charged him with Robbery with
homicide. Correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the charge against B is incorrect. He shall be charged of two separate crimes of Homicide
and Theft. The real intention of B was to kill the manager and not to rob the bank and take the jewelry. The taking of the
jewelry only came to his mind after the killing. Where the offender’s intention to take the personal property of the victim
arises only as an afterthought and his original intent was to kill, he is guilty of two separate crimes of homicide or murder,
as the case may be, and theft.

30) R, the city treasure of Baguio City, received from the national government five (5) new computers for the use in
the city treasurer’s office. Each computer valued at P15,000.00. Since R needed money for the hospitalization of his sick
son, he sold four (4) of the computers to his VERY CLOSE friend, O, a general merchant, for P10,000.00. O then resold
the computers. Two months after the transaction, R audited and the investigation led to the discovery that O bought the
four (4) computers. Is O liable for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: O is not liable for violation of Anti-Fencing Law. The Anti-Fencing Law refers only to the buy and
sell of articles of value which are the proceeds of robbery and theft. In the case at bar, the computers sold to be were not
obtained through robbery.

31) C broke open a window and, without entering the house, took a wooden chest lying underneath the window. He
brought out the chest to the yard where he broke it open and took away the contents thereof, all valued at P1,000.00. He
was charged with robbery with force upon things. Correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the crime committed by A is theft. For robbery with force upon things to be committed, the
offender should have entered the house. The facts of the problem show that C without entering the house took the
wooden chest lying underneath the window which he broke open. To constitute robbery the offender who brought outside
the locked receptacle must have entered it; otherwise, the crime committed is theft.

32) 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?
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 Article 246 of 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.

33) A, the husband of B, informed & TV commentator,C, that his wife had complained that their youngest child who
was allegedly extremely ill and on the verge of death was denied admission at the RX Hospital because B, his wife, could
not put up the cash deposit required by the hospital. Without verifying said report, C, in his TV program, urged the closure
by the authorities of RX Hospital for denying medical assistance to a dying child simply because the mother could not give
a cash deposit. He added that the said hospital even refused to accept a check. It turned out however that the story was
wrong. The sick child of A and B was never in critical condition, and there was no check involved in the incident.
Subsequently, C was charged with libel. Correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: C, is liable for libel because the imputation tend to cause dishonor, discredit or contempt on the
hospital. It is not true that the conditions of the child was in a dying condition at the time. There was no check offered by
way of deposit so the statement of C that the hospital refused to accept the check was false. The fact that C did not even
verify the report makes his liability clear.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: C is liable for libel. The imputation is defamatory as it tended to cause dishonor, discredit or
contempt on the hospital. Malice in law, is therefore, presumed. It is not true that the child was extremely ill and on the
verge of death nor is it true that the hospital refused to accept a check for the admission of the child. Without verifying the
facts and urging the closure of the hospital by the authorities for denying medical admission to a dying child, the intent to
cast aspersion and injury to reputation and standing of the hospital becomes manifest as it was done with reckless
disregard of whether it was false or not.

34) B, a private individual, kidnapped E, a minor as B was enamoured with her beauty. On the second day, B
released E even before any criminal information was filed against him. At the trial of the case, B 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 B’s defense prosper?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, B’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 Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code
wherein the voluntary release of the victim does not extinguish criminal liability. The said circumstance may be
appreciated only in the crime of Slight Illegal detention under Article 268. (Asistio v. San Diego, 10 SCRA 673)

35) 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?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 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.

36) G, a tricycle driver, plied his usual route using a Honda motorcycle with a sidecar. One evening, D and P rode on
the sidecar, poked a knife at Samuel and instructed him to go near the bridge. Upon reaching the bridge, D alighted from
the motorcycle and suddenly stabbed Samuel several times until he was dead. D and P fled from the scene taking the
motorcycle with him. What crime or crimes did D and P commit? |5%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER: D and P 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 or "on the occasion of 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-Carnapping Act of 1972'. There is no apparent motive for the killing of the tricycle driver but for Raul to be able to
take the motorcycle. The fact that the tricycle driver was killed brings about the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.
Alternative Answer: The crime committed by D and P is carnapping, punished by Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 6539. The
killing of G is not a separate crime but only an aggravating circumstance.

37) A and B were once madly inlove but are now legally separated. Their child C, a minor, was placed in the custody
of A the mother, subject to monthly visitations by B, his father. On one occasion, when B had C in his company, B decided
not to return C to his mother. Instead, B took C with him to the United States where he intended for them to reside
permanently. What crime, if any, did B commit?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: B committed the crime of kidnapping and failure to return a minor under Article 271, in relation
to Article 270, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Article 271 expressly penalizes any parent who shall take from
and deliberately fail to restore his or her minor child to the parent or guardian to whom custody of the minor has been
placed. Since the custody of C, the minor, has been given to the mother and B has only the right of monthly visitation, the
latter's act of taking C to the United States, to reside there permanently, constitutes a violation of said provisions of law.

38) 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?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 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.

39) Two [2] Philippine National Police (PNPJ officers. X and Y, on board on motorboat with Z, a civilian as motor-man,
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?
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.

40) J and N committed two counts of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape (Art. 342, RPC) and the
separate offense of murder against D. The crime committed is abduction because there was lewd design when they took
the victims away and subsequently raped them. The killing thereafter, constitutes the separate offense of murder qualified
by treachery. Correct? Will minority exculpate him?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Under RA. 9344, the Juvenile Justice and Reform Act, which retroacts to the date that the crime
was committed, Nonoy will be exculpated if he was 15 years old or below. However, if he was above 15 years old but
below 18 years of age, he will be liable if he acted with discernment. As the problem shows that Nonoy acted with
discernment, he will be entitled to a suspension of sentence. (2006 Bar:Kidnapping;Illegal Detention ito, pero di binigay ng
buo ni sir sa reviewer yung facts)

41) Michael was 17 years old when he was charged for violation of Sec. 5 of R.A. 9165 (illegal sale of prohibited
drug). By the time he was convicted and sentenced, he was already 21 years old. The court sentenced him to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17)
years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and a fine of P500,000.Michael applied for probation but
his application was denied because the probation law does not apply to drug offenders under R.A. 9165. Michael then
sought the suspension of his sentence under R.A. 9344 or the Juvenile Justice and Youth Welfare Code. Can Michael
avail of the suspension of his sentence provided under this law? SUGGESTED ANSWER: The benefits of a suspended
sentence can no longer apply to Michael. The suspension of sentence lasts only until the law reaches the maximum age
and thus, could no longer be considered a child for purposes of applying Rep. Act No. 9344. However, he shall be entitled
to the right of restoration, rehabilitation and reintegration in accordance with the law to give him the chance to live a
normal life and become a productive member of the community. Accordingly, Michael may be confined in an agricultural
camp and other training facility in accordance with Section 51 of Rep. Act No. 9344 (People v. Jacinto, GR No. 182239,
March 16, 2011; People v. Salcedo, GR. No. 186523, June 22, 2011; Padua v. People, GR No. 1683, July 23, 2008 and
People v. Sarcia, GR No. 169641, September 10, 2009). (Iba na ata ang ruling dito)

42) 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?
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 266-A of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended, "when the offender's penis is inserted into his mouth or anal orifice."
43) 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?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. The motion to quash is not meritorious. It is not necessary that movant's 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.

44) 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 Pl,000.00 a month. Despite Aling Maria's
objection, Mang Juan insisted and brought Annie to his house to work as a maid. Was a crime committed by Mang Juan
when he brought Annie to his house as maid for the purpose of repaying her mother's loan?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes. Mang Juan committed the crime of exploitation of child labor which is committed by any
persons 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 latter's will, retainh im in his service (Art. 273, Revised Penal Code). He can
also be liable as an employer for the employment of a minor below 15 yrs. old, under Sec. 12, Art. 8 of RA. 7610.

45) 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 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 pretending or representing in a transaction or series of
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 abovenamed 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?
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.

46) X stole the calf of Y. When Y inquired about his cow, X denied seeing it. The cow was eventually found in X’s
possession, but X claimed persistently that the cow was entrusted to him by his brother Z, such that Y had to enlist the aid
of the Barangay captain and PC soldiers to retrieve his cow. What is the crime committed?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The crime committed is Qualified Theft of large cattle. There may be qualified theft of large
cattle if such is not taken but is received by the offender, or where only the material possession thereof has been
transferred, or when he misappropriates it.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The crime committed is cattle rustling. Under PD 533, cattle rustling is committed by taking
away by any mean, method or scheme, without the consent of the owner/raiser of any of the mentioned animals in the law,
whether or not for profit or gain, or whether committed with or without violence against or intimidation of any person or
force upon things.
47) A asked financial support from her showbiz friend B who accommodated her by issuing in her favor a postdated
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 had 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?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: A criminal action for violation of BP 22 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 in cash. BP 22 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 a pre-existing
indebtedness. Criminal liability for estafa does not arise when a check has been issued in payment for a pre-existing debt.

48) 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? (Same with No.36)
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 or "on the occasion of 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-Carnapping Act of 1972'. There is no apparent motive for the killing of the tricycle driver but for Raul to be able to
take the motorcycle. The fact that the tricycle driver was killed brings about the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.
Alternative 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.