Bar Qs 1990 2015 Updated CRIMINAL LAW

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers
GENERAL PRINCIPLES  
GENERAL PRINCIPLES; SCHOOLS OF 2. We follow the classical school of thought

THOUGHT IN CRIMINAL LAW (1996)  although some provisions of eminently
positivist in tendencies, like punishment of
1) What are the different schools of thought or
impossible crime, Juvenile circumstances,
theories in Criminal Law and describe each briefly.
are incorporated in our Code.  
2) To what theory does our Revised Penal Code

GENERAL PRINCIPLES; TERRITORIALITY (1994)
belong?
Abe, married to Liza, contracted another marriage
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
with Connie in Singapore. Thereafter, Abe and
1. There are two schools of thought in Criminal Connie returned to the Philippines and lived as
Law, and these are husband and wife in the hometown of Abe in
Calamba, Laguna.
(a) the CLASSICAL THEORY, which simply
means that the basis of criminal liabilities is 1) Can Abe be prosecuted for bigamy?
human free will, and the purpose of the

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
penalty is retribution which must be
proportional to the gravity of the offense; 1) No, Abe may not be prosecuted for bigamy since
and the bigamous marriage was contracted or
solemnized in Singapore, hence such violation is
(b) the POSITIVIST THEORY, which
not one of those where the Revised Penal Code,
considers man as a social being and his acts
under Art. 2 thereof, may be applied
are attributable not just to his will but to
extraterritorially. The general rule on territoriality
other forces of society. As such,
of criminal law governs the situation.
punishment is not the solution, as he is not
entirely to be blamed; law and GENERAL PRINCIPLES; TERRITORIALITY;
jurisprudence should not be the yardstick in JURISDICTION OVER VESSEL (2000) 
the imposition of sanction, instead the

After drinking one (1) case of San Miguel beer and
underlying reasons would be inquired into.
taking two plates of "pulutan", Binoy, a Filipino
Prepared by: LJC 1
seaman, stabbed to death Sio My, a Singaporean use an alias legally? Give 3 instances. (2.5%) 
seaman, aboard M/V "Princess of the Pacific", an
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
overseas vessel which was sailing in the South
China Sea. The vessel, although Panamanian 1. Pseudonym for literary purposes.  
registered, is owned by Lucio Sy, a rich Filipino 2. Use of aliases in cinema and television
businessman. When M/V "Princess of the Pacific" entertainment.  
reached a Philippine Port at Cebu City, the Captain 3. In athletics and sports activities (RA. 6085).
of the vessel turned over the assailant Binoy to the  
Philippine authorities. An information for homicide 4. Under the witness protection program a
was filed against Binoy in the Regional Trial Court person may  adopt a different identity (RA.
of Cebu City. He moved to quash the information 6981).  
for lack of jurisdiction. If you were the Judge, will 5. When he has been baptized or customarily
you grant the motion? Why? (5%)  known  by such alias.  
6. When authorized by a competent court
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(CA. No.  142, as amended by RA. 6085).  
Yes, the Motion to Quash the Information should 7. When properly indicated in a Certificate of
be granted. The Philippine court has no jurisdiction  Candidacy (Omnibus Election Code).  
over the crime committed since it was committed
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE (2013)
on the high seas or outside of Philippine territory
and on board a vessel not registered or licensed in Assume that you are a member of the legal staff of
the Philippines (US vs. Fowler, 1 Phil 614) Senator Salcedo who wants to file a bill about
imprisonment at the National Penitentiary in
It is the registration of the vessel in accordance
Muntinlupa. He wants to make the State prison
with the laws of the Philippines, not the citizenship
revenue
of her owner, which makes it a Philippine ship. The
vessel being registered in Panama, the laws of earner for the country through a law providing for
Panama govern while it is in the high seas. premium accommodations for prisoners (other
than those under maximum security status) whose
USE OF ALIASES; WHEN ALLOWED (2006)
wives are allowed conjugal weekend visits, and for
When can a Filipino citizen residing in this country those who want long-term premium
Prepared by: LJC 2
accommodations. become a law.
For conjugal weekenders, he plans to rent out

rooms with hotel-like amenities at rates equivalent
GENERAL PRINCIPLES; TERRITORIALITY (2008)
to those charged by 4-star hotels; for long-term
occupants, he is prepared to offer room and board No. VI. Hubert and Eunice were married in the
with special meals in air conditioned single- Philippines. Hubert took graduate studies in New
occupancy rooms, at rates equivalent to those York and met his former girlfriend Eula. They
charged by 3-star hotels. renewed their friendship and finally decided to get
married. The first wife, Eunice, heard about the
What advice will you give the Senator from the
marriage and secures a copy of the marriage
point of view of criminal law, taking into account
contract in New York. Eunice filed a case of
the purpose of imprisonment (7%) and
Bigamy against Hubert in the Philippines.
considerations of ethics and morality (3%)? (10%
total points)
(a) Will the case prosper? Explain. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I would advice Senator Salcedo to forgo and
permanently abandon his proposed bill, as it will No, because the Philippine Courts have no
result in economic inequality in the field of criminal jurisdiction over a crime committed outside of the
justice. The bill runs afoul with the equal Philippine territory. Under the principle of
protection clause of the 1987 Constitution. The territoriality, penal laws, specifically the RPC, are
equal protection clause in the Constitution does enforceable only within the bounds of our territory
not merely bar the creation of inequalities but (Art. 2, RPC).
commands as well the elimination of existing
(b) If Eunice gave her consent to the second
inequalities.
marriage, what will your answer be?
Additionally, the purpose of imposing penalties, Explain. (3%)
which is to secure justice, retribution and
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
reformation, will be defeated and put to naught if
the bill‟s program/scheme should eventually
Prepared by: LJC 3
The answer will be the same. The consent of A had a grudge against F. Deciding to kill F, A and
Eunice would not confer jurisdiction on Philippine his friends, B, C, and D, armed themselves with
Courts. knives and proceeded to the house of F, taking a
taxicab for the purpose. About 20 meters from
their destination, the group alighted and after
GENERAL PRINCIPLES; CONSTITUTIONAL instructing E, the driver, to wait, traveled on foot
PROVISION LIMITING THE POWER OF to the house of F. B positioned himself at a
CONGRESS TO ENACT PENAL LAWS (2012) distance as the group's lookout. C and D stood
guard outside the house. Before A could enter the
What are the constitutional provisions limiting the
house, D left the scene without the knowledge of
power of Congress to enact penal laws? (5%)
the others. A stealthily entered the house and
SUGGESTED ANSWER: stabbed F. F ran to the street but was blocked by C,

forcing him to flee towards another direction.
The constitutional provision limiting the power of Immediately after A had stabbed F, A also stabbed
Congress to enact penal laws are the following: G who was visiting F. Thereafter, A exiled from the
house and, together with B and C, returned to the
1. The law must not be an ex post facto law or
waiting taxicab and motored away. G died. F
it should not be given a retroactive effect.
survived.
2. The law must not be a bill of attainder, Who are liable for the death of G and the physical
meaning it cannot provide punishment injuries of F? 
without judicial proceedings.  
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2. The law must not impose cruel, unusual or
degrading punishment.   A alone should be held liable for the death of G.
The object of the conspiracy of A, B, C, and D was
No person shall be held to answer for a criminal to kill F only. Since B, C, and D did not know of the
offense without due process of law. stabbing of G by A, they cannot be held criminally
therefor. E, the driver, cannot be also held liable
FELONIES  
for the death of G since the former was completely
CONSPIRACY (1997) unaware of said killing.
Prepared by: LJC 4
For the physical injuries of F, A, B and C. should be In his defense, AA invoked the justifying
held liable therefore. Even if it was only A who circumstance of avoidance of greater evil or injury,
actually stabbed and caused physical injuries to G, contending that by preventing ST from shooting
B and C are nonetheless liable for conspiring with BB and CC, he merely avoided a greater evil.
A and for contributing positive acts which led to
Will AA's defense prosper? Reason briefly. (5%)
the realization of a common criminal intent. B
positioned himself as a lookout, while C blocked SUGGESTED ANSWER:
F's escape. D, however, although part of the
No, AA's defense will not prosper because
conspiracy, cannot be held liable because he left
obviously there was a conspiracy among BB, CC
the scene before A could enter the house where
and AA, such that the principle that when there is a
the stabbing occurred. Although he was earlier
conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, shall
part of the conspiracy, he did not personally
govern. The act of ST, the victim's son, appears to
participate in the execution of the crime by acts
be a legitimate defense of relatives; hence,
which directly tended toward the same end (People
justified as a defense of his father against the
vs. Tomoro, et al 44 Phil. 38),
unlawful aggression by BB and CC. ST's act to
In the same breath, E, the driver, cannot be also defend his father's life, cannot be regarded as an
held liable for the infliction of physical injuries evil inasmuch as it is, in the eyes of the law, a
upon F because there is no showing that he had lawful act.
knowledge of the plan to kill F.
What AA did was to stop a lawful defense, not
CONSPIRACY; AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL greater evil, to allow BB and CC achieve their
(2004) criminal objective of stabbing FT.
BB and CC, both armed with knives, attacked FT. CONSPIRACY; CO-CONSPIRATOR (1998)
The victim's son, ST, upon seeing the attack, drew
Juan and Arturo devised a plan to murder Joel. In a
his gun but was prevented from shooting the
narrow alley near Joel's house, Juan will hide
attackers by AA, who grappled with him for
behind the big lamppost and shoot Joel when the
possession of the gun. FT died from knife wounds.
latter passes through on his way to work. Arturo
AA, BB and CC were charged with murder.
will come from the other end of the alley and
Prepared by: LJC 5
simultaneously shoot Joel from behind. On the Arturo is not liable because he was not able to
appointed day, Arturo was apprehended by the participate in the killing of Joel. Conspiracy itself is
authorities before reaching the alley. When Juan not punishable unless expressly provided by law
shot Joel as planned, he was unaware that Arturo and this is not true in the case of Murder. A co-
was arrested earlier. Discuss the criminal liability of conspirator must perform an overt act pursuant to
Arturo, if any. [5%] the conspiracy.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: CONSPIRACY; COMMON FELONIOUS

PURPOSE (1994)
Arturo, being one of the two who devised the plan
to murder Joel, thereby becomes a co-principal by At about 9:30 in the evening, while Dino and Raffy
direct conspiracy. What is needed only is an overt were walking along Padre Faura Street, Manila.
act and both will incur criminal liability. Arturo's Johnny hit them with a rock injuring Dino at the
liability as a conspirator arose from his back. Raffy approached Dino, but suddenly,
participation in jointly devising the criminal plan Bobby, Steve, Danny and Nonoy surrounded the
with Juan, to kill Jose. And it was pursuant to that duo. Then Bobby stabbed Dino. Steve, Danny,
conspiracy that Juan killed Joel. The conspiracy Nonoy and Johnny kept on hitting Dino and Raffy
here is actual, not by inference only. The overt act with rocks. As a result. Dino died, Bobby, Steve,
was done pursuant to that conspiracy whereof Danny, Nonoy and Johnny were charged with
Arturo is co-conspirator. There being a conspiracy, homicide.
the act of one is the act of all. Arturo, therefore,
Is there conspiracy in this case?
should be liable as a co-conspirator but the penalty
on him may be that of an accomplice only (People SUGGESTED ANSWER:
vs. Nierra, 96 SCRA 1; People us. Medrano, 114
Yes, there is conspiracy among the offenders, as
SCRA 335) because he was not able to actually
manifested by their concerted actions against the
participate in the shooting of Joel, having been
victims, demonstrating a common felonious
apprehended before reaching the place where the
purpose of assaulting the victims. The existence of
crime was committed.
the conspiracy can be inferred or deduced from the
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: manner the offenders acted in commonly
attacking Dino and Raffy with rocks, thereby
Prepared by: LJC 6
demonstrating a unity of criminal design to inflict crime of Robbery with Rape, Conspiracy can be
harm on their victims. inferred from the manner the offenders
committed the robbery but the rape was
CONSPIRACY; COMPLEX CRIME WITH RAPE
committed by Fernando at a place "distant from
(1996)
the house" where the robbery was committed, not
Jose, Domingo, Manolo, and Fernando, armed in the presence of the other conspirators. Hence,
with bolos, at about one o'clock in the morning, Fernando alone should answer for the rape,
robbed a house at a desolate place where Danilo, rendering him liable for the special complex crime.
his wife, and three daughters were living. While (People vs. Canturia et. al, G.R. 108490, 22 June
the four were in the process of ransacking Danilo's 1995}
house, Fernando, noticing that one of Danilo's

b) The crime would be Robbery with Homicide
daughters was trying to get away, ran after her and
(implied: there is still conspiracy)
finally caught up with her in a thicket somewhat
distant from the house. Fernando, before bringing CONSPIRACY; FLIGHT TO EVADE
back the daughter to the house, raped her first. APPREHENSION (2003)
Thereafter, the four carted away the belongings of
A and B, both store janitors, planned to kill their
Danilo and his family.
employer C at midnight and take the money kept
a) What crime did Jose, Domingo, Manolo and in the cash register. A and B together drew the
Fernando commit? Explain. sketch of the store, where they knew C would be
sleeping, and planned the sequence of their attack.
b) Suppose, after the robbery, the four took turns
Shortly before midnight, A and B were ready to
in raping the three daughters of Danilo inside the
carry out the plan. When A was about to lift C's
latter's house, but before they left, they killed the
mosquito net to thrust his dagger, a police car with
whole family to prevent identification, what crime
sirens blaring passed by. Scared, B ran out of the
did the four commit? Explain.
store and fled, while A went on to stab C to death,
SUGGESTED ANSWER: put the money in the bag, and ran outside to look
for B. The latter was nowhere in sight. Unknown to
(a) Jose, Domingo, and Manolo committed
him, B had already left the place. What was the
Robbery, while Fernando committed complex
participation and corresponding criminal liability of
Prepared by: LJC 7
each, if any? Reasons. 8% A shall incur full criminal liability for the crime of
robbery with homicide, but B shall not incur
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
criminal liability because he desisted. B's
There was an expressed conspiracy between A and spontaneous desistance, made before all acts of
B to kill C and take the latter's money. The planned execution are performed, is exculpatory.
killing and taking of the money appears to be Conspiracy to rob and kill is not per se punishable.
intimately related as component crimes, hence a

The desistance need not be actuated by remorse
special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
or good motive. It is enough that the
The conspiracy being expressed, not just implied,
discontinuance comes from the person who has
A and B are bound as co-conspirators after they
begun the commission of the crime but before all
have planned and agreed on the sequence of their
acts of execution are performed. A person who has
attack even before they committed the crime.
began the commission of a crime but desisted, is
Therefore, the principle in law that when there is a
absolved from criminal liability as a reward to one,
conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, already
who having set foot on the verge of crime, heeds
governs them. In fact, A and B were already in the
the call of his conscience and returns to the path of
store to carry out their criminal plan.
righteousness.
That B ran out of the store and fled upon hearing

CONSPIRACY; FLIGHT TO EVADE
the sirens of the police car, is not spontaneous
APPREHENSION (2003)
desistance but flight to evade apprehension. It
would be different if B then tried to stop A from A and B, both store janitors, planned to kill their
continuing with the commission of the crime; he employer C at midnight and take the money kept
did not. So the act of A in pursuing the commission in the cash register. A and B together drew the
of the crime which both he and B designed, sketch of the store, where they knew C would be
planned, and commenced to commit, would also sleeping, and planned the sequence of their attack.
be the act of B because of their expressed Shortly before midnight, A and B were ready to
conspiracy. Both are liable for the composite crime carry out the plan. When A was about to lift C's
of robbery with homicide. mosquito net to thrust his dagger, a police car with
sirens blaring passed by. Scared, B ran out of the
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
store and fled, while A went on to stab C to death,
Prepared by: LJC 8
put the money in the bag, and ran outside to look conspiracy. Both are liable for the composite crime
for B. The latter was nowhere in sight. Unknown to of robbery with homicide.
him, B had already left the place. What was the
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
participation and corresponding criminal liability of
each, if any? Reasons. 8% A shall incur full criminal liability for the crime of
robbery with homicide, but B shall not incur
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
criminal liability because he desisted. B's
There was an expressed conspiracy between A and spontaneous desistance, made before all acts of
B to kill C and take the latter's money. The planned execution are performed, is exculpatory.
killing and taking of the money appears to be Conspiracy to rob and kill is not per se punishable.
intimately related as component crimes, hence a
The desistance need not be actuated by remorse
special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
or good motive. It is enough that the
The conspiracy being expressed, not just implied,
discontinuance comes from the person who has
A and B are bound as co-conspirators after they
begun the commission of the crime but before all
have planned and agreed on the sequence of their
acts of execution are performed. A person who has
attack even before they committed the crime.
began the commission of a crime but desisted, is
Therefore, the principle in law that when there is a
absolved from criminal liability as a reward to one,
conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, already
who having set foot on the verge of crime, heeds
governs them. In fact, A and B were already in the
the call of his conscience and returns to the path of
store to carry out their criminal plan.
righteousness.
That B ran out of the store and fled upon hearing
CONSPIRACY; IMPLIED CONSPIRACY (1998)
the sirens of the police car, is not spontaneous
desistance but flight to evade apprehension. It What is the doctrine of implied conspiracy? [3%]
would be different if B then tried to stop A from
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
continuing with the commission of the crime; he
did not. So the act of A in pursuing the commission The doctrine of implied conspiracy holds two or
of the crime which both he and B designed, more persons participating in the commission of a
planned, and commenced to commit, would also crime collectively responsible and liable as co-
be the act of B because of their expressed
Prepared by: LJC 9
conspirators although absent any agreement to b) Only those who participated by criminal acts in
that effect, when they act in concert, the  commission of the crime will be considered as
demonstrating unity of criminal intent and a co-  conspirators; and  
common purpose or objective. The existence of a
c) Mere acquiescence to or approval of the
conspiracy shall be inferred or deduced from their
commission  of the crime, without any act of
criminal participation in pursuing the crime and
criminal participation, shall not render one
thus the act of one shall be deemed the act of all.
criminally liable as co-conspirator.  
CONSPIRACY; IMPLIED CONSPIRACY; EFFECTS
CRIMINAL LIABILITY: DESTRUCTIVE ARSON
(2003)
(2000)
State the concept of "implied conspiracy" and give
A, B, C and D, all armed with armalites, proceeded
its legal effects. 4% 
to the house of X. Y, a neighbor of X, who
SUGGESTED ANSWER:  happened to be passing by, pointed to the four
culprits the room that X occupied. The four culprits
An "IMPLIED CONSPIRACY" is one which is only
peppered the room with bullets. Unsatisfied, A
inferred or deduced from the manner the
even threw a hand grenade that totally destroyed
participants in the commission of crime carried out
X's room. However, unknown to the four culprits, X
its execution. Where the offenders acted in concert
was not inside the room and nobody was hit or
in the commission of the crime, meaning that their
injured during the Incident. Are A, B, C and D liable
acts are coordinated or synchronized in a way
for any crime? Explain. (3%)
indicative that they are pursuing a common
criminal objective, they shall be deemed to be SUGGESTED ANSWER:
acting in conspiracy and their criminal liability shall
Yes. A, B. C and D are liable for destructive arson
be collective, not individual.
because of the destruction of the room of X with
The legal effects of an "implied conspiracy" are: the use of an explosive, the hand grenade. Liability
for an impossible crime is to be imposed only if the
a) Not all those who are present at the scene of
act committed would not constitute any other
the  crime will be considered conspirators;  
crime under the Revised Penal Code. Although the
facts involved are parallel to the case of Intod vs.
Prepared by: LJC 10
Court of Appeals (215 SCRA 52), where it was ruled process, sustains injuries or dies, the person
that the liability of the offender was for an committing the felonious act is responsible for
impossible crime, no hand grenade was used in such injuries or death. (US vs. Valdez, 41 Phil, 1497;
said case, which constitutes a more serious crime People vs. Apra, 27 SCRA 1037.)
though different from what was intended,
CRIMINAL LIABILITY: FELONIOUS ACT;
CRIMINAL LIABILITY: FELONIOUS ACT OF PROXIMATE CAUSE (1996)
SCARING (1996)
Vicente hacked Anacleto with a bolo but the latter
Alexander, an escaped convict, ran amuck on was able to parry it with his hand, causing upon
board a Superlines Bus bound for Manila from him a two- inch wound on his right palm. Vicente
Bicol and killed ten (10) persons. Terrified by the was not able to hack Anacleto further because
incident, Carol and Benjamin who are passengers three policemen arrived and threatened to shoot
of the bus, jumped out of the window and while Vicente if he did not drop his bolo. Vicente was
lying unconscious after hitting the pavement of the accordingly charged by the police at the
road, were ran over and crushed to death by a fast prosecutor's office for attempted homicide.
moving Desert Fox bus tailing the Superlines Bus. Twenty- five days later, while the preliminary
investigation was in progress, Anacleto was rushed
Can Alexander be held liable for the death of Carol
to the hospital because of symptoms of tetanus
and Benjamin although he was completely
infection on the two-inch wound inflicted by
unaware that the two jumped out of the bus?
Vicente. Anacleto died the following day.
Explain. 
Can Vicente be eventually charged with homicide
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
for the death of Anacleto? Explain. 
Yes, Alexander can be held liable for the death of

SUGGESTED ANSWER: 
Carol and Benjamin because of felonious act of
running was the proximate cause of the victim's Yes, Vicente may be charged of homicide for the
death. The rule is that when a person, by a death of Anacleto, unless the tetanus infection
felonious act, generates in the mind of another a which developed twenty five days later, was
sense of imminent danger, prompting the latter to brought about by an efficient supervening cause.
escape from or avoid such danger and in the Vicente's felonious act of causing a two-inch
Prepared by: LJC 11
wound on Anacleto's right palm may still be occasions, accepted Cesar's invitation to concerts
regarded as the proximate cause of the latter's by Regine and Pops. Felipe was a working student
death because without such wound, no tetanus and could only ask Mary to see a movie which was
infection could develop from the victim's right declined. Felipe felt insulted and made plans to get
palm, and without such tetanus infection the even with Cesar by scaring him off somehow. One
victim would not have died with it. day, he entered Cesar's room in their boarding
house and placed a rubber snake which appeared
CRIMINAL LIABILITY: IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
to be real in Cesar's backpack. Because Cesar had a
(2000)
weak heart, he suffered a heart attack upon
a. What is an impossible crime? (2%) b. Is an opening his backpack and seeing the snake. Cesar
impossible crime really a crime? (2%) died without regaining consciousness. The police
investigation resulted in pinpointing Felipe as the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
culprit and he was charged with Homicide for
An impossible crime is an act which would be an Cesar's death. In his defense, Felipe claimed that
 offense against person or property, were if not for he did not know about Cesar's weak heart and that
the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or he only intended to play a practical joke on Cesar.
on account of the employment of inadequate or

Is Felipe liable for the death of Cesar or will his
ineffectual means (Art. 4, par. 2, RPC)  
defense prosper? Why? (5%} 
No, an impossible crime is not really a crime. It is

only so-called because the act gives rise to criminal
liability. But actually, no felony is committed. The Yes, Felipe is liable for the death of Cesar but he
accused is to be punished for his criminal tendency shall be given the benefit of the mitigating
or propensity although no crime was committed.   circumstance that he did not intend to commit so
grave a wrong as that which was committed (Art.
CRIMINAL LIABILITY; FELONIOUS ACT OF 13, par. 3, RPC).
SCARING (2001)
When Felipe intruded into Cesar's room without
Maryjane had two suitors - Felipe and Cesar. She the latter's consent and took liberty with the
did not openly show her preference but on two letter's backpack where he placed the rubber
Prepared by: LJC 12

snake. Felipe was already committing a felony. and hit Belle causing her death.
And any act done by him while committing a
Was Gaston criminally liable? What is the liability
felony is no less wrongful, considering that they
of Gaston? Why? (4%) 
were part of "plans to get even with Cesar".
Felipe's claim that he intended only "to play a
practical joke on Cesar" does not persuade, Yes, Gaston is liable for Belle's death because even
considering that they are not friends but in fact though Gaston has no intent to kill Belle rather just
rivals in courting Maryjane. This case is parallel to to scare Belle. "To scare" does not indicate intent
the case of People vs. Pugay, et al. to kill. However, under Art. 4 of the Revised Penal
Code, provides in part that criminal liability shall be
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
incurred by any person committing a felony
No, Felipe is not liable because the act of although the wrongful act done be different from
frightening another is not a crime. What he did that which he intended. In other words, the rule is
may be wrong, but not all wrongs amount to a that when a person, by a felonious act, generates
crime. Because the act which caused the death of in the mind of another a sense of imminent
Cesar is not a crime, no criminal liability may arise danger, prompting the latter to escape from or
therefrom. avoid such danger and in the process, sustains
injuries or dies, the person committing the
CRIMINAL LIABILITY; FELONIOUS ACT OF
felonious act is responsible for such injuries or
SCARING (2005)
death. (US vs. Valdez, 41 Phil, 1497; People vs.
Belle saw Gaston stealing the prized cock of a Apra, 27 SCRA 1037.) 
neighbor and reported him to the police.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: 
Thereafter, Gaston, while driving a car saw Belle
crossing the street. Incensed that Belle had Yes, Gaston is liable for Belle's death because by
reported him, Gaston decided to scare her by his acts of revving the engine of his car and driving
trying to make it appear that he was about to run towards Belle is felonious, and such felonious act
her over. He revved the engine of his car and drove was the proximate cause of the vehicle to skid and
towards her but he applied the brakes. Since the hit Belle, resulting in the latter's death. Stated
road was slippery at that time, the vehicle skidded otherwise, the death of Belle was the direct,
Prepared by: LJC 13
natural and logical consequence of Gaston's materially contributed to and hastened A's death.
felonious act. (People v. Arpa, 27 SCRA 1037). Even though B may have acted without intent to
kill his wife, lack of such intent is of no moment
CRIMINAL LIABILITY; FELONIOUS ACT;
when the victim dies. However, B may be given the
IMMEDIATE CAUSE (2003) 
mitigating circumstance of having acted without
The conduct of wife A aroused the ire of her intention to commit so grave a wrong as that
husband B. Incensed with anger almost beyond his committed (Art. 13, par. 3, Revised Penal Code).
control, B could not help but inflict physical injuries

on A. Moments after B started hitting A with his
PROXIMATE CAUSE (1994)
fists, A suddenly complained of severe chest pains.
B, realizing that A was indeed in serious trouble, Bhey eloped with Scott. Whereupon, Bhey's
immediately brought her to the hospital. Despite father, Robin, and brother, Rustom, went to
efforts to alleviate A's pains, she died of heart Scott's house. Upon reaching the house, Rustom
attack. It turned out that she had been suffering inquired from Scott about his sister's whereabouts,
from a lingering heart ailment. What crime, if any, while Robin shouted and threatened to kill Scott.
could B be held guilty of? 8%  The latter then went downstairs but Rustom held
his (Scott's) waist. Meanwhile Olive, the elder
sister of Scott, carrying her two-month old child,
B could be held liable for parricide because his act approached Rustom and Scott to pacify them.
of hitting his wife with fist blows and therewith Olive attempted to remove Rustom's hand from
inflicting physical injuries on her, is felonious. A Scott's waist. But Rustom pulled Olive's hand
person committing a felonious act incurs criminal causing her to fall over her baby. The baby then
liability although the wrongful consequence is died moments later.
different from what he intended (Art. 4, par. 1,

Is Rustom criminally liable for the death of the
Revised Penal Code).
child?
Although A died of heart attack, the said attack

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
was generated by B's felonious act of hitting her
with his fists. Such felonious act was the Yes, Rustom is criminally liable for the death of the
immediate cause of the heart attack, having child because his felonious act was the proximate
Prepared by: LJC 14
cause of such death. It was Rustom's act of pulling SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Olive's hand which caused the latter to fall on her
Yes. A can be held criminally liable for the death of
baby. Had It not been for said act of Rustom, which
B, Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code provides in
is undoubtedly felonious (at least slight coercion)
part that criminal liability shall be incurred by any
there was no cause for Olive to fall over her baby.
person committing a felony although the wrongful
In short, Rustom's felonious act is the cause of the
act done be different from that which he intended.
evil caused. Any person performing a felonious act
In U.S. vs. Valdez 41 Phil. 497. where the victim
is criminally liable for the direct, natural and logical
who was threatened by the accused with a knife,
consequence thereof although different from what
jumped into the river but because of the strong
he intended (Art. 4, par. 1, RFC; People vs, Pugay, et
current or because he did not know how to swim,
al, GR No. 74324, Nov. 18, 1988).
he drowned, the Supreme Court affirmed the
CRIMINAL LIABILITY; FELONIOUS ACT; conviction for homicide of the accused because, if
PROXIMATE CAUSE (1997) a person against whom a criminal assault is
directed believes himself to be in danger of death
While the crew of a steamer prepared to raise
or great bodily harm and in order to escape jumps
anchor at the Pasig River, A, evidently impatient
into the water, impelled by the instinct of self-
with the progress of work, began to use abusive
preservation, the assailant is responsible for the
language against the men. B, one of the members
homicide in case death results by drowning.
of the crew, remonstrated saying that they could
work best if they were not insulted. A took B's CRIMINAL LIABILITY; FELONIOUS ACT;
attitude as a display of insubordination and, rising PROXIMATE CAUSE (1999)
in a rage, moved towards B wielding a big knife
During the robbery in a dwelling house, one of the
and threatening to stab B. At the instant when A
culprits happened to fire his gun upward in the
was only a few feet from B, the latter, apparently
ceiling without meaning to kill anyone. The owner
believing himself to be in great and immediate
of the house who was hiding thereat was hit and
peril, threw himself into the water, disappeared
killed as a result.
beneath the surface, and drowned.
The defense theorized that the killing was a mere

May A be held criminally liable for the death of B?
accident and was not perpetrated in connection
Prepared by: LJC 15

with, or for purposes of, the robbery. Will you presumed dead and came across the name of his
sustain the defense? Why? (4%) grandfather who had raised him from childhood
after he was orphaned. He was shocked and his
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
mind went blank for a few minutes, after which he
No, I will not sustain the defense. The act being ran amuck and, using his balisong, started
felonious and the proximate cause of the victim's stabbing at the passengers who then scampered
death, the offender is liable therefore although it away, with three of them Jumping out of the train
may not be intended or different from what he and landing on the road below. All the three
intended. passengers died later of their injuries at the

hospital.
The offender shall be prosecuted for the
composite crime of robbery with homicide, Is Luis liable for the death of the three passengers
whether the killing was intentional or accidental, who jumped out of the moving train? State your
as long as the killing was on occasion of the reasons. (5%)
robbery.

Yes, Luis is liable for their deaths because he was
PROXIMATE CAUSE (2001)
committing a felony when he started stabbing at
Luis Cruz was deeply hurt when his offer of love the passengers and such wrongful act was the
was rejected by his girlfriend Marivella one proximate cause of said passengers' jumping out of
afternoon when he visited her. When he left her the train; hence their deaths.
house, he walked as if he was sleepwalking so

Under Article 4, Revised Penal Code, any person
much so that a teenage snatcher was able to grab
committing a felony shall incur criminal liability
his cell phone and flee without being chased by
although the wrongful act done be different from
Luis. At the next LRT station, he boarded one of
that which he intended. In this case, the death of
the coaches bound for Baclaran. While seated, he
the three passengers was the direct, natural and
happened to read a newspaper left on the seat and
logical consequence of Luis' felonious act which
noticed that the headlines were about the sinking
created an immediate sense of danger in the
of the Super Ferry while on its way to Cebu. He
minds of said passengers who tried to avoid or
went over the list of missing passengers who were
Prepared by: LJC 16
escape from it by jumping out of the train. (People CRIMINAL LIABILITY; IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
vs. Arpa, 27 SCRA 1O37; U.S. vs. Valdez, 41 Phil. (2004)
497}
OZ and YO were both courting their co-employee,
CRIMINAL LIABILITY; FELONIOUS ACT; SUE. Because of their bitter rivalry, OZ decided to
PROXIMATE CAUSE (2004) get rid of YO by poisoning him. OZ poured a
substance into YO's coffee thinking it was arsenic.
On his way home from office, ZZ rode in a jeepney.
It turned out that the substance was white sugar
Subsequently, XX boarded the same jeepney.
substitute known as Equal. Nothing happened to
Upon reaching a secluded spot in QC, XX pulled
YO after he drank the coffee. What criminal
out a grenade from his bag and announced a hold-
liability did OZ incur, if any? Explain briefly. (5%)
up. He told ZZ to surrender his watch, wallet and
cellphone. Fearing for his life, ZZ jumped out of SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the vehicle. But as he fell, his head hit the
OZ incurred criminal liability for an impossible
pavement, causing his instant death . Is XX liable
crime of murder. Criminal liability shall be incurred
for ZZ's death? Explain briefly. (5%)
by any person performing an act which would be
SUGGESTED ANSWER: an offense against persons or property, were it not
for the inherent impossibility of its
Yes, XX is liable for ZZ's death because his acts of
accomplishment or on account of the employment
pulling out a grenade and announcing a hold-up,
of inadequate or ineffectual means (Art. 4, par. 2,
coupled with a demand for the watch, wallet and
RFC).
cellphone of ZZ is felonious, and such felonious act
was the proximate cause of ZZ's jumping out of In the problem given, the impossibility of
the jeepney, resulting in the latter's death. Stated accomplishing the crime of murder, a crime
otherwise, the death of ZZ was the direct, natural against persons, was due to the employment of
and logical consequence of XX's felonious act ineffectual means which OZ thought was poison.
which created an immediate sense of danger in the The law imputes criminal liability to the offender
mind of ZZ who tried to avoid such danger by although no crime resulted, only to suppress his
jumping out of the jeepney (People v. Arpa, 27 criminal propensity because subjectively, he is a
SCRA 1037). criminal though objectively, no crime was
Prepared by: LJC 17

committed. instead find them guilty of impossible crime under

Art. 4, par. 2, RPC, in relation to Art. 59, RPC.
CRIMINAL LIABILITY; IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
Liability for impossible crime arises not only when
(1994)
the impossibility is legal, but likewise when it is
JP, Aries and Randal planned to kill Elsa, a resident factual or physical impossibility, as in the case at
of Barangay Pula, Laurel, Batangas. They asked bar. Elsa's absence from the house is a physical
the assistance of Ella, who is familiar with the impossibility which renders the crime intended
place. Inherently incapable of accomplishment. To

convict the accused of attempted murder would
On April 3, 1992, at about 10:00 in the evening, JP,
make Art. 4, par. 2 practically useless as all
Aries and Randal, all armed with automatic
circumstances which prevented the consummation
weapons, went to Barangay Pula. Ella, being the
of the offense will be treated as an incident
guide, directed her companions to the room in the
independent of the actor's will which is an element
house of Elsa. Whereupon, JP, Aries and Randal
of attempted or frustrated felony (Intod vs. CA, 215
fired their guns at her room. Fortunately, Elsa was
SCRA 52).
not around as she attended a prayer meeting that
evening in another barangay in Laurel. CRIMINAL LIABILITY: IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
(1998)
JP, et al, were charged and convicted of attempted
murder by the Regional Trial Court at Tanauan, Buddy always resented his classmate, Jun. One
Batangas. day. Buddy planned to kill Jun by mixing poison in

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

both Buddy and Jerry, the poison was actually
If I were the ponente, I will set aside the judgment powdered milk.
convicting the accused of attempted murder and
1, What crime or crimes, if any, did Jerry and
Prepared by: LJC 18
Buddy commit? [3%] 2. Suppose that, because of CRIMINAL LIABILITY; IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES;
his severe allergy to powdered milk, Jun had to be KIDNAPPING (2000)
hospitalized for 10 days for ingesting it. Would
Carla, 4 years old, was kidnapped by Enrique, the
your answer to the first question be the same?
tricycle driver paid by her parents to bring and
[2%]
fetch her to and from school. Enrique wrote a
SUGGESTED ANSWER: ransom note demanding P500,000.00 from Carla's
parents in exchange for Carla's freedom. Enrique
1. Jerry and Buddy are liable for the so-called
sent the ransom note by mail. However, before the
"impossible crime" because, with intent to kill,
ransom note was received by Carla's parents,
they tried to poison Jun and thus perpetrate
Enrique's hideout was discovered by the police.
Murder, a crime against persons. Jun was not
Carla was rescued while Enrique was arrested and
poisoned only because the would-be killers were
incarcerated. Considering that the ransom note
unaware that what they mixed with the food of Jun
was not received by Carla's parents, the
was powdered milk, not poison. In short, the act
investigating prosecutor merely filed a case of
done with criminal intent by Jerry and Buddy,
"Impossible Crime to Commit Kidnapping" against
would have constituted a crime against persons
Enrique. Is the prosecutor correct? Why? (3%)
were it not for the inherent inefficacy of the means
employed. Criminal liability is incurred by them SUGGESTED ANSWER:
although no crime resulted, because their act of
No, the prosecutor is not correct in filing a case for
trying to poison Jun is criminal.
"impossible crime to commit kidnapping" against
2. No, the answer would not be the same as above. Enrique. Impossible crimes are limited only to acts
Jerry and Buddy would be liable instead for less which when performed would be a crime against
serious physical injuries for causing the persons or property. As kidnapping is a crime
hospitalization and medical attendance for 10 days against personal security and not against persons
to Jun. Their act of mixing with the food eaten by or property, Enrique could not have incurred an
Jun the matter which required such medical "impossible crime" to commit kidnapping. There is
attendance, committed with criminal intent, thus no impossible crime of kidnapping.
renders them liable for the resulting injury.
MALA IN SE VS. MALA PROHIBITA (1997)
Prepared by: LJC 19

1. Distinguish between crimes mala in se and Distinguish " mala in se" from " mala
crimes mala prohibita.   prohibita"(3%)
2. May an act be malum in se and be, at the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
same time, malum prohibitum?  
In "mala in se", the acts constituting the crimes are

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
inherently evil, bad or wrong, and hence involves
Crimes mala in se are felonious acts committed by the moral traits of the offender; while in "mala
dolo or culpa as defined in the Revised Penal Code. prohibita", the acts constituting the crimes are not
Lack of criminal intent is a valid defense, except inherently bad, evil or wrong but prohibited and
when the crime results from criminal negligence. made punishable only for public good. And
On the other hand, crimes mala prohibita are because the moral trait of the offender is Involved
those considered wrong only because they are in "mala in se". Modifying circumstances, the
prohibited by statute. They constitute violations of offender's extent of participation in the crime, and
mere rules of convenience designed to secure a the degree of accomplishment of the crime are
more orderly regulation of the affairs of society. taken into account in imposing the penalty: these
are not so in "mala prohibita" where criminal
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
liability arises only when the acts are
Yes, an act may be malum in se and malum consummated.
prohibitum at the same time. In People v. Sunico, et

aL. (CA 50 OG 5880) it was held that the omission
or failure of election inspectors and poll clerks to Briefly state what essentially distinguishes a crime
include a voter's name in the registry list of voters mala prohibita from a crime mala in se. (2%) 
is wrong per se because it disenfranchises a voter
of his right to vote. In this regard it is considered as
malum in se. Since it is punished under a special In crimes mala prohibita, the acts are not by nature
law (Sec. 101 and 103, Revised Election Code) it is wrong, evil or bad. They are punished only because
considered malum prohibitum. there is a law prohibiting them for public good, and
thus good faith or lack of criminal intent in doing
the prohibited act is not a defense.
Prepared by: LJC 20
In crimes mala in se, the acts are by nature wrong, it is enough that the prohibition was voluntarily
evil or bad, and so generally condemned. The violated.
moral trait of the offender is involved; thus, good
Mala in se is incurred when the crime is only
faith or lack of criminal Intent on the part of the
attempted or frustrated, while in crimes mala
offender is a defense, unless the crime is the result
prohibita, criminal liability is generally incurred
of criminal negligence. Correspondingly,
only when the crime is consummated.
modifying circumstances are considered in
punishing the offender. Also in crimes mala in se, mitigating and
aggravating circumstances are appreciated in
imposing the penalties, while in crimes mala
Distinguish, in their respective concepts and legal prohibita, such circumstances are not appreciated
implications, between crimes mala in se and unless the special law has adopted the scheme or
crimes mala prohibits. 4%  scale of penalties under the Revised Penal Code.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: MALA PROHIBITA; ACTUAL INJURY REQUIRED

(2000)
In concept: Crimes mala in se are those where the
acts or omissions penalized are inherently bad, Mr. Carlos Gabisi, a customs guard, and Mr. Rico
evil, or wrong that they are almost universally Yto, a private Individual, went to the office of Mr.
condemned. Diether Ocuarto, a customs broker, and
represented themselves as agents of Moonglow
Crimes mala prohibita are those where the acts
Commercial Trading, an Importer of children's
penalized are not inherently bad, evil, or wrong but
clothes and toys. Mr. Gabisi and Mr. Yto engaged
prohibited by law for public good, public welfare or
Mr. Ocuarto to prepare and file with the Bureau of
interest and whoever violates the prohibition are
Customs the necessary Import Entry and Internal
penalized.
Revenue Declaration covering Moonglow's
In legal implications: In crimes mala in se, good shipment. Mr. Gabisi and Mr. Yto submitted to Mr.
faith or lack of criminal intent/ negligence is a Ocuarto a packing list, a commercial invoice, a bill
defense, while in crimes mala prohibita, good faith of lading and a Sworn Import Duty Declaration
or lack of criminal intent or malice is not a defense; which declared the shipment as children's toys, the
Prepared by: LJC 21

taxes and duties of which were computed at punishable, may the accused be nevertheless
P60,000.00. Mr. Ocuarto filed the aforementioned convicted for an offense punished by the Revised
documents with the Manila International Penal Code under the facts of the case? Explain.
Container Port. However, before the shipment was (3%)
released, a spot check was conducted by Customs
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Senior Agent James Bandido, who discovered that
the contents of the van (shipment) were not Yes, the contention of the accused that the crime
children's toys as declared in the shipping was not consummated is correct, RA. 3019 is a
documents but 1,000 units of video cassette special law punishing acts mala prohibita. As a
recorders with taxes and duties computed at rule, attempted violation of a special law is not
P600,000.00. A hold order and warrant of seizure punished. Actual injury is required. Yes, both are
and detention were then issued by the District liable for attempted estafa thru falsification of
Collector of Customs. Further investigation commercial documents, a complex crime.
showed that Moonglow is non-existent.
MALUM IN SE VS. MALUM PROHIBITUM (2005)
Consequently, Mr. Gabisi and Mr. Yto were
charged with and convicted for violation of Section Distinguish malum in se from malum prohibitum.
3(e) of R.A. 3019 which makes it unlawful among (2%)
others, for public officers to cause any undue Injury
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
to any party, including the Government. In the
discharge of official functions through manifest
In crimes malum in se, an act is by nature wrong,
partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
evil or bad, and so generally condemned. The
negligence. In their motion for reconsideration, the
moral trait of the offender is involved; thus, good
accused alleged that the decision was erroneous
faith or lack of criminal Intent on the part of the
because the crime was not consummated but was
offender is a defense, unless the crime is the result
only at an attempted stage, and that in fact the
of criminal negligence. Correspondingly,
Government did not suffer any undue injury.
modifying circumstances are considered in
punishing the offender.
a) Is the contention of both accused correct?
Explain. (3%) b) Assuming that the attempted or In crimes mala prohibitum, an act is not by nature
frustrated stage of the violation charged is not
Prepared by: LJC 22
wrong, evil or bad. Yet, it is punished because case? When is it  not necessary to be
there is a law prohibiting them for public good, and established? Explain. (3%)  
thus good faith or lack of criminal intent in doing
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the prohibited act is not a defense.
1. "Motive " is the moving power which impels a

MOTIVE VS. INTENT (1996)
person to do an act for a definite result;
1. Distinguish intent from motive in Criminal while "intent" is the purpose for using a
Law. 2. May crime be committed without particular means to bring about a desired
criminal intent? result. Motive is not an element of a crime
but intent is an element of intentional
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
crimes. Motive, if attending a crime, always
Motive is the moving power which impels one to precede the intent.  
 action for a definite result; whereas intent is the
2. Motive is relevant to prove a case when there is
purpose to use a particular means to effect such
doubt as to the identity of the offender or
results. Motive is not an essential element of a
when the act committed gives rise to
felony and need not be proved for purpose of
variant crimes and there is the need to
conviction, while intent is an essential element of
determine the proper crime to be imputed
felonies by dolo.  
to the offender.  
Yes, a crime may be committed without criminal
It is not necessary to prove motive when
intent if such is a culpable felony, wherein Intent is
the offender is positively identified or the
substituted by negligence or imprudence, and also
criminal act did not give rise to variant
in a malum prohibitum or if an act is punishable by
crimes.
special law.  
Distinguish clearly but briefly between intent and

motive in the commission of an offense.
1. Distinguish "motive" from "intent".  

2. When is motive relevant to prove a
Prepared by: LJC 23
Intent is the purpose for using a particular means 5. In crimes committed through reckless
to achieve the desired result; while motive is the imprudence.  
moving power which impels a person to act for a
CONSPIRACY (2012)
definite result. Intent is an ingredient of dolo or
malice and thus an element of deliberate felonies; Define conspiracy. (5%)
while motive is not an element of a crime but only
considered when the identity of the offender is in SUGGESTED ANSWER:
doubt.
When two or more persons come to an agreement
MOTIVE; PROOF THEREOF; NOT ESSENTIAL; concerning the commission of a felony and decide
CONVICTION (2006) to commit it, there is conspiracy.
Motive is essential in the determination of the CONSPIRACY (2008)

commission of a crime and the liabilities of the
perpetrators. What are the instances where proof Ricky was reviewing for the bar exam when the
of motive is not essential or required to justify commander of a vigilante group came to him and
conviction of an accused? Give at least 3 instances. showed him a list of five policemen to be
(5%) liquidated by them for graft and corruption. He
was further asked if any of them is innocent. After
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
going over the list, Ricky pointed to two of the
1. When there is an eyewitness or positive policemen as honest. Later, the vigilante group
identification of the accused.   liquidated the three other policemen in the list.
2. When the accused admitted or confessed The commander of the vigilante group reported
to the commission of the crime.   the liquidation to Ricky. Is Ricky criminally liable?
3. In crimes mala prohibita.   Explain. (7%)
4. In direct assault, when the victim, who is a
person  in authority or agent of a person in SUGGESTED ANSWER:
authority was attacked in the actual
performance of his duty (Art. 148, Revised No, there was no conspiracy between Ricky and
Penal Code).   the Commander of the vigilante. Mere vouching
Prepared by: LJC 24
for the honesty of the two (2) policemen in the list commit homicide, “A” embraced “X” and then “B”
cannot make him a co-conspirator for the killing. stabbed and killed “X”, the conspirators are equally
Ricky enjoys the presumption of innocence. liable for homicide. Conspirators are equally liable
for homicide. Conspiracy in this case will be
CONSPIRACY VS. CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT considered as a manner of incurring liability.
REBELLION VS. CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME OF MURDER (2009)
MURDER (2012)
Charlie hated his classmate, Brad, because the

latter was assiduously courting Lily, Charlie’s
Distinguish by way of illustration conspiracy as a
girlfriend. Charlie went to a veterinarian and asked
felony from conspiracy as a manner of incurring
for some poison on the pretext that it would be
liability in relation to the crimes of rebellion and
used to kill a very sick, old dog. Actually, Charlie
murder. (5%)
intended to use the poison on Brad. The
SUGGESTED ANSWER: veterinarian mistakenly gave Charlie a non-toxic
powder which, when mixed with Brad’s food, did
Conspiracy to commit rebellion – if “A” and “B”
not kill Brad.
conspired to overthrow the government,
conspiracy is punishable. Conspiracy to commit Did Charlie commit any crime? If so, what and
rebellion is a felony. Rebellion – if they committed why? If not, why not? (3%)
rebellion, they are equally liable for the crime of
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
rebellion. However, they will not be additionally
charged with conspiracy to commit rebellion. Charlie committed an impossible crime of murder.
Since they committed what they conspired, His act of mixing the non- toxic powder with
conspiracy will not be considered as an Brad‟s food, done with intent to kill, would have
independent felony but as a manner of incurring constituted murder which is a crime against
criminal responsibility. Conspiracy to commit persons, had it not been for the employment of a
homicide, not punishable – if “A” and “B” conspire means which, unknown to him, is ineffectual (Art.
to kill “X”, conspiracy is not punishable. The law 4, par. 2, RPC).
provides no penalty for conspiracy to commit
JUSTIFYING & EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
homicide. Homicide – if pursuant to conspiracy to
Prepared by: LJC 25
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES; COVERAGE favorite television show, Petra, a maid changed

(2000) the channel to enable her to watch "Home Along
the Riles." This enraged John who got his father's
A, brother of B, with the intention of having a night
revolver, and without warning, shot Petra at the
out with his friends, took the coconut shell which is
back of her head causing her instantaneous death.
being used by B as a bank for coins from inside
Is John criminally liable? [2%]
their locked cabinet using their common key.
Forthwith, A broke the coconut shell outside of SUGGESTED ANSWER:
their home in the presence of his friends.
No, John is not criminally liable for killing Petra
a. What is the criminal liability of A, if any? Explain. because he is only 8 years old when he committed
(3%) the killing. A minor below nine (9) years old is
absolutely exempt from criminal liability although
b. Is A exempted from criminal liability under
not from civil liability. (Art. 12, par. 2, RPC).
Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code for being a
brother of B? Explain. (2%) EXEMPTING; MINORITY; 11 YRS OLD;
ABSENCE OF DISCERNMENT (2000) 
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
While they were standing in line awaiting their
a) A is criminally liable for Robbery with force upon
vaccination at the school clinic, Pomping
things
repeatedly pulled the ponytail of Katreena, his 11
b) No, A is not exempt from criminal liability under years, 2 months and 13 days old classmate in
Art. 332 because said Article applies only to theft, Grade 5 at the Sampaloc Elementary School.
swindling or malicious mischief. Here, the crime Irritated, Katreena turned around and swung at
committed is robbery. Pomping with a ball pen. The top of the ball pen hit
the right eye of Pomping which bled profusely.
**EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES; MINORITY
Realizing what she had caused, Katreena
(1998)
immediately helped Pomping. When investigated,
John, an eight-year old boy, is fond of watching she freely admitted to the school principal that she
the television program "Zeo Rangers." One was responsible for the injury to Pomping's eye.
evening while he was engrossed watching his After the incident, she executed a statement
Prepared by: LJC 26

admitting her culpability. Due to the injury. 3, Rev. Penal Code, where she shall be
Pomping lost his right eye. exempt from criminal liability, unless it was
proved that she acted with discernment.
a) Is Katreena criminally liable? Why? (3%) 
She is however civilly liable;  
b) Discuss the attendant circumstances and effects

If found criminally liable, the minority of the
thereof. (2%) 
accused as a privileged mitigating circumstance. A
SUGGESTED ANSWER: discretionary penalty lower by at least two (2)  
degrees than that prescribed for the crime
a) No, Katreena is not criminally liable although
committed shall be imposed in accordance with
she is civilly liable. Being a minor less than fifteen
Article 68. paragraph 1, Rev. Penal Code. The
(15) years old although over nine (9) years of age,
sentence, however, should automatically be
she is generally exempt from criminal liability. The
suspended in accordance with Section 5(a) of Rep.
exception is where the prosecution proved that the
Act No. 8369 otherwise known as the "Family
act was committed with discernment. The burden
Courts Act of 1997";
is upon the prosecution to prove that the accused
acted with discernment. Also if found criminally liable, the ordinary
mitigating circumstance of not Intending to
The presumption is that such minor acted without
commit so grave a wrong as that committed,
discernment, and this is strengthened by the fact
under Article 13, paragraph 3, Rev. Penal Code; and
that Katreena only reacted with a ballpen which
 
she must be using in class at the time, and only to
stop Pomping's vexatious act of repeatedly pulling The ordinary mitigating circumstance of sufficient
her ponytail. In other words, the injury was provocation on the part of the offended party
accidental. immediately preceded the act.  
b) The attendant circumstances which may be JUSTIFYING VS. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES

considered are: (2004)
1. Minority of the accused as an exempting Distinguish clearly but briefly: Between justifying
 circumstance under Article 12. paragraph and exempting circumstances in criminal law.
Prepared by: LJC 27

SUGGESTED ANSWER:  b. The act is felonious and hence a crime

but the  actor acted without
Justifying circumstance affects the act, not the
voluntariness;  
actor; while exempting circumstance affects the
c. Although there is a crime, there is no
actor, not the act. In justifying circumstance, no
criminal  because the actor is regarded
criminal and, generally, no civil liability is incurred;
only as an  instrument of the crime;  
while in exempting circumstance, civil liability is
d. There being a wrong done but no
generally incurred although there is no criminal
criminal.  
liability.
JUSTIFYING; DEFENSE OF HONOR;
JUSTIFYING VS. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
REQUISITES (2002)
(1998)
When A arrived home, he found B raping his
Distinguish between justifying and exempting
daughter. Upon seeing A, B ran away. A took his
circumstances. [3%] 
gun and shot B, killing him. Charged with
SUGGESTED ANSWER:  homicide, A claimed he acted in defense of his
daughter's honor. Is A correct? If not, can A claim
1. In Justifying Circumstances:
the benefit of any mitigating circumstance or
a. The circumstance affects the act, not circumstances? (3%)
the actor;  
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b. The act is done within legal bounds,
hence  considered as not a crime;   No, A cannot validly invoke defense of his
c. Since the act is not a crime, there is no daughter's honor in having killed B since the rape
criminal;   was already consummated; moreover, B already
d. There being no crime nor criminal, ran away, hence, there was no aggression to
there is no  criminal nor civil liability.   defend against and no defense to speak of.
Whereas, in an Exempting Circumstances: A may, however, invoke the benefit of the

mitigating circumstance of having acted in
a. The circumstance affects the actor, not
immediate vindication of a grave offense to a
the act;  
descendant, his daughter, under par. 5, Article 13
Prepared by: LJC 28
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. to buy bottles of beer. Lucresia noticed her
bracelet wound around the right arm of Jun-Jun.
JUSTIFYING; DEFENSE OF STRANGER (2002)
As soon as the latter left, Lucresia went to a nearby
A chanced upon three men who were attacking B police station and sought the help of a policeman
with fist blows. C, one of the men, was about to on duty, Pat. Willie Reyes. He went with Lucresia
stab B with a knife. Not knowing that B was to the house of Jun-Jun to confront the latter. Pat.
actually the aggressor because he had earlier Reyes introduced himself as a policeman and tried
challenged the three men to a fight, A shot C as to get hold of Jun-Jun who resisted and ran away.
the latter was about to stab B. Pat. Reyes chased him and fired two warning shots
in the air. Jun-Jun continued to run and when he
May A invoke the defense of a stranger as a
was about 7 meters away, Pat. Reyes shot him in
justifying circumstance in his favor? Why? (2%)
the right leg. Jun-Jun was hit and he fell down but
SUGGESTED ANSWER: he crawled towards a fence, intending to pass

through an opening underneath. When Pat. Reyes
Yes. A may invoke the justifying circumstance of was about 5 meters away, he fired another shot at
defense of stranger since he was not involved in Jun-Jun hitting him at the right lower hip. Pat.
the fight and he shot C when the latter was about Reyes brought Jun-Jun to the hospital, but because
to stab B. There being no indication that A was of profuse bleeding, he eventually died. Pat Reyes
induced by revenge, resentment or any other evil was subsequently charged with homicide. During
motive in shooting C, his act is justified under par the trial, Pat Reyes raised the defense, by way of
3, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, as exoneration, that he acted in the fulfillment of a
amended. duty.
JUSTIFYING; FULFILLMENT OF DUTY; Is the defense tenable? Explain. (3%)

REQUISITES (2000)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Lucresia, a storeowner, was robbed of her bracelet
in her home. The following day, at about 5 o'clock No, the defense of Pat. Reyes is not tenable. The
in the afternoon, a neighbor, 22-year old Jun-Jun, defense of having acted in the fulfillment of a duty
who had an unsavory reputation, came to her store requires as a condition, inter alia, that the injury or
offense committed be the unavoidable or
Prepared by: LJC 29
necessary consequence of the due performance of included in self- defense, must have been done to
the duty (People vs. Oanis, et.al., 74 Phil. 257). It is prevent or repel an unlawful aggression. There is
not enough that the accused acted in fulfillment of no defense to speak of where the unlawful
a duty. aggression no longer exists.
After Jun-Jun was shot in the right leg and was JUSTIFYING; DEFENSE OF HONOR; ELEMENTS
already crawling, there was no need for Pat, Reyes (2000)
to shoot him further. Clearly, Pat. Reyes acted
Osang, a married woman in her early twenties, was
beyond the call of duty which brought about the
sleeping on a banig on the floor of their nipa hut
cause of death of the victim.
beside the seashore when she was awakened by
JUSTIFYING; SD; DEFENSE OF HONOR; the act of a man mounting her. Thinking that it
REQUISITES (1998) was her husband, Gardo,who had returned from
fishing in the sea, Osang continued her sleep but
One night, Una, a young married woman, was
allowed the man, who was actually their neighbor,
sound asleep in her bedroom when she felt a man
Julio, to have sexual intercourse with her. After
on top of her. Thinking it was her husband Tito,
Julio satisfied himself, he said "Salamat Osang" as
who came home a day early from his business trip,
he turned to leave. Only then did Osang realize
Una let him have sex with her. After the act, the
that the man was not her husband. Enraged,
man said, "I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did."
Osang grabbed a balisong from the wall and
Not recognizing the voice, it dawned upon Lina
stabbed Julio to death. When tried for homicide,
that the man was not Tito, her husband. Furious,
Osang claimed defense of honor. Should the claim
Una took out Tito's gun and shot the man. Charged
be sustained? Why? (5%)
with homicide Una denies culpability on the
ground of defense of honor. Is her claim tenable? SUGGESTED ANSWER:
[5%]
No, Osang"s claim of defense of honor should not
SUGGESTED ANSWER: be sustained because the aggression on her honor
had ceased when she stabbed the aggressor. In
No, Una's claim that she acted in defense of honor,
defense of rights under paragraph 1, Art. 11 of the
is not tenable because the unlawful aggression on
RPC, It is required inter alia that there be (1)
her honor had already ceased. Defense of honor as
Prepared by: LJC 30
unlawful aggression, and (2) reasonable necessity would you convict him of homicide? Explain.
of the means employed to prevent or repel it. The
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
unlawful aggression must be continuing when the
aggressor was injured or disabled by the person Yes. I would convict the security guard for
making a defense. Homicide if I were the Judge, because his claim of
having acted in defense of property and in
But if the aggression that was begun by the injured
performance of a duty cannot fully be justified.
or disabled party already ceased to exist when the
Even assuming that the victim was scaling the wall
accused attacked him, as in the case at bar, the
of the factory compound to commit a crime inside
attack made is a retaliation, and not a defense.
the same, shooting him is never justifiable, even
Paragraph 1, Article 11 of the Code does not
admitting that such act is considered unlawful
govern.
aggression on property rights. In People vs.
Hence, Osang's act of stabbing Julio to death after Narvaes, 121 SCRA 329, a person is justified to
the sexual intercourse was finished, is not defense defend his property rights, but all the elements of
of honor but an immediate vindication of a grave self-defense under Art. 11, must be present. In the
offense committed against her, which is only instant case, just like in Narvaes, the second
mitigating. element (reasonable necessity of the means
employed) is absent. Hence, he should be
JUSTIFYING; SD; DEFENSE OF PROPERTY;
convicted of homicide but entitled to incomplete
REQUISITES (1996)
self-defense.
A security guard, upon seeing a man scale the wall

JUSTIFYING; SD; DEFENSE OF PROPERTY;
of a factory compound which he was guarding,
REQUISITES (2003)
shot and killed the latter. Upon investigation by
the police who thereafter arrived at the scene of The accused lived with his family in a
the shooting, it was discovered that the victim was neighborhood that often was the scene of frequent
unarmed. When prosecuted for homicide, the robberies. At one time, past midnight, the accused
security guard claimed that he merely acted in self- went downstairs with a loaded gun to investigate
defense of property and in the performance of his what he thought were footsteps of an uninvited
duty as a security guard. If you were the judge, guest. After seeing what appeared to him an
Prepared by: LJC 31

armed stranger looking around and out to rob the Hence, it may be reasonable to accept that he
house, he fired his gun seriously injuring the man. acted out of an honest mistake of fact and
When the lights were turned on, the unfortunate therefore without criminal intent. An honest
victim turned out to be a brother-in-law on his way mistake of fact negatives criminal intent and thus
to the kitchen to get some light snacks. The absolves the accused from criminal liability.
accused was indicted for serious physical injuries.
QUALIFYING; ELEMENTS OF A CRIME (2003)
Should the accused, given the circumstances, be
convicted or acquitted? Why? 4% When would qualifying circumstances be deemed,
if at all, elements of a crime? 4% 
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The accused should be convicted because, even
assuming the facts to be true in his belief, his act of A qualifying circumstance would be deemed an
shooting a burglar when there is no unlawful element of a crime when -
aggression on his person is not justified. Defense
a. it changes the nature of the crime,
of property or property right does not justify the
bringing about a more serious crime
act of firing a gun at a burglar unless the life and
and a heavier penalty;  
limb of the accused is already in imminent and
b. it is essential to the crime involved,
immediate danger. Although the accused acted
otherwise some other crime is
out of a misapprehension of the facts, he is not
committed; and  
absolved from criminal liability.
c. it is specifically alleged in the
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Information and proven during the trial.
 
Considering the given circumstances, namely; the
frequent robberies in the neighborhood, the time ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
was past midnight, and the victim appeared to be
A qualifying circumstance is deemed an element of
an armed burglar in the dark and inside his house,
a crime when it is specifically stated by law as
the accused could have entertained an honest
included in the definition of a crime, like treachery
belief that his life and limb or those of his family
in the crime of murder.
are already in immediate and imminent danger.
Prepared by: LJC 32

EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES (2007) for the award of indemnity when there is no

criminal liability.
Macky, a security guard, arrived home late one
night after rendering overtime. He was shocked to ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
see Joy, his wife, and Ken, his best friend, in the act
Yes, because the crime punishable by destierro
of having sexual intercourse. Macky pulled out his
was committed, which is death under exceptional
service gun and shot and killed Ken.
circumstances under Art. 247 of the Revised Penal
The court found that Ken died under exceptional Code.
circumstances and exonerated Macky of murder
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES; ACCESSORIES;
but sentenced him to destierro, conformably with
ASCENDANTS (2010)
Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. The court
also ordered Macky to pay indemnity to the heirs Immediately after murdering Bob, Jake went to his
of the victim in the amount of P50,000. mother to seek refuge. His mother told him to hide
in the maid’s quarters until she finds a better place
Did the court correctly order Macky to pay
for him to hide. After two days, Jake transferred to
indemnity even though he was exonerated of
his aunt’s house. A week later, Jake was
murder? Explain your answer. (10%)
apprehended by the police. Can Jake’s mother and
SUGGESTED ANSWER:  aunt be made criminally liable as accessories to the
crime of murder? Explain. (3 %)
No, the court did not act correctly in ordering the
accused to indemnify the victim. Since the killing SUGGESTED ANSWER:
of ken was committed under the exceptional
Obviously, Jake‟s mother was aware of her son‟s
circumstances in Article 247, revised Penal Code, it
having committed a felony, such that her act of
is the consensus that no crime was committed in
harboring and concealing him renders her liable as
the light of the pronouncement in People v Cosicor
an accessory. But being an ascendant to Jake, she
(79 Phil. 672 [1947]) that banishment (destierro) is
is exempt from criminal liability by express
intended more for the protection of the offender
provision of Article 20 of the Revised Penal Code.
rather than as a penalty. Since the civil liability
under the Revised Penal Code is the consequence On the other hand, the criminal liability of Jake‟s
of criminal liability, there would be no legal basis
Prepared by: LJC 33
aunt depends on her knowledge of his commission when diagnosed after he committed the crime,
of the felony, her act of harboring and concealing insanity as a defense to the commission of crime
Jake would render her criminally liable as must have existed and proven to be so existing at
accessory to the crime of murder; otherwise the precise moment when the crime was being
without knowledge of Jake‟s commission of the committed. The fact of the case indicate that
felony, she would not be liable. Romeo committed the crime with discernment.
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES; INSANITY EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES; INSANITY;

(2010) EFFECT (2010)
While his wife was on a 2-year scholarship abroad, While his wife was on a 2-year scholarship abroad,
Romeo was having an affair with his maid Romeo was having an affair with his maid
Dulcinea. Realizing that the affair was going Dulcinea. Realizing that the affair was going
nowhere, Dulcinea told Romeo that she was going nowhere, Dulcinea told Romeo that she was going
back to the province to marry her childhood back to the province to marry her childhood
sweetheart. Clouded by anger and jealousy, sweetheart. Clouded by anger and jealousy,
Romeo strangled Dulcinea to death while she was Romeo strangled Dulcinea to death while she was
sleeping in the maid’s quarters. sleeping in the maid’s quarters.
The following day, Romeo was found catatonic The following day, Romeo was found catatonic
inside the maid’s quarters. He was brought to the inside the maid’s quarters. He was brought to the
National Center for Mental Health (NCMH) where National Center for Mental Health (NCMH) where
he was diagnosed to be mentally unstable. he was diagnosed to be mentally unstable.
Charged with murder, Romeo pleaded insanity as a
Charged with murder, Romeo pleaded insanity as a
defense.
defense.
Will Romeo’s defense prosper? Explain. (2%)
What is the effect of the diagnosis of the NCMH
SUGGESTED ANSWER: on the case? (2%)
No, Romeo’s defense of insanity will not prosper SUGGESTED ANSWER:

because, even assuming that Romeo was “insane”
Prepared by: LJC 34
The effect of the diagnosis made by NCMH is SUGGESTED ANSWER:

possibly a suspension of the proceedings against
Yes, Section 26 of Rep. Act No. 9262 provides that
Romeo and his commitment to appropriate
victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be
institution for treatment until he could already
suffering from battered woman syndrome do not
understand the proceedings.
incur any criminal and civil liability
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES; BATTERED notwithstanding the absence of any of the
WOMAN SYNDROME (2010) elements for justifying circumstances of self-
defense under the Revised Penal Code.
Jack and Jill have been married for seven years.
One night, Jack came home drunk. Finding no food MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
on the table, Jack started hitting Jill only to
MITIGATING; NON-INTOXICATION (2000)
apologize the following day.
Despite the massive advertising campaign in

A week later, the same episode occurred – Jack
media against firecrackers and gun-firing during
came home drunk and started hitting Jill.
the New Year's celebrations, Jonas and Jaja
Fearing for her life, Jill left and stayed with her bought ten boxes of super lolo and pla-pla in
sister. To woo Jill back, Jack sent her floral Bocaue, Bulacan. Before midnight of December 31,
arrangements of spotted lilies and confectioneries. 1999, Jonas and Jaja started their celebration by
Two days later, Jill returned home and decided to having a drinking spree at Jona's place by
give Jack another chance. After several days, exploding their high-powered firecrackers in their
however, Jack again came home drunk. The neighborhood. In the course of their conversation,
following day, he was found dead. Jonas confided to Jaja that he has been keeping a
long-time grudge against his neighbor Jepoy in
Jill was charged with parricide but raised the
view of the latter's refusal to lend him some
defense of "battered woman syndrome."
money. While under the influence of liquor, Jonas
Would the defense prosper despite the absence of started throwing lighted super lolos inside Jepoy's
any of the elements for justifying circumstances of fence to irritate him and the same exploded inside
self-defense under the Revised Penal Code? the latter's yard. Upon knowing that the throwing
Explain. (2%) of the super lolo was deliberate, Jepoy became
Prepared by: LJC 35
furious and sternly warned Jonas to stop his crime of ATTEMPTED MURDER WITH HOMICIDE
malicious act or he would get what he wanted. A because a single act caused a less grave and a
heated argument between Jonas and Jepoy grave felony (Art. 48. RPC)....
ensued but Jaja tried to calm down his friend. At
b) If I were Jonas' and Jaja's lawyer, I will use the
midnight, Jonas convinced Jaja to lend him his .45
following defenses:
caliber pistol so that he could use it to knock down
Jepoy and to end his arrogance. Jonas thought That the accused had no intention to commit
that after all, explosions were everywhere and so grave a wrong as that committed as they
nobody would know who shot Jepoy. After Jaja merely intended to frighten Jepoy;  
lent his firearm to Jonas, the latter again started
That Jonas committed the crime in a state of
throwing lighted super lolos and pla-plas at Jepoy's
intoxication thereby impairing his will power or
yard in order to provoke him so that he would
capacity to understand the wrongfulness of his
come out of his house. When Jepoy came out,
act. Non-intentional intoxication is a mitigating
Jonas immediately shot him with Jaja's .45 caliber
circumstance (People us. Fortich, 281 SCRA 600
gun but missed his target. Instead, the bullet hit
(1997); Art. 15, RPC.).  
Jepoy's five year old son who was following behind
him, killing the boy instantaneously,
MITIGATING; PLEA OF GUILTY (1999)
a. What crime or crimes can Jonas and Jaja be

An accused charged with the crime of homicide
charged with? Explain. (2%) 
pleaded "not guilty" during the preliminary
investigation before the Municipal Court. Upon the
b. If you were Jonas' and Jaja's lawyer, what
elevation of the case to the Regional Trial Court
possible defenses would you set up in favor
the Court of competent jurisdiction, he pleaded
of your clients? Explain. (2%)
guilty freely and voluntarily upon arraignment. Can
his plea of guilty before the RTC be considered
c. If you were the Judge, how would you decide
spontaneous and thus entitle him to the mitigating
the case? Explain. (1%)
circumstance of spontaneous plea of guilty under
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Art. 13(7), RPC? (3%)
a) Jonas and Jaja, can be charged with the complex SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Prepared by: LJC 36
Yes, his plea of guilty before the Regional Trial After killing the victim, the accused absconded. He
Court can be considered spontaneous, for which he succeeded in eluding the police until he surfaced
is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of plea of and surrendered to the authorities about two years
guilty. His plea of not guilty before the Municipal later. Charged with murder, he pleaded not guilty
Court is immaterial as it was made during but, after the prosecution had presented two
preliminary investigation only and before a court witnesses implicating him to the crime, he
not competent to render judgment. changed his plea to that of guilty.
MITIGATING; PLEA OF GUILTY; REQUISITES Should the mitigating circumstances of voluntary

(1999) surrender and plea of guilty be considered in favor
of the accused?
In order that the plea of guilty may be mitigating,
what requisites must be complied with? (2%)  SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:  Voluntary surrender should be considered as a

mitigating circumstance. After two years, the
For plea of guilty to be mitigating, the requisites
police were still unaware of the whereabouts of the
are:
accused and the latter could have continued to
1. That the ACCUSED SPONTANEOUSLY elude arrest. Accordingly, the surrender of the
PLEADED guilty to the crime charged;   accused should be considered mitigating because
it was done spontaneously, indicative of the
2. That such plea was MADE BEFORE THE
remorse or repentance on the part of said accused
COURT COMPETENT to try the case and
and therefore, by his surrender, the accused saved
render judgment; and  
the Government expenses, efforts, and time.
3. That such plea was made PRIOR TO THE ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE for the
prosecution.   Voluntary surrender may not be appreciated in
favor of the accused. Two years is too long a time
MITIGATING; PLEA OF GUILTY; VOLUNTARY to consider the surrender as spontaneous (People
SURRENDER (1997) us. Ablao, 183 SCRA 658). For sure the government
had already incurred considerable efforts and
Prepared by: LJC 37
expenses in looking for the accused. voluntariness of surrender is tested if the same is
spontaneous showing the intent of the accused to
Plea of guilty can no longer be appreciated as a
submit himself unconditionally to the authorities.
mitigating circumstance because the prosecution
This must be either (a) because he acknowledges
had already started with the presentation of its
his guilt, or (b) because he wishes to save them the
evidence (Art. 13, par. 7. Revised Penal Code).
trouble and expenses necessarily incurred in his
MITIGATING; VOLUNTARY SURRENDER (1996) search and capture. (Reyes' Commentaries, p. 303).
Thus, the act of the accused in hiding after
Hilario, upon seeing his son engaged in a scuffle
commission of the crime, but voluntarily went with
with Rene, stabbed and killed the latter. After the
the policemen who had gone to his hiding place to
stabbing, he brought his son home. The Chief of
investigate, was held to be mitigating
Police of the town, accompanied by several
circumstance.(People vs. Dayrit, cited in Reyes'
policemen, went to Hilario's house. Hilario, upon
Commentaries, p. 299)
seeing the approaching policemen, came down
from his house to meet them and voluntarily went MITIGATING; VOLUNTARY SURRENDER;
with them to the Police Station to be investigated ELEMENTS (1999)
in connection with the killing. When eventually

When is surrender by an accused considered
charged with and convicted of homicide, Hilario,
voluntary, and constitutive of the mitigating
on appeal, faulted the trial court for not
circumstance of voluntary surrender? (3%) 
appreciating in his favor the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender. Is he entitled SUGGESTED ANSWER:
to such a mitigating circumstance? Explain.
A surrender by an offender is considered voluntary
SUGGESTED ANSWER: when it is spontaneous, indicative of an intent to
submit unconditionally to the authorities.
Yes, Hilario is entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender. The crux of To be mitigating, the surrender must be:
the issue is whether the fact that Hilario went
a. spontaneous, i.e., indicative of acknowledgment
home after the incident, but came down and met
of guilt and not for convenience nor conditional; 
the police officers and went with them is
considered "Voluntary surrender," The
Prepared by: LJC 38
b. made before the government incurs expenses, minority (if the child above 15 years of age acted
time and effort in tracking down the offender's with discernment) are privileged mitigating
whereabouts; and  circumstances.
c. made to a person in authority or the latter's PRIVILEGE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE VS.

agents. ORDINARY MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
(2012)
MITIGATING; VOLUNTARY SURRENDER (2009) Distinguish a privileged mitigating circumstance

from an ordinary mitigating circumstance as to
Voluntary surrender is a mitigating circumstance in
reduction of penalty and offsetting against
all acts and omissions punishable under the
aggravating circumstance/s. (5%)
Revised Penal Code.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The distinction between ordinary and privilege
False, Voluntary surrender may be appreciated in
mitigating circumstances are: (a) Under the rules
cases of criminal negligence under Art. 365 since in
for application of divisible penalties (Article 64 of
such cases, the courts are authorized to imposed a
the Revised Penal Code), the presence of a
penalty without considering Art. 62 regarding
mitigating circumstance, has the effect of applying
mitigating and aggravating circumstances.
the divisible penalty in its minimum period. Under
PRIVILEGE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE (2012) the rules on graduation of penalty (Articles 68 and
69), the presence of privileged mitigating
What is a privileged mitigating circumstance? (5%)
circumstance has the effect of reducing the
Privileged mitigating circumstances are those that penalty one or two degrees lower. (b) Ordinary
mitigate criminal liability of the crime being mitigating circumstances can be off-set by the
modified to one or two degrees lower. These aggravating circumstances. Privileged mitigating
circumstances cannot be offset by aggravating circumstances are not subject to the offset rule.
circumstance. The circumstance of incomplete

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
justification or exemption (when majority of the
conditions are present), and the circumstance of AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES (1996)
Prepared by: LJC 39
Jose, Domingo, Manolo, and Fernando, armed b) The crime would be Robbery with Homicide
with bolos, at about one o'clock in the morning, because the killings were by reason (to prevent
robbed a house at a desolate place where Danilo, identification) and on the occasion of the robbery.
his wife, and three daughters were living. While The multiple rapes committed and the fact that
the four were in the process of ransacking Danilo's several persons were killed [homicide), would be
house, Fernando, noticing that one of Danilo's considered as aggravating circumstances. The
daughters was trying to get away, ran after her and rapes are synonymous with Ignominy and the
finally caught up with her in a thicket somewhat additional killing synonymous with cruelty, (People
distant from the house. Fernando, before bringing vs. Solis, 182 SCRA; People vs. Plaga, 202 SCRA
back the daughter to the house, raped her first. 531)
Thereafter, the four carted away the belongings of
c) The aggravating circumstances which may be
Danilo and his family.
considered in the premises are:
a. What crime did Jose, Domingo, Manolo and
1. Band because all the four offenders are
Fernando commit? Explain.
armed;
b. Suppose, after the robbery, the four took turns 2. Noctumity because evidently the offenders
in raping the three daughters of Danilo inside the took advantage of nighttime;
latter's house, but before they left, they killed the 3. dwelling; and
whole family to prevent identification, what crime 4. Uninhabited place because the house
did the four commit? Explain. where the crimes were committed was "at
a desolate place" and obviously the
c. Under the facts of the case, what aggravating
offenders took advantage of this
circumstances may be appreciated against the
circumstance in committing the crime.
four? Explain.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES; GENERIS
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
VS. QUALIFYING (1999) 
a) Jose, Domingo, and Manolo committed

Distinguish generic aggravating circumstance from
Robbery, while Fernando committed complex
qualifying aggravating circumstance.
crime of Robbery with Rape...
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Prepared by: LJC 40
Generic Aggravating Circumstances: The four(4) kinds of aggravating circumstances

are: 
a. affects only the imposition of the penalty
prescribed,  but not the nature of the crime 1) GENERIC AGGRAVATING or those that can
committed;   generally apply to all crimes, and can be offset by
b. can be offset by ordinary mitigating mitigating circumstances, but if not offset, would
circumstances;   affect only the maximum of the penalty prescribed
c. need not be alleged in the Information as by law;
long as  proven during the trial, the same
2) SPECIFIC AGGRAVATING or those that apply
shall be considered in imposing the
 only to particular crimes and cannot be offset by
sentence.  
 mitigating circumstances:  
Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances:
3) QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES or those that
a. must be alleged in the Information and  change the nature of the crime to a graver one, or
proven during trial; brings about a penalty next higher in degree, and
cannot be offset by mitigating circumstances;  
b. cannot be offset by mitigating
circumstances;   4) INHERENT AGGRAVATING or those that
essentially accompany the commission of the
c. affects the nature of the crime or brings
crime and does not affect the penalty whatsoever.
about a penalty higher in degree than
 
that ordinarily  prescribed.  
AGGRAVATING; CRUELTY; RELATIONSHIP
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES; KINDS &
(1994)
PENALTIES (1999)
Ben, a widower, driven by bestial desire, poked a
Name the four (4) kinds of aggravating
gun on his daughter Zeny, forcibly undressed her
circumstances and state their effect on the penalty and tied her legs to the bed. He also burned her
of crimes and nature thereof. (3%)  face with a lighted cigarette. Like a madman, he
laughed while raping her. What aggravating
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
circumstances are present in this case?
Prepared by: LJC 41
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The circumstances of using poison, in

consideration of a promise or reward, and cruelty
a) Cruelty, for burning the victim's face with a
which attended the killing of Rico could only be
lighted cigarette, thereby deliberately augmenting
appreciated as generic aggravating circumstances
the victim's suffering by acts clearly unnecessary to
since none of them have been alleged in the
the rape, while the offender delighted and enjoyed
information to qualify the killing to murder. A
seeing the victim suffer in pain (People vs. Lucas,
qualifying circumstance must be alleged in the
181 SCRA 316).
Information and proven beyond reasonable doubt
b) Relationship, because the offended party is a during the trial to be appreciated as such.
descendant (daughter) of the offender and

AGGRAVATING; NIGHTTIME; BAND (1994)
considering that the crime is one against chastity.
At about 9:30 in the evening, while Dino and Raffy
AGGRAVATING; MUST BE ALLEGED IN THE
were walking along Padre Faura Street, Manila.
INFORMATION (2000)
Johnny hit them with a rock injuring Dino at the
Rico, a member of the Alpha Rho fraternity, was back. Raffy approached Dino, but suddenly,
killed by Pocholo, a member of the rival group, Bobby, Steve, Danny and Nonoy surrounded the
Sigma Phi Omega. Pocholo was prosecuted for duo. Then Bobby stabbed Dino. Steve, Danny,
homicide before the Regional Trial Court in Binan, Nonoy and Johnny kept on hitting Dino and Raffy
Laguna. During the trial, the prosecution was able with rocks. As a result. Dino died, Bobby, Steve,
to prove that the killing was committed by means Danny, Nonoy and Johnny were charged with
of poison in consideration of a promise or reward homicide.
and with cruelty. If you were the Judge, with what

Can the court appreciate the aggravating
crime will you convict Pocholo? Explain. (2%)
circumstances of nighttime and band? 
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Pocholo should be convicted of the crime of

No, nighttime cannot be appreciated as an
homicide only because the aggravating
aggravating circumstance because there is no
circumstances which should qualify the crime to
indication that the offenders deliberately sought
murder were not alleged in the Information.
the cover of darkness to facilitate the commission
Prepared by: LJC 42
of the crime or that they took advantage of found guilty for Robbery with Homicide, which are
nighttime (People vs. De los Reyes, 203 SCRA 707). both crimes against property, embraced under the
Besides, judicial notice can be taken of the fact same Title (Title Ten, Book Two] of the Revised
that Padre Faura Street is well-lighted. Penal Code. The implication is that he is
specializing in the commission of crimes against
However, band should be considered as the crime
property, hence aggravating in the conviction for
was committed by more than three armed
Robbery with Homicide.
malefactors; in a recent Supreme Court decision,
stones or rocks are considered deadly weapons. Habitual delinquency, which brings about an
additional penalty when an offender is convicted a
AGGRAVATING; RECIDIVISM (2001)
third time or more for specified crimes, is correctly
Juan de Castro already had three (3) previous considered ...
convictions by final judgment for theft when he

AGGRAVATING; RECIDIVISM VS. QUASI-
was found guilty of Robbery with Homicide. In the
RECIDIVISM (1998)
last case, the trial Judge considered against the
accused both recidivism and habitual delinquency. Distinguish between recidivism and quasi-
The accused appealed and contended that in his recidivism. [2%] 
last conviction, the trial court cannot consider
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
against him a finding of recidivism and, again, of
habitual delinquency. Is the appeal meritorious? In recidivism -
Explain. (5%) 
1. The convictions of the offender are for
SUGGESTED ANSWER: crimes embraced in the same Title of the
Revised Penal Code; and
No, the appeal is not meritorious. Recidivism and
habitual delinquency are correctly considered in
2. This circumstance is generic aggravating
this case because the basis of recidivism is
and therefore can be effect by an ordinary
different from that of habitual delinquency.
mitigating circumstance.
Juan is a recidivist because he had been previously
Whereas in quasi-recidivlsm -
convicted by final judgment for theft and again
Prepared by: LJC 43
1. The convictions are not for crimes Would you say that the killing was attended by the
embraced in the  same Title of the Revised qualifying or aggravating circumstances of evident
Penal Code, provided that it is a felony that premeditation, treachery, nighttime and unlawful
was committed by the offender before entry?
serving sentence by final judgment for
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
another crime or while serving sentence for
another crime; and   1. Evident premeditation cannot be considered
2. This circumstance is a special aggravating against the accused because he resolved to kill the
circumstance which cannot be offset by any victim "later in the night" and there was no
mitigating circumstance.   sufficient lapse of time between the determination
and execution, to allow his conscience to
AGGRAVATING; TREACHERY & UNLAWFUL
overcome the resolution of his will.
ENTRY (1997)
2. TREACHERY may be present because the
The accused and the victim occupied adjacent
accused stabbed the victim while the latter was
apartments, each being a separate dwelling unit of
sound asleep. Accordingly, he employed means
one big house. The accused suspected his wife of
and methods which directly and specially insured
having an illicit relation with the victim. One
the execution of the act without risk himself
afternoon, he saw the victim and his wife together
arising from the defense which the victim might
on board a vehicle. In the evening of that day, the
have made (People vs. Dequina. 60 Phil. 279 People
accused went to bed early and tried to sleep, but
vs. Miranda, et at. 90 Phil. 91).
being so annoyed over the suspected relation
between his wife and the victim, he could not 3. Nighttime cannot be appreciated because there
sleep. Later in the night, he resolved to kill victim. is no showing that the accused deliberately sought
He rose from bed and took hold of a knife. He or availed of nighttime to insure the success of his
entered the apartment of the victim through an act. The Intention to commit the crime was
unlocked window. Inside, he saw the victim conceived shortly before its commission (People vs
soundly asleep. He thereupon stabbed the victim, Pardo. 79 Phil, 568). Moreover, nighttime is
inflicting several wounds, which caused his death absorbed in treachery.
within a few hours.
4. UNLAWFUL ENTRY may be appreciated as an
Prepared by: LJC 44
aggravating circumstance, inasmuch as the ANTI-FENCING LAW; FENCING (1996)

accused entered the room of the victim through
Flora, who was engaged in the purchase and sale
the window, which is not the proper place for
of jewelry, was prosecuted for the violation of P.D.
entrance into the house (Art. 14. par. 18. Revised
1612, otherwise known as the Anti-Fencing Law,
Penal Code, People vs. Baruga 61 Phil. 318).
for having been found to be in possession of
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES recently stolen Jewelry valued at P100,000.00 at
her jewelry shop at Zapote Road, Las Pinas, Metro
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES;
Manila. She testified during the trial that she
INTOXICATION (2002)
merely bought the same from one named Cecilino
A was invited to a drinking spree by friends. After and even produced a receipt covering the sale.
having had a drink too many, A and B had a heated Cecilino, in the past, used to deliver to her
argument, during which A stabbed B. As a result, B jewelries for sale but is presently nowhere to be
suffered serious physical injuries. May the found. Convicted by the trial court for violation of
intoxication of A be considered aggravating or the Anti-Fencing Law, she argued (or her acquittal
mitigating? (5%) on appeal, contending that the prosecution failed

to prove that she knew or should have known that
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the Jewelries recovered from her were the
proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.
The intoxication of A may be prima facie
considered mitigating since it was merely SUGGESTED ANSWER:
incidental to the commission of the crime. It may
not be considered aggravating as there is no clear No, Flora's defense is not well-taken because mere
indication from the facts of the case that it was possession of any article of value which has been
habitual or intentional on the part of A. the subject of theft or robbery shall be prima facie
Aggravating circumstances are not to be evidence of fencing (P.D.No. 1612). The burden is
presumed; they should be proved beyond upon the accused to prove that she acquired the
reasonable doubt jewelry legitimately. Her defense of having bought

the Jewelry from someone whose whereabouts is
PERSONS Criminally Liable for FELONIES unknown, does not overcome the presumption of
fencing against her (Pamintuan vs People, G.R
Prepared by: LJC 45
111426, 11 July 1994). Buying personal property accused; this is not so in violations of Revised
puts the buyer on caveat because of the phrases Penal Code. 
that he should have known or ought to know that
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
it is the proceed from robbery or theft. Besides,
she should have followed the administrative Yes, there is a similarity in the sense that all the
procedure under the decree that of getting a acts of one who is an accessory to the crimes of
clearance from the authorities in case the dealer is robbery or theft are included in the acts defined as
unlicensed in order to escape liability. fencing. In fact, the accessory in the crimes of
robbery or theft could be prosecuted as such under
ANTI-FENCING LAW; FENCING VS. THEFT OR
the Revised Penal Code or as a fence under P.D.
ROBBERY (1995)
No. 1612. (Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People, 234 SCRA
What is the difference between a fence and an 63]
accessory to theft or robbery? Explain. Is there any
ANTI-FENCING LAW; FENCING; ELEMENTS
similarity between them? 
(1995)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
What are the elements of fencing?
One difference between a fence and an accessory
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
to theft or robbery is the penalty involved; a fence
is punished as a principal under P.D. No. 1612 and The elements of fencing are: 
the penalty is higher, whereas an accessory to
i. a crime of robbery or theft has been
robbery or theft under the Revised Penal Code is
committed;
punished two degrees lower than the principal,
ii. accused, who is not a principal or
unless he bought or profited from the proceeds of
accomplice in the crime, buys, receives,
theft or robbery arising from robbery in Philippine
possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, or
highways under P.D. No. 532 where he is punished
disposes, or buys and sells, or in any
as an accomplice, hence the penalty is one degree
manner deals in any article, item , object
lower.
or anything of value, which has been
Also, fencing is a malum prohibitum and therefore derived from the proceeds of said crime; 
there is no need to prove criminal intent of the
Prepared by: LJC 46
iii. the accused knows or should have known King committed the composite crime of Rape with
that said article, item, object or anything homicide as a single indivisible offense, not a
of value has been derived from the from complex crime, and Theft. ...
the proceeds of the crime of robbery or
Doming's acts, having been done with knowledge
theft; and
of the commission of the crime and obviously to
iv. there is on the part of the accused, intent
conceal the body of the crime to prevent its
to gain for himself or for another.
discovery, makes him an accessory to the crime of
CRIMINAL LIABILITY; ACCESSORIES & FENCE rape with homicide under Art. 19, par. 2 of the Rev.
(1998) Penal Code, but he is exempt from criminal liability
therefor under Article 20 of the Code, being an
King went to the house of Laura who was alone.
adopted brother of the principal.
Laura offered him a drink and after consuming
three bottles of beer. King made advances to her Jose incurs criminal liability either as an accessory
and with force and violence, ravished her. Then to the crime of theft committed by King, or as
King killed Laura and took her jewelry. fence. Although he is a legitimate brother of King,
the exemption under Article 20 does not include
Doming, King's adopted brother, learned about
the participation he did, because he profited from
the incident. He went to Laura's house, hid her
the effects of such theft by selling the jewelry
body, cleaned everything and washed the
knowing that the same was taken from Laura. Or
bloodstains inside the room.
Jose may be prosecuted for fencing under the
Later, King gave Jose, his legitimate brother, one Anti-Fencing Law of 1979 (PD No. 1612) since the
piece of jewelry belonging to Laura. Jose knew jewelry was the proceeds of theft and with intent
that the jewelry was taken from Laura but to gain, he received it from King and sold it.
nonetheless he sold it for P2,000.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY; NON-EXEMPTION AS
What crime or crimes did King, Doming and Jose ACCESSORY (2004)
commit? Discuss their criminal liabilities. [10%]

DCB, the daughter of MCB, stole the earrings of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: XYZ, a stranger. MCB pawned the earrings with

TBI Pawnshop as a pledge for P500 loan. During
Prepared by: LJC 47

the trial, MCB raised the defense that being the long-time grudge against his neighbor Jepoy in
mother of DCB, she cannot be held liable as an view of the latter's refusal to lend him some
accessory. Will MCB's defense prosper? Reason money. While under the influence of liquor, Jonas
briefly. (5%)  started throwing lighted super lolos inside Jepoy's
fence to irritate him and the same exploded inside
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the latter's yard. Upon knowing that the throwing
 No, MCB's defense will not prosper because the of the super lolo was deliberate, Jepoy became
exemption from criminal liability of an accessory furious and sternly warned Jonas to stop his
by virtue of relationship with the principal does not malicious act or he would get what he wanted. A
cover accessories who themselves profited from or heated argument between Jonas and Jepoy
assisted the offender to profit by the effects or ensued but Jaja tried to calm down his friend. At
proceeds of the crime. This non-exemption of an midnight, Jonas convinced Jaja to lend him his .45
accessory, though related to the principal of the caliber pistol so that he could use it to knock down
crime, is expressly provided in Art. 20 of the Jepoy and to end his arrogance. Jonas thought
Revised Penal Code. that after all, explosions were everywhere and
nobody would know who shot Jepoy. After Jaja
CRIMINAL LIABILITY; PRINCIPAL BY DIRECT
PARTICIPATION; CO- PRINCIPAL BY
started throwing lighted super lolos and pla-plas at
INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION (2000) 
Jepoy's yard in order to provoke him so that he
Despite the massive advertising campaign in would come out of his house. When Jepoy came
media against firecrackers and gun-firing during out, Jonas immediately shot him with Jaja's .45
the New Year's celebrations, Jonas and Jaja caliber gun but missed his target. Instead, the
bought ten boxes of super lolo and pla-pla in bullet hit Jepoy's five year old son who was
Bocaue, Bulacan. Before midnight of December 31, following behind him, killing the boy
1999, Jonas and Jaja started their celebration by instantaneously,
having a drinking spree at Jona's place by

If you were the Judge, how would you decide the
exploding their high-powered firecrackers in their
case? Explain. (1%) 
neighborhood. In the course of their conversation,
Jonas confided to Jaja that he has been keeping a SUGGESTED ANSWER: 
Prepared by: LJC 48

I would convict Jonas as principal by direct facts of the case indicate that B, the killer
participation and Jaja as co-principal by supposedly induced by A, had his own reason to
Indispensable cooperation for the complex crime kill C out of a long standing grudge.
of murder with homicide. Jaja should be held liable
CRIMINAL LIABILITY; PRINCIPAL;
as co-principal and not only as an accomplice
INDUCEMENT & PARTICIPATION (1994) 
because he knew of Jonas' criminal design even
before he lent his firearm to Jonas and still he Tata owns a three-storey building located at No. 3
concurred in that criminal design by providing the Herran Street. Paco, Manila. She wanted to
firearm. construct a new building but had no money to
finance the construction. So, she insured the
CRIMINAL LIABILITY; PRINCIPAL BY
building for P3,000,000.00. She then urged Yoboy
INDUCEMENT (2002)
and Yongsi, for monetary consideration, to burn
A asked B to kill C because of a grave injustice her building so she could collect the insurance
done to A by C. A promised B a reward. B was proceeds. Yoboy and Yongsi burned the said
willing to kill C, not so much because of the reward building resulting to its total loss.
promised to him but because he also had his own
What is their respective criminal liability?
long-standing grudge against C, who had wronged
him in the past. If C is killed by B, would A be liable SUGGESTED ANSWER:
as a principal by inducement? (5%)
Tata is a principal by inducement because she
SUGGESTED ANSWER: directly induced Yoboy and Yongsi, for a price or
monetary consideration, to commit arson which
No. A would not be liable as a principal by
the latter would not have committed were it not
inducement because the reward he promised B is
for such reason. Yoboy and Yongsi are principals
not the sole impelling reason which made B to kill
by direct participation (Art. 17, pars. 21 and 3, RPC).
C. To bring about criminal liability of a co-principal,
the inducement made by the inducer must be the DESTRUCTIVE ARSON (1994)
sole consideration which caused the person
Tata owns a three-storey building located at No. 3
induced to commit the crime and without which
Herran Street. Paco, Manila. She wanted to
the crime would not have been committed. The
Prepared by: LJC 49

construct a new building but had no money to also resented Freddie, he readily lent his gun, but
finance the construction. So, she insured the told Ponciano: "O, pagkabaril mo kay Freddie,
building for P3,000,000.00. She then urged Yoboy isauli mo kaagad, ha." Later, Ponciano killed
and Yongsi, for monetary consideration, to burn Freddie, but used a knife because he did not want
her building so she could collect the insurance Freddie’s neighbors to hear the gunshot.
proceeds. Yoboy and Yongsi burned the said What, if any, is the liability of Ruben? Explain. (3%)
building resulting to its total loss.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
What crime did Tata, Yoboy and Yongsi commit?
Ruben‟s liability is that of an accomplice only
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
because he merely cooperated in Ponciano‟s
Tata, Yoboy and Yongsi committed the crime of determination to kill Freddie. Such cooperation is
destructive arson because they collectively caused not indispensable to the killing, as in fact the killing
the destruction of property by means of fire under was carried out without the use of Ruben‟s gun.
the circumstances which exposed to danger the Neither way Ruben may be regarded as a co-
life or property of others (Art, 320, par. 5, RPC. as conspirator since he was not a participant in the
amended by RA No. 7659). decision-making of Ponciono to kill Freddie; he

merely cooperated in carrying out the plan which
ACCOMPLICE (2012)
was already in place (Art. 18, RPC).
Who is an accomplice? (5%)

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Ruben cannot be held liable as an accomplice in
Accomplices are those persons who, not being a the killing of Freddie because his act of lending his
principal, cooperate in the execution of the offense gun to Ponciano did not have the relation between
by previous or simultaneous acts (Article 18) the acts done by the latter to that attributed to
Ruben. Even if Ruben did not lend his gun,
ACCOMPLICE (2009) Ponciano would have consummated the act of
killing Freddie. In other words, Ruben‟s act in
No. V. a. Ponciano borrowed Ruben’s gun, saying
lending his gun was not a necessary act to enable
that he would use it to kill Freddie. Because Ruben
Ponciano to consummate the crime.
Prepared by: LJC 50
ACCOMPLICE (2009) to the killing of Manuel.
Ponciano borrowed Ruben’s gun, saying that he

would use it to kill Freddie. Because Ruben also ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
resented Freddie, he readily lent his gun, but told
Yes, the answer would be the same because Ruben
Ponciano: "O, pagkabaril mo kay Freddie, isauli mo
lent his gun to Ponciano with knowledge that it
kaagad, ha." Later, Ponciano killed Freddie, but
would be used in killing a person, thus with
used a knife because he did not want Freddie’s
knowledge that the gun would be use to commit a
neighbors to hear the gunshot.
crime. It is of no moment who was killed so long as
Would your answer be the same if, instead of Ruben is aware when he lent the gun that it would
Freddie, it was Manuel, a relative of Ruben, who be used to commit a crime.
was killed by Ponciano using Ruben’s gun? Explain.
ACCOMPLICE VS. CONSPIRATOR (2012)
(3%)
No. V. b. Distinguish an accomplice from a

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
conspirator as to their knowledge of the criminal
No, the answer would not be the same because design of the principal, their participation, the
Ruben lent his gun purposely for the killing of penalty to be imposed in relation to the penalty for
Freddie only, not for any other killing. Ponciano‟s the principal, and the requisites/elements to be
using Ruben‟s gun in killing a person other then established by the prosecution in order to hold
Freddie is beyond Ruben‟s criminal intent and them criminally responsible for their respective
willing involvement. Only Ponciano will answer for roles in the commission of the crime. (5%)
the crime against Manuel.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
It has been ruled that when the owner of the gun
The differences between accomplice and
knew it would be used to kill a particular person,
conspirator are as follows:
but the offender used it to kill another person, the
owner of the gun is not an accomplice as to the ACCOMPLICE VS. CONSPIRATOR (2007)
killing of the other person. While there was
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
community of design to kill Freddie between
Ponciano and Ruben, there was none with respect
Prepared by: LJC 51
The distinction between an accomplice and a  a principal.  

conspirator are:
ANTI-FENCING LAW; FENCING (2013)
1. An accomplice incurs criminal liability by
Roberto bought a Toyota Fortuner from Iñigo for
merely cooperating in the execution of the
P500,000. While driving his newly-bought car,
crime without participating as a principal,
Roberto met a minor accident that made the
by prior simultaneous acts; whereas a
examination of his vehicle's Registration
conspirator participates in the commission
Certificate necessary. When the policeman
of a crime as a co- principal.
checked the plate, chassis and motor numbers of
2. An accomplice incurs criminal liability in an
the vehicle against those reflected in the
individual capacity by his act alone of
Registration Certificate, he found the chassis and
cooperating in the execution of the crime;
motor numbers to be different from what the
while a conspirator incurs criminal liability
Registration Certificate stated. The Deed of Sale
not only for his individual acts in the
covering the sale of the Fortuner, signed by Iñigo,
execution of the crime but also for the acts
also bore the same chassis and motor numbers as
of the other participants in the commission
Roberto's Registration Certificate. The chassis and
of the crime collectively. The acts of the
motor numbers on the Fortuner were found, upon
other participants in the execution of the
verification with the Land Transportation Office, to
crime are considered also as acts of a
correspond to a vehicle previously reported as
conspirator for purposes of collective
carnapped.
criminal responsibility.
3. An accomplice participates in the execution Roberto claimed that he was in good faith; Iñigo
of a crime when the criminal design or plan sold him a carnapped vehicle and he did not know
is already in place; whereas a conspirator that he was buying a carnapped vehicle.
participates in the adoption or  making of
the criminal design.   If you were the prosecutor, would you or would
you not charge Roberto with a crime? (7%)
4. An accomplice is subjected to a penalty one
degree lower than that of a principal; SUGGESTED ANSWER:
whereas a conspirator incurs the penalty of

I will charge Roberto with violation of Anti-Fencing
Prepared by: LJC 52
Law. The elements of “fencing” are: 1) a robbery or also a copy of the “Registration Certificate”; that
theft has been committed; 2) the accused, who Roberto aver, too, of being a buyer in good faith
took no part in the robbery or theft, “buys, and lacking of any knowledge that the subject car
receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, is a carnapped vehicle.
sells or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any
As against the foregoing, there is only a certificate
manner deals in any article or object taken” during
from the Land Transportation Office showing that
that robbery or theft; 3) the accused knows or
the vehicle had been previously reported as
should have known of that the thing was derived
carnapped.
form that crime; and 4) by the deal he makes he
intends to gain for himself or for another. Here, Consequently, in light of the satisfactory
someone carnapped the vehicle, old it to Roberto explanation of Roberto of his possession of the
who did not take part in the crime. Roberto should vehicle, the presumption of authorship of the theft
have known also that the car was stolen because it upon a person found in possession of the stolen
was not properly documented as the deed of sale personal property finds no application in the
and registration certificate did not reflect the instant case.
correct numbers of the vehicle‟s engine and
There is, thus, no probable cause or evidence to
chassis. Apparently, he made no effort to check
warrant the prosecution of Riberto for any
the papers covering his purchase. Lastly,
wrongdoing.
Roberto‟s defense of good faith is flawed because
Presidential Decree 1612 is a special law and, ANTI-FENCING LAW; FENCING (2010)
therefore, its violation in regarded as malum
prohibitum, requiring no proof of criminal intent No. V. Arlene is engaged in the buy and sell of used
(Dimat v. People, GR No. 181184, January 25, garments, more popularly known as"ukay-ukay."
2012). Among the items found by the police in a raid of

her store in Baguio City were brand-new Louie
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Feraud blazers.
The facts given show that Roberto “bought” the Arlene was charged with "fencing." Will the charge
car form Inigo; that a “deed of sale” covering the prosper? Why or why not? (5%)
subject vehicle was executed by Inigo; that there is
Prepared by: LJC 53

SUGGESTED ANSWER: have known” that the goods or articles had been
the subject of theft or robbery (P.D. No. 1612[a]).
No, the charge of “fencing” will not prosper.
Mere possession of the stolen goods gives rise to
“Fencing” is committed when a person, with intent
the prima facie presumption of fencing.
to gain foe himself or for another, deals in any
manner with an article of value which he knows or CRIMINAL LIABILITY; ACCESSORIES (2013)
should be known to him to have been derived from
Modesto and Abelardo are brothers. Sometime in
the proceeds of theft or robbery (Sec. 2, PD 1612).
August, 1998 while Abelardo was in his office,
Thus, for a charge of fencing to prosper, it must
Modesto, together with two other men in police
first be established that a theft or robbery of the
uniform, came with two heavy bags. Modesto
article subject of the alleged fencing has been
asked Abelardo to keep the two bags in his vault
committed --- fact which is wanting in this case.
until he comes back to get them. When Abelardo
It should be noted that the suspect is engaged in
later examined the two bags, he saw bundles of
the buy and sell of used garments, which are in the
money that, in his rough count, could not be less
nature of movable property carries with it a prima
than P5 Million. He kept the money inside the vault
facie presumption of ownership. The presumption
and soon he heard the news that a gang that
of “fencing” arises only when the article or item
included Modesto had been engaged in bank
involved is the subject of a robbery or thievery
robberies. Abelardo, unsure of what to do under
(Sec. 5, PD 1612).
the circumstances, kept quiet about the two bags
ANTI-FENCING LAW; FENCING (2009) in his vault. Soon after, the police captured, and
secured a confession from, Modesto who admitted
No. XI. c. In a prosecution for fencing under P.D.
that their loot had been deposited with Abelardo.
1612, it is a complete defense for the accused to
prove that he had no knowledge that the goods or What is Abelardo's liability? (7%)
articles found in his possession had been the
subject of robbery.
Abelardo is not criminally liable.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
To be criminally liable as an accessory under
False, fencing is committed if the accused “should
Prepared by: LJC 54
Article 19 of the Code, such person must have light felonies are excluded even though resulting
knowledge of the commission of the crime. The from the same single act.
term “knowledge “ under the law is not
COMPLEX CRIMES result when the offender has to
synonymous with suspicion. Mere suspicion that
commit an offense as a necessary means for
the crime has been committed is not sufficient.
committing another offense. Only one information
Moreover, the facts as given in the problem would shall be filed and if proven, the penalty for the
show lack or absent of intent to conceal the effects more serious crime shall be imposed.
of the crime as Abelardo is described as being
COMPLEX CRIME VS. SPECIAL COMPLEX
“unsure of what to do under the circumstances.”
CRIME VS. DELITO CONTINUADO (2005) 
Even if he can be considered as an accessory under
Distinguish the following from each other:
paragraph 2 of Article 19, RPC, Abelardo is not
liable, being the brother of Modesto under Article SUGGESTED ANSWER:
20, RPC.
An ORDINARY COMPLEX CRIME is made up of
PENALTIES two or more crimes being punished in distinct
provisions of the Revised Penal Code but alleged in
COMPLEX CRIME VS. COMPOUND CRIME
one information either because they were brought
(2004)
about by a single felonious act or because one
Distinguish clearly but briefly: Between compound offense is a necessary means for committing the
and complex crimes as concepts in the Penal Code. other offense or offenses. They are alleged in one
information so that only one penalty shall be
imposed. As to penalties, ordinary complex crime,
COMPOUND CRIMES result when the offender the penalty for the most serious crime shall be
committed only a single felonious act from which imposed and in its maximum period
two or more crimes resulted. This is provided for in

A SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME, on the other hand, is
modified form in the first part of Article 48,
made up of two or more crimes which are
Revised Penal Code, limiting the resulting crimes
considered only as components of a single
to only grave and/or less grave felonies. Hence,
indivisible offense being punished in one provision
Prepared by: LJC 55
of the Revised Penal Code. As to penalties, special SUGGESTED ANSWER:

complex crime, only one penalty is specifically
Aberratio ictus or mistake in the blow occurs when
prescribed for all the component crimes which are
a felonious act missed the person against whom it
regarded as one indivisible offense. The
was directed and hit instead somebody who was
component crimes are not regarded as distinct
not the intended victim. Error in personae, or
crimes and so the penalty for the most serious
mistake in identity occurs when the felonious act
crime is not the penalty to be imposed nor in its
was directed at the person intended, but who
maximum period. It is the penalty specifically
turned out to be somebody else. Aberratio ictus
provided for the special complex crime that shall
brings about at least two (2) felonious
be applied according to the rules on imposition of
consequence, ie. the attempted felony on the
the penalty.
intended victim who was not hit and the felony on
DELITO CONTINUADO, or CONTINUOUS CRIME, the unintended victim who was hit. A complex
is a term used to denote as only one crime a series crime of the first form under Art. 48, RPC generally
of felonious acts arising from a single criminal result. In error in personae only one crime is
resolution, not susceptible of division, which are committed
carried out in the same place and at about the
COMPLEX CRIME; ABERRATIO ICTUS, ERROR
same time, and violating one and the same penal
IN PERSONAE & PRAETER INTENTIONEM
provision. The acts done must be impelled by one
(1999) 
criminal intent or purpose, such that each act
merely constitutes a partial execution of a What do you understand by aberratio ictus: error in
particular crime, violating one and the same penal personae; and praeter intentionem? Do they alter
provision. It involves a concurrence of felonious the criminal liability of an accused? Explain. (4%)
acts violating a common right, a common penal
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
provision, and Impelled by a single cri
ABERRATIO ICTUS or mistake in the blow occurs

COMPLEX CRIME; ABERRATIO ICTUS VS.
when the offender delivered the blow at his
ERROR IN PERSONAE (1994) 
intended victim but missed, and instead such blow
Distinguish aberratio ictus from error in personae. landed on an unintended victim. The situation
generally brings about complex crimes where from
Prepared by: LJC 56
a single act, two or more grave or less grave employed by him.

felonies resulted, namely the attempt against the
COMPLEX CRIME; ABERRATIO ICTUS;
intended victim and the consequence on the
ATTEMPTED MURDER WITH HOMICIDE (2000) 
unintended victim. As complex crimes, the penalty
for the more serious crime shall be the one Despite the massive advertising campaign in
imposed and in the maximum period. It is only media against firecrackers and gun-firing during
when the resulting felonies are only light that the New Year's celebrations, Jonas and Jaja
complex crimes do not result and the penalties are bought ten boxes of super lolo and pla-pla in
to be imposed distinctly for each resulting crime. Bocaue, Bulacan. Before midnight of December 31,
1999, Jonas and Jaja started their celebration by
ERROR IN PERSONAE or mistake in identity
having a drinking spree at Jona's place by
occurs when the offender actually hit the person to
exploding their high-powered firecrackers in their
whom the blow was directed but turned out to be
neighborhood. In the course of their conversation,
different from and not the victim intended. The
Jonas confided to Jaja that he has been keeping a
criminal liability of the offender is not affected,
long-time grudge against his neighbor Jepoy in
unless the mistake in identity resulted to a crime
view of the latter's refusal to lend him some
different from what the offender intended to
money. While under the influence of liquor, Jonas
commit, in which case the lesser penalty between
started throwing lighted super lolos inside Jepoy's
the crime intended and the crime committed shall
fence to irritate him and the same exploded inside
be imposed but in the maximum period (Art. 49,
the latter's yard. Upon knowing that the throwing
RFC).
of the super lolo was deliberate, Jepoy became
PRAETER INTENTIONEM or where the furious and sternly warned Jonas to stop his
consequence went beyond that intended or malicious act or he would get what he wanted. A
expected. This is a mitigating circumstance (Art. heated argument between Jonas and Jepoy
13. par. 3, RPC) when there is a notorious disparity ensued but Jaja tried to calm down his friend. At
between the act or means employed by the midnight, Jonas convinced Jaja to lend him his .45
offender and the resulting felony, i,e., the resulting caliber pistol so that he could use it to knock down
felony could not be reasonably anticipated or Jepoy and to end his arrogance. Jonas thought
foreseen by the of fender from the act or means that after all, explosions were everywhere and
Prepared by: LJC 57

nobody would know who shot Jepoy. After Jaja you decide the case?
throwing lighted super lolos and pla-plas at Jepoy's
yard in order to provoke him so that he would If I were the Judge, I will convict Pedrito and find
come out of his house. When Jepoy came out, him guilty of the complex crime of Homicide with
Jonas immediately shot him with Jaja's .45 caliber Attempted Homicide. The single act of firing at
gun but missed his target. Instead, the bullet hit Paulo resulted in the commission of two felonies,
Jepoy's five year old son who was following behind one grave (homicide) and the other less grave
him, killing the boy instantaneously, (attempted homicide) thus falling squarely under
Art. 48, RPC; hence, the penalty would be for the
a) What crime or crimes can Jonas and Jaja be
more serious crime (homicide} in its maximum
charged with? Explain. (2%) 
period (17 years 4 months and 1 day to 20 years).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Aberratio ictus (mistake in the blow) could not be
Jonas and Jaja, can be charged with the complex used as a defense as it is not an exempting
crime of attempted murder with homicide because circumstance. Pedrito is liable under the principle
a single act caused a less grave and a grave felony of Art. 4, RPC, which makes a person criminally
(Art. 48. RPC). liable for all the natural and logical consequences
of his felonious act
Attempted murder is a less grave felony, while
consummated homicide is a grave felony: both are COMPLEX CRIMES; COUP D’ETAT &
punishable by afflictive penalties. REBELLION & SEDITION (2003)
COMPLEX CRIME; DOCTRINE OF ABERRATIO 1) Can there be a complex crime of coup d'etat
ICTUS; NOT APPLICABLE (1996)  with rebellion? 2%
At the height of an altercation, Pedrito shot Paulo 2) Can there be a complex crime of coup d'etat
but missed, hitting Tiburcio instead, resulting in with sedition? 2%
the death of the latter. Pedrito, invoking the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
doctrine of aberratio ictus, claims exemption from
criminal liability. If you were the judge, how would 1.) Yes, if there was conspiracy between the
Prepared by: LJC 58
offender/ offenders committing the coup the military or national police. Art.
d'etat and the offenders committing the 48 of the Code may apply under the
rebellion. By conspiracy, the crime of one conditions therein provided.  
would be the crime of the other and vice
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
versa. This is possible because the offender
in coup d'etat may be any person or The crime of coup d'etat cannot be complexed
persons belonging to the military or the with the crime of rebellion because both crimes are
national police or a public officer, whereas directed against the Government or for political
rebellion does not so require. Moreover, the purposes, although the principal offenders are
crime of coup d'etat may be committed different. The essence may be the same and thus
singly, whereas rebellion requires a public constitute only one crime. In this situation, the two
uprising and taking up arms to overthrow crimes are not distinct and therefore, may not be
the duly constituted government. Since the proper to apply Article 48 of the Code.
two crimes are essentially different and
COMPLEX CRIMES; DETERMINATION OF THE
punished with distinct penalties, there is no
CRIME (1999)
legal impediment to the application of Art.
48 of the Revised Penal Code.   A, actuated by malice and with the use of a fully
a. Yes, coup d'etat can be complexed automatic M-14 sub-machine gun, shot a group of
with sedition because the two persons who were seated in a cockpit with one
crimes are essentially different and burst of successive, continuous, automatic fire.
distinctly punished under the Four (4) persons were killed thereby, each having
Revised Penal Code. Sedition may hit by different bullets coming from the sub-
not be directed against the machine gun of A. Four (4) cases of murder were
Government or non-political in filed against A.
objective, whereas coup d'etat is
always political in objective as it is The trial court ruled that there was only one crime
committed by A for the reason that, since A
directed against the Government
performed only one act, he having pressed the
and led by persons or public officer
trigger of his gun only once, the crime committed
holding public office belonging to
was murder. Consequently, the trial judge
Prepared by: LJC 59
sentenced A to just one penalty of reclusion when an offense is committed as a necessary

perpetua. means to commit another offense (Art. 48, RPC).
At least two (2) crimes are involved in a complex
Was the decision of the trial judge correct? Explain.
crime; either two or more grave or less grave
(4%)
felonies resulted from a single act, or an offense is
SUGGESTED ANSWER: committed as a necessary means for committing

another. The penalty for the more serious crime
The decision of the trial judge is not correct. When
shall be imposed and in its maximum period. (Art.
the offender made use of an automatic firearm,
48, RPC)
the acts committed are determined by the number
of bullets discharged inasmuch as the firearm COMPLEX CRIMES; ORDINARY COMPLEX
being automatic, the offender need only press the CRIME VS. SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME (2003) 
trigger once and it would fire continually. For each

Distinguish between an ordinary complex crime
death caused by a distinct and separate bullet, the
and a special complex crime as to their concepts
accused incurs distinct criminal liability. Hence, it is
and as to the imposition of penalties. 2%
not the act of pressing the trigger which should be
considered as producing the several felonies, but SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the number of bullets which actually produced
IN CONCEPT -
them.
An ORDINARY COMPLEX CRIME is made up of

COMPLEX CRIMES; NATURE & PENALTY
two or more crimes being punished in distinct
INVOLVED (1999)
provisions of the Revised Penal Code but alleged in
What constitutes a complex crime? How many one Information either because they were brought
crimes maybe involved in a complex crime? What about by a single felonious act or because one
is the penalty therefor? (4%)  offense is a necessary means for committing the
other offense or offenses. They are alleged in one
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Information so that only one penalty shall be
A complex crime is constituted when a single act imposed.

caused two or more grave or less grave felonies or
A SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME, on the other hand, is
Prepared by: LJC 60
made up of two or more crimes which are carried out in the same place and at about the
considered only as components of a single same time, and violating one and the same penal
indivisible offense being punished in one provision provision. The acts done must be impelled by one
of the Revised Penal Code. criminal intent or purpose, such that each act
merely constitutes a partial execution of a
AS TO PENALTIES - In ORDINARY COMPLEX
particular crime, violating one and the same penal
CRIME, the penalty for the most serious crime shall
provision. It involves a concurrence of felonious
be imposed and in its maximum period.
acts violating a common right, a common penal
In SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME, only one penalty is provision, and impelled by a single criminal
specifically prescribed for all the component impulse (People vs. Le- desma, 73 SCRA 77).
crimes which are regarded as one indivisible

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

may be instituted.
DEATH PENALTY (2004)
DELITO CONTINUADO, or CONTINUOUS CRIME,
is a term used to denote as only one crime a series The death penalty cannot be inflicted under which
of felonious acts arising from a single criminal the following circumstances:

resolution, not susceptible of division, which are
1. When the guilty person is at least 18 years
Prepared by: LJC 61
of age at the time of the commission of the committed the crime.

crime. 
Circumstance no. 3 no longer operates,
2. When the guilty person is more than 70
considering the decision of the Supreme Court in
years of age.
People vs. Efren Mateo (G.R. 147678-87, July 7,
3. When, upon appeal to or automatic review
2004) providing an intermediate review for such
by the Supreme Court, the required
cases where the penalty imposed is death,
majority for the imposition of the death
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment before
penalty is not obtained.
they are elevated to the Supreme Court.
4. When the person is convicted of a capital
crime but before execution becomes In circumtances nos. 4 & 5, the death penalty can
insane. be imposed if prescribed by the law violated
5. When the accused is a woman while she is although its execution shall be suspended when
pregnant or within one year after delivery. the convict becomes insane before it could be
executed and while he is insane.
Explain your answer or choice briefly. (5%)
Likewise, the death penalty can be imposed upon a

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
woman but its execution shall be suspended during
A. Understanding the word "inflicted" to mean the her pregnancy and for one year after her delivery.
imposition of the death penalty, not its execution,
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
the circumstance in which the death penalty
cannot be inflicted is no. 2: "when the guilty person The word "INFLICTED" is found only in Art. 83 to
is more than 70 years of age" (Art. 47, Revised the effect that the death penalty may not be
Penal Code). Instead, the penalty shall be "INFLICTED" upon a pregnant woman, such
commuted to reclusion perpetua, with the penalty is to be suspended. If "INFLICTED" is to be
accessory penalties provided in Article 40, RFC. construed as "EXECUTION", then No. 5 is the
choice.
In circumstance no. 1 when the guilty person is at
least 18 years of age at the time of the commission DEATH PENALTY; QUALIFIED RAPE;
of the crime, the death penalty can be imposed REQUISITES (2004)
since the offender is already of legal age when he
Prepared by: LJC 62

GV was convicted of raping TC, his niece, and he 2) In the absence of the birth
was sentenced to death. It was alleged in the certificate, age of the victim maybe
information that the victim was a minor below proven by authentic document,
seven years old, and her mother testified that she such as baptismal certificate and
was only six years and ten months old, which her school records;  
aunt corroborated on the witness stand. The 3) If the aforesaid documents are
information also alleged that the accused was the shown to have been lost or
victim's uncle, a fact proved by the prosecution. destroyed or otherwise unavailable,
the testimony, if clear and credible
On automatic review before the Supreme Court,
of the victim's mother or any
accused-appellant contends that capital
member of the family, by
punishment could not be imposed on him because
consanguinity or affinity, who is
of the inadequacy of the charges and the
qualified to testify on matters
insufficiency of the evidence to prove all the
respecting pedigree such as the
elements of the heinous crime of rape beyond
exact age  or date of birth of the
reasonable doubt. Is appellant's contention
offended party pursuant to Section
correct? Reason briefly. (5%)
40, Rule 130 of the Rules on
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Evidence shall be sufficient but only

under the following circumstances:
Yes, appellant's contention is correct insofar as the
(a) If the victim is alleged to be
age of the victim is concerned. The age of the
below 3 years of age and what is
victim raped has not been proved beyond
sought to be proved is that she is
reasonable doubt to constitute the crime as
less than 7 years old; (b) If the victim
qualified rape and deserving of the death penalty.
is alleged to be below 7 years of age
The guidelines in appreciating age as a qualifying
and what is sought to be proved is
circumstance in rape cases have not been met, to
that she is less than 12 years old; (c)
wit:
If the victim is alleged to be below
1) The primary evidence of the age of 12 years of age and what is sought
the victim is her birth certificate;   to be proved is that she is less than
Prepared by: LJC 63

18 years old.  Juan is a recidivist ... Habitual delinquency, which

4) In the absence of a certificate of live brings about an additional penalty when an
birth, authentic document, or the offender is convicted a third time or more for
testimony of the victim's mother or specified crimes, is correctly considered because
relatives concerning the victim's age Juan had already three (3) previous convictions by
under the circumstances above- final judgment for theft and again convicted for
stated, complainant's sole Robbery With Homicide. And the crimes specified
testimony can suffice, provided that as basis for habitual delinquency includes, inter
it is expressly and clearly admitted alia, theft and robbery.
by the accused (People us. Pruna,
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW (1994)
390 SCRA 577 [2002]).
Itos was convicted of an offense penalized by a

HABITUAL DELINQUENCY & RECIDIVISM (2001)
special law. The penalty prescribed is not less than
Juan de Castro already had three (3) previous six years but not more than twelve years. No
convictions by final judgment for theft when he modifying circumstance attended the commission
was found guilty of Robbery with Homicide. In the of the crime.
last case, the trial Judge considered against the
If you were the judge, will you apply the
accused both recidivism and habitual delinquency.
Indeterminate Sentence Law? If so, how will you
The accused appealed and contended that in his
apply it? 
last conviction, the trial court cannot consider
against him a finding of recidivism and, again, of SUGGESTED ANSWER:
habitual delinquency. Is the appeal meritorious?
If I were the judge, I will apply the provisions of the
Explain. (5%)
Indeterminate Sentence Law, as the last sentence
SUGGESTED ANSWER: of Section 1 Act 4103, specifically provides the
application thereof for violations of special laws.
No, the appeal is not meritorious. Recidivism and
habitual delinquency are correctly considered in Under the same provision, the minimum must not
this case because the basis of recidivism is be less than the minimum provided therein (six
different from that of habitual delinquency. years and one day) and the maximum shall not be
Prepared by: LJC 64
more than the maximum provided therein, i.e. guns and two Thompson sub-machine guns
twelve years. (People vs. Rosalina Reyes, 186 SCRA punishable under the old law [RA No,4] with
184) imprisonment of from five (5) to ten (10) years. The
trial court sentenced the accused to suffer
imprisonment of five (5) years and one (1) day.
Andres is charged with an offense defined by a

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

the maximum fixed by law and the minimum shall
not be less than the minimum penalty prescribed How are the maximum and the minimum terms of
by the same. I have the discretion to impose the the indeterminate sentence for offenses
penalty within the said minimum and maximum. punishable under the Revised Penal Code
determined? (3%) 
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A was convicted of illegal possession of grease
Prepared by: LJC 65

For crimes punished under the Revised Penal State with reasons whether the court may
Code, the maximum term of the Indeterminate correctly impose the following penalties:
sentence shall be the penalty properly imposable
 a) a straight penalty of 10 months;
under the same Code after considering the
attending mitigating and/or aggravating  SUGGESTED ANSWER:
circumstances according to Art, 64 of said Code.
Yes, because the penalty is less than one year, a
The minimum term of the same sentence shall be
straight penalty may be imposed. (People v.
fixed within the range of the penalty next lower in
Arellano, G.R. No, 46501, October 5, 1939)
degree to that prescribed for the crime under the
said Code. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Under the law, what is the purpose for fixing the Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
maximum and the minimum terms of the minimum imposable penalty shall be imposed but
indeterminate sentence? (2%) the maximum shall not exceed the maximum
imposable by law.
b) 6 months, as minimum, to 11 months, as

The purpose of the law in fixing the minimum term
maximum; 
of the sentence is to set the grace period at which
the convict may be released on parole from SUGGESTED ANSWER: 
imprisonment, unless by his conduct he is not
No, because Indeterminate Sentence Law does not
deserving of parole and thus he shall continue
serving his prison term in Jail but in no case to go apply when the penalty imposed is less than one
beyond the maximum term fixed in the sentence. year (Sec. 2, Art. 4103, as amended).
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW (2005) c) a straight penalty of 2 years. (5%)
Harold was convicted of a crime defined and SUGGESTED ANSWER:
penalized by a special penal law where the

No, because the Indeterminate Sentence Law will
imposable penalty is from 6 months, as minimum,
apply when the minimum of the penalty exceeds
to 3 years, as maximum.
one year.
Prepared by: LJC 66

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: final Judgment;  

10) Those sentenced to the penalty of destierro
If the imposition of straight penalty which consists
or suspension.  
of the minimum period of the penalty prescribed
by law, then it may be allowed because it favors INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW;
the accused. EXCEPTIONS (2003)
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW; When would the Indeterminate Sentence Law be

EXCEPTIONS (1999) inapplicable? 4%
Under what circumstances is the Indeterminate SUGGESTED ANSWER: 

Sentence Law not applicable? (2%)
The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable
SUGGESTED ANSWER: to:
1) Persons convicted of offenses punished 1) those persons convicted of offenses

with death  penalty or life imprisonment;   punished with death penalty or life-
2) Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or imprisonment or reclusion perpetua;  
proposal  to commit treason;   2) those convicted of treason, conspiracy or
3) Those convicted of misprision of treason, proposal to commit treason;  
rebellion,  sedition or espionage;   3) those convicted of misprision of treason,
4) Those convicted of piracy;   rebellion, sedition or espionage;  
5) Those who are habitual delinquents;   4) those convicted of piracy;  
6) Those who shall have escaped from 5) those who are habitual delinquents;  
confinement or  evaded sentence;   6) those who shall have escaped from
7) Those who violated the terms of confinement or  evaded sentence;  
conditional pardon  granted to them by the 7) those who having been granted conditional
Chief Executive;   pardon  by the Chief Executive shall have
8) Those whose maximum term of violated the terms  thereof;  
imprisonment does  not exceed one year;   8) those whose maximum term of
9) Those who, upon the approval of the law imprisonment does  not exceed one year;  
(December 5, 1933). had been sentenced by 9) those already sentenced by final judgment
Prepared by: LJC 67
at the  time of approval of this Act; and   subsidiary. Anyone of the may be required to pay
10) those whose sentence imposes penalties the civil liability pertaining to such offender
which do  not involve imprisonment, like without prejudice to recovery from those whose
destierro.   share have been paid by another.
PENALTIES: FINE OR IMPRISONMENT VS. May the judge impose an alternative penalty of
SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT (2005)  fine or imprisonment? Explain. (4%) 
E and M are convicted of a penal law that imposes SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a penalty of fine or imprisonment or both fine and
No. A fine, whether imposed as a single or as an
imprisonment. The judge sentenced them to pay
alternative penalty, should not and cannot be
the fine, jointly and severally, with subsidiary
reduced or converted into a prison term. There is
imprisonment in case of insolvency. Is the penalty
no rule for transmutation of the amount of a fine
proper? Explain. 
into a term of imprisonment. (People v. Dacuycuy,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:  G.R. No. L-45127 May 5,
The penalty is not proper. The two accused must 1989)

separately pay the fine, which is their penalty.
PENALTIES: PECUNIARY PENALTIES VS.
Solidary liability applies only to civil liabilities. 
PECUNIARY LIABILITIES (2005) 
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: 
Distinguish pecuniary penalties from pecuniary
NO, because in penal law when there are several liabilities. (2%)
offenders, the court in the exercise of its discretion
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
shall determine what shall be the share of each
offender depending upon the degree of Pecuniary liabilities do not include restitution, but
participation – as principal, accomplice or include reparation of damages caused, the
accessory. If within each class of offender, there indemnification for consequential damages, as
are more of them, such as more than one principal well as fines and cost of the proceedings.
or more than one accomplice or accessory, the
Pecuniary penalties include fines and cost of the
liability in each class of offender shall be
Prepared by: LJC 68
proceedings. degree therefor is prision correccional and it is

within the range of this penalty that the minimum
PENALTIES; COMPLEX CRIME OF ESTAFA
should be taken.
(1997)
PENALTIES; FACTORS TO CONSIDER (1991)
A was convicted of the complex crime of estafa
through falsification of public document. Since the Imagine that you are a Judge trying a case, and
amount Involved did not exceed P200.00, the based on the evidence presented and the
penalty prescribed by law for estafa is arresto applicable law, you have decided on the guilt of
mayor in its medium and maximum periods. The two (2) accused. Indicate the five (5) steps you
penalty prescribed by law for falsification of public would follow to determine the exact penalty to be
document is prision mayor plus fine not to exceed imposed. Stated differently, what are the factors
P5,000.00. you must consider to arrive at the correct penalty?
Impose the proper prison penalty. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1. the crime committed; 

2. Stage of execution and degree of
The proper penalty is ANY RANGE WITHIN prision
participation; 
correccional (six (6) months and one (1) day to six
3. Determine the penalty; 
(6) years) as MINIMUM, to ANY RANGE within
4. Consider the modifying circumstances; 
prision mayor maximum (ten (10) years and one (1)
5. Determine whether Indeterminate
day to twelve (12) years) as MAXIMUM. This is in
Sentence Law is applicable or not.
accordance with People us, Gonzales, 73 Phil, 549,
where It was ruled that for the purpose of PENALTIES; HOMICIDE W/ MODIFYING
determining the penalty next lower in degree, the CIRCUMSTANCE (1995)
penalty that should be considered as a starting
Homer was convicted of homicide. The trial court
point is the whole of prision mayor, it being the
appreciated the following modifying
penalty prescribed by law, and not prision mayor in
circumstances: the aggravating circumstance of
its maximum period, which is only the penalty
nocturnity, and the mitigating circumstances of
actually applied because of Article 48 of the
passion and obfuscation, no intent to commit so
Revised Penal Code. The penalty next lower in
Prepared by: LJC 69
grave a wrong, illiteracy and voluntary surrender. MAXIMUM sentence under the Indeterminate
The imposable penalty for homicide is reclusion Sentence Law should be the minimum of the
temporal the range of which is twelve (12) years penalty, which is 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and
and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. 8 months. The MINIMUM penalty will thus be the
penalty next lower in degree, which is prision
Taking into account the attendant aggravating and
mayor in its full extent (6 years and 1 day to 12
mitigating circumstances, and applying the
years). Ergo, the proper penalty would be 6 years
Indeterminate Sentence Law, determine the
and 1 day, as minimum, to 12 years and 1 day, as
proper penalty to be imposed on the accused.
maximum. I believe that because of the remaining
SUGGESTED ANSWER: mitigating circumstances after the off-setting it

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

Assume in the preceding problem that there were
the excess of three mitigating circumstances. This
two mitigating circumstances and no aggravating
will therefore justify in reducing the penalty to the
circumstance. Impose the proper prison penalty.
minimum period.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The existence of an aggravating circumstance,
albeit there are four aggravating, will not justify There being two (2) mitigating circumstances
the lowering of the penalty to the next lower without any aggravating circumstance, the proper
degree under paragraph 5 of said Article, as this is prison penalty is arresto mayor (in any of its
applicable only if THERE IS NO AGGRAVATING periods, ie. ranging from one (1) month and one (1)
CIRCUMSTANCE present. day to six (6) months) as MINIMUM to prision
correccional in its maximum period four (4) years,
Since the crime committed is Homicide and the
two (2) months, and one (1) day to six (6) years as
penalty therefor is reclusion temporal, the
Prepared by: LJC 70
MAXIMUM. Under Art. 64, par. 5 of the Revised SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Penal Code, when a penalty contains three
The proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. Even if
periods, each one of which forms a period in
there are two or more mitigating circumstances, a
accordance with Article 76 and 77 of the same
court cannot lower the penalty by one degree (Art.
Code, and there are two or more mitigating
63. par. 3, Revised Penal Code; People vs.
circumstances and no aggravating circumstances,
Formigones, 87 Phil. 685). In U.S. vs. Relador 60
the penalty next lower in degree should be
Phil. 593, where the crime committed was
imposed. For purposes of the Indeterminate
parricide with the two (2) mitigating circumstances
Sentence Law, the penalty next lower in degree
of illiteracy and lack of intention to commit so
should be determined without regard as to
grave a wrong, and with no aggravating
whether the basic penalty provided by the Revised
circumstance, the Supreme Court held that the
Penal Code should be applied in its maximum or
proper, penalty to be imposed is reclusion
minimum period as circumstances modifying
perpetua.
liability may require. The penalty next lower in
degree to prision correccional. Therefore, as PENALTIES; PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT
previously stated, the minimum should be within (1994)
the range of arresto mayor and the maximum is
1) When is there preventive imprisonment? 2)
within the range of prision correctional in its
When is the accused credited with the full time of
maximum period.
his preventive imprisonment, and when is he
PeNALTIES; PARRICIDE W/ MITIGATING credited with 4/5 thereof?
CIRCUMSTANCE (1997)
A and B pleaded guilty to the crime of parricide.
1) There is preventive imprisonment when [a) an
The court found three mitigating circumstances,
offender is detained while the criminal case
namely, plea of guilty, lack of Instruction and lack
against him is being heard, either because the
of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that
crime committed is a capital offense and not
committed. The prescribed penalty for parricide is
bailable, or even if the crime committed was
reclusion perpetua to death. Impose the proper
bailable, the offender could not post the required
principal penalty.
bail for his provisional liberty.
Prepared by: LJC 71
2) An accused is credited with the full time of his the fact that the penalties of reclusion perpetua
preventive imprisonment if he voluntarily agreed and life imprisonment are not synonymous and
in writing to abide by the rules of the institution should be applied correctly and as may be
imposed upon its prisoners, provided that: specified by the applicable law. Reclusion perpetua
has a specific duration of 20 years and 1 day to 40
a) the penalty imposed on him for the crime
years (Art. 27) and accessory penalties (Art. 41),
committed consists of a deprivation of liberty;
while life imprisonment has no definite term or
b) he is not disqualified from such credit for being a accessory penalties. Also, life imprisonment is
recidivist, or for having been previously convicted imposable on crimes punished by special laws, and
for two or more times of any crime, or for having not on felonies in the Code (People vs. De Guzman,
failed to surrender voluntarily for the execution of G.R. Nos. 51385-86, Jan. 22, 1993; People vs.
the sentence upon being so summoned (Art. 29, Estrella, G.R. Nos. 92506-07, April 28, 1993; People
RPC). vs. Alvero, G.R. No. 72319, June 30,1993; People vs.
Lapiroso, G.R. No. 122507, Feb. 25, 1999).[see
Where the accused however did not agree he
Criminal Law Conspectus, page 156]
would only be credited with 4/5 of the time he had
undergone preventive imprisonment. PENALTIES; RECLUSION PERPETUA VS. LIFE
IMPRISONMENT (1994) 
PENALTIES; RECLUSION PERPETUA (RA) NO.
7959 (2005) Differentiate reclusion perpetua from life
imprisonment.
Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 7959, reclusion SUGGESTED ANSWER:
perpetua shall be from 20 years and 1 day to 40

RECLUSION PERPETUA is that penalty provided
years. Does this mean that reclusion perpetua is
for in the Revised Penal Code for crimes defined in
now a divisible penalty? Explain. (2%)
and penalized therein except for some crimes
SUGGESTED ANSWER: defined by special laws which impose reclusion

perpetua, such as violations of Republic Act 6425,
No, because the Supreme Court has repeatedly
as amended by Republic Act 7659 or of PD 1860;
called the attention of the Bench and the Bar to
while LIFE IMPRISONMENT is a penalty usually
Prepared by: LJC 72

provided for in special laws. Reclusion perpetua other and therefore, should not be used
has a duration of twenty (20) years and one (1) day interchangeably.
to forty [40] years under Republic Act 7659, while
Reclusion perpetua is a penalty prescribed by the
life imprisonment has no duration; reclusion
Revised Penal Code, with a fixed duration of
perpetua may be reduced by one or two degrees;
imprisonment from 20 years and 1 day to 40 years,
reclusion perpetuates accessory penalties while life
and carries it with accessory penalties.
imprisonment does not have any accessory
penalties (People vs. Baguio, 196 SCRA 459, People Life imprisonment, on the other hand, is a penalty
vs. Panellos, 205 SCRA 546). prescribed by special laws, with no fixed duration
of imprisonment and without any accessory
PENALTIES; RECLUSION PERPETUA VS. LIFE
penalty.
IMPRISONMENT (2001) 
PROBATION LAW: PROPER PERIOD (2005)

After trial, Judge Juan Laya of the Manila RTC
found Benjamin Garcia guilty of Murder, the victim Maganda was charged with violation of the
having sustained several bullet wounds in his body Bouncing Checks Law (BP 22) punishable by
so that he died despite medical assistance given in imprisonment of not less than 30 days but not
the Ospital ng Manila. Because the weapon used more than 1 year or a fine of not less than but not
by Benjamin was unlicensed and the qualifying more than double the amount of the check, which
circumstance of treachery was found to be fine shall not exceed P200,000.00, or both. The
present. Judge Laya rendered his decision court convicted her of the crime and sentenced her
convicting Benjamin and sentencing him to to pay a fine of P50,000.00 with subsidiary
"reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment". imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the
private complainant the amount of the check.
Are "reclusion perpetua" and life imprisonment the
Maganda was unable to pay the fine but filed a
same and can be imposed interchangeably as in
petition for probation. The court granted the
the foregoing sentence? Or are they totally
petition subject to the condition, among others,
different? State your reasons. (3%)
that she should not change her residence without
The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the penalty the court’s prior approval.
of life Imprisonment are totally different from each
a) What is the proper period of probation?
Prepared by: LJC 73
SUGGESTED ANSWER: On February 3, 1986, Roberto was convicted of

arson through reckless imprudence and sentenced
The period shall not be less than twice the total
to pay a fine of P15,000.00, with subsidiary
number of days of subsidiary imprisonment. Under
imprisonment in case of insolvency by the
Act No. 1732, subsidiary imprisonment for
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.
violations of special laws shall not exceed 6
months at the rate of one day of imprisonment for On February 10, 1986, he appealed to the Court of
every F2.50. Hence, the proper period of probation Appeals. Several months later, he filed a motion to
should not be less than (6 months nor more than withdraw the appeal on the ground that he is
12 months. Since P50,000.00 fine is more than the applying for probation. On May 7, 1987, the Court
maximum subsidiary imprisonment of 6 months at of Appeals granted the motion and considered the
P2.50 a day. appeal withdrawn.
b) Supposing before the Order of Discharge was On June 10, 1987, the records of the case were
issued by the court but after the lapse of the period remanded to the trial court. Roberto filed a
of probation, Maganda transferred residence "Motion for Probation" praying that execution of
without prior approval of the court. May the court his sentence be suspended, and that a probation
revoke the Order of Probation and order her to officer be ordered to conduct an Investigation and
serve the subsidiary imprisonment? Explain. to submit a report on his probation.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The judge denied the motion on the ground that
pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1990, which
Yes. The Court may revoke her probation.
took effect on July 16,1986, no application for
Probation is not coterminous with its period. There
probation shall be entertained or granted if the
must first be issued by the court an order of final
defendant has perfected an appeal from the
discharge based on the report and
judgment of conviction.
recommendation of the probation officer. Only
then can the case of the probationer be Is the denial of Roberto's motion correct?
terminated. (Bala v. Martinez, G.R. No. 67301,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
January 29, 1990, citing Sec. 16 of P.D. No. 968)
Yes. Even if at the time of his conviction Roberto
PROBATION LAW; BARRED BY APPEAL (1994)
Prepared by: LJC 74
was qualified for probation but that at the time of TERM (1997)
his application for probation, he is no longer
The accused was found guilty of grave oral
qualified, he is not entitled to probation. The
defamation in sixteen (16) informations which
qualification for probation must be determined as
were tried jointly and was sentenced in one
of the time the application is filed in Court
decision to suffer in each case a prison term of one
(Bernardo vs. Judge, etal. GRNo. L86561,Nov, 10.
(1) year and one (1) day to one (1) year and eight
1992; Edwin de la Cruz vs. Judge Callejo. et al, SP-
(8) months of prision correccional. Within the
19655, April 18, 1990, citing Llamado vs. CA, et al,
period to appeal, he filed an application for
GR No. 84859, June 28, 1989; Bernardo us. Judge
probation under the Probation Law of 1976, as
Balagot, etal, GR 86561, Nov. 10, 1992).
amended. Could he possibly qualify for probation?
PROBATION LAW; BARRED BY APPEAL (2001)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A, a subdivision developer, was convicted by the
Yes. In Francisco vs. Court of Appeals, 243 SCRA
RTC of Makati for failure to issue the subdivision
384, the Supreme Court held that in case of one
title to a lot buyer despite full payment of the lot,
decision imposing multiple prison terms, the
and sentenced to suffer one year Imprisonment. A
totality of the prison terms should not be taken
appealed the decision of the RTC to the Court of
into account for the purposes of determining the
Appeals but his appeal was dismissed. May A still
eligibility of the accused for the probation. The law
apply for probation? Explain. (5%)
uses the word "maximum term", and not total
SUGGESTED ANSWER: term. It is enough that each of the prison terms
does not exceed six years. The number of offenses
No, A is no longer qualified to apply for probation
is immaterial for as long as the penalties imposed,
after he appealed from the judgment of conviction
when taken individually and separately, are within
by the RTC. The probation law (PD 968, as
the probationable period.
amended by PD1990) now provides that no
application for probation shall be entertained or PROBATION LAW; ORDER DENYING
granted if the accused has perfected an appeal PROBATION; NOT APPEALABLE (2002)
from the judgment of conviction (Sec. 4, PD 968).
 A was charged with homicide. After trial, he was
PROBATION LAW; MAXIMUM TERM VS. TOTAL found guilty and sentenced to six (6) years and one
Prepared by: LJC 75
(1) day in prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve which the penalty imposed on him was thirty days
(12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as only. Is PX entitled to probation? Explain briefly.
maximum. Prior to his conviction, he had been (5%)
found guilty of vagrancy and imprisoned for ten
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(10) days of arresto manor and fined fifty pesos
(P50.00). Is he eligible for probation? Why? (3%) Yes, PX may apply for probation. His previous
conviction for another crime with a penalty of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, he is not entitled to
thirty days imprisonment or not exceeding one (1)
the benefits of the Probation Law (PD 968, as
month does not disqualify him from applying for
amended) does not extend to those sentenced to
probation; the penalty for his present conviction
serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more
does not disqualify him either from applying for
than six years (Sec. 9a).
probation, since the imprisonment does not
It is of no moment that in his previous conviction A exceed six (6) years (Sec. 9, Pres. Decree No. 968).
was given a penalty of only ten (10) days of arresto
PROBATION LAW; RIGHT; BARRED BY APPEAL
mayor and a fine of P50.00.
(1995)
B. May a probationer appeal from the decision
In a case for violation of Sec. 8, RA 6425, otherwise
revoking the grant of probation or modifying the
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act, accused
terms and conditions thereof? (2%) 
Vincent was given the benefit of the mitigating
SUGGESTED ANSWER: circumstances of voluntary plea of guilt and
drunkenness not otherwise habitual. He was
No. Under Section 4 of the Probation Law, as
sentenced to suffer a penalty of six (6) years and
amended, an order granting or denying probation
one (1) day and to pay a fine of P6,000.00 with the
is not appealable.
accessory penalties provided by law, plus costs.
PROBATION LAW; PERIOD COVERED (2004) Vincent applied for probation. The probation
officer favorably recommended his application.
PX was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment
of thirty days and a fine of one hundred pesos. 1. If you were the Judge, what action will you
Previously, PX was convicted of another crime for take on the application? Discuss fully.  
2. Suppose that Vincent was convicted of a
Prepared by: LJC 76
crime for which he was sentenced to a that there is a need to re-examine the doctrine.
maximum penalty of ten (10) years. Under Firstly, much as the accused wanted to apply for
the law, he is not eligible for probation. He probation he is proscribed from doing so as the
seasonably appealed his conviction. While maximum penalty is NOT PROBATIONABLE.
affirming the judgment of conviction, the Secondly, when the maximum penalty was reduced
appellate court reduced the penalty to a to one which allows probation it is but fair and just
maximum of four (4) years and four (4) to grant him that right because it is apparent that
months taking into consideration certain the trial judge committed an error and for which the
modifying circumstances. Vincent now accused should not be made to suffer. Judicial
applies for probation. How will you rule on tribunals in this jurisdiction are not only courts of law
his application? Discuss fully.   but also of equity. Thirdly, the judgment of the
appellate court should be considered a new decision
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
as the trial court's decision was vacated; hence, he
1. If I were the judge, I will deny the application for could take advantage of the law when the decision is
probation. The accused is not entitled to probation remanded to the trial court for execution (Please see
as Sec. 9 of the Probation Law, PD NO. 968, as Dissenting opinion in Francisco vs. CA).
amended, specifically mentions that those who

It is suggested, therefore, that an examinee
"are sentenced to serve a maximum term of
answering in this tenor should be credited with some
imprisonment of more than six years" are not
points.
entitled to the benefits of the law.
PROBATION LAW; RIGHT; BARRED BY APPEAL
2. The law and jurisprudence are to the effect that
(2003)
appeal by the accused from a sentence of
conviction forfeits his right to probation.(Sec. 4, PD Juan was convicted of the Regional Trial Court of a
No. 968. as amended by PD 1990; Bernardo us. crime and sentenced to suffer the penalty of
Balagot; Francisco vs. CA: Llamado vs. CA; De la imprisonment for a minimum of eight years. He
Cruz vs. Judge Callejo, CA case). appealed both his conviction and the penalty
imposed upon him to the Court of Appeals. The
This is the second consecutive year that this question
appellate court ultimately sustained Juan's
was asked. It is the sincere belief of the Committee
conviction but reduced his sentence to a maximum
Prepared by: LJC 77
of four years and eight months imprisonment. at the time of trial under R.A. 9344.
Could Juan forthwith file an application for 3. Suspension of sentence of minor
probation? Explain. 8% above 15 but below 18 years of age
at the commission of the offense,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
while acting with discernment.
No, Juan can no longer avail of the probation 4. Suspension of sentence by reason of
because he appealed from the judgment of insanity (Art. 79, Revised Penal
conviction of the trial court, and therefore, cannot Code).
apply for probation anymore. Section 4 of the 5. Suspension of sentence for first
Probation Law, as amended, mandates that no offense of a minor violating RJV .
application for probation shall be entertained or 9165. (Sec. 32)
granted if the accused has perfected an 6. Suspension of sentence under the

probation law. (P.D. 968)
appeal from the judgment of conviction.
7. Suspension of death sentence of a
SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE; ADULTS/MINORS pregnant woman. (Art. 83, Revised
(2006) Penal Code) (NOTA BENE: R.A.

9344 is outside the coverage of the
There are at least 7 instances or situations in examination)
criminal cases wherein the accused, either as an
adult or as a minor, can apply for and/or be granted SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE; MINORS (2003)
a suspended sentence. Enumerate at least 5 of

A was 2 months below 18 years of age when he
them. (5%)
committed the crime. He was charged with the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: crime 3 months later. He was 23 when he was

finally convicted and sentenced. Instead of
1. Suspension of sentence of minor preparing to serve a jail term, he sought a
under P.D. 603 as amended by R.A. suspension of the sentence on the ground that he
9344. was a juvenile offender Should he be entitled to a
2. Suspension of sentence of minor suspension of sentence? Reasons. 4%
above 15 but below 18 years of age
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Prepared by: LJC 78
No, A is not entitled to a suspension of the SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE; YOUTHFUL

sentence because he is no longer a minor at the OFFENDER (1995)
time of promulgation of the sentence. For
Victor, Ricky, Rod and Ronnie went to the store of
purposes of suspension of sentence, the offender's
Mang Pandoy. Victor and Ricky entered the store
age at the time of promulgation of the sentence is
while Rod and Ronnie posted themselves at the
the one considered, not his age when he
door. After ordering beer Ricky complained that he
committed the crime. So although A was below 18
was shortchanged although Mang Pandoy
years old when he committed the crime, but he
vehemently denied it. Suddenly Ricky whipped out
was already 23 years old when sentenced, he is no
a knife as he announced "Hold-up ito!" and
longer eligible for suspension of the sentence.
stabbed Mang Pandoy to death. Rod boxed the
Can juvenile offenders, who are recidivists, store's salesgirl Lucy to prevent her from helping
validly askforsuspensionofsentence? Explain.4% Mang Pandoy. When Lucy ran out of the store to
seek help from people next door she was chased
by Ronnie. As soon as Ricky had stabbed Mang
Yes, so long as the offender is still a minor at the Pandoy, Victor scooped up the money from the
time of the promulgation of the sentence. The law cash box. Then Victor and Ricky dashed to the
establishing Family Courts, Rep. Act 8369, street and shouted, "Tumakbo na kayo!" Rod was
provides to this effect: that if the minor is found 14 and Ronnie was 17. The money and other
guilty, the court should promulgate the sentence articles looted from the store of Mang Pandoy
and ascertain any civil liability which the accused were later found in the houses of Victor and Ricky.
may have incurred. However, the sentence shall be

1. Discuss fully the criminal liability of Victor, Ricky,
suspended without the need of application
Rod and Ronnie.
pursuant to PD 603, otherwise known as the "Child
and Youth Welfare Code" (RA 8369, Sec. 5a), It is 2. Are the minors Rod and Ronnie entitled to
under PD 603 that an application for suspension of suspended sentence under The Child and Youth
the sentence is required and thereunder it is one of Welfare Code? Explain.
the conditions for suspension of sentence that the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
offender be a first time convict: this has been
displaced by RA 8369. 1 . All are liable for the special complex crime of
Prepared by: LJC 79
robbery with homicide.... Delito continuado refers to a crime constituted by

several overt acts committed by the offender in
2. No, because the benefits of suspension of
one place, at about the same time, and all such
sentence is not available where the youthful
overt acts violate one and the same provision of
offender has been convicted of an offense
penal law, thus demonstrating that all such acts
punishable by life imprisonment or death,
are the product of a single indivisible criminal
pursuant to P.D. No. 603, Art. 192, The complex
relation. Hence, all said acts are considered as one
crime of robbery with homicide is punishable by
crime only.
reclusion perpetua to death under Art. 294 (1), RFC
[People vs. Galit. 230 SCRA 486). HABITUAL DELINQUENCY (2012)
DELITO CONTINUADO (2009) Who is a habitual delinquent? (5%)
No. XIII. a. Angelo devised a Ponzi Scheme in SUGGESTED ANSWER:

which 500 persons were deceived into investing
A person shall be deemed to be habitual
their money upon a promise of a capital return of
delinquent, if within a period of ten year from his
25%, computed monthly, and guaranteed by post-
release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or
dated checks. During the first two months
less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto estafa or
following the investment, the investors received
falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes
their profits, but thereafter, Angelo vanished.
a third time or oftener (Article 62 of the Revised
Angelo was charged with 500 counts of estafa and Penal Code).
2,000 counts of violation of Batas Pambansa (BP)
HABITUAL DELINQUENCY VS. RECIDIVISM
22. In his motion to quash, Angelo contends that
(2012)
he committed a continued crime, or delito
continuado, hence, he committed only one count No. VIII. b. Distinguish habitual delinquency from
of estafa and one count of violation of BP 22. recidivism as to the crimes committed, the period
of time the crimes are committed, the number of
What is delito continuado? (1%)
crimes committed and their effects in relation to
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the penalty to be imposed on a convict. (5%)
Prepared by: LJC 80

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Nature of the aggravating circumstance –

recidivism is ordinary aggravating circumstance,
Difference between recidivism and habitual
the presence of any which will trigger the
delinquency:
application of the penalty for the second crime
(a) Nature of crime – in recidivism, the first crime, committed in its maximum period unless it is off-
and the aggravated second crime are embraced in set by a mitigating or special aggravating
the same Title of the Revised Penal Code. In circumstance, the presence of which will trigger
habitual delinquency, the first, second and third the imposition of additional penalty for the third or
crimes must be a habitual- delinquency crime, and subsequent crime. This is not subject to the off-set
that is, serious or less serious physical injuries, rule.
theft, robbery, estafa or falsification of document.

HEINOUS CRIMES LAW (2010)
Time element – in recidivism, the accused was

No. IV. Because of the barbarity and hideousness
convicted of the first crime by final judgment at
of the acts committed by the
the time of trial of the second crime. In habitual
suspects/respondents in cutting off their victims’
delinquency, the accused was convicted of the first
appendages, stuffing their torsos, legs, body parts
habitual-delinquency crime; within 10 years after into oil drums and bullet- riddled vehicles and later
conviction or release, he was found guilty of on burying these oil drums, vehicles with the use of
habitual-delinquency crime for the second time; backhoes and other earth-moving machinery, the
within 10 years after conviction or release he was Commission on Human Rights (CHR) investigating
found guilty of habitual- delinquency crime for the team recommended to the panel of public
third prosecutors that all respondents be charged with

violation of the "Heinous Crimes Law." The
time or oftener.
prosecution panel agreed with the CHR. As the
(c) Number of crimes – in recidivism, there must be Chief Prosecutor tasked with approving the filing
at least two crimes committed; while in habitual of the Information, how will you pass upon the
delinquency, there must be at least three crimes recommendation? Explain. (5%)
committed.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Prepared by: LJC 81

The CHR is correct in describing the crime shall be that which, in view of the attending
committed as “heinous crimes”, as defined in the circumstances, could be properly imposed under
preamble of the “Henious Crimes Law” (Rep. Act the rules of the said Code, and the minimum which
No. 7659), despite the passage of Rep. Act No. shall be within the range of the penalty next lower
9346 prohibiting the imposition of the death to that prescribed by the Code for the offense. If
penalty. the offense is punishable under a special law, the
court shall sentence the accused to an
However, the “Henious Crimes Law” does not
indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of
define crimes; it is only an amendatory law
which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said
increasing the penalty for the crime specified
law and the minimum shall not be less than the
therein as heinous, to a maximum of death. Thus,
minimum term prescribed by the same (Section 1
the heinous crime committed shall be prosecuted
of Act 4103).
under the penal law they are respectively defined
and penalized, such as the Revised Penal Code as INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW (2007)
the case may be. The circumstances making the
Macky, a security guard, arrived home late one
crimes heinous may be alleged as qualifying or
night after rendering overtime. He was shocked to
generic aggravating, if proper. The crime shall be
see Joy, his wife, and Ken, his best friend, in the act
designated as defined and punished under the
of having sexual intercourse. Macky pulled out his
penal law violated and the penalty shall be
service gun and shot and killed Ken.
reclusion perpetua without the benefit of parole,
as the case may be in lieu of the death penalty. The court found that Ken died under exceptional
circumtances and exonerated Macky of murder but
sentenced him to destierro, conformably with
How is the Indeterminate Sentence Law applied in Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. The court
imposing a sentence? (5%) also ordered Macky to pay indemnity to the heirs
of the victim in the amount of P50,000.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
While serving his sentenced, Macky entered the
If crime is punishable under the Revised Penal
prohibited area and had a pot session with Ivy
Code, the court shall sentenced the accused to an
(Joy’s sister). Is Macky entitled to an indeterminate
indeterminate sentence maximum term of which
Prepared by: LJC 82
sentence in case he is found guilty of the use of the ground that the proper penalty should have
prohibited substances? Explain your answer. been TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of
reclusion temporal.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The defense counsel chimed in, contending that
No, Macky s not entitled to the benefit of the
application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law
Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act 4103, as
should lead to the imposition of a straight penalty
amended) for having evaded the sentence which
of SIX (6) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision
banished or placed him on destierro. Sec. 2 of the
correccional only. Who of the three is on the right
said law expressly provides that the law shall not
track? Explain. (3%)
apply to those who shall have “evaded sentence”.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
None of the contention is correct because the
No, because the penalty for use of any dangerous
Indeterminate Sentence Law for the crime of
drug by a first offender is not imprisonment but
homicide, which is penalized by mprisonment
rehabilitation in a government center for a
exceeding one (1) year and is divisible, is covered
minimum period of six (6) months (Sec. 15, R.A.
by the indeterminate Sentence Law. The said law
9165). The Indeterminate Sentence Law does not
requires that the sentence in this case should
apply when the penalty is imprisonment not
reflect a minimum term for purposes of parole, and
exceeding one year.
a minimum term fixing the limit of the
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW; HOMICIDE imprisonment. Imposing a straight penalty is
(2010) incorrect.
No. I. An agonizing and protracted trial having INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW; HOMICIDE
come to a close, the judge found A guilty beyond (2009)
reasonable doubt of homicide and imposed on him

No. XII. a. In a conviction for homicide, the trial
a straight penalty of SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1)
court appreciated two (2) mitigating circumstances
DAY of prision mayor.
and one (1) aggravating circumstance. Homicide
The public prosecutor objected to the sentence on under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code is
punishable by reclusion temporal, an
Prepared by: LJC 83
imprisonment term of twelve (12) years and one (1) (234 SCRA 555[1994]), it was held that Art. 64 can
day to twenty (20) years. Applying the be applied if the special law adopted the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, determine the nomenclature of penalties provided under the
appropriate penalty to be imposed. Explain. (3%) RPC, such pronouncement cannot be applied in
the instant case because the for illegal possession
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
of drugs under R.A. 9165 do not follow the
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the technical nomenclature of penalties in the RPC and
minimum of the sentence shall be anywhere within thus, cannot be divided into periods. Hence, the
the range of 6 years and 1 day to 12 years existence of mitigating and aggravating
imprisonment within the maximum of the circumstances cannot be appreciated.
sentence shall be anywhere within the range of

PENALTIES; CIVIL LIABILITY (2010)
Reclusion Temporal minimum i.e., not lower than
12 years and 1 day to not more than 14 years and 8 On her way home, Eva Marie saw an injured chow
months. chow puppy behind a bush. Since the puppy did
not have a collar, she brought it home so she could
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW; ILLEGAL
have it as a pet. Her son in fact begged Eva Marie
POSSESSION OF DRUGS (2009)
to keep the puppy. The following day, Eva Marie
Will your answer be the same if it is a conviction for bought a collar for the puppy and brought it to a
illegal possession of drugs under R.A. 9165 veterinarian for treatment.
(Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), the prescribed

Did she incur civil liability? Explain. (2%)
penalty of which is also imprisonment for a term of
twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
years? Why or why not? (3%)
Eva Marie may incur civil liability if the owner of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the puppy would incur a loss due to non-restitution
or return thereof to the owner. Finding any
No, my answer will not be the same because
property of value, legally regarded as lost
violations of Rep. Act 9165 are mala prohibita in
property, would constitute theft if the finder failed
which mitigating and aggravating circumstances
to deliver the same to the local authorities or to its
are not appreciated. Although in People v. Simon
owner (Art. 308 par. 1). Once Eva Marie is found
Prepared by: LJC 84
guilty of theft, she will incur civil liability, which as maximum. Bruno was entitled to two
consists of restitution or reparation for damage priviledged mitigating circumstances of
caused and indemnification for consequential incomplete self-defense and the presence of at
damages (Art. 100 RPC). The general rule is: a least two ordinary mitigating circumstances
person who is criminally liable is also civilly liable. without any aggravating circumstance under
Articles 69 and 64(5) of the Revised Penal Code,
PENALTIES; HOMICIDE (2013)
respectively, which lower the prescribed penalty
Bruno was charged with homicide for killing the for homicide which is reclusion temporal to prision
75-year old owner of his rooming house. The correccional.
prosecution proved that Bruno stabbed the owner

There is incomplete self-defense because Bruno
causing his death; and that the killing happened at
proved that it was the victim who first attacked
10 in the evening in the house where the victim
him and did so without provocation of his part.
and Bruno lived. Bruno, on the other hand,
There is, however, no reasonable necessity of the
successfully proved that he voluntarily surrendered
means employed to defend himself, after Bruno
to the authorities; that he pleaded guilty to the
used a knife to stab the weaponless victim. There
crime charged; that it was the victim who first
are also no aggravating circumstances present,
attacked and did so without any provocation on his
because it was not shown that Bruno disregarded
(Bruno's) part, but he prevailed because he
the age of the victim or that nighttime facilitated
managed to draw his knife with which he stabbed
the commission of the crime; moreover, dwelling
the victim. The penalty for homicide is reclusion
cannot be appreciated because the crime
temporal.
happened in the house where both Bruno and the
Assuming a judgment of conviction and after victim lived. In contrast, there are two mitigating
considering the attendant circumstances, what circumstances, namely, voluntary surrender and
penalty should the judge impose? (7%) plea of guilt. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, the maximum term of the medium period
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
and the minimum term should be within the range
Bruno should be sentenced to an indeterminate of the penalty next lower in degree or arresto
sentence penalty of arresto mayor in any of its mayor in any of its period.
period to precion correccional in its medium period

Prepared by: LJC 85
PENALTIES; PERPETUAL ABSOLUTE convict because the penalty is without a fixed

DISQUALIFICATION (2007) duration, unlike the penalty of reclusion perpetua
which has a fixed duration of 40 years and the
What are the penalties that may be served
convict may be eligible for pardon after 30 years of
simultaneously? (10%)
imprisonment (People v. Penillos, 205 SCRA 546
SUGGESTED ANSWER: [1992])
The penalties that may be served simultaneously PROBATION LAW; PERIOD COVERED (2009)
are imprisonment/destierro and:

Joe was 17 years old when he committed homicide
Probation Law; Period Covered (2009) in 2005. The crime is punishable by reclusion
temporal. After two years in hiding, he was
1. Perpetual absolute disqualification;  
arrested and appropriately charged in May 2007.
2. Perpetual special disqualification;  
Since Republic Act 9344 (Juvenile Justice and
3. Temporary absolute  disqualification;  
Welfare Act of 2006) was already in effect,
4. Temporary special  disqualification;  
5. Suspension from public office, the  right to Joe moved to avail of the process of intervention
vote and be voted for, and   the right to or diversion.
follow a profession or calling;

Suppose Joe was convicted of attempted murder
Fine; and any principal penalty with its
with a special aggravating circumstance and was
accessory penalties.
denied suspension of sentence, would he be
eligible for probation under Presidential Decree
PENALTIES; RECLUSION PERPETUA VS. LIFE (PD) 968, considering that the death penalty is
IMPRISONMENT (2009) imposable for the consummated felony? Explain.

(2%)
Life imprisonment is a penalty more favorable to
the convict than reclusion perpetua. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, he would be eligible for probation because the

penalty imposable on Joe will not exceed 6 years
False, Life Imprisonment is unfavorable to a
imprisonment.
Prepared by: LJC 86
Even if it would be considered that the crime time offenders, their petitions for probation should
committed was punishable by death, the penalty be granted. How would you resolve the brothers’
as far as Joe I concerned can only be reclusion petitions for probation? Explain. (3%)
perpetua because RA 9344 forbids the imposition
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
of the capital punishment upon offenders
thereunder. The brother’s petition for prohibition should be
denied.
The brother‟s petition for prohibition. The murder
being attempted only, the prescribed penalty is Matt‟s petition for probation shall be denied
two degree lower than reclusion perpetua; hence, because he was convicted for drug-trafficking.
prision mayor. Because Joe was 17 years old when Section 24 of R.A. 9165 (Comprehensive
he committed the crime, the penalty of prision Dangerous Drug Act of 2002) expressly provides,
mayor should be lowered further by one degree “Any person convicted for drug trafficking or
because his minority is a privilege mitigating pushing under this Act, regardless of the penalty
circumstance; hence, prision correccional or imposed by the court, cannot avail of the privilege
imprisonment within the range of ix months and 1 granted by the Probation Law or Presidential
day to 6 years is the imposable. Decree No. 968, as amended.”
PROBATION LAW; ORDER DENYING SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE; ADULTS/MINORS

PROBATION (2010) (2013)
Matt was found guilty of drug trafficking while his Michael was 17 years old when he was charged for
younger brother Jeff was found guilty of violation of Sec. 5 of R.A. 9165 (illegal sale of
possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus prohibited drug). By the time he was convicted and
and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs sentenced, he was already 21 years old. The court
under Section 12 of Republic Act No. 9165. sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate penalty
of imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day of
Matt filed a petition for probation. Jeff appealed
prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17)
his conviction during the pendency of which he
years and four(4) months of reclusion temporal, as
also filed a petition for probation.
maximum, and a fine of P500,000.Michael applied
The brothers’ counsel argued that they being first for probation but his application was denied
Prepared by: LJC 87
because the probation law does not apply to drug Joe was 17 years old when he committed homicide
offenders under R.A. 9165. Michael then sought in 2005. The crime is punishable by reclusion
the suspension of his sentence under R.A. 9344 or temporal. After two years in hiding, he was
the Juvenile Justice and Youth Welfare Code. arrested and appropriately charged in May 2007.
Since Republic Act 9344 (Juvenile Justice and
Can Michael avail of the suspension of his sentence
Welfare Act of 2006) was already in effect, Joe
provided under this law? (7%)
moved to avail of the process of intervention or
SUGGESTED ANSWER: diversion.
The benefits of a suspended sentence can no Suppose Joe’s motion for intervention or diversion
longer apply to Machel. The suspension of was denied, and he was convicted two (2) years
sentence lasts only until the law reaches the later when Joe was already 21 years old, should the
maximum age and thus, could no longer be judge apply the suspension of sentence? Explain.
considered a child for purposes of applying Rep. (2%)
Act No. 9344. However, he shall be entitled to the

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
right of restoration, rehabilitation and
reintegration in accordance with the law to give No, the judge should not suspend sentence
him the chance to live a normal life and become a anymore because Joe was already 21 years old.
productive member of the community. Suspension of sentence is availing under RA 9344
Accordingly, Michael may be confined in an only until a child reaches the maximum age of
agricultural camp and other training facility in twenty-one (21) years.
accordance with Section 51 of Rep. Act No. 9344
EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
(People v. Jacinto, GR No. 182239, March 16, 2011;
People v. Salcedo, GR. No. 186523, June 22, 2011; AMNESTY VS. PD 1160 (2006)
Padua v. People, GR No. 1683, July 23, 2008 and
People v. Sarcia, GR No. 169641, September 10, Can former DSWD Secretary Dinky Soliman apply
2009). for amnesty? How about columnist Randy David?

(You are supposed to know the crimes or offenses
SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE; ADULTS/MINORS ascribed to them as published in almost all
(2009) newspapers for the past several months.) (2.5%)
Prepared by: LJC 88
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 2. REBELLION OR INSURRECTION;

3. DISLOYALTY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS OR
Proclamation 1160, which amended Proclamation
EMPLOYEES;
724, applies only to offenses committed prior to
4. INCITING TO REBELLION OR
1999. Thus, their applications shall be ineffectual
INSURRECTION;
and useless.
5. CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT REBELLION OR
General Lim and General Querubin of the Scout INSURRECTION;
Rangers and Philippine Marines, respectively, were 6. PROPOSAL TO COMMIT REBELLION OR
changed with conduct unbecoming an officer and INSURRECTION;
a gentleman under the Articles of War. Can they 7. SEDITION;
apply for amnesty? (2.5%) 8. CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SEDITION;

9. INCITING TO SEDITION;
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
10. ILLEGAL ASSEMBLY;
Proclamation 1160, which amended Proclamation 11. ILLEGAL ASSOCIATION;
724, applies only to offenses committed prior to 12. DIRECT ASSAULT;
1999. Thus, 13. INDIRECT ASSAULT;

14. RESISTANCE AND DISOBEDIENCE TO A
their applications shall be ineffectual and useless. PERSON IN AUTHORITY;
15. TUMULTS AND OTHER DISTURBANCES;
AMNESTY; CRIMES COVERED (2006)
16. UNLAWFUL USE OF MEANS OF
Under Presidential Proclamation No. 724, PUBLICAITONS AND UNLAWFUL
amending Presidential Proclamation No. 347, UTTERANCES;
certain crimes are covered by the grant of 17. ALARM AND SCANDAL
amnesty. Name at least 5 of these crimes. (2.5%) 18. ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: EXTINCTION; CRIMINAL & CIVIL LIABILITIES;

EFFECTS; DEATH OF ACCUSED PENDING
Crimes covered under Presidential Proclamation
APPEAL (2004) 
No. 724:
AX was convicted of reckless imprudence resulting

1. COUP D’ETAT
Prepared by: LJC 89
in homicide. The trial court sentenced him to a Court of the same province, Lorna who was then
prison term as well as to pay P150,000 as civil suffering from breast cancer, died. Alma
indemnity and damages. While his appeal was manifested to the court that with Lorna's death,
pending, AX met a fatal accident. He left a young her (Alma's) criminal and civil liabilities are now
widow, 2 children, and a million-peso estate. What extinguished. Is Alma's contention correct? What if
is the effect, if any, of his death on his criminal as it were Alma who died, would it affect her criminal
well as civil liability? Explain briefly. (5%) and civil liabilities? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The death of AX while his appeal from the No. Alma's contention is not correct. The death of
judgment of the trial court is pending, extinguishes the offended party does not extinguish the
his criminal liability. The civil liability insofar as it criminal liability of the offender, because the
arises from the crime and recoverable under the offense is committed against the State [People vs.
Revised Penal Code is also extinguished; but Misola, 87 Phil. 830, 833). Hence, it follows that the
indemnity and damages may be recovered in a civil civil liability of Alma based on the offense
action if predicated on a source of obligation under committed by her is not extinguished. The estate
Art. 1157, Civil Code, such as law, contracts, quasi- of Lorna can continue the case.
contracts and quasi-delicts, but not on the basis of
On the other hand, if it were Alma who died
delicts. (People v. Bayotas, 236 SCRA 239 ).
pending appeal of her conviction, her criminal
Civil indemnity and damages under the Revised liability shall be extinguished and therewith the
Penal Code are recoverable only if the accused had civil liability under the Revised Penal Code (Art. 89,
been convicted with finality before he died. par. 1, RPC). However, the claim for civil indemnity
may be instituted under the Civil Code (Art. 1157) if
EXTINCTION; CRIMINAL & CIVIL LIABILITIES;
predicated on a source of obligation other than
EFFECTS; DEATH OF OFFENDED PARTY (2000)
delict, such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts and
For defrauding Lorna, Alma was charged before quasi-delicts (People vs. Bayotas 236 SCRA 239,
the Municipal Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan. G.R. 152007, September 2. 1994)
After a protracted trial, Alma was convicted. While
PARDON VS. AMNESTY (2006)
the case was pending appeal in the Regional Trial
Prepared by: LJC 90
Enumerate the differences between pardon and e) PARDON being a private act by the
amnesty. (2.5%)  President, must be pleaded and proved by the
person pardoned, while AMNESTY which is a
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Proclamation of the Chief Executive with the
a) PARDON includes any crime and is concurrence of Congress is a public act of
exercised  individually by the President, while which the courts should take judicial notice.  
AMNESTY applies to classes of persons or

PARDON; EFFECT; CIVIL INTERDICTION (2004)
communities who may be guilty of political
offenses.   TRY was sentenced to death by final judgment.
But subsequently he was granted pardon by the
b) PARDON is exercised when the person is
President. The pardon was silent on the perpetual
already convicted, while AMNESTY may be
disqualification of TRY to hold any public office.
exercised even before trial or investigation.  
After his pardon, TRY ran for office as Mayor of
c) PARDON looks forward and relieves the APP, his hometown. His opponent sought to
offender of the penalty of the offense for which disqualify him. TRY contended he is not
he has been convicted; it does not work for the disqualified because he was already pardoned by
restoration of the rights to hold public office, or the President unconditionally. Is TRY'S contention
the right of suffrage, unless such rights are correct? Reason briefly. (5%)
expressly restored by means of pardon, while

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
AMNESTY looks backward and abolishes the
offense and its effects, as if the person had No, TRY's contention is not correct. Article 40 of
committed no offense.   the Revised Penal Code expressly provides that
when the death penalty is not executed by reason
d) PARDON does not alter the fact that the
of commutation or pardon, the accessory penalties
accused is criminally liable as it produces only
of perpetual absolute disqualification and civil
the extinction of the penalty, while AMNESTY
interdiction during thirty (30) years from the date
removes the criminal liability of the offender
of the sentence shall remain as effects thereof,
because it obliterates every vestige of the
unless such accessory penalties have been
crime.  
expressly remitted in the pardon. This is because
Prepared by: LJC 91

pardon only excuses the convict from serving the The Office of the President dismissed the appeal
sentence but does not relieve him of the effects of and held that acquittal, not absolute pardon. Is the
the conviction unless expressly remitted in the only ground for reinstatement to one's former
pardon. position and that the absolute pardon does not
exempt the culprit from payment of civil liability.
PARDON; EFFECT; REINSTATEMENT (1994)
Is Linda entitled to reinstatement?
Linda was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of
estafa, through falsification of public document. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
She was sentenced accordingly and ordered to
No, Linda is not entitled to reinstatement to her
pay, among others, P5,000.00 representing the
former position inasmuch as her right thereto had
balance of the amount defrauded.
been relinquished or forfeited by reason of her
The case reached the Supreme Court which conviction. The absolute pardon merely
affirmed the judgment of conviction. During the extinguished her criminal liability, removed her
pendency of Linda's motion for reconsideration in disqualification, and restored her eligibility for
the said Court, the President extended to her an appointment to that office. She has to re-apply for
absolute pardon which she accepted. such position and under the usual procedure
required for a new appointment. Moreover, the
By reason of such pardon, she wrote the
pardon does not extinguish the civil liability arising
Department of Finance requesting that she be
from the crime. (Monsanto vs.Factoran, Jr., 170
restored to her former post as assistant treasurer,
SCRA 191); see Art. 36, RPC)
which is still vacant. The Department ruled that
Linda may be reinstated to her former position PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES; BIGAMY (1995)
without the necessity of a new appointment and
Joe and Marcy were married in Batanes in 1955.
directed the City Treasurer to see to it that the sum
After two years, Joe left Marcy and settled in
of P5,000.00 be satisfied.
Mindanao where he later met and married Linda
Claiming that she should not be made to pay on 12 June 1960. The second marriage was
P5,000.00, Linda appealed to the Office of the registered in the civil registry of Davao City three
President. days after its celebration. On 10 October 1975
Marcy who remained in Batanes discovered the
Prepared by: LJC 92
marriage of Joe to Linda. On 1 March 1976 Marcy 233 SCRA 155)

filed a complaint for bigamy against Joe.
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES; COMMENCEMENT
The crime of bigamy prescribed in fifteen years (2000)
computed from the day the crime is discovered by
One fateful night in January 1990, while 5-year old
the offended party, the authorities or their agents.
Albert was urinating at the back of their house, he
Joe raised the defense of prescription of the crime,
heard a strange noise coming from the kitchen of
more than fifteen years having elapsed from the
their neighbor and playmate, Ara. When he
celebration of the bigamous marriage up to the
peeped inside, he saw Mina, Ara's stepmother,
filing of Marcy's complaint. He contended that the
very angry and strangling the 5-year old Ara to
registration of his second marriage in the civil
death. Albert saw Mina carry the dead body of Ara,
registry of Davao City was constructive notice to
place it inside the trunk of her car and drive away.
the whole world of the celebration thereof thus
The dead body of Ara was never found. Mina
binding upon Marcy.
spread the news in the neighborhood that Ara
Has the crime of bigamy charged against Joe went to live with her grandparents in Ormoc City.
already prescribed? Discuss fully. For fear of his life, Albert did not tell anyone, even
his parents and relatives, about what he witnessed.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Twenty and a half (20 & 1/2) years after the
 No. The prescriptive period for the crime of incident, and right after his graduation in
bigamy is computed from the time the crime was Criminology, Albert reported the crime to NBI
discovered by the offended party, the authorities authorities. The crime of homicide prescribes in 20
or their agents. The principle of constructive notice years. Can the state still prosecute Mina for the
which ordinarily applies to land or property death of Ara despite the lapse of 20 & 1/2 years?
disputes should not be applied to the crime of Explain, (5%)
bigamy, as marriage is not property. Thus when

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Marcy filed a complaint for bigamy on 7 March
1976, it was well within the reglamentary period as Yes, the State can still prosecute Mina for the
it was barely a few months from the time of death of Ara despite the lapse of 20 & 1/2 years.
discovery on 10 October 1975. (Sermonia vs. CA, Under Article 91, RPC, the period of prescription
Prepared by: LJC 93

commences to run from the day on which the not even commenced to run.
crime is discovered by the offended party, the
The period of prescription of a crime shall
authorities or their agents. In the case at bar, the
commence to run only from the day on which the
commission of the crime was known only to
crime has been discovered by the offended party,
Albert, who was not the offended party nor an
the authorities or their agents (Art. 91, Revised
authority or an agent of an authority. It was
Penal Code). OW, a private person who saw the
discovered by the NBI authorities only when Albert
killing but never disclosed it, is not the offended
revealed to them the commission of the crime.
party nor has the crime been discovered by the
Hence, the period of prescription of 20 years for
authorities or their agents.
homicide commenced to run only from the time
Albert revealed the same to the NBI authorities. PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES; CONCUBINAGE
(2001)
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES; COMMENCEMENT
(2004) On June 1, 1988, a complaint for concubinage
committed in February 1987 was filed against
OW is a private person engaged in cattle ranching.
Roberto in the Municipal Trial Court of Tanza,
One night, he saw AM stab CV treacherously, then
Cavite for purposes of preliminary investigation.
throw the dead man's body into a ravine. For 25
For various reasons, it was only on July 3, 1998
years, CVs body was never seen nor found; and
when the Judge of said court decided the case by
OW told no one what he had witnessed. Yesterday
dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction since the crime
after consulting the parish priest, OW decided to
was committed in Manila. The case was
tell the authorities what he witnessed, and
subsequently filed with the City Fiscal of Manila
revealed that AM had killed CV 25 years ago. Can
but it was dismissed on the ground that the crime
AM be prosecuted for murder despite the lapse of
had already prescribed. The law provides that the
25 years? Reason briefly. (5%)
crime of concubinage prescribes in ten (10) years.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Was the dismissal by the fiscal correct? Explain,
Yes, AM can be prosecuted for murder despite the (5%)
lapse of 25 years, because the crime has not yet
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
prescribed and legally, its prescriptive period has
Prepared by: LJC 94

No, the Fiscal's dismissal of the case on alleged final on January 10, 1987. On June 18, 1994
prescription is not correct. The filing of the a case of giving false testimony was filed
complaint with the Municipal Trial Court, although against Andrew. As his lawyer, what legal
only for preliminary investigation, interrupted and step will you take?  
suspended the period of prescription in as much as
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the jurisdiction of a court in a criminal case is
determined by the allegations in the complaint or 1) Yes. ...
information, not by the result of proof. (People vs.
2) As lawyer of Andrew, I will file a motion to quash
Galano. 75 SCRA 193)
the Information on the ground of prescription. The
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES; FALSE TESTIMONY crime of false testimony under Art. 180 has
(1994) prescribed because Paolo, the accused in the
principal case, was acquitted on January 10, 1987
Paolo was charged with homicide before the
and therefore the penalty prescribed for such
Regional Trial Court of Manila. Andrew, a
crime is arresto mayor under Art. 180, par. 4, RPC.
prosecution witness, testified that he saw Paolo
shoot Abby during their heated argument. While Crimes punishable by arresto mayor prescribes in
the case is still pending, the City Hall of Manila five (5) years (Art. 90, par. 3, RPC). But the case
burned down and the entire records of the case against Andrew was filed only on June 18, 1994,
were destroyed. Later, the records were whereas the principal criminal case was decided
reconstituted. Andrew was again called to the with finality on January 10, 1987 and, thence the
witness stand. This time he testified that his first prescriptive period of the crime commenced to
testimony was false and the truth was he was run. From January 10, 1987 to June 18, 1994 is
abroad when the crime took place. more than five (5) years.
The judge immediately ordered the prosecution of PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES; SIMPLE SLANDER
Andrew for giving a false testimony favorable to (1997)
the defendant in a criminal case.
A was charged in an information with the crime of
1. Will the case against Andrew prosper?   grave oral defamation but after trial, the court
2. Paolo was acquitted. The decision became found him guilty only of the offense of simple
Prepared by: LJC 95
slander. He filed a motion for reconsideration by the simple expediment of filing a graver offense
contending that, under the law, the crime of which includes such light offense.
simple slander would have prescribed in two
b) While the general rule is the failure of an
months from commission, and since the
accused to file a motion to quash before he pleads
information against him was filed more than four
to the complaint or information, shall be deemed a
months after the alleged commission of the crime,
waiver of the grounds of a motion to quash, the
the same had already prescribed.
exceptions to this are: (1) no offense was charged
The Solicitor General opposed the motion on two in the complaint or information; (2) lack of
grounds: first, in determining the prescriptive Jurisdiction; (3) extinction of the offense or
period, the nature of the offense charged in the penalty; and (4) double jeopardy. Since the ground
Information should be considered, not the crime invoked by the accused in his motion for
proved; second, assuming that the offense had reconsideration is extinction of the offense, then it
already prescribed, the defense was waived by the can be raised even after plea. In fact, it may even
failure of A to raise it in a motion to quash. be invoked on appeal (People vs. Balagtas)
Resolve the motion for reconsideration. CIVIL LIABILITY
SUGGESTED ANSWER: CIVIL LIABILITY; EFFECT OF ACQUITTAL (2000)
The motion for reconsideration should be Name at least two exceptions to the general rule
granted.- that in case of acquittal of the accused in a criminal
case, his civil liability is likewise extinguished.
a) The accused cannot be convicted of the offense
(2%) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
of simple slander although it is necessarily included
in the offense of grave slander charged in the Exceptions to the rule that acquittal from a
information, because, the lesser offense had criminal case extinguishes civil liability, are:
already prescribed at the time the information was
a. When the civil action is based on
filed (People us. Rarang, (CA) 62 O.G. 6468;
obligations not  arising from the act
Francisco vs. CA, 122 SCRA 538; Magat vs. People.
complained of as a felony;  
201 SCRA 21) otherwise prosecutors can easily
b. When acquittal is based on
circumvent the rule of prescription in light offenses
Prepared by: LJC 96
reasonable doubt or acquittal is on 7:00 p.m. Beside B was C. The car stopped at an
the ground that guilt has not been intersection because of the red signal of the traffic
proven beyond reasonable doubt light. While waiting for the green signal, C
(Art. 29, New Civil  Code);   beckoned A to buy some cigarettes. A approached
c. Acquittal due to an exempting the car and handed two sticks of cigarettes to C.
circumstance, like  Insanity;   While the transaction was taking place, the traffic
d. Where the court states in its light changed to green and the car immediately
Judgment that the case  merely sped off. As the car continued to speed towards
involves a civil obligation;   Quiapo, A clung to the window of the car but lost
e. Where there was a proper his grip and fell down on the pavement. The car did
reservation for the filing  of a not stop. A suffered serious injuries which
separate civil action;   eventually caused his death. C was charged with
f. In cases of independent civil actions ROBBERY with HOMICIDE. In the end, the Court
provided for in  Arts. 31, 32, 33 and was not convinced with moral certainty that the
34 of the New Civil Code;   guilt of C has been established beyond reasonable
g. When the judgment of acquittal doubt and, thus, acquitted him on the ground of
includes a declaration that the fact reasonable doubt.
from which the civil liability  might
Can the family of the victim still recover civil
arise did not exist (Sapiera vs. CA,
damages in view of the acquittal of C? Explain.
314 SCRA 370);  
(5%) 
h. Where the civil liability is not
derived or based on the criminal act SUGGESTED ANSWER: 
of which the accused is acquitted
Yes, as against C, A's family can still recover civil
 (Sapiera vs. CA. 314 SCRA 370).  
damages despite C's acquittal. When the accused
CIVIL LIABILITY; EFFECT OF ACQUITTAL (2000) in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the
ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond
A was a 17-year old working student who was
reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for
earning his keep as a cigarette vendor. B was
the same act or omission may be instituted. Such
driving a car along busy Espana Street at about
action requires only a preponderance of evidence
Prepared by: LJC 97
{Art. 29, CC). writ of execution against Max. The latter opposed
the motion on-the ground that the decision made
If A's family can prove the negligence of B by
no mention of his subsidiary liability and that he
preponderance of evidence, the civil action for
was not impleaded in the case.
damages against B will prosper based on quasi-
delict. Whoever by act or omission causes damage How will you resolve the motion? [5%]
to another, there being fault or negligence, is
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or
negligence, about pre-existing contractual relation The motion is to be granted. Max as an employer
between the parties, is called a quasi- delict [Art. of Guy and engaged in an industry (transportation
2176, CC). This is entirely separate and distinct business) where said employee is utilized, is
from civil liability arising from negligence under subsidiarily civilly liable under Article 103 of the
the Penal Code [Arts, 31, 2176, 2177, CC}. Revised Penal Code. Even though the decision
made no mention of his subsidiary liability, the law
CIVIL LIABILITY; SUBSIDIARY; EMPLOYERS
violated (Revised Penal Code) itself mandates for
(1998)
such liability and Max is deemed to know it
Guy, while driving a passenger jeepney owned and because ignorance of the law is never excused.
operated by Max, bumped Demy, a pedestrian And since his liability is not primary but only
crossing the street. Demy sustained injuries which subsidiary in case his employee cannot pay; he
required medical attendance for three months. need not be impleaded in the in the criminal case.
Guy was charged with reckless imprudence It suffices that he was duly notified of the motion
resulting to physical injuries. Convicted by the for issuance of a subsidiary writ of execution
Metropolitan Trial Court. Guy was sentenced to
and thus given the opportunity to be heard.
suffer a straight penalty of three months of arresto
mayor and ordered to indemnify Demy in the sum CIVIL LIABILITY; WHEN MANDATORY;
of P5,000 and to pay P1,000 as attorney's fees. CRIMINAL LIABILITY (2005)
Upon finality of the decision, a writ of execution The accused was found guilty of 10 counts of rape
was served upon Guy, but was returned unsatisfied for having carnal knowledge with the same
due to his insolvency. Demy moved for a subsidiary woman. In addition to the penalty of
Prepared by: LJC 98
imprisonment, he was ordered to pay indemnity in SUGGESTED ANSWER:

the amount of P50,000.00 for each count. On
The court may award temperate damages in the
appeal, the accused questions the award of civil
amount of twenty-five (P25,000.00) thousand
indemnity for each count, considering that the
pesos. Under jurisprudence, temperate damages is
victim is the same woman.
awarded in homicide when no sufficient proof of
How would you rule on the contention of the actual damages is offered or if the actual damages
accused? Explain. (3%)  proven is less than twenty-five thousand (P25,000)
(People v. Salona, G.R. No. 151251, May 19, 2004).
AMNESTY (2009)
The contention is unmeritorious. Under the law,
every person criminally liable is civilly liable. (Art. No. II. Antero Makabayan was convicted of the
100, Revised Penal Code) Since each count charges crime of Rebellion. While serving sentence, he
different felonious acts and ought to be punished escaped from jail. Captured, he was charged with,
differently, the concomitant civil indemnity ex and convicted of, Evasion of Service of Sentence.
delicto for every criminal act should be adjudged. Thereafter, the President of the Philippines issued
Said civil indemnity is mandatory upon a finding of an amnesty proclamation for the offense of
the fact of rape; it is distinct from and should not Rebellion. Antero applied for and was granted the
be denominated as moral damages which are benefit of the amnesty proclamation.
based on different jural foundations. (People v.
Antero then filed a petition for habeas corpus,
Jalosjos, G.R. Nos. 132875-76, November 16, 2001)
praying for his immediate release from
DAMAGES; HOMICIDE; TEMPERATE DAMAGES confinement. He claims that the amnesty extends
(2006) to the offense of Evasion of Service of Sentence.
As judge, will you grant the petition? Discuss fully.
In a crime of homicide, the prosecution failed to
(4%)
present any receipt to substantiate the heirs' claim
for an award of actual damages, such as expenses SUGGESTED ANSWER;
for the wake and burial. What kind of damages
Yes, I will grant the petition because the sentence
may the trial court award to them and how much?
evaded proceeded from the offender as a crime of
(5%)
Prepared by: LJC 99
Rebellion which has been obliterated by the grant RUN (2010)

of amnesty to the offender (Art. 89[3], RPC).
A killed his wife and buried her in their backyard.
Since the amnesty erased the criminal complexion He immediately went into hiding in the mountains.
of the act committed by the offender as a crime of
Three years later, the bones of A’s wife were
rebellion and rendered such act a though innocent,
discovered by X, the gardener. Since X had a
the sentence lost its legal basis. The purported
standing warrant of arrest, he hid the bones in an
evasion thereof therefore cannot subsist (People
old clay jar and kept quiet about it. After two
v. Patriarca, 341 SCRA 464[200]).
years, Z, the caretaker, found the bones and
Amnesty obliterates, not only the basis of reported the matter to the police.
conviction, bur also all the legal effect thereof.
After 15 years of hiding, A left the country but
PARDON; EFFECT (2009) returned three years later to take care of his ailing
sibling. Six years thereafter, he was charged with
No. I. a. Amado, convicted of rape but granted an
parricide but raised the defense of prescription.
absolute pardon by the President, and one year
thereafter, convicted of homicide, is a recidivist. Under the Revised Penal Code, when does the
period of prescription of a crime commence to
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
run? (1%)
True, rape is now a crime against persons and, like

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the crime of homicide, is embraced in the same
Title of the Revised penal Code under which Generally, the period of prescription of a crime
Amado had been previously convicted by final commences to run from the date it was
judgment. The absolute pardon granted him for committed; but if the crime was committed
rape, only excuse him from serving the sentence clandestinely, the period of prescription of the
for rape but did not erase the effect of the crimes under the Revised Penal Code commence
conviction therefore unless expressly remitted by to run from the day on which the crime was
the pardon. discovered by the offended party, the authorities
or their agents (Art. 91, RPC).
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES; COMMENCE TO
Prepared by: LJC 100

PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES; DISCOVERY RULE punishable by an afflictive penalty which

(2009) prescribes within twenty (20) year, whereas only
around ten (10) years ha lapsed from January 2,
Baldo killed Conrad in a dark corner, at midnight,
1970 (when the authorities discovered the
on January 2, 1960. Dominador witnessed the
commission of the crime) to January 2, 1980 (when
entire incident, but he was so scared to tell the
the accused was charged in court).
authorities about it. On January 2, 1970,
Dominador, bothered by his conscience, reported PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES; INTERRUPTED
the matter to the police. After investigation, the (2010)
police finally arrested Baldo on January 6, 1980.
Charged in court, Baldo claims that the crime he
He immediately went into hiding in the mountains.
committed had already prescribed. Is Baldo’s
contention correct? Explain. (3%) a standing warrant of arrest, he hid the bones in an
old clay jar and kept quiet about it. After two
SUGGESTED ANWER:
years, Z, the caretaker, found the bones and
No, Baldo‟s contention is not correct because the reported the matter to the police. After 15 years of
crime committed has not yet prescribed. The hiding, A left the country but returned three years
prescriptive period of the crime committed later to take care of his ailing sibling. Six years
commenced to run only after it was report to the thereafter, he was charged with parricide but
police on January 2, 1970, not on the date it was raised the defense of prescription. Three years
clandestinely committed on January 2, 1960. later, the bones of A’s wife were discovered by X,
Under the discovery rule, which govern when the the gardener. Since X had a standing warrant of
crime is not publicly committed, the prescriptive arrest, he hid the bones in an old clay jar and kept
period of a crime commences to run only from the quiet about it. After two years, Z, the caretaker,
day on which the crime is discovered by the found the bones and reported the matter to the
offended party, the authorities or their agents: in police. When is it interrupted? (1%)
this case, from January 2, 1970 when it made
known to the police authorities until January 2,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1980, when Balo was arrested and charged. The
killing committed, whether homicide or murder, is The running of the prescriptive period of the crime
is interrupted when “any kind of investigative the crime is deemed legally discovered by the
proceeding is instituted against the guilty person authorities or their agents and thus the
which may ultimately lead to his prosecution” prescriptive period of the crime commenced to
(Panaguiton, Jr. v. Dept. of Justice, G.R. No. run.
167571, Nov. 25, 2008).
When A left the country and returned only after
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES; PARRICIDE (2010) three (3) year, the running of the prescriptive
period of the crime is interrupted and suspended
because prescription shall not run when the
He immediately went into hiding in the mountains.
offender is absent from the Philippine Archipelago
Three years later, the bones of A’s wife were (Art. 91, RPC).
discovered by X, the gardener. Since X had a

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
standing warrant of arrest, he hid the bones in an
old clay jar and kept quiet about it. After two Since A had been in hiding for 15 years after the
years, Z, the caretaker, found the bones and commission of the crime and the prescriptive
reported the matter to the police. period started running only after 5 years from such
commission when the crime was discovered, only
After 15 years of hiding, A left the country but
10 years lapsed and 3 years thereof should be
returned three years later to take care of his ailing
deducted when the prescriptive period was
sibling. Six years thereafter, he was charged with
interrupted and suspended. Hence, the 3 years.
parricide but raised the defense of prescription.
Is A’s defense tenable? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the defense of prescription of the crime is not

tenable. The crime committed is parricide which
prescribes in twenty (20) years (Art. 90, RPC). It
was only when the care-taker, Z found the victim‟s
bones and reported the matter to the police that


Bar Qs 1990 2015 Updated CRIMINAL LAW

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bar Qs 1990 2015 Updated CRIMINAL LAW

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)

Source: UP Suggested Answers

GENERAL PRINCIPLES; SCHOOLS OF 2. We follow the classical school of thought

2) To what theory does our Revised Penal Code

human free will, and the purpose of the

jurisprudence should not be the yardstick in JURISDICTION OVER VESSEL (2000)

the imposition of sanction, instead the

accommodations. become a law.

For conjugal weekenders, he plans to rent out

GENERAL PRINCIPLES; CONSTITUTIONAL instructing E, the driver, to wait, traveled on foot

PROVISION LIMITING THE POWER OF to the house of F. B positioned himself at a

SUGGESTED ANSWER: stabbed F. F ran to the street but was blocked by C,

SUGGESTED ANSWER: CONSPIRACY; COMMON FELONIOUS

the four were in the process of ransacking Danilo's 1995}

house, Fernando, noticing that one of Danilo's

intimately related as component crimes, hence a

That B ran out of the store and fled upon hearing

Yes, Alexander can be held liable for the death of

on account of the employment of inadequate or

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

Prepared by: LJC 12

neighbor and reported him to the police.

control, B could not help but inflict physical injuries

liability although the wrongful consequence is died moments later.

different from what he intended (Art. 4, par. 1,

Although A died of heart attack, the said attack

cause of such death. It was Rustom's act of pulling SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The defense theorized that the killing was a mere

Prepared by: LJC 15

intended. passengers died later of their injuries at the

as long as the killing was on occasion of the reasons. (5%)

CRIMINAL LIABILITY; FELONIOUS ACT;

house, he walked as if he was sleepwalking so

Prepared by: LJC 17

committed. instead find them guilty of impossible crime under

place. Inherently incapable of accomplishment. To

Batangas. day. Buddy planned to kill Jun by mixing poison in

SUGGESTED ANSWER: However, Jun did not die because, unknown to

Prepared by: LJC 19

In "mala in se", the acts constituting the crimes are

Yes, an act may be malum in se and malum consummated.

prohibitum at the same time. In People v. Sunico, et

SUGGESTED ANSWER: MALA PROHIBITA; ACTUAL INJURY REQUIRED

Prepared by: LJC 21

1. "Motive " is the moving power which impels a

MOTIVE VS. INTENT (2004)

Distinguish clearly but briefly between intent and

1. Distinguish "motive" from "intent".

Motive is essential in the determination of the CONSPIRACY (2008)

Charlie hated his classmate, Brad, because the

EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES; COVERAGE favorite television show, Petra, a maid changed

Prepared by: LJC 26

b) Discuss the attendant circumstances and effects

b) The attendant circumstances which may be JUSTIFYING VS. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES

Prepared by: LJC 27

SUGGESTED ANSWER: b. The act is felonious and hence a crime

a. The circumstance affects the act, not circumstances? (3%)

Whereas, in an Exempting Circumstances: A may, however, invoke the benefit of the

SUGGESTED ANSWER: he crawled towards a fence, intending to pass

JUSTIFYING; FULFILLMENT OF DUTY; Is the defense tenable? Explain. (3%)

A security guard, upon seeing a man scale the wall

Prepared by: LJC 31

Prepared by: LJC 32

jurisprudence should not be the yardstick in JURISDICTION OVER VESSEL (2000) 

1. Distinguish "motive" from "intent".  

SUGGESTED ANSWER:  b. The act is felonious and hence a crime

SUGGESTED ANSWER:  Voluntary surrender should be considered as a

The distinction between an accomplice and a  a principal.  

offense.  reference to the venue where the criminal action

18 years old.  Juan is a recidivist ... Habitual delinquency, which