You are on page 1of 14

Rebecca S.


Suggested Answers to the 2010 Criminal Law Bar Examination



I. An agonizing and protracted trial having come to a close, the judge found A guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of homicide and imposed on him a straight penalty of SIX
(6) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor.

The public prosecutor objected to the sentence on the ground that the proper penalty
should have been TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of reclusion temporal.

The defense counsel chimed in, contending that application of the Indeterminate
Sentence Law should lead to the imposition of a straight penalty of SIX (6) MONTHS
and ONE (1) DAY of prision correccional only. Who of the three is on the right track?
Explain. (3%)

No one is on the right track. Under Section 1 of Act 4103 the Court must, instead of a single
fixed penalty, determine two penalties, referred to in the Indeterminate Sentence Act as the
“maximum” and “minimum”. The prisoner must serve the minimum penalty before he is
eligible for parole under the provisions of Act 4103, which leaves the period between
minimum and maximum penalty indeterminate in the sense that he may, under the
conditions set out in said Act, be released from serving said period in whole or in part. He
must be sentenced, therefore, to imprisonment for a period which is not more than the
“maximum” nor less than the “minimum”, as these terms are used in the Indeterminate
Sentence Law (People vs. Ducosin, 59 SCRA 109, December 14, 1933).

II .

A. What is the crime of qualified bribery? (2%)

The crime of qualified bribery may be committed only by public officers “entrusted with law
enforcement” whose official duties authorize them to arrest or prosecute offenders. But this
crime arises only when the offender whom such public officer refrains from arresting or
prosecuting, has committed a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or death.

B. May a judged be charged and prosecuted for such felony? How about a public
prosecutor? A police officer? (5%)

Apparently, a judged cannot be charged and prosecuted for such felony but the police
officers and public prosecutors can be, since the nonfeasance refers to “arresting or


May a public officer charged under Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. 3019 ["directly or
indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage or benefit, for
himself or for any other person, in connection with any contract or transaction
between the government and any other party, wherein the public officer in his official
capacity has to intervene under the law"] also be simultaneously or successively
charged with direct bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code? Explain.

Yes. Section 3 of RA 3019 begins with the following statement: Sec. 3. In addition to acts
or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following [acts]
shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared unlawful:
xxx xxx xxx

One may therefore be charged with violation of RA 3019 in addition to a felony under the
Revised Penal Code for the same delictual act, that is, either concurrently or subsequent to
being charged with a felony under the Revised Penal Code (Ramiscal, Jr. v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 169727-28, 18 August 2006). There is no double jeopardy if a
person is charged simultaneously or successively for violation of Section 3 of RA 3019 and
the Revised Penal Code.

The elements of the crime penalized under Section 3(b) of RA 3019 are:
1) the offender is a public officer;
2) he requested or received a gift, present, share, percentage or benefit;
3) he made the request or receipt on behalf of the offender or any other person;
4) the request or receipt was made in connection with a contract or transaction with the
government and
5) he has the right to intervene, in an official capacity under the law, in connection with a
contract or transaction has the right to intervene.

On the other hand, direct bribery has the following essential elements:
1) the offender is a public officer;
2) the offender accepts an offer or promise or receives a gift or present by himself or through
3) such offer or promise be accepted or gift or present be received by the public officer with
a view to committing some crime, or in consideration of the execution of an act which does
not constitute a crime but the act must be unjust, or to refrain from doing something which it
is his official duty to do and
4) the act which the offender agrees to perform or which he executes is connected with the
performance of his official duties.

Clearly, the violation of Section 3(b) of RA 3019 is neither identical nor necessarily inclusive
of direct bribery. While they have common elements, not all the essential elements of one
offense are included among or form part of those enumerated in the other. Whereas the
mere request or demand of a gift, present, share, percentage or benefit is enough to
constitute a violation of Section 3(b) of RA 3019, acceptance of a promise or offer or receipt
of a gift or present is required in direct bribery. Moreover, the ambit of Section 3(b) of RA
3019 is specific. It is limited only to contracts or transactions involving monetary
consideration where the public officer has the authority to intervene under the law. Direct
bribery, on the other hand, has a wider and more general scope: (a) performance of an act
constituting a crime; (b) execution of an unjust act which does not constitute a crime and (c)
agreeing to refrain or refraining from doing an act which is his official duty to do (Merencillo
vs People G.R. Nos. 142369-70 April 13,2007).


Because of the barbarity and hideousness of the acts committed by the

suspects/respondents in cutting off their victims’ appendages, stuffing their torsos,
legs, body parts into oil drums and bullet-riddled vehicles and later on burying these
oil drums, vehicles with the use of backhoes and other earth-moving machinery, the
Commission on Human Rights (CHR) investigating team recommended to the panel of
public prosecutors that all respondents be charged with violation of the "Heinous
Crimes Law." The prosecution panel agreed with the CHR. As the Chief Prosecutor
tasked with approving the filing of the Information, how will you pass upon the
recommendation? Explain. (5%)

CHR is only a recommendatory body, the Prosecutor is tasked to establish the existence of
probable cause.

Arlene is engaged in the buy and sell of used garments, more popularly known as
"ukay-ukay." Among the items found by the police in a raid of her store in Baguio City
were brand-new Louie Feraud blazers.

Arlene was charged with "fencing." Will the charge prosper? Why or why not? (5%)

No, the charge will not prosper. Fencing, as defined in Section 2 of P.D. No. 1612 (Anti-
Fencing Law), is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another,
shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell,
or in any manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows, or
should be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or

In Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People of the Philippines, the Court set out the essential elements of
the crime of fencing as follows: “1. A crime of robbery or theft has been committed; “2. The
accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the commission of the crime of robbery or
theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and
sells, or in any manner deals in any article, item, object or anything of value, which has been
derived from the proceeds of the said crime; “3. The accused knows or should have known
that the said article, item, object or anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of
the crime of robbery or theft; and “4. There is on the part of the accused, intent to gain for
himself or for another.”

The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused by establishing the existence of all the
elements of the crime charged.” Short of evidence establishing beyond reasonable doubt the
existence of the essential elements of fencing, there can be no conviction for such offense
(Tan v. People, G.R. No. 134298. August 26, 1999). The first element of the crime of
fencing is absent, that is, a crime of robbery or theft has been committed.


There being probable cause to believe that certain deposits and investments in a bank
are related to an unlawful activity of smuggling by Alessandro as defined under
Republic Act (RA) No. 9160, as amended (Anti-Money Laundering Act) an application
for an order to allow inquiry into his deposit was filed with the Regional Trial Court.

After hearing the application, the court granted the application and issued a freeze

Pass upon the correctness of the court’s order. Explain. (3%)

RTC no longer have jurisdiction to issue freeze order under Section 10 of new AMLA,
effective March 23, 2003. SEC. 10. Of RA 9160, as amended by RA9194 provides that ―
“The Court of Appeals, upon application ex parte by the AMLC and after determination that
probable cause exists that any monetary instrument or property is in any way related to an
unlawful activity as defined in Section 3(i) hereof, may issue a freeze order which shall be
effective immediately. The freeze order shall be for a period of twenty (20) days unless
extended by the court”

On the other hand, Section 11, “Authorizes AMLC to inquire into or examine any particular
deposit or investment, with any banking institution or non-bank financial institution and their
subsidiaries and affiliates upon order of any competent court in cases of violation of this Act,
when it has been established that there is probable cause that the deposits or investments
are related to an unlawful activity. However, no court order is required in cases involving
unlawful activities of kidnapping for ransom, narcotics offenses and hijacking, destructive
arson and murder, including those perpetrated by terrorists against non-combatant persons
and similar targets
Section 11 allows the AMLC to inquire into bank accounts without having to obtain a judicial
order in cases where there is probable cause that the deposits or investments are related to
kidnapping for ransom, certain violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002, hijacking and other violations under R.A. No. 6235, destructive arson and murder”.
Since such special circumstances do not apply in this case, it is necessary that Court of
Appeals’ order be obtain, not RTC, for the validity of bank inquiry order.


A widower of ten years, septuagenarian Canuto felt that he had a license to engage in
voyeurism. If not peeping into his neighbor’s rooms through his powerful single-
cylinder telescope, he would trail young, shapely damsels along the hallways of
shopping malls. While going up the escalator, he stayed a step behind a mini-skirted
one, and in a moment of excitement, put his hand on her left hip and massaged it. The
damsel screamed and hollered for help. CAnuto was apprehended and brought up on
inquest. What charge/s, if any may he be held responsible for? Explain. (5%)

Canuto may be held liable for the crime of Unjust Vexation (Art 287 of RPC). Unjust vexation
includes any human conduct which, although not productive of some physical or material
harm, unjustly annoys, irritate, vex, torment or distress the mind of an innocent person.
Canuto has committed the crime of unjust vexation when he placed his hand on the hip of a
young lady and massaged it.


A asked financial support from her showbiz friend B who accommodated her by
issuing in her favor a postdated check in the sum of P90,000.00. Both of them knew
that the check would not be honored because B’s account had just been closed. The
two then approached trader C whom they asked to change the check with cash, even
agreeing that the exchange be discounted at P85,000.00 with the assurance that the
check shall be funded upon maturity. Upon C’s presentment of the check for payment
on due date, it was dishonored because the account had already been closed.

What action/s may C commence against A and B to hold them to account for the loss
of her P85,000.00? Explain. (5%)

C may file an action for Estafa (Art 315 [2][a] against A&B.
The crime of estafa under paragraph 2(a) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, (a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence,
qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of
other similar deceits.

B cannot be prosecuted for violation of BP 22. for lack or absence of notice of dishonor.
Under the first type of offense under B.P. Blg. 22, the elements are as follows: The elements
of BP 22 are: (a) the making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply to account or for
value; (b) the maker, drawer or issuer knows at the time of issuance that he does not have
the sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full
upon its presentment; and (c) the check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for
the insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same reason had
not the drawee, without valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment.
Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 clearly provides that this presumption arises not from the mere
fact of drawing, making and issuing a bum check; there must also be a showing that, within
five banking days from receipt of the notice of dishonor, such maker or drawer failed to pay
the holder of the check the amount due thereon or to make arrangement for its payment in
full by the drawee of such check.
“It has been observed that the State, under this statute, actually offers the violator `a
compromise by allowing him to perform some act which operates to preempt the criminal
action, and if he opts to perform it the action is abated.’ In this light, the full payment of the
amount appearing in the check within five banking days from notice of dishonor is a
`complete defense.’ The absence of a notice of dishonor necessarily deprives an accused
an opportunity to preclude a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, procedural due process
clearly enjoins that a notice of dishonor be actually served on petitioner. Petitioner has a
right to demand that the notice of dishonor be actually sent to and received by him to afford
her the opportunity to avert prosecution under B.P. Blg. 22.”


Proserfina, an assistant public high school principal, acted to facilitate the release of
salary differentials and election duty per diem of classroom teachers with the
agreement that they would reimburse her for her expenses.

Did Proserfina commit a crime? Explain. (5%)

No crime was committed by Proserfina. The case is at all fours with Jaravata vs.
Sandiganbayan, 127 SCRA 363, January 31, 1984. In that case the Supreme Court held
that the act of the highschool principal in facilitating release of differentials of classroom
teachers but with an agreement that they reimburse him of his expenses is not violative of
Anti-Graft Law, as in his official capacity as assistant principal, he is not required by law to
intervene in the payment of the salary differentials.

A, B and C are members of SFC Fraternity. While eating in a seaside restaurant, they
were attacked by X, Y and Z, members of a rival fraternity. A rumble ensued in which
the abovenamed members of the two fraternities assaulted each other in a confused
and tumultuous manner resulting in the death of A. As it cannot be ascertained who
actually killed A, the members of the two fraternities who took part in the rumble were
charged for death caused in a tumultuous affray. Will the charge prosper? Explain.

No. Tumultuous affray takes place when a quarrel occurs between several persons not
composing organized groups and they engage in a fight in a confused and tumultuous
manner, in the course of which some person are killed or wounded and the author thereof
cannot be ascertained. (US v. Tandoc, 40 Phil., 954, G.R. No. L-15635, March 16, 1920)

In the instant case, the quarrel was between two well-known groups of men, SFC Fraternity
and its rival fraternity. There can be no confusion in the aggression as well as in the
defense. The unity of purpose determines the aggressors' common responsibility for the
consequences of the aggression, for which reason the act cannot be considered as a
tumultuous affray for the responsible authors are known. The act, therefore, constitutes the
crime of homicide wherein X,Y and Z can be held liable.


Angelina maintains a website where visitors can give their comments on the posted
pictures of the goods she sells in her exclusive boutique. Bettina posted a comment
that the red Birkin bag shown in Angelina’s website is fake and that Angelina is
known to sell counterfeit items.

Angelina wants to file a case against Bettina. She seeks your advice. What advice will
you give her? (4%)

I will advice Angelina to file an action for libel against Bettina.

Under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, libel is defined as a public
and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act,
omission, condition, status or circumstance tending to discredit or cause the dishonor or
contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
Thus, the elements of libel are: (a) imputation of a discreditable act or condition to another;
(b) publication of the imputation; (c) identity of the person defamed; and, (d) existence of

In the instant case, there is an imputation of a discreditable act that is the selling of
counterfeit items; there is also publication of the imputation as the same was posted in a
website where Angelina’s web visitors can access and view such defamatory comment;
Angelina was categorically identified by Bettina as known to be selling counterfeited items;
and lastly there is presumed malice because of the existence of the defamatory comment.



A. Define Money Laundering. What are the three (3) stages in money laundering? (3%)

Money Laundering is a crime whereby the proceeds of an unlawful activity as defined in the
AMLA are transacted or attempted to be transacted to make them appear to have originated
from legitimate sources.
It is a process comprising of three (3) stages, namely, placement or the physical disposal of
the criminal proceeds, layering or the separation of the criminal proceeds from their source
by creating layers of financial transactions to disguise the audit trail, and integration or the
provision of apparent legitimacy to the criminal proceeds. Any transaction involving such
criminal proceeds or attempt to transact the same during the placement, layering or
integration stage shall constitute the crime of money laundering.

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

The doctrine of pro reo states that whenever a penal law is to be construed or applied and
the law admits of two interpretations – one lenient to the offender and one strict to the
offender – that interpretation which is lenient or favorable to the offender will be adopted.

This is in consonance with the fundamental rule that all doubts shall be construed in favor of
the accused and consistent with presumption of innocence of the accused. This is peculiar
only to criminal law.

Article 48 of RPC states that “When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave
felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for
the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period”.

Relating the two principles in Criminal Law, both are principles which are favorable to the


While his wife was on a 2-year scholarship abroad, Romeo was having an affair with
his maid Dulcinea. Realizing that the affair was going nowhere, Dulcinea told Romeo
that she was going back to the province to marry her childhood sweetheart. Clouded
by anger and jealousy, Romeo strangled Dulcinea to death while she was sleeping in
the maid’s quarters.

The following day, Romeo was found catatonic inside the maid’s quarters. He was
brought to the National Center for Mental Health (NCMH) where he was diagnosed to
be mentally unstable.

Charged with murder, Romeo pleaded insanity as a defense.

a. Will Romeo’s defense prosper? Explain. (2%)

b. What is the effect of the diagnosis of the NCMH on the case? (2%)

A. No. Insanity is a defense in the nature of confession and avoidance, and as such must
be proved beyond reasonable doubt (People vs. Ambal, 100 SCRA 35 [1980]). In
considering the plea of insanity as a defense in a criminal prosecution, the starting premise
is that the law presumes all persons to be of sound mind, or otherwise stated, law takes for
granted that acts are done consciously. Insanity being the exception rather than the rule in
the human condition, the moral and legal presumption is that freedom and intelligence
constitute the normal condition of a person and that a felonious or criminal act (delicto
deloso) has been done with deliberate intent, that is, with freedom, intelligence and malice
and that whoever, therefore, invokes insanity as a defense has the burden of proving it
Anyone who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity bears the burden of proving it
with clear and convincing evidence. It is in the nature of confession and avoidance. An
accused invoking insanity admits to have committed the crime but claims that he or she is
not guilty because of insanity. The testimony or proof of an accused’s insanity must,
however, relate to the time immediately preceding or coetaneous with the commission of the
offense with which he is charged. In the case at bar, the change in the accused’s behavior
was triggered by jealousy. He acted out of jealous rage at the thought of losing his
paramour. Uncontrolled jealousy and anger are not equivalent to insanity. There is a vast
difference between a genuinely insane person and one who has worked himself up into such
a frenzy of anger that he fails to use reason or good judgment in what he does. The
Supreme Court reiterated the established rule that only when there is a complete deprivation
of intelligence at the time of the commission of the crime should the exempting circumstance
of insanity be considered (People of the Philippines vs. Honorio Tibon y Deiso, G.R. No. 188320,
June 29, 2010).

B. The NCMH records of his mental health only pertain to his ability to stand trial and not to
his mental state immediately before or during the commission of the crime, hence it will not
affect his criminal liability.


Paul lives with his long-time girlfriend Joan in a condominium in Makati. For more
than a year, he has been secretly saving money in an envelope under their bed to buy
her an engagement ring. One day, while Joan was cleaning their room, she found the
envelope, took the money, and left Paul. As prosecutor, what crime, if any would you
charge Joan? Explain. (3%)

I will charge Joan the crime of Theft under Article 308 of RPC. Those who with intent to gain,
but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, take personal
property of another without the latter’s consent is guilty of theft. Joan with intent to gain, but
without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, take personal
property of Paul without the latter’s consent, hence, Joan is guilty of theft.


Suspecting that her husband of twenty years was having an affair, Leilanie hired a
private investigator to spy on him. After two weeks, the private investigator showed
Leilanie a video of her husband having sexual intercourse with another woman in a
room of a five-star hotel. Based on what she saw on the video, Leilanie accused her
husband of concubinage.

Will the case of concubinage prosper? Explain. (3%)

No. For the case of concubinage to prosper the husband of Leilanie should have committed
any of the following acts specified in Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code: (1) keeping a
mistress in the conjugal dwelling; (2) having sexual intercourse under scandalous
circumstances with a woman who is not his wife; or (3) cohabiting with her in any other
place. Having sexual intercourse with another woman in a room of a five star hotel does not
per se constitute scandalous circumstance.

The president, treasurer, and secretary of ABC Corporation were charged with
syndicated estafa under the following Information:

That on or about the 1st week of January 2010 or subsequent thereto in Cebu
City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, conspiring and confederating together and all of them mutually
helping and aiding one another in a syndicated manner, through a corporation
registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), with intention
of carrying out the unlawful or illegal act, transaction, enterprise or scheme,
with intent to gain and by means of fraud and deceit, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously defraud Virna, Lana, Deborah and several
other persons by falsely or fraudulently pretending or representing in a
transaction or series of transactions, which they made with complainants and
the public in general, to the effect that they were in a legitimate business of
foreign exchange trading successively or simultaneously operating under the
name and style of ABC Corporation and DEF Management Philippines,
Incorporated, induced and succeeded in inducing complainants and several
other persons to give and deliver to said accused the amount of at least
P20,000,000.00 on the strength of said manifestations and representations, the
accused knowing fully well that the abovenamed corporations registered with
the SEC are not licensed nor authorized to engage in foreign exchange trading
and that such manifestations and representations to transact in foreign
exchange were false and fraudulent, that these resulted to the damage and
prejudice of the complainants and other persons, and that the defraudation
pertains to funds solicited from the public in general by such

Will the case for syndicated estafa prosper? Explain. (5%)

No. A syndicate consists of five or more persons formed with the intention of carrying out the
unlawful or illegal act, transaction, enterprises or scheme, and the defraudation results in the
misappropriation of moneys contributed by stockholders or members of rural banks,
cooperatives, "samahang nayon(s)," or farmers' associations, or funds solicited by
corporations associations from the general public [Section 1, P. D. 1689].

The herein accused composed of only three persons, the law requires at least five
perpetrators, hence they cannot be categorized as a syndicate for purposes of prosecuting
them for the crime of syndicated estafa.


A killed his wife and buried her in their backyard. He immediately went into hiding in
the mountains.

Three years later, the bones of A’s wife were discovered by X, the gardener. Since X
had a standing warrant of arrest, he hid the bones in an old clay jar and kept quiet
about it. After two years, Z, the caretaker, found the bones and reported the matter to
the police.

After 15 years of hiding, A left the country but returned three years later to take care
of his ailing sibling. Six years thereafter, he was charged with parricide but raised the
defense of prescription.
a. Under the Revised Penal Code, when does the period of prescription of a crime
commence to run? (1%)
b. When is it interrupted? (1%)
c. Is A’s defense tenable? Explain. (3%)

A. 1%

Under Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code, “The period of prescription of the crime shall
commence to run on the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the
authorities, or their agents”.

B. 1%

Under the same article, it is provided that “xxx it shall be interrupted by filing of the complaint
or information, and shall commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without
the accused being convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not
imputable to him.

Furthermore, it is also provided that the term of prescription shall not run when the offender
is absent from the Philippines.

C. 3%

No. The crime does not prescribe yet. Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code partly provides
that “Crimes punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or reclusion temporal shall prescribe in
twenty years. Parricide is punishable by reclusion perpetua, hence the applicable
prescriptive period is twenty years. The crime was discovered five years after its
commission, ten years after its discovery A left the country so the period of prescription was
interrupted, then he was charged six years thereafter, hence the total number of years
prescribed is sixteen (16) years, therefore the crime does not prescribe yet.


On her way home, Eva Marie saw an injured chow chow puppy behind a bush. Since
the puppy did not have a collar, she brought it home so she could have it as a pet. Her
son in fact begged Eva Marie to keep the puppy. The following day, Eva Marie bought
a collar for the puppy and brought it to a veterinarian for treatment.

a. Did Eva Marie incur criminal liability in bringing the puppy home as a pet?
Explain. (2%)
b. Did she incur civil liability? Explain. (2%)

A. Yes. Eva Marie can be held liable for theft under Article 308 (1). Under said Article A
crtime of theft is likewise committed by “Any person who, having found lost property,
shall fail to deliver the same to local authorities or to its owner”. Hence Eva Marie is
liable for theft.
B. Yes. Because as enunciated in Article 100 of RPC, “Every person criminally liable for
felony is also civilly liable”.

Jack and Jill have been married for seven years. One night, Jack came home drunk.
Finding no food on the table, Jack started hitting Jill only to apologize the following

A week later, the same episode occurred – Jack came home drunk and started hitting

Fearing for her life, Jill left and stayed with her sister. To woo Jill back, Jack sent her
floral arrangements of spotted lilies and confectioneries. Two days later, Jill returned
home and decided to give Jack another chance. After several days, however, Jack
again came home drunk. The following day, he was found dead.

Jill was charged with parricide but raised the defense of "battered woman syndrome."

A. Define “Battered Woman Syndrome”. (2%)

“Battered Woman Syndrome” refers to a scientifically defined pattern of psychological and

behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering relationships as a result of
cumulative abuse.
B. What are the three phases of the “Battered Woman Syndrome”. (3%)

The battered woman syndrome is characterized by the so-called “cycle of violence,” which
has three phases: (1) the tension-building phase; (2) the acute battering incident; and (3) the
tranquil, loving (or, at least, nonviolent) phase.

C. Would the defense prosper despite the absence of any of the elements for
justifying circumstance of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code? Explain. (2%)

Yes. In the case of People vs. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004, the Court had
the occasion to first use the Battered Wife Syndrome as a defense. The Court stated that it
is not discounting the possibility of self-defense arising from the battered woman syndrome.
There are factors to consider. First, each of the phases of the cycle of violence must be
proven to have characterized at least two battering episodes between the appellant and her
intimate partner. Second, the final acute battering episode preceding the killing of the
batterer must have produced in the battered person’s mind an actual fear of an imminent
harm from her batterer and an honest belief that she needed to use force in order to save
her life. Third, at the time of the killing, the batterer must have posed probable -- not
necessarily immediate and actual -- grave harm to the accused, based on the history of
violence perpetrated by the former against the latter. Taken altogether, these circumstances
could satisfy the requisites of self-defense. Under the facts of the present case all of these
elements were established.


Matt was found guilty of drug trafficking while his younger brother Jeff was found
guilty of possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for
dangerous drugs under Section 12 of Republic Act No. 9165.
Matt filed a petition for probation. Jeff appealed his conviction during the pendency of
which he also filed a petition for probation.

The brothers’ counsel argued that they being first time offenders, their petitions for
probation should be granted. How would you resolve the brothers’ petitions for
probation? Explain. (3%)

Matt was charged for violation of Section 5, Article II of Rep. Act No. 9165 for selling
dangerous drugs. It is clear under Section 24 of Rep. Act No. 9165 that any person
convicted of drug trafficking cannot avail of the privilege of probation, to wit: SEC. 24. Non-
Applicability of the Probation Law for Drug Traffickers and Pushers. - Any person
convicted for drug trafficking or pushing under this Act, regardless of the penalty
imposed by the Court, cannot avail of the privilege granted by the Probation Law or
Presidential Decree No. 968, as amended. (Emphasis supplied.)

The law is clear and leaves no room for interpretation. Any person convicted for drug
trafficking or pushing, regardless of the penalty imposed, cannot avail of the privilege
granted by the Probation Law or P.D. No. 968.

In the case of Jeff, although originally entitled to probation as the penalty for violation of
Section 12 of RA9165 is imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to four
(4) years and a fine ranging from Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00), for filling an appeal he becomes disqualified for applying for probation. Sec. 4
of the Probation Law, as amended, which clearly mandates that "no application for probation
shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgment
of conviction”.


Because peace negotiations on the Spratlys situation had failed, the People’s
Republic of China declared war against the Philippines. Myra, a Filipina who lives with
her Italian expatriate boyfriend, discovered e-mail correspondence between him and a
certain General Tung Kat Su of China.

On March 12, 2010, Myra discovered that on even date her boyfriend had sent an e-
mail to General Tung Kat Su, in which he agreed to provide vital information on the
military defense of the Philippines to the Chinese government in exchange for P1
million and his safe return to Italy. Two weeks later, Myra decided to report the matter
to the proper authorities.

Did Myra commit a crime? Explain. (3%)

Yes, Myra committed the crime of Misprision of Treason under Article 116 of the Revised
Penal Code. Said article provides that “Every person owing allegiance to (the United States)
the Government of the Philippine Islands, without being a foreigner, and having knowledge
of any conspiracy against them, conceals or does not disclose and make known the same,
as soon as possible to the governor or fiscal of the province, or the mayor or fiscal of the city
in which he resides, as the case may be, shall be punished as an accessory to the crime of

Myra’s boyfriend in agreeing to provide vital information on the military defense of the
Philippines to Chinese Government to General Tung Kat Su is conspiring to commit treason,
hence, Myra’s omission to report the same constitutes the crime of misprision of treason.

Immediately after murdering Bob, Jake went to his mother to seek refuge. His mother
told him to hide in the maid’s quarters until she finds a better place for him to hide.
After two days, Jake transferred to his aunt’s house. A week later, Jake was
apprehended by the police. Can Jake’s mother and aunt be made criminally liable as
accessories to the crime of murder? Explain. (3 %)

Jake’s mother is exempted under Article 20 of the Revised Penal Code from criminal liability
while his Aunt is liable as accessory to the Crime of Murder.

Art. 19. Of the Revised Penal Code provides that “Accessories are those who, having
knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without having participated therein, either as
principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any of the following

1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the


2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments

thereof, in order to prevent its discovery.

3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principals of the crime,

provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever the
author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life
of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.

While Art. 20. Of the same Code provides that “The penalties prescribed for accessories
shall not be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants,
descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity
within the same degrees, with the single exception of accessories falling within the
provisions of paragraph 1 of the next preceding article”.

Nonetheless Jake’s mother can be held liable for Obstruction of Justice under PD 1829
which punishes any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or
delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases
“ Harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any person he knows, or has
reasonable ground to believe or suspect, has committed any offense under existing penal
laws in order to prevent his arrest, prosecution and conviction”.


Christopher, John, Richard, and Luke are fraternity brothers. To protect themselves
from rival fraternities, they all carry guns wherever they go. One night, after attending
a party, they boarded a taxicab, held the driver at gunpoint and took the latter’s

a. What crime, if any, did the four commit? Enumerate the elements of the crime.
b. Would your answer be the same if they killed the driver? Explain. (2%)
A. The Crime committed is Robbery under Article 295, committed by a band, with the
use of firearm on a street, road or alley. Under Art. 295.” If the offenses mentioned in
subdivisions three, four, and five of the next preceding article shall have been
committed in an uninhabited place or by a band, or by attacking a moving train, street
car, motor vehicle or airship, or by entering the passenger's compartments in a train
or, in any manner, taking the passengers thereof by surprise in the respective
conveyances, or on a street, road, highway, or alley, and the intimidation is made
with the use of a firearm, the offender shall be punished by the maximum period of
the proper penalties.

B. No. If they kill the taxi driver the crime is Special Complex Crime of Robbery with
homicide under Article 294.