The husband has for a long time physically and mentally tortured his

wife. After one episode of beating, the wife took the husband’s gun and
shot him dead. Under the circumstances, her act constitutes

A. mitigating vindication of grave offense.

B. battered woman syndrome, a complete self-defense.
C. incomplete self-defense.
D. mitigating passion and obfuscation.

X, a police officer, placed a hood on the head of W, a suspected drug

pusher, and watched as Y and Z, police trainees, beat up and tortured
W to get his confession. X is liable as

A. as accomplice in violation of the Anti-Torture Act.

B. a principal in violation of the Anti-Torture Act.
C. a principal in violation of the Anti-Hazing Law.
D. an accomplice in violation of the Anti-Hazing Law.

XXXXXXX
AA was arrested for committing a bailable offense and detained in
solitary confinement. He was able to post bail after two (2) weeks of
detention. During the period of detention, he was not given any food.
Such deprivation caused him physical discomfort. What crime, if any,
was committed in connection with the solitary confinement and food
deprivation of AA? Explain your answer. (5%)

ANSWER:
The crime committed is Violation of RA 9745, The Anti-Torture
Act. Food deprivation and confinement in solitary cell are considered
as physical and psychological torture under Section 4(2) of RA 9745.
A battered woman claiming self-defense under the Anti Violence
against Women and Children must prove that the final acute battering
episode was preceded by

A. 3 battering episodes.
B. 4 battering episodes.
C. 5 battering episodes.
D. 2 battering episodes.

XXXXXX
Ms. A had been married to Mr. B for 10 years. Since their marriage,
Mr. B had been jobless and a drunkard, preferring to stay with his
“barkadas” until the wee hours of the morning. Ms. A was the
breadwinner and attended to the needs of their three (3) growing
children. Many times, when Mr. B was drunk, he would beat Ms. A and
their three (3) children, and shout invectives against them. In fact, in
one of the beating incidents, Ms. A suffered a deep stab wound on her
tummy that required a prolonged stay in the hospital. Due to the
beatings and verbal abuses committed against her, she consulted a
psychologist several times, as she was slowly beginning to lose her
mind. One night, when Mr. B arrived dead drunk, he suddenly stabbed
Ms. A several times while shouting invectives against her.
Defending herself from the attack, Ms. A grappled for the
possession of a knife and she succeeded. She then stabbed Mr. B
several times which caused his instantaneous death. Medico-Legal
Report showed that the husband suffered three (3) stab wounds.
Can Ms. A validly put up a defense? Explain. (5%)

ANSWER:
Yes, Ms. A can put up the defense of battered woman syndrome.
She is suffering from physical and psychological or emotional distress
resulting from cumulative abuse by her husband. She even consulted
a psychologist several times, as she was slowly beginning to lose her
mind. Under Section 26, RA 9262 of The Anti- Violence against
Women and their Children Act, “victim survivors who are found by the
court to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur any
criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the
elements for the justifying circumstance of self-defense under the
Revised penal Code.”

XXXXXXXXXXXX

Frank borrowed Pl,000,000 from his brother Eric. To pay the loan,
Frank issued a post-dated check to be presented for payment a month
after the transaction. Two days before maturity, Frank called Eric telling
him he had insufficient funds and requested that the deposit of the
check be deferred. Nevertheless, Eric deposited the check and it was
dishonored. When Frank failed to pay despite demand, Eric filed a
complaint against him for violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22 (The
Bouncing Checks Law).
Was the charge brought against Frank correct? (7%)

ANSWER:
Yes, the charge is correct. Violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22,
The Bouncing Checks Law, is malum prohibitum which is committed
by mere issuance of a check without sufficient funds. Good faith is not
a defense. As long as the check was issued on account or for value,
the purpose for which the check was issued, the terms and conditions
relating to the issuance are irrelevant to the prosecution of the
offender. Hence, the request of Frank to defer the deposit of the check
as it has insufficient funds will not militate against the prosecution for
violation of BP 22.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Mr. Benjie is the owner of a hardware store specializing in the sale of
plumbing materials. On February 1, 2014, Mr. Ed, a friend and regular
customer of Mr. Benjie, visited the hardware store and purchased
several plumbing materials in the total amount of P5 million. Mr. Benjie
readily accepted Mr. Ed’s payment of three (3) postdated checks in the
amount of P1 million Pesos each in view of the assurance of Mr. Ed
that the checks will be honored upon presentment for payment. Mr.
Benjie, as a consequence, immediately delivered the materials to the
house of Mr. Ed. The following day, Mr. Ed went back to Mr. Benjie to
tender another two (2) postdated checks in the amount of P1 million
each to complete the payment, with the same assurance that the
checks will be honored upon presentment for payment. When the
checks were presented for payment, all were dishonored for
insufficiency of funds and corresponding notices of dishonour were
sent and received by Mr. Ed. One month after receipt of the notices of
dishonor, Mr. Ed failed to make good the checks. Thereafter, Mr.
Benjie filed before the public prosecutor’s office a complaint against
Mr. Ed, although no demand letter was earlier sent to Mr. Ed.
During the preliminary investigation, Mr. Benjie accepted several
amounts from Mr. Ed as partial payments. The wife of Mr. Benjie
protested and insisted that the complaint should continue despite the
partial payments. On the other hand, Mr. Ed counters that no demand
letter was earlier sent to him, that the obligation is merely civil in
character and that novation took place when Mr. Benjie accepted the
partial payments.
Discuss the criminal liability, if any, of Mr. Ed. (6%)

ANSWER:
Mr. Ed is liable of one count of Estafa under Article 315(2)(d) for
the issuance of the first 3 checks because he issued them
simultaneous with the transaction in order to defraud another.
However, the 2 other checks had been issued in payment of a pre-
existing obligation, hence, estafa is not committed as the issuance of
said checks was not the efficient cause of defraudation.
Mr. Ed is also liable of 5 counts of violation of BP 22, The
Bouncing Checks Law, for the issuance of the 5 checks which were
dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. The gravamen of BP 22 is the
issuance of a worthless or bum check; deceit/fraud is not an element.
Mr. Ed’s defense of partial payments constituting novation and
absence of demand letter will not free him from the criminal liability
already incurred. The partial payments would only affect his civil
liability while his claim of absence of demand letter is negated by the
receipt of notice of dishonour.