2016 BAR EXAMINATIONS

CRIMINAL LAW

I.

Explain the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL). ( 5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The Indeterminate Sentencen modified the imposition of penalties for an offense punished by the Revised
Penal Code, its amendments, or of Special laws. In imposing a prison sentence, the court shall sentence the
accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending
circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum which shall be
within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense; and if the offense is
punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum
term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the
minimum term prescribed by the same.

When released, he does not become actually discharged because the rest of his sentence is served out of
prison under the supervision of a parole officer.

Purpose of the law: to uplift and redeem valuable human material and prevent unnecessary and excessive
deprivation of liberty and economic usefulness.

II.

[a] Define malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance. (2.5%)

[b] Differentiate wheel conspiracy and chain conspiracy. (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWERS:

a) Malfeasance is the doing, either through ignorance, inattention or malice, of that which the officer had
no legal right to do at all, as where he acts without any authority whatever, or exceeds, ignores or abuses his
powers.

Misfeasance or negligence is the failure to use in the performance of a duty owing to the individual, that degree
of care, skill and diligence which the circumstances of the case reasonably demand.

Nonfeasance is the neglect or refusal, without sufficient excuse, to perform an act which it was the officer’s
legal duty to the individual to perform.

b) In the American jurisdiction, the presence of several accused in multiple conspiracies commonly
involves two structures: (1) the so-called "wheel" or "circle" conspiracy, in which there is a single person or
group (the "hub") dealing individually with two or more other persons or groups (the "spokes"); and (2) the
"chain" conspiracy, usually involving the distribution of narcotics or other contraband, in which there is
successive communication and cooperation in much the same way as with legitimate business operations
between manufacturer and wholesaler, then wholesaler and retailer, and then retailer and consumer. (Estrada
v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148965, February 26, 2002)
III.

Pedro is married to Tessie. Juan is the first cousin of Tessie. While in the market, Pedro saw a man stabbing
Juan. Seeing the attack on Juan, Pedro picked up a spade nearby and hit the attacker on his head which
caused the latter's death.

Can Pedro be absolved of the killing on the ground that it is in defense of a relative? Explain. ( 5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, Pedro cannot be absolved of the killing for there is no defense of relative because the relation between
Pedro and Juan is not one of those mentioned in paragraph 2 of Art. 11 of the RPC. The relatives by affinity for
purposes of defense of relatives are only limited to the parents-in-law, son or daughter-in-law, and brother or
sister-in-law.

IV.

Jojo and Felipa are husband and wife. Believing that his work as a lawyer is sufficient to provide for the needs
of their family, Jojo convinced Felipa to be a stay-at-home mom and care for their children. One day, Jojo
arrived home earlier than usual and caught Felipa in the act of having sexual intercourse with their female
nanny, Alma, in their matrimonial bed. In a fit of rage, Jojo retrieved his revolver from inside the bedroom
cabinet and shot Alma, immediately killing her.

[a] Is Art. 247 (death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances) of the Revised Penal
Code (RPC) applicable in this case given that the paramour was of the same gender as the erring spouse?
(2.5%)

[b] Is Felipa liable for adultery for having sexual relations with Alma? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWERS:

a) Yes, Art. 247 of the RPC applies in the case at bar. The said article states that any legally married
person who having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall
kill any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious
physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro. If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other
kind, he shall be exempt from punishment. (Art. 247, RPC)

It is clear from the quoted provision that the law does not distinguish whether the paramour was a male or a
female for the law only mentions a person who has surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual
intercourse with another person. Thus the term person is generic or broad enough to include individuals from
either sex.

b) No, Felipa is not guilty of adultery for having sexual relations with Alma. Adultery is committed by any
married woman who shall have sexual intercourse with a man not her husband and by the man who has carnal
knowledge of her knowing her to be married, even if the marriage be subsequently declared void. (Art. 333,
RPC) Applying the said law to the facts of the case, it is clear that Felipa who had sexual relations with Alma,
another woman, cannot be prosecuted for adultery as one element of the crime is lacking, namely, that the
sexual intercourse was done with a man not her husband. (Ibid)
V.

Governor A was given the amount of P10 million by the Department of Agriculture for the purpose of buying
seedlings to be distributed to the farmers. Supposedly intending to modernize the farming industry in his
province, Governor A bought farm equipment through direct purchase from XY Enterprise, owned by his
kumpare B, the alleged exclusive distributor of the said equipment. Upon inquiry, the Ombudsman discovered
that B has a pending patent application for the said farm equipment. Moreover, the equipment purchased
turned out to be overpriced. What crime or crimes, if any, were committed by Governor A? Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Governor A is guilty of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act particularly under 3(e) thereof. Section
3(e) when a government official causes any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any
private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or
judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision
shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses
or permits or other concessions.

To be found guilty under said provision, the following elements must concur:

(1) the offender is a public officer;

(2) the act was done in the discharge of the public officer’s official, administrative or judicial
functions;

(3) the act was done through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable
negligence; and

(4) the public officer caused any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or gave any
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference. (Sison v. PP, G.R. Nos. 170339, 170398-403)

It is undisputed that the first two elements are present in the case at bar. It is also evident that the 3rd requisite
is present.

RA 7160 explicitly provides that, as a rule, “acquisitions of supplies by local government units shall be through
competitive bidding. By way of exception, no bidding is required in the following instances:

(1) personal canvass of responsible merchants;

(2) emergency purchase;

(3) negotiated purchase;

(4) direct purchase from manufacturers or exclusive distributors and

(5) purchase from other government entities.

Because governor A should have complied with the requirements laid down by RA 7160 on personal canvass,
no matter how strict they may have been Governor A should have complied with the requirements laid down by
RA 7160 on personal canvass, no matter how strict they may have been. This shows evident bad faith on his
part. Moreover, partiality is also present by the fact that he directly purchased the said equipment from his
kumpare at an overpriced rate.

Lastly, Governor A gave undue advantage, unjustified favor or benefit to his kumpare in the exercise of his
official, administrative or judicial functions. “Advantage” means a more favorable or improved position or
condition; benefit, profit or gain of any kind; benefit from some course of action. The fact that he repeatedly
failed to follow the requirements of RA 7160 on personal canvass proves that unwarranted benefit, advantage
or preference was given his kumpare. His kumpare was awarded the contract without the benefit of a fair
system in determining the best possible price for the government. The private supplier, which was personally
chosen by Governor A, was able to profit from the transactions without showing proof that their prices were the
most beneficial to the government as the said equipment were purchased at an overpriced rate. Ibid()

VI.

Ofelia, engaged in the purchase and sale of jewelry, was charged with violation of PD 1612, otherwise known
as the Anti-Fencing Law, for having been found in possession of recently stolen jewelry valued at P100,000.00
at her jewelry shop. Her defense is that she merely bought the same from Antonia and produced a receipt
covering the sale. She presented other receipts given to her by Antonia representing previous transactions.
Convicted of the charge, Ofelia appealed, arguing that her acquisition of the jewelries resulted from a legal
transaction and that the prosecution failed to prove that she knew or should have known that the pieces of
jewelry which she bought from Antonia were proceeds of the crime of theft.

[a] What is a "fence" under PD 1612? (2.5%)

[b] Is Ofelia liable under the Anti-Fencing Law? Explain. (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWERS:

a) "Fence" includes any person, firm, association corporation or partnership or other organization
who/which commits the act of fencing. (Sec. 2(b), PD 1612)

"Fencing" 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 other 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 theft. (Sec. 2(a), PD 1612)

b) In Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People of the Philippines, we 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.

Mere possession thereof is enough to give rise to a presumption of fencing. (Sec 5, PD 1612)

Without Ofelia knowing that she acquired stolen articles, she cannot be guilty of fencing. (RAMON C. TAN vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 134298. August 26, 1999)

VII.

Val, a Nigerian, set up a perfume business in the Philippines. The investors would buy the raw materials at a
low price from Val. The raw materials consisted of powders, which the investors would mix with water and let
stand until a gel was formed. Val made a written commitment to the investors that he would buy back the gel at
a higher price, thus assuring the investors of a neat profit. When the amounts to be paid by Val to the investors
reached millions of pesos, he sold all the equipment of his perfume business, absconded with the money, and
is nowhere to be found. What crime or crimes were committed, if any? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Val is guilty of violating PD No. 1689 specifically Section 1, paragraph 2. In the instant case, the Ponzi Scheme
was only committed by one person, Val. PD 1689 section 1 provides:

Any person or persons who shall commit estafa or other forms of swindling as defined in Articles 315
and 316 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall be punished by life imprisonment to death if
the swindling (estafa) is committed by a syndicate consisting of five or more persons formed with the
intention of carrying out the unlawful or illegal act, transaction, enterprise or scheme, and the
defraudation results in the misappropriation of moneys contributed by stockholders, or members of
rural banks, cooperatives, samahang nayons, or farmers associations, or of funds solicited by
corporations/associations from the general public.

When not committed by a syndicate as above defined, the penalty imposable shall be reclusion
temporal to reclusion perpetua if the amount of the fraud exceeds 100,000 pesos.

Since the amount exceeds P100,000, Val shall be penalized by reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua
pursuant to par. 2, section 1 of PD 1689.

VIII.

Charges d'affaires Volvik of Latvia suffers from a psychotic disorder after he was almost assassinated in his
previous assignment. One day, while shopping in a mall, he saw a group of shoppers whom he thought were
the assassins who were out to kill him. He asked for the gun of his escort and shot ten 10) people and
wounded five (5) others before he was subdued. The wounded persons required more than thirty (30) days of
medical treatment. What crime or crimes, if any, did he commit? Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

None. The Charges d'affaires Volvik of Latvia is exempt from the provisions of our Revised Penal Code. Hence,
no criminal liability can attach to him. This kind of officials are accorded diplomatic rank and vested with blanket
diplomatic immunity from civil and criminal suits (Article 31, Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations)

Even assuming that he is not immune from suit as the act of killing is certainly not in connection with his official
functions, the requisites of voluntariness in an intentional felony are not present. Thus, he is still not liable for
the said act. A voluntary act is a free, intelligent and intentional act. In the case at bar, Volvik was suffering from
a psychotic disorder. Had the facts been as he believed them to be, he would have been justified in the said
killing since under Art. 11 of the RPC, there is nothing unlawful in the intention a well as in the act of the person
making the defense. (U.S. v. Ah Chong)

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

In the case of Jeffrey Liang (Hue Feng) v. People, G.R. No. 125865, March 26,2001, the SC held that the
immunity granted to officers and staff of the ADB was not absolute; but limited to acts performed in an official
capacity and could not cover the commission of a crime such as slander or oral defamation in the name of
official duty. This involved a criminal complaint against Jeffrey Liang, an ADB official, for grave oral defamation.
Appeal was made to the political character of Jeffrey Liang as an agent of international organization. The court
ruled that he was not immune from suit from the said acts.

IX.

A is the driver of B's Mercedes Benz car. When B was on a trip to Paris, A used the car for a joy ride with C
whom he is courting. Unfortunately, A met an accident. Upon his return, B came to know about the
unauthorized use of the car and sued A for qualified theft. B alleged that A took and used the car with intent to
gain as he derived some benefit or satisfaction from its use. On the other hand, A argued that he has no intent
of making himself the owner of the car as he in fact returned it to the garage after the joy ride. What crime or
crimes, if any, were committed? Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

A is guilty of carnapping. Although in past cases the SC has held that a person, either with the object of going
to a certain place, or learning how to drive, or enjoying a free ride, takes possession of a vehicle belonging to
another, without the consent of its owner, he is guilty of theft because by taking possession of the personal
property belonging to another and using it, his intent to gain is evident since he derives therefrom utility,
satisfaction, enjoyment and pleasure.

The anti-carnapping law specifically applies to the unlawful taking of motor vehicles. Without such law the
unlawful taking of motor vehicles would fall within the purview of either robbery or theft as the case may be.
(People v. Tan, G.R. No. 135904, Jan. 21, 2000)

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Assuming, despite the totally inadequate evidence, that the taking was temporary and for a joy ride, the Court
sustains as the better view[57] that which holds that when a person, either with the object of going to a certain
place, or learning how to drive, or enjoying a free ride, takes possession of a vehicle belonging to another,
without the consent of its owner, he is guilty of theft because by taking possession of the personal property
belonging to another and using it, his intent to gain is evident since he derives therefrom utility, satisfaction,
enjoyment and pleasure. Justice Ramon C. Aquino cites in his work Groizard who holds that the use of a thing
constitutes gain and Cuello Calon who calls it hurt de uso. (Villacorta v. Insurance Commission &
ASSOCIATION OF BAPTISTS FOR WORLD EVANGELISM, INC. v. FIELDMEN’S INSURANCE CO., INC.)

X.

The Royal S.S. Maru, a vessel registered in Panama, was 300 nautical miles from Aparri, Cagayan when its
engines malfunctioned. The Captain ordered his men to drop anchor and repair the ship. While the officers and
crew were asleep, armed men boarded the vessel and took away several crates containing valuable items and
loaded them in their own motorboat. Before the band left, they planted an explosive which they detonated from
a safe distance. The explosion damaged the hull of the ship, killed ten (10) crewmen, and injured fifteen (15)
others.

What crime or crimes, if any, were committed? Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Ordinarily, the crime would have only been piracy if armed men took only any of the cargoes of the ship.
However, the crime in the case at bar is qualified piracy because of the fact that murder and physical injuries
attended the commission of piracy. The blasting of the hull of the ship could also qualify as an attack thereon so
as to elevate the crime to qualified piracy. (Art. 123)

XI

Angelino, a Filipino, is a transgender who underwent gender reassignment and had implants in different parts
of her body. She changed her name to Angelina and was a finalist in the Miss Gay International. She came
back to the Philippines and while she was walking outside her home, she was abducted by Max and Razzy
who took her to a house in the province. She was then placed in a room and Razzy forced her to have sex with
him at knife's point. After the act, it dawned upon Razzy that Angelina is actually a male. Incensed, Razzy
called Max to help him beat Angelina. The beatings that Angelina received eventually caused her death. What
crime or crimes, if any, were committed? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The crime committed a special complex crime of kidnapping with homicide. Where the person kidnapped is
killed in the course of the detention, regardless of whether the killing was purposely sought or was merely an
afterthought, the kidnapping and murder or homicide can no longer be complexed under Art. 48, nor be treated
as separate crimes, but shall be punished as a special complex crime under the last paragraph of Art. 267, as
amended by RA No. 7659.(People v. Montanir, G.R. No. 187534, April 4, 2011)

It is only homicide because the accused acted with passion and obfuscation when he killed Angelina after
knowing she was a man. (Pemberton / Laude Case as affirmed by the CA) In special complex crimes, all other
crimes are absorbed and they are not even considered aggravating unless they are included in Art. 14 of the
RPC. (Boado, Compact Reviewer Criminal Law, p. 410, 2016 Edition)

Hence, rape or sexual assault in the present case is absorbed.

XII.

Arnold, 25 years of age, was sitting on a bench in Luneta Park watching the statue of Jose Rizal when, without
his permission, Leilani, 17 years of age, sat beside him and asked for financial assistance, allegedly for
payment of her tuition fee, in exchange for sex. While they were conversing, police operatives arrested and
charged him with violation of Section 10 of RA 7610 (Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse,
Exploitation and Discrimination Act), accusing him of having in his company a minor, who is not related to him,
in a public place. It was established that Arnold was not in the performance of a social, moral and legal duty at
that time.

Is Arnold liable for the charge? Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Arnold is not liable for the charge. Arnold when he was apprehended was not committing any crime. There
were no overt acts by Arnold indicating that he was exploiting the said 17 year old girl. Furthermore, the said
section only punishes a person who keeps in his company a minor who is 12 years of age or under or if the age
difference between the two is 10 years. The requisites of said section are not obtaining in the case at bar since
the child was already 17 year old and Arnold was 25 years old. The gap between ages of the two is not more
than 10 years. In fact, it was the female herself who was engaged in illicit activities.

XIII.

Domingo is the caretaker of two (2) cows and two (2) horses owned by Hannibal. Hannibal told Domingo to
lend the cows to Tristan on the condition that the latter will give a goat to the former when the cows are
returned. Instead, Tristan sold the cows and pocketed the money. Due to the neglect of Domingo, one of the
horses was stolen. Knowing that he will be blamed for the loss, Domingo slaughtered the other horse, got the
meat, and sold it to Pastor. He later reported to Hannibal that the two horses were stolen.

[a] What crime or crimes, if any, did Tristan commit? Explain. (2.5%)

[b] What crime or crimes, if any, were committed by Domingo? Explain. (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWERS:

a) Tristan is liable cattle rustling. Cattle rustling is the taking away by any means, methods or schemes,
without the consent of the owner/raiser, of any large cattle with or without intent to gain or whether committed
with or without violence or intimidation of persons or force upon things. Tristan was obligated to return the cows
after he made use of the same. When he sold it without the consent of Hannibal, he committed cattle rustling.
b) Domingo is also guilty of cattle rustling. Cattle rustling includes the killing of large cattle, or taking its
meat or hide without the consent of the owner.

XIV.

Dimas was arrested after a valid buy-bust operation. Macario, the policeman who acted as poseur-buyer,
inventoried and photographed ten (10) sachets of shabu in the presence of a barangay tanod. The inventory
was signed by Macario and the tanod, but Dimas refused to sign. As Macario was stricken with flu the day after,
he was able to surrender the sachets to the PNP Crime Laboratory only after four (4) days. During pre-trial, the
counsel de officio of Dimas stipulated that the substance contained in the sachets examined by the forensic
chemist is in fact methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Dimas was convicted of violating Section 5 of RA
9165. On appeal, Dimas questioned the admissibility of the evidence because Macario failed to observe the
requisite "chain of custody" of the alleged "shabu" seized from him. On behalf of the State, the Solicitor General
claimed that despite non-compliance with some requirements, the prosecution was able to show that the
integrity of the substance was preserved. Moreover, even with some deviations from the requirements, the
counsel of Dimas stipulated that the substance seized from Dimas was shabu so that the conviction should be
affirmed.

[a] What is the "chain of custody" requirement in drug offenses? (2.5%)

[b] Rule on the contention of the State. (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWERS:

a) The chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient
to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony
about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence, in
such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received,
where it was and what happened to it while in the witness possession, the condition in which it was received
and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe
the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity
for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. (PP v. Climaco, G.R. No. 199403)

b) The contention of the state is untenable. First, the counsel of Dimas who agreed to such stipulation
was a de officio counsel. It was not an independent counsel of his choosing. Second, the police officers failed
to turn over the alleged shabu to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory within 24 hours. And third, they failed to
explain or justify such procedural lapse.

Although substantial compliance has been upheld by the SC in its decisions, it also has stated that the officers
concerned must “present justiablef reason for their imperfect conduct and show that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items had been preserved.” Failure thereof must then result in the dismissal of
the case and acquittal of the person accused (People vs. Watamama,G.R. No. 194945, July 30, 2012, 677
SCRA 737).

XV.

Pedro, Pablito, Juan and Julio, all armed with bolos, robbed the house where Antonio, his wife, and three (3)
daughters were residing. While the four were ransacking Antonio's house, Julio noticed that one of Antonio's
daughters was trying to escape. He chased and caught up with her at a thicket somewhat distant from the
house, but before bringing her back, raped her.

[a] What crime or crimes, if any, did Pedro, Pablito, Juan and Julio commit? Explain. (2.5%)
[b] Suppose, after the robbery, the four took turns in raping the three daughters inside the house, and, to
prevent identification, killed the whole family just before they left. What crime or crimes, if any, did the four
malefactors commit? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWERS:

[a] Pedro, Pablito, and Juan are all guilty as principals in the crime of robbery by a band. They were all
armed when they ransacked the house of Antonio. However, only Julio is guilty for robbery with rape. If in the
course of the robbery by a band, a woman was raped by one of the robbers without the knowledge of his
companions, he alone is guilty of robbery with rape. (People v. Hamiana, 89 Phil 225)

[b] They are all guilty for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide aggravated by the
circumstance of multiple rape. (PP v. Tapales et al, G.R. No. L-35281, September 10, 1979)

XVI.

A is the president of the corporate publisher of the daily tabloid, Bulgar; B is the managing editor; and C is the
author/writer. In his column, Direct Hit, C wrote about X, the head examiner of the BIR-RDO Manila as follows:
"!tong si X ay talagang BUWAYA kaya ang logo ng Lacoste T shirt niya ay napaka suwapang na buwaya. Ang
nickname niya ay si Atty. Buwaya. Ang PR niya ay 90% sa bayad ng taxpayer at ang para sa RP ay 10% /ang.
Kaya ang baba ng collection ng RDO niya. Masyadong magnanakaw si X at dapat tangga/in itong bundat na
bundat na buwaya na ito at napakalaki na ng kurakot."

A, B and C were charged with libel before the RTC of Manila. The three (3) defendants argued that the article is
within the ambit of qualified privileged communication; that there is no malice in law and in fact; and, that
defamatory comments on the acts of public officials which are related to the discharge of their official duties do
not constitute libel.

Was the crime of libel committed? If so, are A, B, and C all liable for the crime? Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, libel was committed. A, B and C cannot escape liability by pleading that it falls within the ambit of qualified
privileged communication. To fall within such classification, the comments must be based on established facts.
In the present case, neither of them exerted any efforts to verify the information before publishing the articles.
They offered no proof of such accusations.

Furthermore, they cannot claim that there was no malice in law and in fact, to reiterate, they failed to verify if
the information on which the writings were based were true. The test to be followed is that laid down in New
York Times Co. v. Sullivan, and reiterated in Flor v. People which held that actual malice is proved by evidence
that the author had knowledge that the offending statement was false or that it was made with reckless
disregard of whether it was false or not.

Lastly, the comments here were made not in connection with the performance of official duties of X, nor was it
in relation to matters of public interest. (Tulfo v. People, G.R. No. 161032, September 16, 2008)

XVII.

Braulio invited Lulu, his 11-year old stepdaughter, inside the master bedroom. He pulled out a knife and
threatened her with harm unless she submitted to his desires. He was touching her chest and sex organ when
his wife caught him in the act. The prosecutor is unsure whether to charge Braulio for acts of lasciviousness
under Art. 336 of the RPC; for lascivious conduct under RA 7610 (Special Protection against Child Abuse,
Exploitation and Discrimination Act); or for rape under Art. 266-A of the RPC. What is the crime committed?
Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The prosecutor should charge Braulio under RA 7610. RA 7610 is a law referring to a particular class in society,
in this case, minors. The facts in the case at bar adequately show that the acts of Braulio fall within the
provisions of RA 7610. The accused has committed acts of lascivious conduct, it was performed with a child
subjected to other sexual abuse, and the child is below 18. (Navarette v. People, G.R. No. 147913 &People v.
Montinola, G.R. No. 178061, January 31, 2008)

XVIII.

Lina worked as a housemaid and yaya of the one-week old son of the spouses John and Joana.

When Lina learned that her 70-year old mother was seriously ill, she asked John for a cash advance of
P20,000.00, but the latter refused. In anger, Lina gagged the mouth of the child with stockings, placed him in a
box, sealed it with masking tape, and placed the box in the attic. Lina then left the house and asked her friend
Fely to demand a P20,000.00 ransom for the release of the spouses' child to be paid within twenty-four hours.
The spouses did not pay the ransom. After a couple of days, John discovered the box in the attic with his child
already dead. According to the autopsy report, the child died of asphyxiation barely minutes after the box was
sealed.

What crime or crimes, if any, did Lina and Fely commit? Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Lina is guilty of the crime of murder qualified with treachery and appreciating the aggravating circumstances of
lack of respect due to the age of the victim, cruelty and abuse of confidence.

The circumstance of lack of respect due to age applies in cases where the victim is of tender age as well as of
old age. This circumstance was applied in a case where one of the victims in a murder case was a 12-year-old
boy. In the instant case, the victim was only 3 years old. The gagging of the mouth of a three-year-old child with
stockings, dumping him with head downwards into a box, and covering the box with sacks and other boxes,
thereby causing slow suffocation, is cruelty. There was also abuse of confidence because the victim was
entrusted to the care of the appellant. The appellant's main duty in the household is to take care of the minor
child. There existed a relation of trust and confidence between the appellant and the one against whom the
crime was committed and the appellant made use of such relation to commit the crime. (PP v. Vequizo, G.R.
No. L-49430, March 30, 1982)

Fely is liable in the said crime as an accessory. She is liable as such because she assisted the offender to
profit by the effects of the crime. (Art. 18)

XIX.

Romeo and Julia have been married for twelve (12) years and had two (2) children. The first few years of their
marriage went along smoothly. However, on the fifth year onwards, they would often quarrel when Romeo
comes home drunk. The quarrels became increasingly violent, marked by quiet periods when Julia would leave
the conjugal dwelling. During these times of quiet, Romeo would "court" Julia with flowers and chocolate and
convince her to return home, telling her that he could not live without her; or Romeo would ask Julia to forgive
him, which she did, believing that if she humbled herself, Romeo would change. After a month of marital bliss,
Romeo would return to his drinking habit and the quarrel would start again, verbally at first, until it would
escalate to physical violence.

One night, Romeo came home drunk and went straight to bed. Fearing the onset of another violent fight, Julia
stabbed Romeo while he was asleep. A week later, their neighbors discovered Romeo's rotting corpse on the
marital bed. Julia and the children were nowhere to be found. Julia was charged with parricide. She asserted
"battered woman's syndrome" as her defense.

[a] Explain the "cycle of violence." (2.5%)

[b] Is Julia's "battered woman's syndrome" defense meritorious? Explain. (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWERS:

[a] In People Vs. Genosa, the Court ruled that the battered woman syndrome is characterized by a
―CYCLE OF VIOLENCE‖, which is made up of three phases.

i. First Phase: Tension Building Phase

(1) Where minor battering occurs, it could be a verbal or slight physical abuse or another form of
hostile behavior.

(2) The woman tries to pacify the batterer through a show of kind, nurturing behavior, or by simply
staying out of the way.

(3) But this proves to be unsuccessful as it only gives the batterer the notion that he has the right
to abuse her.

ii. Second Phase: Acute Battering Incident

(1) Characterized by brutality, destructiveness, and sometimes death.

(2) The battered woman has no control; only the batterer can stop the violence.

(3) The battered woman realizes that she cannot reason with him and resistance would only
worsen her condition.

iii. Third Phase: Tranquil Period

(1) Characterized by guilt on the part of the batterer and forgiveness on the part of the woman.

(2) The batterer may show a tender and nurturing behavior towards his partner and the woman
also tries to convince herself that the battery will never happen again and that her partner will change
for the better.

[b] No. Her defense will not prosper. A battered woman has been defined as a woman “who is repeatedly
subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do something he
wants her to do without concern for her rights. Battered women include wives or women in any form of intimate
relationship with men. Furthermore, in order to be classified as a battered woman, the couple must go through
the battering cycle at least twice. Any woman may find herself in an abusive relationship with a man once. If it
occurs a second time, and she remains in the situation, she is defined as a battered woman. The facts do not
support a finding that Julia can be classified as a battered woman. No doubt there were acute battering
incidents, but the facts fail to support that at least she had gone through another battering episode in the past.

XX.

A, an OFW, worked in Kuwait for several years as a chief accountant, religiously sending to his wife, B, 80% of
all his earnings. After his stint abroad, he was shocked to know that B became the paramour of a married man,
C, and that all the monies he sent to B were given by her to C. To avenge his honor, A hired X, Y and Z and told
them to kidnap C and his wife, D, so that he can inflict injuries on C to make him suffer and humiliate him in
front of his wife. X, Y and Z were paid P20,000.00 each and were promised a reward of P50,000.00 each once
the job is done. At midnight, A, with the fully armed X, Y and Z, forcibly opened the door and gained entrance to
the house of C and D. C put up a struggle before he was subdued by A's group. They boarded C and D in a
van and brought the two to a small hut in a farm outside Metro Manila. Both hands of C and D were tied. With
the help of X, Y and Z, A raped D in front of C. X, Y and Z then took turns in raping D, and subjected C to
torture until he was black and blue and bleeding profusely from several stab wounds. A and his group set the
hut on fire before leaving, killing both C and D. X, Y and Z were paid their reward. Bothered by his conscience,
A surrendered the next day to the police, admitting the crimes he committed.

As the RTC judge, decide what crime or crimes were committed by A, X, Y and Z, and what mitigating and
aggravating circumstances will be applied in imposing the penalty. Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Crime committed:

Conspiring and confederating with each other committed Rape with Double Murder.

Note: Each of them is guilty for four counts of rape. (We have repeatedly held that in cases of multiple rape,
each of the defendants is responsible not only for the rape committed by him but also for those committed by
the others. [G.R. Nos. 138361-63. December 3, 2002])

There is no forcible abduction or kidnapping in the present case for the taking was merely incidental to the
intention of killing the spouses.

 A – principal by inducement
 X, Y, & Z – principal by direct participation

Aggravating Circumstances:

(1) Price, promise or reward.

(2) Crime was committed by means of motor vehicle

(3) Dwelling

(4) Nighttime

(5) By a band

(6) Fire

(7) Murder was committed by all of them (by means of fire)

(8) Ignominy – rape of the wife was committed in front of the husband of the victim (People vs.
Obtinalia, 38 SCRA 651 (1971); People vs. Soriano, 207 Phil. 630 (1983); People vs. Detuya, 154
SCRA 410 (1987))

(9) Treachery

Mitigating Circumstances:

 Voluntary surrender (applicable to A only)