CRIMINAL LAW 2 FINALS REVIEWER
Elements:
ENUMERATION
1. Illegal recruitment? Enumerate the
elements.
a. The offender has no valid license or
authority required by law to enable
one to lawfully engage in recruitment
and placement of workers; and
b. The offender undertakes either any
activity within the meaning of
“recruitment and placement” defined
under Article 13 (b), or any prohibited
practices enumerated under Art. 34 of
the Labor Code.
2. Ways of Committing Estafa involving
economic sabotage
When Illegal Recruitment is committed by
a syndicate, where there are three or more
perpetrators, or in large scale, where there are
three or more victims, the offense is of estafa is
considered to involve economic sabotage. Three
elements must be established:
a. The offender undertakes any of the acts
within the meaning of recruitment or
placement defined under Article 13 (b) or
any of the prohibited practices
enumerated under Art. 34 of the Labor
Code.
b. He has no valid license or authority
required by law to enable one to fully
engage in recruitment or placement of
workers.
c. The illegal recruitment is committed by
a group of three or more persons
conspiring or confederating with one
another, or against three or more persons,
individually or a group.
3. Ways of committing rape and the
elements of each.
(1) Traditional concept under Article
335 – carnal knowledge with a
woman against her will.  The
offended party is always a woman
and the offender is always a man.
a. Where intimidation or violence is
employed with a view to have carnal
knowledge of a woman;
b. Where the victim is deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious;
c. Where the rape was made possible
because of fraudulent machination or
abuse of authority; or
d. Where the victim is under 12 years
of age, or demented, even though no
intimidation nor violence is employed.
a) That a man succeeds in having
carnal knowledge of a woman
b) That the offender is a man and the
victim is a woman
c) That such carnal knowledge was
obtained through any of the
following circumstances:
i) Through force, threat, or
intimidation
ii) When the offended party is
deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious;
iii) By means of fraudulent
machination or grave abuse
of authority; and
iv) When the offended party is
under twelve (12) years of
age or is demented, even
though none of the
circumstances mentioned
above be present.
(2) Sexual assault - committed with
an instrument or an object or use
of the penis with penetration of
mouth or anal orifice.  The
offended party or the offender
can either be man or woman, that
is, if a woman or a man uses an
instrument on anal orifice of
male, she or he can be liable for
rape.
a. Where the penis is inserted into the
anal or oral orifice;
b. Where an instrument or object is
inserted into the genital or oral orifice.
Elements:
a. The offender commits
sexual assault upon the
victim that is, the penis of
the offender is inserted in
the mouth or anal orifice of
the victim OR the any
instrument or object is
inserted in the genital or
anal orifice of the victim
b. Any of the circumstances in
paragraph 1, (a) to (d ) are
present
4. Rape is qualified in the following
circumstances:
 A. When the victim is under eighteen (18)
years of age and the offender is a parent,
ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative
by consanguinity or affinity within the
third civil degree, or the common law
spouse of the parent of the victim. fptfx j
B. When the victim is under the custody of
the police or military authorities or any law
enforcement or penal institution.
C. When the rape is committed in full view of
the spouse, parent, any of the children or
other relatives within the third civil degree
of consanguinity.
D. When the victim is a religious engaged in
legitimate religious vocation or calling and
is personally known to be such by the
offender before or at the time of the
commission of the crime.
E. When the victim is a child below seven (7)
years old.
F. When the offender knows that he is
afflicted with Human Immuno-Deficiency
Virus (HIV)/Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome (AIDS) or any other sexually
transmissible disease and the virus or
disease is transmitted to the victim.
G. When committed by any member of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines or para-
military units thereof or the Philippine
National Police or any law enforcement
agency or penal institution, when the
offender took advantage of his position to
facilitate the commission of the crime.
H. When by reason or on the occasion of the
rape, the victim has suffered permanent
physical mutilation or disability.
I. When the offender knew of the pregnancy
of the offended party at the time of the
commission of the crime.
J. When the offender knew of the mental
disability, emotional disorder and/or
physical handicap of the offended party at
the time of the commission of the crime.
5. Elements of sexual harassment.
(a) The offender is an employer (or employee
of higher rank,) manager, supervisor,
trainer, agent of the employer, teacher,
instructor, professor, coach or any other
person with authority, influence or moral
ascendancy over the victim
(b) The authority, influence or moral
ascendancy exists in a working
environment (in case of a work-related
category)
(c) The offender, demands or requests a
sexual favor from the victim
6. Syndicated Child Pornography
The crime of child pornography is
deemed committed by a syndicate if carried
out by a group of three (3) or more persons
conspiring or confederating with one another.
7. Requisites for criminal liability under BP
22
Elements of the offense defined in the
1st paragraph of Sec 1:
(a) That a person makes or draws and
issues any check
(b) That the check is made or drawn and
issued to apply on account or for value
(c) That the person who makes or draws
and issues the check knows at the
time of issue that he does not have
sufficient funds in or credit with the
drawee bank for the payment of such
check in full upon its presentment
(d) That the check
1. is subsequently dishonored by
the drawee bank for insufficiency of
funds or credit, or
2. would have been dishonored for
the same reason had not the
drawer, without any valid reason,
ordered the bank to stop payment
Elements of the offense defined in the
2nd paragraph of Sec 1:
(a) That a person has sufficient funds in or
credit with the drawee bank when he
makes or draws and issues a check
(b) That he fails to keep sufficient funds or
to maintain a credit to cover the full
amount of the check if presented
within a period of 90 days from the
date appearing thereon
(c) That the check is dishonored by the
drawee bank
8. Distinguish BP 22 from estafa.
(a) Unlike estafa, element of DAMAGE
is NOT REQUIRED in BP 22
(b) Article 315 par 2 (d) of estafa has
DECEIT as an element. BP 22 does
NOT require such element.
(c) Also, the mere fact of postdating or
issuing a check when the drawer
had no or insufficient funds in the
bank makes someone liable under
Article 315 par 2(d) of estafa. BP
22, 1st paragraph requires
knowledge of insufficient funds.
9. Is bp 22 a continuing crime?
 Yes. Violations of B.P. 22 are categorized
as transitory or continuing crimes. A suit on the
check can be filed in any of the places where any
of the elements of the offense occurred, that is,
where the check is drawn, issued, delivered or
dishonoured
10. Elements of the crime of arson.
(a) there is intentional burning; and
(b) what is intentionally burned is an
inhabited house or dwelling. Both
these elements have been proven in
the present case.  or afford impunity;
11. Persons Liable in Violation of the Anti-
Hazing Law
As principals:
1. The officers and members of the
fraternity, sorority or organization who
actually participated in the infliction of the
physical harm;
2. If the hazing is held in some home of the
members of the organization, the parents
when they have actual knowledge of the
hazing conducted but who failed to
prevent it;
3. The officers, former officers or alumni of
the organization/ group who actually
planned the hazing although they may not
have been present at the hazing proper
4. The officers, former officers or alumni of
the organization/ group who knowingly
cooperated in the carrying out of the
hazing by inducing the victim to be
present thereat
5. The adviser of the organization/ group who
was present when the acts constituting
the hazing were committed and failed to
take action to prevent the hazing
6. As accomplices:
1. Owner of the place where the hazing was
conducted when he has actual knowledge
of the hazing but failed to take action to
prevent the same
2. The school authorities who consented to
the hazing or who has actual knowledge
thereof but failed to take action to prevent
the same
12. Elements of Parricide
1. That a person is killed
2. That the person is killed by the accused
3. That the deceased is the father, mother or
child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or
a legitimate other ascendant or other
descendant, or the legitimate spouse of
the accused
13. Rules for the application of the
circumstances that qualify the killing to
murder.
The killing was attended by any of the
following qualifying circumstances –
(a) With treachery, taking advantage of
superior strength, with the aid or armed
men, or employing means to weaken the
defense, or of means or persons to insure
(b) In consideration of a price, reward or
promise;
(c) By means of inundation, fire, poison,
explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a
vessel, derailment or assault upon a
railroad, fall of an airship, by means of
motor vehicles, or with the use of any
other means involving great waste and
ruin;
(d) On occasion of any of the calamities
enumerated in the preceding paragraph,
or of an earthquake, eruption of a
volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic, or
any other public calamity;
(e) With evident premeditation
(f) With cruelty, by deliberately and
inhumanly augmenting the suffering of
the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his
person or corpse.
14. Intentional/Unintentional abortion and
abortion practiced by a physician or
practiced by the woman herself.
INTENTIONAL ABORTION
(a) There is a pregnant woman;
(b) Violence is exerted, or drugs or
beverages administered, or that the
accused otherwise acts upon such
pregnant woman;
(c) As a result of the use of violence or
drugs or beverages upon her, or any
other act of the accused, the fetus
dies, either in the womb or after
having been expelled therefrom;
(d) The abortion is intended.
UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION
(a) There is a pregnant woman;
(b) Violence is used upon such pregnant
woman without intending an abortion;
(c) The violence is intentionally exerted;
(d) As a result of the violence, the fetus
dies, either in the womb or after
having been expelled therefrom.
PHYSICIAN
(a) There is a pregnant woman who has
suffered an abortion;
 (b) The abortion is intended;
(c) Offender, who must be a physician or
midwife, caused or assisted in causing
the abortion;
(d) Said physician or midwife took
advantage of his or her scientific
knowledge or skill.
WOMAN
(a) There is a pregnant woman who has
suffered an abortion;
(b) The abortion is intended;
(c) Abortion is caused by -
 The pregnant woman herself;
 Any other person, with her consent; or
 Any of her parents, with her consent
for the purpose of concealing her
dishonor.
15. Distinction between frustrated homicide
and serious physical injuries
a. As to intent to kill, as held in Guzman vs.
People, intent to kill is necessary for an act
to be frustrated homicide, otherwise, the
crime will only be serious physical injuries.
b. As to the injury, frustrated homicide
requires a fatal injury which could’ve killed
the victim were it not for timely medical
assistance he received, irregardless of
days of hospitalization or result. In serious
physical injuries, the injury may be one
requiring a hospitalization of at least 31
days, an injury incapacitating one of the
victim’s five senses, an injury
incapacitating him to engage usual work,
an injury deforming a part of his body,an
injury or illness requiring 90 days of
hospitalization, or an injury causing the
victim to lose his mental faculty, sight or
potency.
c. Serious physical injuries may be caused
through negligence, hence, reckless
imprudence resulting to serious physical
injuries. But there can be no reckless
imprudence resulting in frustrated
homicide because frustrated homicide
requires intent to kill.
16. Distinctions between robbery and theft
 In theft the offender does not use
violence or intimidation or does not enter
a house or building through any of the
means specified in Article 299 or Article
302 in taking personal property of another
with intent to gain.
 In robbery, it is necessary that there
should be taking against the will of the
owner; for theft, it suffices that consent on
the part of the owner is lacking.
17. Presumption of fencing
Section 5 of PD 1612 expressly provides that
mere possession of anything of value which has
been subject of theft or robbery shall be prima
evidence of fencing, it follows that a possessor of
stolen goods is presumed to have knowledge that
the goods found in his possession after the fact of
theft or robbery has been established.
The presumption does not offend the
presumption of innocence in the fundamental law
as riled in Pamintuan v. People, July 11, 1994.
18. Ways of committing estafa
a. With unfaithfulness or abuse of
confidence;
b. by means of false pretenses or
fraudulent acts; or
c. through fraudulent means
19. Elements of Adultery and Concubinage
Elements of Adultery:
1. That the woman is married;
2. That she has sexual intercourse with a
man not her husband; and
3. That as regards the man with whom
she has sexual intercourse, he must
know her to be married
Elements of Concubinage:
1. That the man is married;
2. That he committed any of the following
acts: a) keeping a mistress in the
conjugal dwelling; b) having sexual
intercourse under scandalous
circumstances with a woman not his
wife; c) cohabiting with her in any
other place;
3. That as regards the woman, she must
know that the man is married
20. Elements of qualified seduction and
simple seduction
QUALIFIED
(a) Offended party is a virgin, which is
presumed if she is unmarried and of
good reputation;
(b) She is over 12 and under 18 years of
age;
(c) Offender has sexual intercourse with
her;
(d) There is abuse of authority, confidence
or relationship on the part of the
offender.

SIMPLE
(a) Offended party is over 12 and
under 18 years of age;
(b) She is of good reputation, single or
widow;
(c) Offender has sexual intercourse
with her;
(d) It is committed by means of deceit.
21. Elements of Forcible Abduction and
Consented Abduction
ELEMENTS OF FORCIBLE ABDUCTION:
1. That the person abducted is any
woman, regardless of her age, civil
status, or reputation.
2. That the abduction is against her will.
3. That the abduction is with lewd
designs.
ELEMENTS OF CONSENTED ABDUCTION:
1. That the offended party must be a
virgin.
2. That she must be over 12 and under
18 years of age.
3. That the taking away of the offended
party must be with her consent, after
solicitation or cajolery from the
offender.
4. That the taking away of the offended
party must be with lewd designs.
22. Elements of Libel
The elements of libel are:
a. There is an imputation of a crime, or of
a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or
any act, omission, condition, status, or
circumstance;
b. It is made publicly;
c. It is malicious;
d. It is directed at a natural or juridical
person, or one who is dead;
e. It tends to cause the dishonor,
discredit or contempt of the person
defamed.
C. If the slightest penetration of the female
QUESTIONS:
TITLE VIII: CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
A. Enumerate the Crimes Against Person
B. 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. 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? Is Felipa liable for
adultery for having sexual relations with
Alma?
No. Art. 247 of the Revised Penal
Code is not applicable.
to apply, the offender must catch his
or her spouse in the act of
committing sexual intercourse with
another person. In People of the
Philippines v. Marciano Gonzales, the
Supreme Court held that to avail of
the privilege under Art. 247, the
accused should surprise his wife in
the “very act of sexual intercourse”.
Sexual intercourse generally
presupposes the penetration of the
man’s sexual organ into that of a
woman’s.
In this case, the paramour was of the
same gender as the erring spouse. As
such, there is legally, no sexual
intercourse to speak of, hence, Art.
247 is not applicable.
Is Felipa liable for adultery for having
sexual relations with Alma?
No. adultery is committed by any
married woman who shall have sexual
intercourse with a “man” not her
husband, Thus, Felipa in having
homosexual intercourse with Alma, a
“woman”, is not committing adultery.
genitalia consummates rape by carnal
knowledge, how does the accused commit
attempted rape by carnal knowledge?
The slightest penetration – contact
with the labia – will consummate the
rape.
 As long as there is an intent to effect
sexual cohesion, although
unsuccessful, the crime becomes
attempted rape.  However, if that
intention is not proven, the offender
can only be convicted of acts of
lasciviousness.
D. Why is there no crime of frustrated serious
physical injuries?
The crime of physical injuries is a
crime of result because under our
laws the crime of physical injuries is
based on the gravity of the injury
sustained. So this crime is always
consummated, notwithstanding the
opinion of Spanish commentators like
Cuello Calon, Viada, etc., that it can
be committed in the attempted or
frustrated stage.
If the act does not give rise to
injuries, you will not be able to say
whether it is attempted slight
physical injuries, attempted less
serious physical injuries, or
attempted serious physical injuries
unless the result is there.
The reason why there is no attempted
or frustrated physical injuries is
because the crime of physical injuries
is determined on the gravity of the
injury. As long as the injury is not
there, there can be no attempted or
frustrated stage thereof.
E. What crime is committed by a person who
kills a three-day old baby?
If the victim is three days old or
above, the crime is parricide.
But you call the crime infanticide, not
parricide, if the age of the victim is
less than three days old.
F. What are the ways committing the crime
of rape. Enumerate the elements of each.
(1) Traditional concept under Article
335 – carnal knowledge with a
woman against her will.  The
offended party is always a woman
and the offender is always a man.
a. Where intimidation or violence is
employed with a view to have carnal
knowledge of a woman;
b. Where the victim is deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious;
c. Where the rape was made possible
because of fraudulent machination or
abuse of authority; or
d. Where the victim is under 12 years
of age, or demented, even though no
intimidation nor violence is employed.
Elements:
d) That a man succeeds in having
carnal knowledge of a woman
e) That the offender is a man and the
victim is a woman
f) That such carnal knowledge was
obtained through any of the
following circumstances:
i) Through force, threat, or
intimidation
ii) When the offended party is
deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious;
iii) By means of fraudulent
machination or grave abuse
of authority; and
iv) When the offended party is
under twelve (12) years of
age or is demented, even
though none of the
circumstances mentioned
above be present.
(2) Sexual assault - committed with
an instrument or an object or use
of the penis with penetration of
mouth or anal orifice.  The
offended party or the offender
can either be man or woman, that
is, if a woman or a man uses an
instrument on anal orifice of
male, she or he can be liable for
rape.
a. Where the penis is inserted into the
anal or oral orifice;
b. Where an instrument or object is
inserted into the genital or oral orifice.
Elements:
c. The offender commits
sexual assault upon the
victim that is, the penis of
the offender is inserted in
the mouth or anal orifice of
the victim OR the any
instrument or object is
inserted in the genital or
anal orifice of the victim
d. Any of the circumstances in
paragraph 1, (a) to (d ) are
present
G. Tonito, an 8-year-old boy, was watching a
free concert at the Luneta Park with his
father Tony. The child stood on a chair to
be able to see the performers on the
stage. Juanito, a 10-year-old boy, who was
also watching the concert, could not see
much of the performance on the stage
because Tonito was blocking his line of
sight by standing on the chair. Using his
elbow, Juanito strongly shoved Tonito to
get a good view of the stage. The shove
caused Tonito to fall to the ground. Seeing
this, Tony struck Juanito on the head with
his hand and caused the boy to fall and to
hit his head on a chair. Tony also wanted
to strangle Juanito but the latter's aunt
prevented him from doing so. Juanito
sustained a lacerated wound on the head
that required medical attendance for 10
days. Tony was charged with child abuse
in violation of Sec. 10(a), in relation to
Sec. 3(b)(2), of R.A. No. 7610 (Child Abuse
Law) for allegedly doing an "act by deeds
or words which debases, degrades or
demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of
a child as a human being." In his defense,
Tony contended that he had no intention
to maltreat Juanito, much less to degrade
his intrinsic worth and dignity as a human
being. Was Tony criminally liable for child
abuse under R.A. No. 7610?
Since the accused committed the act
at the spur of the moment, they are
perpetrated without intent to debase
his" intrinsic worth and dignity" as a
human being, or to humiliate or
embarrass him. Without such intent,
the crime committed is not child
abuse under RA 7610 but merely
slight physical injuries.
H. A, is the wife of B, but she and X her
former friend were having an illicit
relation. One afternoon, B, unnoticed by A,
followed his wife to a motel and saw her
enter a room and close the door. After the
lapse of some minutes, B managed to get
in and found A and X lying together in bed.
With his knife, B plunged at X but the
latter parried the thrust and was able to
wrest the weapon from B and stabbed the
latter to death. Prosecuted for homicide,
X invoked the justifying circumstance of
self-defense in killing B. Rule on the
defense of X?
X cannot invoke the justifying
circumstances of self defense. An
essential requisite of self-defense is
unlawful aggression. The act of B in
assaulting X when he found him and
A, B's wife, lying together in a room
of the motel is natural and lawful, as
it was made by B, the deceived and
offended husband in order to defend
his honor and rights. X should have
known that having illicit relations
with A, a married woman, he was
performing an unlawful and criminal
act that would expose him to the
vengeance of the offended husband.
The act of B in assaulting X under the
circumstances cannot constitute
unlawful aggression (U.S. vs Merced
e9 Phil. 198). Furthermore, in view of
his illicit relations with A, B's wife,
and the situation in which B found
them, lying together in bed, would
constitute sufficient provocation to B
for him to attack X. The third
requisite of self-defense which is lack
of sufficient provocation on the part
of the person defending himself is,
therefore also absent.
I. A, a male, takes B, another male, to a
motel and there, through threat and
intimidation, succeeds in inserting his
penis into the anus of B. What, if any, is
A’s criminal liability?
A shall be criminally liable for rape by
committing an act of sexual assault
against B, by inserting his penis into
the anus of the latter. Even a man
may be a victim of rape by sexual
assault under par. 2 of Article 268-A
of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, “when the offender’s penis
is inserted into his mouth or anal
orifice.”
J. 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.
Razzy is liable for kidnapping with
homicide. Abducting Angelino is not
 forcible abduction since the victim in
this crime must be a woman. Gender
reassignment will not make him a
woman within the meaning of Art.
342 of the RPC. There is no showing,
moreover, that at the time of
abduction is committed with lewd
design; hence, his abduction
constitutes illegal detention. Since
Angelino was killed in the course of
the detention, the crime constitutes
kidnapping and serious illegal
detention with homicide under Art.
267.
Having sexual intercourse with
Angelino is not rape through sexual
intercourse since the victim in this
crime must be a woman. This act is
not rape through sexual assault
either, Razzy did not insert his penis
into the anal orifice or mouth of
Angelino or an instrument or object
into the latter’s anal orifice or genital
orifice, hence this act constitutes acts
of lasciviousness under Art. 336.
Since the acts of lasciviousness is
committed by reason or on occasion
of kidnapping, it will be integrated
into one and indivisible felony of
kidnapping with homicide.
Max is liable for kidnapping with
homicide as an accomplice since he
concurred in the criminal design of
Razzy in depriving Angelino his
liberty and supplied the former
material aid in an efficacious way by
helping him beat the latter.
K. During the nationwide transport strike to
protest the phase out of old public utility
vehicles, striking jeepney drivers Percy,
Pablo, Pater and Sencio, each armed with
guns, hailed several MMDA buses then
providing free transport to the stranded
public to stop them from plying their
routes. They later on commandeered one
of the buses without allowing any of the
passengers to alight, and told the driver to
bring the bus to Tanay, Rizal. Upon
reaching a remote area in Tanay, Percy,
Pablo, Pater and Sencio forcibly divested
the passengers of their cash and
valuables. They ordered the passengers to
leave thereafter. Then, they burned the
bus. When a tanod of the barangay of the
area came around to Intervene, Pater fired
at him, instantly killing him. After Percy,
Pablo, Pater and Sencio were arrested, the
police authorities recommended them to
be charged with the following crimes, to
wit: (1) carnapping; (2) robbery, (3) direct
assault with homicide; (4) kidnapping; and
(5) arson. State your legal opinion on the
recommendation of the police authorities
on the criminal liabilities incurred by
Percy, Pablo, Pater and Sencio.
Homicide component - In robbery
with homicide, it is immaterial that
the victim of homicide is a bystander,
a responding police or one of the
robbers. It is immaterial that aside
from the homicide, other crime such
as rape, intentional mutilation, or
usurpation of authority, is committed
by reason or on the occasion of the
crime. In this special complex crime,
all the felonies committed by reason
of or on the occasion of the robbery
are integrated into one and
indivisible felony of robbery with
homicide.
Direct assault with attempted
homicide or multiple rapes or acts of
lasciviousness committed by reason
or on occasion of robbery shall be
considered shall be integrated into
the special complex crime of robbery
with homicide.
If the main objective is to commit
robbery, and homicide and arson are
perpetrated by reason or on occasion
thereof, the crime committed is
robbery with homicide while arson
shall be integrated into this special
complex crime. However, by means of
fire shall be considered as an
ordinary aggravating circumstance
Robbery through kidnapping - If the
accused committed robbery, but
thereafter, they detained the victims
to forestall their capture by the
police, the crime committed is
robbery only. Robbery absorbs
kidnapping and serious illegal
detention. The detention was only
incidental to the main crime of
robbery, and although in the course
thereof women and children were
also held, that threats to kill were
made, the act should not be
considered as a separate offense
L. 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.
The acts of Braulio of touching the
chest and sex organ of Lulu, who is
under 12 years of age, are merely
acts of lasciviousness and not
attempted rape because intent to
have sexual intercourse is not clearly
shown. To be held liable of attempted
rape, it must be that the erectile
penis is in the position to penetrate
or the offender actually commenced
to force his penis into the victim’s
sexual organ.
The same acts of touching the chest
and sex organ of Lulu under
psychological coercion or influence of
her stepfather, Braulio constitutes
sexual abuse under Sec. 5 (b) of RA
No. 7610.
adopted child resulting in serious
impairment of growth and
development and in his permanent
incapacity, constitutes maltreatment
and is punishable as Child Abuse.
N. H and W are married. But W has an
identical twin WW. H saw WW enter a
motel with ZZ. H, mistakenly believing
that WW was his wife killed her upon
surprising her having sex with ZZ in the
motel room. What is the criminal liability
of H?
H, having mistakenly believing that W
was his wife (confusingly identical),
who has no intention to kill shall be
liable only of homicide. In the
absence of clear proof of any
circumstance that would qualify as
murder of the killing of the deceased,
the guilty person should be
sentenced only for homicide.
The Elements of Homicide under
Article 249 are:
1. A person was killed;

M. Mrs. Z was charged of child abuse. It

2. The accused killed him
appears from the evidence that she failed
without any justifying
to give immediately the required medical
circumstance;
attention to her adopted child, A , when he
was accidentally bumped by her car,
resulting in his head injuries and impaired 3. The accused had the
vision that could lead to night blindness. intention to kill, which is
The accused, according to the social presumed;
worker on the case, used to whip him
when he failed to come home on time 4. The killing was not
from school. Also, to punish him for attended by any of the
carelessness in washing dishes, she qualifying circumstances of
sometimes sent him to bed without murder, or by that of parricide
supper. She moved to quash the charge or infanticide.
on the ground that there is no evidence
that she maltreated her adopted child O. BB concealed FF’s body and the fact that
habitually. She added that the accident he killed him by setting FF’s house on fire.
was caused by her driver's negligence. What crime or crimes did BB commit?
She did punish her ward for naughtiness
or carelessness, but only mildly. Is her Separate Crimes of Murder and Arson
motion meritorious?
P. X killed B, mistakenly believing that she
NO, Z is guilty of Child Abuse under was his wife, upon surprising her having
R.A. NO. 7610. Said statute penalizes sex with another man in a motel room.
acts of child abuse whether habitual What is the criminal liability of X?
or not.
Homicide
Z’s act of whipping her adopted child
when he failed to come home on
Elements:
time, sending him to bed without
supper for carelessness in washing
1. A person was killed;
dishes, and failure to immediately
give medical treatment to her injured
 2. The accused killed him without suicide by poison, but she did not die and
any justifying circumstance; the fetus in her womb was expelled
instead?
3. The accused had the intention
to kill, which is presumed; No liability. In Order to incur criminal
4. The killing was not attended by liability for the result not intended,
any of the qualifying one must be committing a felony. An
circumstances of murder, or by attempt to commit suicide is an act,
that of parricide or infanticide. but it is not punishable by law. A
woman who tries to commit suicide is
Q. Arnold, 25 years of age, was sitting on a not committing a felony. She is,
bench in Luneta Park watching the statue therefore, not liable for abortion for
of Jose Rizal when, without his permission, expelling the fetus instead. The
Leilani, 17 years of age, sat beside him abortion that resulted is
and asked for financial assistance, unintentional, abortion not having
allegedly for payment of her tuition fee, in been intended by her, and
exchange for sex. While they were unintentional abortion is punishable
conversing, police operatives arrested and only when caused by violence not
charged him with violation of Section l0 of poison.
RA 7610 (Special Protection of Children
against Child Abuse, Exploitation and
U. The accused was shocked to discover his
Discrimination Act), accusing him of
wife and their driver sleeping in the
having in his company a minor, who is not
master’s bedroom. Outraged, the accused
related to him, in a public place. It was
got his gun and killed both. Can the
established that Arnold was not in the
accused claim that he killed the two under
performance of a social, moral and legal
exceptional circumstances?
duty at that time. Is Arnold liable for the
charge? Explain.
No, since the accused did not catch
them while having sexual intercourse.
No. His inaction the moment the girls
sat beside him does not constitute
V. A has been a bar girl/GRO at a beer house
what is provided under section 10 f
for more than 2 years. She fell in love with
RA 7610, to wit: Any person who shall
AT, the bartender, who impregnated her.
keep or have in his company a minor,
But A did not inform him about her
twelve (12) years or under or who in
condition and instead, went home to Cebu
ten (10) years or more his junior in
to conceal her shame. However, her
any public or private place, hotel,
parents drove her away. So she returned
motel, beer joint, discotheque,
to Manila and stayed with AT in his
cabaret, pension house, sauna or
boarding house. Upon learning of her
massage parlor, beach and/or other
pregnancy, already in an advanced state,
tourist resort or similar places. It is
AT tried to persuade her to undergo an
thus illogical to include Luneta Park
abortion, but she refused. Because of their
to those similar places.
constant and bitter quarrels, she suffered
birth pangs and gave birth prematurely to
R. On hearing a hospital ward patient on the
a live baby girl while AT was at his place of
next bed, shrieking in pain and begging to
work. Upon coming home and learning
die, M shut off the oxygen that was
what happened, he prevailed upon A to
sustaining the patient, resulting in his
conceal her dishonor. Hence, they placed
death. What crime if any did M commit?
the infant in a shoe box and threw it into a
nearby creek. However, an inquisitive
Murder if she deliberated on her
neighbor saw them and with the help of
action
others, retrieved the infant who was
already dead from drowning. The incident
S. When is a crime deemed to have been
was reported to the police who arrested A
committed by a band?
and AT. The 2 were charged with parricide
under Article 246 of the Revised Penal
IF there are more than three armed
Code. Correct?
malefactors shall have acted together
in the commission of an offense.
No, the crime charged, parricide, is
incorrect. The crime of parricide (and
T. What is the criminal liability, if any, of a
even infanticide) involves a killing
pregnant woman who tried to commit
 where the victim is already a person.
Under Art. 46, Civil Code, a newborn
with an intra uterine life of less than
7 months must live for at least 24
hours before it may be considered
born and hence, before it may
acquire personality of its own. The
newborn was still a fetus when killed
and was not yet a person. Hence, the
proper crime in law is infanticide. It is
legally a fetus who was killed, not a
person/child because legally it has no
personality yet.
W. A, a young housewife, and M, her
paramour, conspired to kill K, her
husband, to whom she was lawfully
married. R and F bought pancit and mixed
it with poison. R gave the food with poison
to M, but before M could eat it. C, his
illegitimate father, and E, her legitimate
son, arrived. M, C and E shared the food in
the presence of A, who merely watched
them eat. M, C and E died because of
having partaken of the poisoned food.
What crime or crimes did A and M
commit?
A committed the crime of multiple
parricide for the killing of C. her
lawful husband, D, her illegitimate
father, and E, her legitimate son. All
these killings constitute parricide
because of her relationship with the
victims. B committed the crime of
murder as a co-conspirator of A in the
killing of C because the killing was
carried out by means of poison. But
for feloniously causing the death of D
and E. B committed two counts of
homicide. The plan was only to kill C.
X. J and N committed 2 counts of the
complex crime of forcible abduction with
rape (Art. 342, Revised Penal Code) and
the separate offense of murder against D.
The crime committed is abduction
because there was lewd design when they
took the victims away and subsequently
raped them. The killing thereafter,
constitutes the separate offense of murder
qualified by treachery. Correct? Will N's
minority exculpate him?
Yes, the killing thereafter, constitutes
a separate offense of murder
qualified by treachery. The composite
crime is committed regardless of
whether the subsequent crimes were
purposely sought or merely an
afterthought.
Will N's minority exculpate him?
Yes, N’s minority will exculpate him
Under R.A. 9344, or the Juvenile
Justice and Welfare Act of 2006,
which retroacts to the date that the
crime was committed, N will be
exculpated if he was 15 years old or
below. However, if he was above 15
years old but below 18 years of age,
he will be liable if he acted with
discernment. As the problem shows
that N acted with discernment, he will
be entitled to a suspension of
sentence.
Y. Who are the persons liable for violation of
the Anti-Hazing Law (RA 9049).
As principals:
1. The officers and members of the
fraternity, sorority or organization
who actually participated in the
infliction of the physical harm;
2. If the hazing is held in some
home of the members of the
organization, the parents when
they have actual knowledge of the
hazing conducted but who failed to
prevent it;
3. The officers, former officers or
alumni of the organization/ group
who actually planned the hazing
although they may not have been
present at the hazing proper
4. The officers, former officers or
alumni of the organization/ group
who knowingly cooperated in the
carrying out of the hazing by
inducing the victim to be present
thereat
5. The adviser of the organization/
group who was present when the
acts constituting the hazing were
committed and failed to take action
to prevent the hazing
As accomplices:
1. Owner of the place where the hazing
was conducted when he has actual
knowledge of the hazing but failed to
take action to prevent the same
2. The school authorities who
consented to the hazing or who has
actual knowledge thereof but failed to
take action to prevent the same
ON TITLE IX: CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL
LIBERTY AND SECURITY
A. Enumerate the Crimes Against
Personal Liberty and Security
B. 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.
They committed a special complex
crime of kidnapping for ransom
with homicide and the penalty
shall be only one death penalty.
When any individual, in any
manner, unlawfully deprives
another of his liberty, the crime is
designated as kidnapping and
serious illegal detention under
Article 267, Revised Penal Code.
The penalty shall be death where
the crime was committed for the
purpose of extorting ransom. It is
not necessary that the ransom be
obtained by the offender: it is
enough that the crime of
kidnapping and serious illegal
detention be committed for the
purpose of demanding ransom.
Under the same Article of the
Code, the death penalty is also
prescribed if the victim of the
kidnapping dies as a result of the
detention. However, since Paz
committed only one felony, a
special complex crime of
kidnapping for ransom with
homicide, she should be
sentenced to only one death
penalty.
C. A seduced B’s daughter who is 16
years of age and A had carnal
knowledge with B’s daughter. A was
not willing to marry her. B threatened
to file a criminal action against him for
qualified seduction, unless he would
marry her. Is B liable for grave threats?
Explain.
NO because filing a complaint
against A is not wrong. But if B
threatened to kill A, unless he
would marry his daughter, B would
be liable for grave threats,
because what he threatened to do
[to kill] was wrong. Or you are
now taking your bar. You
impregnated your girlfriend. The
father of the young girl told you
that if you don’t marry my
daughter will file a complaint
against your preventing you from
taking the bar because to take the
bar examination you must possess
the good moral character as
required. What is the crime
committed by the father? there is
no crime committed. Because the
threat does not amount a wrong.
D. B, a private individual, kidnapped E, a
minor as B was enamored with her
beauty. On the second day, B released
E even before any criminal information
was filed against him. At the trial of his
case, B raised the defense that he did
not incur any criminal liability since he
released the child before the lapse of
the 3-day period and before criminal
proceedings for kidnapping were
instituted. Will B’s defense prosper?
No, B's defense will not prosper.
Under Article 267, kidnapping or
serious illegal detention is
committed when the following
elements are present:
1. Offender is a private
individual;
2. He kidnaps or detains another,
or in any other manner
deprives the latter of his
liberty;
3. The act of detention or
kidnapping must be illegal;
4. In the commission of the
offense, any of the following
circumstances is present:
a. The kidnapping lasts for
more than 3 days;
 b. It is committed simulating
public authority;
c. Any serious physical injuries
are inflicted upon the
person kidnapped or
detained or threats to kill
him are made; or
d. The person kidnapped or
detained is a minor, female,
or a public officer.
The qualifying circumstances
enumerated in the fourth element
need not concur; the attendance
of one would already bring about
the crime of kidnapping. The
essential element which makes
the offense of kidnapping is the
deprivation of the victim's liberty
under any one of the four
instances. In B's case, the
circumstance that was present is
the minority of the victim. Hence,
whether he released E before the
3-day period is immaterial.
E. M, after being berated by her mother,
left their house. T, who was a neighbor
of M, invited the latter to his
apartment to spend the night therein
to which M voluntarily agreed. T led M
to a room where she was to sleep.
After leaving the room, T returned and
sat on the bed, completely naked. He
then had carnal knowledge with M
against her will. After gratifying his
lust, T warned M not to tell anyone
about the incident and warned her that
her mother would condemn her for
sleeping at his apartment. M was
padlocked inside the house for five
days until she was rescued. Was the
complex crime of serious illegal
detention with rape committed?
No. T did not commit the complex
crime of serious illegal detention
with rape. For the complex crime
of serious illegal detention to be
consummated, the actual specific
intent of the malefactor is to
deprive the offended party of her
liberty. In the present case, the
original and primordial intention
of T in inviting M to sleep in his
house and to detain her was to
rape M. Therefore, T is guilty of
the crime of rape and not serious
illegal detention with rape.
F. A received an urgent telephone call
from J, her eldest son, asking for
P2,000 to complete his semestral
tuition fees preparatory to his final
exams in Commerce. Distressed and
disturbed, she borrowed money from
her compadre G with the assurance to
pay him within 2 months. Two months
lapsed but A failed to settle her
obligation. G told A that she does not
have to pay the loan if she will allow
her youngest 10-year old daughter E to
work as a housemaid in his house for 2
months at Pl,000 a month. Despite A's
objection, G insisted and brought E to
his house to work as a maid. Crime
committed?
G violated R.A. 7610 on Child
Abuse and Exploitation, as
amended by R.A. 7658 prohibiting
employment of children below 15
years of age, in relation to the
crime of Exploitation of Child
Labor under Art. 273 of RPC. E is
only 10 years old and under the
pretext of reimbursing himself of a
debt owed by E's mother, G took E
to his house to work as a maid
despite her mother's objection. E
could not have given consent to
the exploitation since she was
only 10 years old and thus could
not give any valid consent.
G. The three accused forcibly took their
victim from his car but the latter
succeeded in freeing himself from their
grip. What crime did the three accused
commit?
The three accused committed
grave coercion. The three accused
compelled the victim to get out of
his car against the victim's will
with violence, threat and
intimidation.
In the present case the following
elements of grave coercions were
satisfied:
1) That a person prevented
another from doing something not
prohibited by law or that he
compelled him to so something
against his will, be it right or
wrong;
2) That the prevention or
complusion be effected by violene,
threats or intimidation; and
3) That the person that restrained
the will and liberty of another had
not the authority of law or the
right to do so, or, in other words,
 that the restraint shall not be
made under authority of law in the
exercise of any lawful right.
H. When disturbance is deemed
tumultuous?
Disturbance is deemed tumultuous
if caused by more than 3 persons
who are armed or provided with
means of violence.
I. PO3 B entered the dwelling of T
against the latter’s will on suspicion
that T keeps unlicensed firearms in his
home. What was the crime committed
by PO3 B?
The crime committed by PO3 B is
Violation of Domicile.
J. 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. What crime or crimes, if
any, did Pedro, Pablito, Juan and Julio
commit? Explain. 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?
[a] Julio is liable for special
complex crime of robbery with
rape since he raped the daughter
of Antonio on occasion or by
reason of robbery. Even if the
place of robbery is different from
that of rape, the crime is still
robbery with rape since what is
important is the direct connection
between the two crimes. Rape was
not separated by distance and
time from the robbery.
Pedro, Pablito and Juan are liable
for robbery by band. There is band
in this case since more than three
armed malefactors took part in
the commission of robbery. Under
Art. 296 of the RPC, any member
of a band, who is present at the
commission of a robbery by the
band, shall be punished as
principal of any of the assaults
committed by the band unless it
be shown that he attempted to
prevent the same. The assault
mentioned in Art. 296 includes
rape. They are not liable, however,
for rape under Art. 296 since they
were not present when the victim
was raped and thus, they had no
opportunity to prevent the same.
They are only liable for robbery by
band.
[b] They are liable for a special
complex crime of robbery with
homicide. In this special complex
crime, it is immaterial that several
persons are killed. It is also
immaterial that aside from the
homicides, rapes are committed
by reason or on the occasion of
the crime. Since homicides are
committed by or on the occasion
of the robbery, the multiple rapes
shall be integrated into one and
indivisible felony of robbery with
homicide.
K. What is the criminal liability, if any, of
a private person who enters the
dwelling of another against the latter's
will and by means of violence or
intimidation for the purpose of
preventing some harm to himself?
The private person incurs no
criminal liability.
L. M and B were once madly in love but
are now legally separated. Their child
C, a minor, was placed in the custody
of Y the mother, subject to monthly
visitations by M, his father. On one
occasion, when M had C in his
company, M decided not to return C to
Y. Instead, M took C with him to the
United States where he intended for
them to reside permanently and make
C a permanent reminder of his once
mad love for B. What crime did M
commit?
B committed the crime of
kidnapping and failure to return a
minor under Article 271, in
relation to Article 270, of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended.
Article 271 expressly penalizes
any parent who shall take from
and deliberately fail to restore his
 or her minor child to the parent or
guardian to whom custody of the
minor has been placed. Since the
custody of C, the minor, has been
given to the mother and B has
only the right of monthly
visitation, the latter's act of taking
C to the United States, to reside
there permanently, constitutes a
violation of said provisions of law.
TITLE X: CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
A. Enumerate the Crimes Against Property
B. Enumerate the ways of committing the
crime of estafa.
(1) with unfaithfulness or abuse of
confidence
(2) by means of false pretenses or
fraudulent acts
(3) through fraudulent means
C. Removing, concealing or destroying
documents to defraud another constitutes
the crime of estafa. Who are liable?
(1) private individual
(2) a public officer who is not officially
entrusted with the documents
D. 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 Pl 00,000.00 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. What is a "fence" under PD 1612?
Is Ofelia liable under the Anti-Fencing
Law? Explain.
No. Ofelia is not liable under the Anti-
Fencing Law. While under the said
law mere possession of any good,
article, item, object or anything of
value which has been the subject of
robbery or thievery shall be prima
facie evidence of fencing, such
evidence when sufficiently
overturned constitutes a defense. In
this case, Ofelia’s defense that she
merely acquired the jewelries
through a legitimate transaction is
sufficient. Further, there is no other
circumstance as regards the jewelries
which would indicate to Ofelia, an
innocent purchaser, that the
jewelries were the subject of theft.
There was even a receipt produced by
Ofelia for the transaction.
E. Insulted when he was called macho by the
manager of the bank where he was
employed as security guard, B, enraged,
shot the former, who died on the spot. As
B was about to leave the bank premises,
he noticed the vault open. He entered it,
forced a locked container and got the
jewelry therein. The prosecutor charged
him with robbery with homicide. Correct?
No, the charge against B is incorrect.
He shall be charged of two separate
crimes of Homicide and Theft. The
real intention of B was to kill the
manager and not to rob the bank and
take the jewelry. The taking of the
jewelry only came to his mind after
the killing. Where the offender’s
intention to take the personal
property of the victim arises only as
an afterthought and his original
intent was to kill, he is guilty of two
separate crimes of homicide or
murder, as the case may be, and
theft.
F. Upon a laboratory examination of the fish
seized by the police and agents of the
Fisheries Commission, it was indubitably
determined that the fish they were selling
were caught with the use of explosives.
Accordingly, the three vendors were
criminally charged with the violation of
Section 33 of P.D. 704 which makes it
unlawful for any person to knowingly
possess, deal in, or sell for profit any fish
which have been illegally caught. During
the trial, the three vendors claimed that
they bought the fish from a fishing boat
which they duly identified. The
prosecution however claimed that the
three vendors should nevertheless be held
liable for the offense as they were the
ones caught in possession of the fish
illegally caught. Did they commit a crime?
No, Mere possession of such fish
without knowledge of the fact that
 the same were caught with the use of either with the object of going to a
explosives does not by itself render certain place, or learning how to
the seller-possessor criminally liable drive, or enjoying a free ride, takes
under P.D. 704. Although the act possession of a vehicle belonging to
penalized in said Decree may be a another, without the consent of its
malum prohibitum, the law punishes owner, he is guilty of theft because
the possession, dealing in or selling by taking possession of the personal
of such fish only when “knowingly" property belonging to another and
done that the fish were caught with using it, his intent to gain is evident
the use of explosives; hence criminal since he derives therefrom utility,
intent is essential. The claim by the satisfaction, enjoyment and pleasure.
fish vendors that they only bought
the fish from fishing boats which they
H. Two [2] Philippine National Police (PNP)
“duly identified", renders their
officers. X and Y, on board on motorboat
possession of such fish innocent
with Z, a civilian as motor-man, arrested A
unless the prosecution could prove
and B who were in a banca, for dynamite
that they have knowledge that
fishing. The latter's banca was towed
explosives were used in catching
towards the municipality. On the way, the
such fish, and the accused had
PNP motorboat was intercepted by a third
knowledge thereof.
banca whose occupants, C, D, and E, tried
to negotiate for the release of A and B and
G. A is the driver of B's Mercedes Benz car.
their banca. The PNP officers refused and
When B was on a trip to Paris, A used the
instead shouted at C, D. and E that they
car for a joy ride with C whom he is
are all under arrest. Thereupon, C, D, and
courting. Unfortunately, A met an
E simultaneously threw dynamite sticks at
accident. Upon his return, B came to know
the PNP motorboats. The first explosion
about the unauthorized use of the car and
killed X. A and B also reacted by throwing
sued A for qualified theft. B alleged that A
dynamite at the PNP motorboat: its
took and used the car with intent to gain
explosion killed Y and Z. What crime or
as he derived some benefit or satisfaction
crimes did A, B, C, D and E commit?
from its use. On the other hand, A argued
that he has no intent of making himself
C, D and E are liable for the complex
the owner of the car as he in fact returned
crime of Murder, qualified by
it to the garage after the joy ride. What
explosion, with direct assault for the
crime or crimes, if any, were committed?
death of X. A and B are liable for the
Explain.
complex crime of Murder Qualified by
explosion as to death of Y, and simple
The crime commited by A is
Murder qualified by explosion for the
carnapping. The unlawful taking of
death of Z.
motor vehicles is now covered by the
Anti-Carnapping Law and not by the
No crime of direct assault can be filed
provisions on qualified theft or
insofar as the death of Z is
robbery. The concept of carnapping is
concerned, he being a civilian.
the same as that of robbery and
theft. Hence, rules applicable to theft
This, of course, assumes that there is
or robbery are also applicable to
no conspiracy among A, B, C, D and E,
carnapping. In theft, unlawful taking
otherwise all would have the same
should be understood within the
criminal liability as the act of one
Spanish concept of apoderamiento. In
becomes the act of all.
order to constitute apoderamiento,
the physical taking must be coupled
I. G, a tricycle driver, plied his usual route
with the intent to appropriate the
using a Honda motorcycle with a sidecar.
object, which means intent to deprive
One evening, D AND P rode on the sidecar,
the lawful owner of the thing,
poked a knife at G and instructed him to
whether permanently or temporarily.
go near the bridge. Upon reaching the
In this case A took the car without
bridge, D alighted from the motorcycle
the consent of B with intent to
and suddenly stabbed G several times
temporarily deprive him of the car.
until he died. D and P fled from the scene
Although the taking was “temporary”
taking the motorcycle with them. What
and for a “joy ride”, the Supreme
crime or crimes did D AND P commit?
Court, sustains as the better view
Explain. Can they post bail in vase they
that which holds that when a person,
 were apprehended. In case of conviction,
what would be their penalty?
D and P committed the composite
crime of Carnapping with homicide
under Sec. 14 of RA. 6539 (Anti
carnapping act of 1972) considering
that the killing "in the course or "on
the occasion of a carnapping (People
vs. De la Cruz). A motorcycle is
included in the definition of a "motor
vehicle" in said Rep. Act, also known
as the 'Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972'.
There is no apparent motive for the
killing of the tricycle driver but for D
and P to be able to take the
motorcycle. (The fact that the tricycle
driver was killed brings about the
penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death.)
J. 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. What crime or crimes,
if any, did Tristan commit? What crime or
crimes, if any, were committed by
Domingo? Explain.
Domingo is liable for qualified theft
under Art. 308 of the RPC. Although
Tristan received the horse with the
consent of the owner, Hannibal, his
possession is merely physical or de
facto since the former is an employee
of the latter. Slaughtering the horse,
which he physically possessed, and
selling its meat to Pastor shall be
considered as taking without consent
of the owner with intent to gain,
which constitutes theft. Since the
horse is accessible to him, the theft is
qualified by the circumstance of
abuse of confidence.
Further, Domingo committed the
crime of violation of the Anti-Cattle
Rustling Law of 1974 (PD No. 533).
Cattle rustling is the taking away by
any means, method or scheme,
without the consent of the
owner/raiser, of large cattle, which
includes cows and horses, whether or
not for profit or gain, or whether
committed with or without violence
against or intimidation of any person
or force upon things. It includes the
killing of large cattle, or taking its
meat or hide without the consent of
the owner/raiser.
K. ABC robbed Flower Bank. In order to
delay the response of the police and so
that D, Flower Bank Manager could not
readily ask for help of the police, ABC
brought with them D to a certain distance
but later on released him when the police
are no longer in sight. What crime or
crimes did ABC commit?
ABC committed the crime of Robbery.
Restraint by robbers is not illegal
detention. When ABC compelled D to
leave the bank and follow him or her
up to a certain distance, for no other
purpose than to prevent his reporting
the matter to the police, is not illegal
detention. The purpose of ABC in
doing so was to delay or prevent
assistance being rendered by the
police
L. LL and his father have a long-standing
enmity. One day, irked by an argument
with his father, LL smashed the windshield
of his father’s brand new Fortuner. What
crime or crimes did LL commit, if any?
LL commit Malicious Mischief, but he
is not criminally liable. He is liable
only for the civil damage caused. This
is because he is exempted from
criminal liability as provided for in Art
332.
M. X draws a check upon request of Y, the
payee, who told X that he would merely
show the check to his creditor to gain
more time to pay his account. The check
bounced upon presentation by the
creditor. A case as filed against Y as he
was the one who negotiated the check
contrary to the agreement. He claims that
the crime should be against X as the
drawer of the check. Rule on his
argument.
Y as the one who negotiated the
check contrary to the agreement
N. A, B, and C agreed to rob a house of its
cash. A and B entered the house while C
remained outside as lookout. After getting
 the cash, A and B decided to set the house to relinquish them. He should resort
on fire to destroy any evidence of their to judicial action not take the law in
presence. What crime or crimes did C his own hands.
commit?

Robbery since he only agreed to it Q. I, a housemaid, broke into a pawnshop

and served as lookout. intent on stealing items of jewelry in it.
She found, however, that the jewelry were
O. Any person who, having found lost in a locked chest. Unable to open it, she
property, shall fail to deliver the same to took the chest out of the shop. What crime
the local authorities or to its owner is did she commit?
liable for?
I is guilty of robbery in an
Theft. *Intent to gain is inferred from uninhabited place or in a private
the deliberate failure to deliver the building.
lost property to the proper person,
the finder knowing that the property
The following are the elements of
does not belong to him
robbery in an uninhabited place or in
a private building.
P. A entered the house of B. Once inside the
house of B, A took and seized personal
property by compulsion from B with the 1. Offender entered an
use of violence and force upon things, uninhabited place or a building
believing himself to be the owner of the which was not a dwelling
personal property so seized. What is the house, not a public building, or
criminal liability of A? not an edifice devoted to
religious worship;
A is criminally liable for grave
2. Any of the following
coercion because the presumption of
circumstances was present:
intent to gain is rebutted.
a. The entrance was effected
The following are the elements of
through an opening not
grave coercion:
intended for entrance or
1. A person prevented egress;
another from doing something
b. A wall, roof, floor, or
not prohibited by law, or that
outside door or window was
he compelled him to do
broken;
something against his will; be
it right or wrong; c. The entrance was effected
through the use of false
2. The prevention or
keys, picklocks or other
compulsion be effected by
similar tools;
violence, threats or
intimidation; and d. A door, wardrobe, chest, or
any sealed or closed
3. The person that
furniture or receptacle was
restrained the will and liberty
broken; or
of another had not the
authority of law or the right to e. A closed or sealed
do so, or in other words, that receptacle was removed,
the restraint shall not be made even if the same be broken
under authority of law or in the open elsewhere.
exercise of any lawful right.
3. Offender took therefrom
The first element is established when personal property belonging to
A, through compulsion, seized the another with intent to gain.
property. The second element is
In the case at bar, the first element is
likewise present as A used violence
element is established when I
and force upon things to obtain said
entered the pawnshop, a building
property. Even though A was acting
which is not a dwelling house, a
on the belief that the property
public building or an edifice devoted
belongs to him, he still does not have
to religious worship. The second
authority of law or right to compel B
 element is established when she took
the jewellery chest, a closed or
sealed receptacle, out of the shop
presumably to be broken open
elsewhere. And the final element f
intent to gain is present.
R. When the crime of robbery in an inhabited
house or public building is mitigated.
The crime of robbery in an inhabited
house or public building is mitigated
in the following instances:
1. When the offenders do not
carry arms and the value of the
property taken exceeds P250-
(Prision Mayor)
2. When the offenders are armed
but the value of property taken
does not exceed P250- (Prision
Mayor)
3. When the offenders are
unarmed and the value of the
property taken does not
exceed P250- (Prision Mayor
Minimum)
4. When the robbery was
committed in one of the
dependencies.
S. R, the city treasurer of Baguio City,
received from the national government
five (5) new computers for the use in the
city treasurer’s office. Each computer
valued at P15,000.00. Since R needed
money for the hospitalization of his sick
son, he sold four (4) of the computers to
his VERY CLOSE friend, O, a general
merchant, for P10,000.00. O then resold
the computers. Two months after the
transaction, R audited and the
investigation led to the discovery that O
bought the four (4) computers. Is O liable
for violation of the Anti – Fencing Law?
O is not liable for violation of Anti-
Fencing Law. The Anti-Fencing Law
refers only to the buy and sell of
articles of value which are the
proceeds of robbery and theft. In the
case at bar, the computers sold to be
were not obtained through robbery. R
committed malversation. R, as the
city treasurer, is a public official with
the custody of the computers which
were supposed to be used by the
government officials. He then
Misappropriated 4 of the 5 computers
to his own benefit. Thus, O is an
accomplice for Malversation.
T. The president, treasurer, and secretary of
ABC corp. were charged with syndicate
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, with intention of carrying out
the unlawful or illegal act, transaction,
enterprise or scheme, with intent to gain
and by means of fraud and deceit, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously defraud 1, 2 and 3 and several
other persons by falsely or fraudulently
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 corp.
and DEF Management Phil. Inc., 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
above-named corporations registered with
the SEC are not licensed nor authorize to
engage in foreign exchange trading and
that such manifestations and
representation to transact in foreign
exchange were false and fraudulent, that
these resulted to the damage and
prejudice of the complainants to funds
solicited from the public in general by
such corporations or associations. Will the
case for syndicated estafa prosper?
No, a case for syndicated estafa will
not prosper because a syndicate for
such crime must be comprised of five
(5) or more persons committing the
estafa or other forms of swindling
defined by the Revised Penal Code;
whereas the case given involved only
three (3) accused who are alleged to
have conspired in the commission of
the swindling. But because the
amount defrauded exceeds
P100,000.00, the case is still under
the same P.D. 1689 with a lower
penalty than syndicated estafa.
U. X stole the calf of Y. When Y inquired
about his cow, X denied seeing it. The
cow was eventually found in X`s
possession, but X claimed persistently that
the cow was entrusted to him by his
brother Z, such that Y had to enlist the
aid of the Barangay captain and PC
soldiers to retrieve his cow. Crime?
X violated PD 533 or the Anti-Cattle
Rustling Law. According to the
Supreme Court, the law reads “taking
away by any means, methods or
schemes.” X’s stubborn insistence
that the calf belonged to his brother,
when he knew fully well that it
belonged to Y, is the essence cattle
rustling. The perpetrator’s intent to
gain is then inferred from his
deliberate failure to deliver the lost
property to the proper person,
knowing that the property does not
belong to him.
V. A asked financial support from her
showbiz friend B who accommodated her
by issuing in her favor a post-dated 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
account for the loss of her P85,000.00?
C can file a criminal action against B
for violation of BP 22, because B
issued a check against a closed bank
account, knowing fully at that time
that the account was already closed.
A, meanwhile, cannot be prosecuted
under BP 22, because he was a mere
endorser of the check and did not
issue the aforementioned check. A
also cannot be liable under estafa, as
for a person to be liable with estafa
by postdating a check it must not be
for a pre-existing obligation. A paid
the discounted check for a pre-
existing credit transaction. Hence
only a civil action may be filed by C
against A to recover the P85,000.00.
W. S, a tricycle driver, plied his usual route
using a Honda motorcycle with a sidecar.
One evening, R rode on the sidecar, poked
a knife at S and instructed him to go near
the bridge. Upon reaching the bridge, R
alighted from the motorcycle and
suddenly stabbed S several times until he
was dead. R fled from the scene taking the
motorcycle with him. Crime?
R committed the composite crime of
Carnapping with homicide
considering that the killing "in the
course or "on the occasion of a
carnapping. A motorcycle is included
in the definition of a "motor vehicle"
also known as the 'Anti-Car napping
Act of 1972'. There is no apparent
motive for the killing of the tricycle
driver but for D and P to be able to
take the motorcycle.
X. C broke open a window and, without
entering the house, took a wooden chest
lying just underneath the window. He
brought out the chest to the yard where
he broke it open and took away the
contents thereof, all valued at P1,000,00.
He was charged with robbery with force
upon things. Correct?
Incorrect. The proper charge is theft,
as for C to be liable under robbery
with force upon things, he must
either enter (Art 299[a]) or be inside
(Art 299[b]) the house. Breaking the
window and taking the item is not
‘entrance’.
Y. M represented to A, R, H and S that she
could send them to London to work there
as sales assistants. She collected and
received from them various amounts of
money for recruitment and placement fees
totaling P400,000. After their dates of
departure were postponed several times
and after they already spent for four
“despedida” parties, the four prospects
got suspicious and went to POEA (Phil.
Overseas Employment Authority). There
they found out that M was not authorized
nor licensed to recruit workers for
employment abroad. They sought refund
to no avail. Is M liable?
Yes. M is liable of a grave offense of illegal
recruitment constituting the offense of
economic sabotage. Economic sabotage is
incurred when the illegal recruitment is
carried out in large scale or by a
syndicate. It is in a large scale when there
 are three or more aggrieved parties,
individually or as a group.
Z. G, a tricycle driver, plied his usual route
using a Honda motorcycle with a sidecar.
One evening, D AND P rode on the sidecar,
poked a knife at G and instructed him to
go near the bridge. Upon reaching the
bridge, D alighted from the motorcycle
and suddenly stabbed G several times
until he died. D and P fled from the scene
taking the motorcycle with them. What
crime or crimes did D and P commit?
D and P committed the crime of
Carnapping with Homicide under RA
6539 or the Anti-Carnapping Act of
1972, considering that the killing "in
the course" or "on the occasion of a
carnapping". Furthermore, a imposture that he was the offended
motorcycle is included in the
definition of a "motor vehicle" in said
law. There is no apparent motive for
the killing of the tricycle driver but
for D and P to be able to take the
motorcycle.
TITLE XI: CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY
A. Mr. XXX owns a boarding house where he
knowingly allowed children to be
videotaped while simulating explicit sexual
activities. What crime or crimes did XXX
commit, if any? Explain.
Mr. XXX committed a violation of
Child Pornography Act. As provided in
Sec 4 (e) of RA 9755, those who
knowingly, willfully and intentionally
provide a venue for the commission
of prohibited acts as, but not limited
to, dens, private rooms, cubicles,
cinemas, houses or in establishments
purporting to be a legitimate
business are punished as principal
under the said act.
B. In 2004, S, a Filipino citizen and resident
of Baguio City, and L, a West German
citizen were married at St. Joseph Catholic
Church, in Baguio City. In 2007, L returned
to West Germany where he initiated a
divorce proceeding, against Socorro
before a local court which, in due time,
promulgated in July 2009 a decree of
divorce on the ground of failure of
marriage. In September 2012, L returned
to the Philippines only to find out that S
had filed a case of legal separation against
him. In December 2014, L who learned of
the cohabitation of S and E, her childhood
sweetheart, when he (L) was in Germany,
filed a sworn complaint for adultery
against S and E with the Office of the City
Fiscal of Baguio. S's counsel moved to
dismiss the complaint on the ground that
S is not liable for the offense. Resolve the
motion.
The motion will not prosper. In the
case of Pilapil v. Somera, it was ruled
that the crime of concubinage can
only be filed by the offended spouse.
In the case at bar, L cannot file a
complaint against S since he is no
longer married to S after securing a
divorcre degree. Being no longer the
husband of petitioner, has no legal
standing to commence the
concubinage case under the
spouse at the time he filed suit.
C. H and W are husband and wife living
together in an apartment within the
university belt. They took in S, a male
student and town mate as a boarder.
Before long Hand S fell in love with each
other until H caught them in bed. If you
were the investigating fiscal, to whom H
complained, that aggravating
circumstance or circumstances would you
liege in the Information for Adultery
against Wand S? Why?
The aggravating circumstance
appropriate for inclusion, abuse of
confidence (i.e., favorable position as
boarder in the house, US v.
Barbacho,,12 Phil. 616). However,
dwelling should be ruled out because
both are living in said house and they
have 'le right to stay in said dwelling
D. H is validly married to W. because of their
indifferences, H decided to live separately
from W. H went abroad and meet B, a
beautiful lady than W. H and B fell in love
with each other. H and B decide to get
married. They celebrated their marriage in
Hongkong and their marriage was validly
celebrated. H together with B returns to
the Philippines and both of them lives in a
condo unit as Husband and wife. What is
the crime committed H?
H committed the crime of
concubinage. Under Philippine
jurisdiction, the act of contracting a
second marriage while a first one still
subsists is penalized as bigamy,
however, H contracted his second
 marriage in a foreign country.
Because of this, the act of H in
contracting a second marriage in
abroad cannot be prosecuted or tried
in the Philippines, having been done
outside of the country’s jurisdiction.
However, the fact that H returned to
the Philippines with his second wife,
and they live together as husband
and wife makes H criminally liable for
concubinage since their illegal
cohabitation is one of the ways of
committing concubinage as punished
by ART. 334 and that it was
committed within Philippine territory.
E. BA and BB had been married for more
than six months. They live together with
the children of BB from her first husband.
BA had sexual relationship with C, the 14
year old daughter of BB. C loves BA very
much that is why she willingly gave in to
the intercourse. What was the crime
committed by BA, if any?
He is guilty of qualified seduction.
It is committed by:
(1) seduction of a virgin over 12
years and under 18 years of age by
certain persons such as, a person in
authority, priest, teacher or any
person who, in any capacity shall be
entrusted with the education or
custody of the woman seduced or
(2) seduction of a sister by her
brother, or descendant by her
ascendant, regardless of her age or
reputation
BA took advantage of his authority
and abused the confidence reposed in
him to engage in sexual relations
with C, a minor under the purview of
Art. 337.
The fact that C consented to the
sexual acts is immaterial because
lack of consent is not an element of
the crime of qualified seduction. .
TITLE XII and XIII: CRIMES AGAINST THE
CIVIL STATUS OF PERSONS AND CRIMES
AGAINST HONOR
A. A childless couple, A and B, wanted to
have a child they could call their own. C,
an unwed mother, sold her newborn baby
to them. Thereafter, A and B cause their
names to be stated in the birth certificate
of the child as his parents. This was done
in connivance with the doctor who
assisted in the delivery of C. what are the
criminal liabilities, if any, of the couple A
and B, C and the doctor?
The couple A and B, and the doctor
shall be liable for the crime of
simulation of birth, penalized under
Article 347 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended. The act of making
it appear in the birth certificate of a
child that the persons named therein
are the parents of the child when 76
of 86 they are not really the
biological parents of said child
constitutes the crime of simulation of
birth. C, the unwed mother is
criminally liable for "child trafficking",
a violation of Article IV, Sec. 7 of Rep.
Act No. 7610. The law punishes inter
alia the act of buying and selling of a
child.
B. Enumerate the elements of the crime of
libel.
Elements:
1. There must be an imputation of
a crime, or of a vice or defect,
real or imaginary, or any act,
omission, condition, status, or
circumstance;
2. The imputation must be made
publicly;
3. It must be malicious;
4. The imputation must be
directed at a natural or
juridical person, or one who is
dead;
5. The imputation must tend to
cause the dishonor, discredit or
contempt of the person
defamed.
C. 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:
"Itong 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% lang. Kaya
ang baba ng collection ng RDO niya.
Masyadong magnanakaw si X at dapat
tanggalin 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.
Yes. The crime of libel is committed.
Fair comment on acts of public
officers related to the discharge of
their duties is a qualified privileged
communication, hence, the accused
can still be held liable for libel if
actual malice is shown. In fair
comment, actual malice can be
established by showing that comment
was made with knowledge that it was
false or with reckless disregard of
whether it was false or not.
Journalists bear the burden of writing
responsibly when practicing their
profession, even when writing about
public figures or matters of public
interest. The report made by C
describing a lawyer in the Bureau of
Customs as corrupt cannot be
considered as “fair” and “true” since
he did not do research before making
his allegations, and it has been
shown that these allegations were
baseless. The articles are not “fair
and true reports,” but merely wild
accusations. He has written and
published the subject articles with
reckless disregard of whether the
same were false or not.
A, president of the publishing
company, B, managing editor, and C,
writer of the defamatory articles, are
all liable for libel. Under Art. 360 of
the RPC, the publisher, and editor of
newspaper, shall be responsible for
the defamation contained therein to
the same extent. The law makes the
publisher and editor liable for libel as
if they were the author.
D. X, a court employee, wrote the presiding
judge a letter, imputing to Y, also a court
employee, the act of receiving an
expensive gift from one of the parties in a
pending case. Because of this, Y accused
X of libel. Does Y need to prove the
element of malice in the case?
Yes, malice is not presumed since X
wrote the letter to the presiding
judge who has a duty to act on what
it states.
E. X, a tabloid columnist, wrote an article
describing Y, a public official, as stupid,
corrupt, and having amassed ill-gotten
wealth. X relied on a source from Y's own
office who fed him the information. Did X
commit libel?
Yes, since the article was libelous and
inconsistent with good faith and
reasonable care.
F. What crime is committed when a person
ill-treats another by deed without causing
any injury?
The offender commits maltreatment.
G. The exchanges of highly offensive words
between two quarrelling women in the
presence of a crowd of people constitute
how many counts of slander?
Two counts of simple slander, one
count for each woman. In Villanueva
vs People, the Supreme Court held
that slander is the speaking
defamatory words that prejudice
another’s reputation, office, trade,
business or means of livelihood. It is
grave slander when it is of a serious
and insulting nature.
The factors to consider in
determining if it is simple or grave
slander are the following:
a. expressions used;
b. personal relations of the
accused and the offended party;
c. circumstances surrounding the
case;
Since the case does not indicate
factors pointing to grave slander, but
the two women has already
exchanged offensive words, it is safe
to assume they committed one count
of simple slander each, making it two
counts of simple slander.
H. S, the husband of N, informed a TV
commentator, D, that his wife had
complained that their youngest child who
was allegedly extremely ill and on the
verge of death was denied admission at
the Y Hospital because N, his wife, could
not put up the cash deposit required by
the hospital. Without verifying said report,
D, in his TV program, urged the closure by
the authorities of Y Hospital for denying
medical assistance to a dying child simply
because the mother could not give a cash
deposit. He added that the said hospital
even refused to accept a check. It turned
out however that the story was wrong. The
sick child of S and N was never in a critical
condition, and there was no check
involved in the incident. Subsequently, D
was charged with libel. Correct?

Yes, D is liable for libel. The

imputation is defamatory as it tended
to cause dishonor, discredit or
contempt on the hospital. Malice in
law, is therefore, presumed. It is not
true that the child was extremely ill
and on the verge of death nor is it
true that the hospital refused to
accept a check for the admission of
the child. Without verifying the facts
and urging the closure of the hospital
by the authorities for denying
medical admission to a dying child,
the intent to cast aspersion and
injury to reputation and standing of
the hospital becomes manifest as it
was done with reckless disregard of
whether it was false or not.