1

2018 Bar Examinations

(Legal Basis of the Suggested Answers of Judge Carlo Campanilla)

Roberto and Ricardo have had a long-standing dispute regarding conflicting claims
over the ownership of a parcel of land. One night, Roberto was so enraged that he decided
to kill Ricardo. Roberto asked his best friend, Rafael, to lend him a gun and drive him to
Ricardo's house. Rafael knew about Roberto's plan to kill Ricardo, but agreed to lend him a
gun nevertheless. Rafael also drove Roberto to the street corner nearest the house of
Ricardo. Rafael waited for him there, until the task had been accomplished, so that he could
drive Roberto to the next town to evade arrest. Roberto also asked another friend, Ruel, to
stand guard outside Ricardo's house, for the purpose of warning him in case there was any
danger or possible witnesses, and to keep other persons away from the vicinity. All three -
Roberto, Rafael and Ruel - agreed to the plan and their respective roles.

On the agreed date, Rafael drove Roberto and Ruel to the nearest corner near
Ricardo's house. Roberto and Ruel walked about 50 meters where Ruel took his post as
guard, and Roberto walked about five (5) meters more, aimed the gun at Ricardo's bedroom,
and peppered it with bullets. When he thought that he had accomplished his plan, Roberto
ran away, followed by Ruel, and together they rode in Rafael's car where they drove to the
next town to spend the night there. It turned out that Ricardo was out of town when the
incident happened, and no one was in his room at the time it was peppered with bullets.
Thus, no one was killed or injured during the incident.

(a) Was a crime committed? If yes, what is/are the crime/s committed (2.5%)

Legal Basis:

ARTICLE 4(2). Criminal Responsibility. — Criminal Responsibility shall be

incurred:

2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or

property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on
account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.

Intod vs. CA GR. No. 103119 Oct. 21, 1992

LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY; EXPLAINED; FACTUAL IMPOSSIBILITY; EXPLAINED; CASE AT

BAR. — Under this article, the act performed by the offender cannot produce an
offense against persons or property because:

(1) the commission of the offense is inherently impossible of accomplishment; or

(2) the means employed is either (a) inadequate or (b) ineffectual.

To be impossible under this clause, the act intended by the offender must be
by its nature one impossible of accomplishment. There must be either (1) legal
impossibility, or (2) physical impossibility of accomplishing the intended act in order
to qualify the act as an impossible crime. Legal impossibility occurs where the
intended acts, even if completed, would not amount to a crime. Thus: Legal
impossibility would apply to those circumstances where (1) the motive, desire and
expectation is to perform an act in violation of the law; (2) there is intention to
perform the physical act, (3) there is a performance of the intended physical act; and
(4) the consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount to a crime.

On the other hand, factual impossibility occurs when extraneous

circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent the
consummation of the intended crime.

(b) If a crime was committed, what is the degree of participation of Roberto, Rafael,
and Ruel? (2.5%)

People vs. Cruz GR. No. 168446 Sept. 18, 2009

 2

“There is conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide
to commit it.45 Conspiracy as a mode of incurring criminal liability must be proven
separately from and with the same quantum of proof as the crime itself. Conspiracy
need not be proven by direct evidence. After all, secrecy and concealment are
essential features of a successful conspiracy. Conspiracies are clandestine in nature.
It may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the
commission of the crime, showing that they had acted with a common purpose and
design.46 Paraphrasing the decision of the English Court in Regina v. Murphy,47
conspiracy may be implied if it is proved that two or more persons aimed by their
acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so
that their combined acts, though apparently independent of each other, were, in fact,
connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a
concurrence of sentiment.48 To hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of
conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or
furtherance of the complicity.49 There must be intentional participation in the
transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose.50”

Each conspirator is responsible for everything done by his confederates which

follows incidentally in the execution of a common design as one of its probable and
natural consequences even though it was not intended as part of the original
design.54 Responsibility of a conspirator is not confined to the accomplishment of a
particular purpose of conspiracy but extends to collateral acts and offenses incident
to and growing out of the purpose intended.55 Conspirators are held to have
intended the consequences of their acts and by purposely engaging in conspiracy
which necessarily and directly produces a prohibited result that they are in
contemplation of law, charged with intending the result.56 Conspirators are
necessarily liable for the acts of another conspirator even though such act differs
radically and substantively from that which they intended to commit.57

People vs. Salvador GR. No. 201443 April 10, 2013;

Conspiracy vs. Accomplice

The distinction between an accomplice and a conspirator are:

1. An accomplice incurs criminal liability by merely cooperating in the execution of

the crime without participating as a principal, by prior or simultaneous acts; whereas
a conspirator participates in the commission of a crime as a co-principal.

2. An accomplice incurs criminal liability in an individual capacity by his act alone of

cooperating in the execution of the crime; while a conspirator incurs criminal liability
not only for his individual acts in the execution of the crime but also for the acts of
the other participants in the commission of the crime collectively. The acts of the
other participants in the execution of the crime are considered also as acts of a
conspirator for purposes of collective criminal responsibility.

3. An accomplice participates in the execution of a crime when the criminal design or

plan is already in place; whereas a conspirator participates in the adoption or making
of the criminal design.

4. An accomplice is subjected to a penalty one degree lower than that of a principal;

whereas a conspirator incurs the penalty of a principal.

II

Rico, a hit man, positioned himself at the rooftop of a nearby building of a bank, to serve
as a lookout for Red and Rod while the two were robbing the bank, as the three of them had
previously planned. Ramiro, a policeman, responded to the reported robbery. Rico saw
Ramiro and, to eliminate the danger of Red and Rod being caught, pulled the trigger of his
rifle, intending to kill Ramiro. He missed as Ramiro slipped and fell down to the ground.
Instead, a woman depositor who was coming out of the bank was fatally shot. After their
apprehension, Rico, Red, and Rod were charged with the special complex crime of robbery
with homicide. Rico's defense was that he never intended to shoot and kill the woman, only
Ramiro. Red and Rod's defense was that they were not responsible for the death of the
woman as they had no participation therein.
 3

(a) Is Rico's defense meritorious? (2.5%)

Legal Basis: People vs. Mangulabnan L-8919 Sept. 28, 1956 accidental killing
robbery; aberratio ictus;

In order to determine the existence of the crime of robbery with homicide it is

enough that a homicide would result by reason of on the occasion of the robbery
(Decision of the Supreme Court of Spain of November 26, 1892, and January 7, 1878,
quoted in 2 Hidalgo’s Penal Code, p. 267 and 259-260, respectively). This High
Tribunal speaking of the accessory character of the circumstances leading to the
homicide, has also held that it is immaterial that the death would supervene by mere
accident (Decision of September 9, 1886; October 22, 1907; April 30, 1910 and July
14, 1917), provided that the homicide be produced by reason or on occasion of the
robbery, inasmuch as it is only the result obtained, without reference or distinction as
to the circumstances, causes, modes or persons intervening in the commission of the
crime, that has to be taken into consideration (Decision of January 12, 1889 — see
Cuello Calon’s Codigo Penal, p. 501-502).

The crime committed in the case at bar, of which Appellant Agustin Mangulabnan is a
co-participant, is the crime of robbery with homicide covered by Article 294, No. 1, of
the Revised Penal Code and punished with reclusion perpetua to death.

(b) Is Red and Rod's defense meritorious? (2.5%)

(c) Legal Basis: People vs. Dela Cruz GR. No. 168173 Dec. 24, 2008, People vs. Castro
GR. No. 187073 March 14, 2012, Collective Responsibility Rule

III

On February 5, 2017, Rho Rio Fraternity held initiation rites. Present were: (i)
Redmont, the Lord Chancellor and head of the fraternity; (ii) ten (10) members, one (1) of
whom was Ric, and (iii) five (5) neophytes, one (1) of whom was Ronald. Absent were: (i)
Rollie, the fraternity's Vice Chancellor and who actually planned the initiation; and (ii)
Ronnie, the owner of the house where the initiation was conducted.

Due to the severe beating suffered by Ronald on that occasion, he lost consciousness
and was brought to the nearest hospital by Redmont and Ric. However, Ronald was declared
dead on arrival at the hospital.

During the investigation of the case, it was found out that, although Ronald really
wanted to join the fraternity because his father is also a member of the same fraternity, it
was his best friend Ric who ultimately convinced him to join the fraternity and, as a
prerequisite thereto, undergo initiation. It was also shown that Redmont and Ric did not
actually participate in the beating of the neophytes (hazing). The two (2) either merely
watched the hazing or helped in preparing food. And, lastly, two (2) days prior thereto,
Ronnie texted Rollie that the fraternity may use his house as the venue for the planned
initiation.

Aside from those who actually participated in the hazing, Redmont, Rollie, Ric, and
Ronnie were criminally charged for the hazing of Ronald that resulted in the latter's death.

(a) Are the four criminally liable? (2.5%)

Legal Basis: People vs. Bayabos GR. No. 171222 Feb. 18,

(b) Can all those criminally charged be exonerated upon proof that Ronald, knowing the
risks, voluntarily submitted himself to the initiation? Will the absence of proof that
the accused intended to kill the victim affect their liability? (2.5%)
Legal Basis:People vs. Dungo GR. No. 209464 July 1, 2015

Any person who commits the crime of hazing shall be liable in accordance with
Section 4 of the law, which provides different classes of persons who are held liable
as principals and accomplices.

The first class of principals would be the actual participants in the hazing. If the
person subjected to hazing or other forms of initiation rites suffers any physical injury
or dies as a result thereof, the officers and members of the fraternity, sorority or
organization who actually participated in the infliction of physical harm shall be liable
 4

as principals. Interestingly, the presence of any person during the hazing is prima
facie evidence of actual participation, unless he prevented the commission of the
acts punishable herein.

The prescribed penalty on the principals depends on the extent of injury inflicted to
the victim.77 The penalties appear to be similar to that of homicide, serious physical
injuries, less serious physical injuries, and slight physical injuries under the RPC,78
with the penalties for hazing increased one degree higher. Also, the law provides
several circumstances which would aggravate the imposable penalty.

Curiously, although hazing has been defined as consisting of those activities

involving physical or psychological suffering or injury, the penalties for hazing only
covered the infliction of physical harm. At best, the only psychological injury
recognized would be causing insanity to the victim. Conversely, even if the victim
only sustained physical injuries which did not incapacitate him, there is still a
prescribed penalty.

The second class of principals would be the officers, former officers, or alumni of the
organization, group, fraternity or sorority who actually planned the hazing.81
Although these planners were not present when the acts constituting hazing were
committed, they shall still be liable as principals. The provision took in consideration
the non-resident members of the organization, such as their former officers or
alumni.

The third class of principals would be officers or members of an organization group,

fraternity or sorority who knowingly cooperated in carrying out the hazing by
inducing the victim to be present thereat.82 These officers or members are
penalized, not because of their direct participation in the infliction of harm, but due
to their indispensable cooperation in the crime by inducing the victim to attend the
hazing.

The next class of principals would be the fraternity or sorority's adviser who was
present when the acts constituting hazing were committed, and failed to take action
to prevent them from occurring.83 The liability of the adviser arises, not only from
his mere presence in the hazing, but also his failure to prevent the same.

The last class of principals would be the parents of the officers or members of the
fraternity, group, or organization.84 The hazing must be held in the home of one of
the officers or members. The parents must have actual knowledge of the hazing
conducted in their homes and failed to take any action to avoid the same from
occurring.

The law also provides for accomplices in the crime of hazing. The school authorities,
including faculty members, who consented to the hazing or who have actual
knowledge thereof, but failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring
shall be punished as accomplices.

Likewise, the owner of the place where the hazing was conducted can also be an
accomplice to the crime.86 The owner of the place shall be liable when he has actual
knowledge of the hazing conducted therein and he failed to take any steps to stop
the same.

Recognizing the malum prohibitum characteristic of hazing, the law provides that any
person charged with the said crime shall not be entitled to the mitigating
circumstance that there was no intention to commit so grave a wrong.87 Also, the
framers of the law intended that the consent of the victim shall not be a
defense in hazing.

IV

On the way home from work, Rica lost her necklace to a snatcher. A week later, she
saw what looked like her necklace on display in a jewelry store in Raon. Believing that the
 5

necklace on display was the same necklace snatched from her the week before, she
surreptitiously took the necklace without the knowledge and consent of the store owner.
Later, the loss of the necklace was discovered, and Rica was shown on the CCTV camera of
the store as the culprit. Accordingly, Rica was charged with theft of the necklace. Rica raised
the defense that she could not be guilty as charged because she was the owner of the
necklace and that the element of intent to gain was lacking.

What should be the verdict if:

(a) The necklace is proven to be owned by Rica? (2.5%)

Legal Basis: Property belongs to another

(b) It is proven that the store acquired the necklace from another person who was
the real owner of the necklace? (2.5%)

Legal Basis: People vs. Gaviola GR. No. 163927 Jan. 27, 2006, Mistake of Fact
negates specific element

Art. 308. Who are liable for theft. — Theft is committed by any person who, with
intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon
things, shall take personal property of another without the latter's consent.

The gist of the offense is the intent to deprive another of his property in a chattel,
either for gain or out of wantonness or malice to deprive another of his right in the
thing taken. This cannot be where the taker honestly believes the property is his own
or that of another, and that he has a right to take possession of it for himself or for
another, for the protection of the latter.

With a promise of reward, Robert asked Romy to bring him a young girl that he (Robert)
can have carnal knowledge with. Romy agreed, seized an eight-year old girl and brought her
to Robert. After receiving his reward, Romy left while Robert proceeded to have carnal
knowledge with the girl.

(a) For what felony may Robert and Romy be charged? (2.5%)

Legal Basis: Principal by direct participation/inducement, abduction and rape

(b) Will your answer in (a) be the same if the victim is a 15-year old lass who was
enticed, through cunning and deceit of Romy, to voluntarily go to the house of Robert
where the latter subsequently had carnal knowledge with her? (2.5%)

Legal Basis: Sexual Abuse under RA 7610

VI

A group of homeless and destitute persons invaded and occupied the houses built by
the National Housing Authority (NHA) for certain military personnel. To gain entry to the
houses, the group intimidated the security guards posted at the entrance gate with the
firearms they were carrying and destroyed the padlocks of the doors of the houses with the
use of crowbars and hammers. They claimed that they would occupy the houses and live
therein because the houses were idle and they were entitled to free housing from the
government.

For the reason that the houses were already awarded to military personnel who have
been found to have fully complied with the requirements for the award thereof, NHA
demanded the group to vacate within ten (10) days from notice the houses they occupied
and were still occupying. Despite the lapse of the deadline, the group refused to vacate the
houses in question.

What is the criminal liability of the members of the group, if any, for their actions?
(5%)

Legal Basis: Occupation of Real Property

 6

Art. 312. Occupation of real property or usurpation of real rights in

property. — Any person who, by means of violence against or intimidation of
persons, shall take possession of any real property or shall usurp any real rights in
property belonging to another

VII

Robbie and Rannie are both inmates of the National Penitentiary, serving the
maximum penalty for robbery which they committed some years before and for which they
have been sentenced by final judgment. One day, Robbie tried to collect money owed by
Rannie. Rannie insisted that he did not owe Robbie anything, and after a shouting episode,
Rannie kicked Robbie in the stomach. Robbie fell to the ground in pain, and Rannie left him
to go to the toilet to relieve himself. As Rannie was opening the door to the toilet and with
his back turned against Robbie, Robbie stabbed him in the back with a bladed weapon that
he had concealed in his waist. Hurt, Rannie ran to the nearest "kubol" where he fell. Robbie
ran after him· and, while Rannie was lying on the ground, Robbie continued to stab him,
inflicting a total of 15 stab wounds. He died on the spot. Robbie immediately surrendered to
the Chief Warden. When prosecuted for the murder of Rannie, Robbie raised provocation
and voluntary surrender as mitigating circumstances. The prosecution, on the other hand,
claimed that there was treachery in the commission of the crime.

(a) Is Robbie a recidivist, or a quasi-recidivist?

Art. 14. Aggravating circumstances.

9. That the accused is a recidivist.

A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been
previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the
same title of this Code.

Article 160, a quasi-recidivist is one who has been convicted by a final judgment of
any crime whether the first conviction is for a felony or an offense punished by a
special law. But after finality of judgment before serving the first sentence or while
serving sentence he commits a felony.

It is important to note that, the second crime which he commits while serving his
sentence for the first crime should always be a felony to become a quasi-recidivist.
Because if the second conviction is for a crime no punished by the Revised Penal
Code he will not be a quasi-recidivist.

(b) Can the mitigating circumstances raised by Robbie, if proven, lower the penalty
for the crime committed? (2.5%)

Legal Basis: People vs. Takbobo GR. No. 102984

The nature of the penalty of a quasi-recidivist is a special aggravating circumstance

because under the law, the penalty for a quasi-recidivist for that second conviction
shall be imposed in its maximum period and it could never be offset by the presence
of any mitigating circumstance crime not punished by the Revised Penal Code.

VIII

Randy was prosecuted for forcible abduction attended by the aggravating

circumstance of recidivism. After trial, the court held that the prosecutor was able to prove
the charge. Nonetheless, it appreciated in favor of Randy, on the basis of the defense's
evidence, the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender, uncontrollable fear, and
provocation. Under Art. 342 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), the penalty for forcible
abduction is reclusion temporal.

Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, what penalty should be imposed on

Randy? (5%)

Legal Basis: 3 mitigating circumstances and 1 aggravating : Reclusion

Temporal/Islaw (1995 Bar Exam)
 7

IX

Rashid asked Rene to lend him PhP50,000, payable in six (6) months and, as
payment for the loan, Rashid issued a postdated check for the said amount plus the agreed
interest. Rashid assured Rene that the account would have sufficient funds on maturity date.
On that date, Rene presented the check to the drawee bank for payment but it was
dishonored for the reason that it was drawn against insufficient funds (DAIF).

Rene sent Rashid a timely notice of dishonor of the check and demanded the latter
to make good the same within five (5) days from notice. After the lapse of the five (5)-day
notice, Rene redeposited the check with the drawee bank but it was again dishonored for
the same reason, i.e., DAIF. Rene thereafter filed two (2) separate criminal actions against
Rashid: (1) Estafa under Art. 315(2)(d) of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 4885, i.e, estafa
committed by postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation without
sufficient funds in the bank; and (2) Violation of B.P. 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law.

(a) Can he be held liable under both actions? (2.5%) Legal Basis: 1983 and 1987 Bar Exam
(b) If the check is presented for payment after four (4) months, but before it becomes
stale, can the two actions still proceed? (2.5%) Legal Basis: Nagrampa vs. People GR.
No. 146211 Aug. 6, 2002; Wong vs. CA GR. No. 117857 Feb. 2, 2001

Discussion:
Estafa Through Issuance of Unfunded Checks
The crime of Estafa is punished under the Revised Penal Code. One can be held guilty for Estafa by means
of issuing a bouncing check with the use of false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
"By postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in
the bank, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check. (Article
315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 4885)"

How can a person be held guilty for Estafa?

Under the RPC, the following elements are necessary to hold a person guilty of Estafa:
1. Postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check was
issued
2. Insufficiency of funds to cover the check, and
3. Damage to the payee thereof.

The most important element here is the damage caused. Absent any of the following elements, a person
cannot be held liable for Estafa.

Case in point:
Andres owns and operates a trading good business and bought merchandise from Bonifacio and issued an
unfunded check in consideration of the goods received.
In this scenario, Andres can be held liable for Estafa because he issued a check knowing it to be without
sufficient funds to pay the items he bought from Bonifacio. The issuance of the bounced check here was
with fraudulent intent.

Bouncing Checks Law (BP 22)

Unlike Estafa which has its basis under the RPC, BP 22 is enacted through a special law. A person can be
charged for violation of BP 22 when he commits the following acts:

1. Making or drawing and issuing any check to apply on account or for value, knowing 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, which check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of
funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid
reason, ordered the bank to stop payment;

2. Having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank when he makes or draws and issues a check,
shall fail to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the check if presented
within a period of ninety (90) days from the date appearing thereon, for which reason it is dishonored by
the drawee bank.

How can a person be held guilty for Violation of BP 22?

Violation of BP 22 can be filed against any person when the following are present:
1. Making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value;
2. Knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in
or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment; and
3. Subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for
the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.
 8

Same with Estafa, the presence of all these requirements is important. Otherwise, the charge of BP 22 will
not attach. Note that knowledge of insufficiency of funds is presumed when it is proved that the issuer
received a notice of dishonor and that within 5 days from receipt thereof, he failed to pay the amount of
the check or make arrangement for its payment. Additionally, in BP 22, good faith is immaterial. Meaning,
the mere issuance of an unfunded check already consummates the crime.

Using the same example above, Andres can also be charged for Violation of BP 22, other than Estafa,
because BP 22 cases also cover issuances of bouncing checks for value received.

(Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/9789816)

Rafa caught his wife, Rachel, in the act of having sexual intercourse with Rocco in the
maid's room of their own house. Rafa shot both lovers in the chest, but they survived. Rafa
charged Rachel and Rocco with adultery, while Rachel and Rocco charged Rafa with
frustrated parricide and frustrated homicide.

In the adultery case, Rachel and Rocco raised the defense that Rafa and Rachel, prior
to the incident in question, executed a notarized document whereby they agreed to live
separately and allowed each of them to get a new partner and live with anyone of their
choice as husband and wife. This document was executed after Rachel discovered that Rafa
was cohabiting with another woman. Thus, they also raised the defense of in pari delicto. In
the frustrated parricide and frustrated homicide cases, Rafa raised the defense that, having
caught them in flagrante delicto, he has no criminal liability.

Assuming that all defenses have been proven:

(a) Will the action for adultery prosper? (2.5%)

Legal Basis: Consent to Adultery

(b) Will the actions for frustrated parricide and frustrated homicide prosper? (2.5%)

Legal Basis: People vs. Puedan GR. No. 139756 Sept. 2, 2002, requisites of death
under exceptional circumstance, consent to infidelity

"ART. 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional

circumstances. — 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. .

XI

Wielding loose firearms, Rene and Roan held up a bank. After taking the bank's
money, the robbers ran towards their getaway car, pursued by the bank security guards. As
the security guards were closing in on the robbers, the two fired their firearms at the
pursuing security guards. As a result, one of the security guards was hit on the head causing
his immediate death.

For the taking of the bank's money and killing of the security guard with the use of
loose firearms, the robbers were charged in court in two separate informations, one for
robbery with homicide attended by the aggravating circumstance of use of loose firearms,
and the other for illegal possession of firearms.

Are the indictments correct? (5%)

Legal Basis: Loose Firearms (RA 10591) Commission of other crimes (2004 and 1975
Bar Exams);

XII

Orphaned when still an infant, Rocky lived under the care of his grandmother
Rosario. Now 18, Rocky entered Rosario's bedroom who was then outside doing her daily
marketing. He ransacked the bedroom and took Rosario's money and valuables amounting
to PhP100,000.
 9

When Rosario came home, she found her room in disarray, and her money and valuables
gone. She confronted Rocky, who confessed to taking the money and valuables in order to
pay his debts.

(a) What crime, if any, did Rocky commit? (2.5%)

Legal Basis: Absolutory Cause

The elements of qualified theft, punishable under Article 310 in relation to Articles
308 and 309 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), are: (a) the taking of personal
property; (b) the said property belongs to another; (c) the said taking be done with
intent to gain; (d) it be done without the owner's consent; (e) it be accomplished
without the use of violence or intimidation against persons, nor of force upon things;
and (f) it be done under any of the circumstances enumerated in Article 310 of the
RPC, i.e., with grave abuse of confidence.

Art. 332. Persons exempt from criminal liability. — No criminal, but only civil liability,
shall result from the commission of the crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief
committed or caused mutually by the following persons:
1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same
line.
2. The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the deceased
spouse before the same shall have passed into the possession of another; and
3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together.
The exemption established by this article shall not be applicable to strangers
participating in the commission of the crime.
(b) Does he incur criminal and/or civil liability? (2.5%)

Legal Basis: Grandson intestate Estate of Gonzales GR. No. 181409 Feb. 11, 2010
Scope of Article 332 of The Revised Penal Code

The absolutory cause under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code only applies to the
felonies of theft, swindling and malicious mischief. Under the said provision, the
State condones the criminal responsibility of the offender in cases of theft, swindling
and malicious mischief. As an act of grace, the State waives its right to prosecute the
offender for the said crimes but leaves the private offended party with the option to
hold the offender civilly liable.

However, the coverage of Article 332 is strictly limited to the felonies mentioned
therein. The plain, categorical and unmistakable language of the provision shows
that it applies exclusively to the simple crimes of theft, swindling and malicious
mischief. It does not apply where any of the crimes mentioned under Article 332 is
complexed with another crime, such as theft through falsification or estafa through
falsification.

XIII

The brothers Roberto and Ricardo Ratute, both Filipino citizens, led a group of armed
men in seizing a southern island in the Philippines, and declaring war against the duly
constituted government of the country. The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), led by its
Chief of Staff, General Riturban, responded and a full scale war ensued between the AFP and
the armed men led by the brothers. The armed conflict raged for months.

When the brothers-led armed men were running out of supplies, Ricalde, also a
Filipino, and a good friend and supporter of the Ratute brothers, was tasked to leave for
abroad in order to solicit arms and funding for the cash-strapped brothers. He was able to
travel to Rwanda, and there he met with Riboli, a citizen and resident of Rwanda, who
agreed to help the brothers by raising funds internationally, and to send them to the Ratute
brothers in order to aid them in their armed struggle against the Philippine government.
Before Ricalde and Riboli could complete their fund-raising activities for the brothers, the
AFP was able to reclaim- the island and defeat the Ratute-led uprising.
 10

Ricalde and Riboli were charged with conspiracy to commit treason. During the
hearing of the two cases, the government only presented as witness, General Riturban, who
testified on the activities of the Ratute brothers, Ricalde, and Riboli.

(a) Can Ricalde and Riboli be convicted of the crime of conspiracy to commit
treason? (2.5%)
(b) Will the testimony of General Riturban, assuming he can testify on acts within his
personal knowledge, be sufficient to convict the Ratute brothers, Ricalde, and
Riboli? (2.5%)

Legal Basis: -Rebellion and Treason

Two Witness Rule

Art. 114. Treason. — Any person who, owing allegiance to (the United States or) the
Government of the Philippine Islands, not being a foreigner, levies war against them
or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort within the Philippine Islands
or elsewhere, shall be punished by reclusion temporal to death and shall pay a fine
not to exceed P20,000 pesos.
No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses
at least to the same overt act or on confession of the accused in open court.

Art. 134. Rebellion or insurrection; How committed . — The crime of rebellion or

insurrection is committed by rising publicly and taking arms against the Government
for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said Government or its laws, the
territory of the Philippine Islands or any part thereof, of any body of land, naval or
other armed forces, depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or
partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives. (As amended by R.A. 6968).
(Note : I submit that the crime committed is Rebellion not Conspiracy to Commit
Treason, thus, the two-witness rule finds no application. The testimony of Gen.
Riturban might be sufficient to warrant a conviction .
I might be wrong, any input please . . . )

XIV

Robin and Rowell are best friends and have been classmates since grade school.
When the boys graduated from high school, their parents gifted them with a trip to
Amsterdam, all expenses paid. At age 16, this was their first European trip. Thrilled with a
sense of freedom, they decided to try what Amsterdam was known for. One night, they
scampered out of their hotel room, went to the De Wallen, better known as the Red-light
District of Amsterdam. There, they went to a "coffee shop" which sells only drinks and
various items made from opium poppy, cannabis, and marijuana, all of which are legal in
Amsterdam. They represented themselves to be of age, and were served, and took shots of,
cannabis and marijuana products. They indulged in these products the whole night, even if it
was their first time to try them.

Before returning to Manila, they bought a dozen lollipops laced with cannabis, as
souvenir and "pasalubong" for their friends. They were accosted at the Manila International
Airport and were charged with importation of dangerous drugs under the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. They were also charged with use of dangerous drugs after
pictures of them in the "coffee shop" in Amsterdam were posted on Facebook, showing them
smoking and taking shots of a whole menu of cannabis and marijuana products. Their own
captions on their Facebook posts clearly admitted that they were using the dangerous
products. The pictures were posted by them through Private Messenger (PM) only for their
close friends, but Roccino, the older brother of one of their best friends, was able to get hold
of his younger brother's password, and without authority from his brother, accessed his PM
and shared Robin and Rowell's Amsterdam photos on Facebook.

(a) Can Robin and Rowell be prosecuted for use of dangerous drugs for their one-
night use of these products in Amsterdam? (2.5%)

Legal Basis: Territoriality

One of the general characteristics of criminal law is territoriality, which means that
penal laws of the Philippines are enforceable only within its territory.
 11

(b) Can they be prosecuted for importation of dangerous drugs? (2.5%)

Legal Basis: Non-commercial quantity, Asuncion vs. CA GR. No. 125959 Feb. 1, 1999,
Sales vs. People GR. No. 191023 Feb. 6, 2013

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS

DRUGS ACT OF 2002, Section 4. Importation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals.- .The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a
ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos
(P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law,
shall import or bring into the Philippines any dangerous drug, regardless of the
quantity and purity involved, including any and all species of opium poppy or any
part thereof or substances derived therefrom even for floral, decorative and culinary
purposes.

(c) If found liable under either (a) or (b) above, what is the penalty that may be
imposed on them? (2.5%)

Legal Basis: Rehabilitation for use of dangerous drugs; penalty for importation is life
imprisonment converted into reclusion perpetua; minority; reduced to reclusion
temporal;

Section 98 of RA No. 9165, Limited Applicability of the Revised Penal Code. –

Notwithstanding any law, rule or regulation to the contrary, the provisions of the
Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3814), as amended, shall not apply to the provisions of
this Act, except in the case of minor offenders. Where the offender is a minor, the
penalty for acts punishable by life imprisonment to death provided herein shall be
reclusion perpetua to death.

People vs. Montalaba GR. No. 186227 July 20, 2011, People vs. Musa GR. No. 199735
Oct. 24, 2012

(d) Can Roccino be prosecuted for the act of accessing and sharing on Facebook the
private pictures sent by PM to his brother? If yes, for what crime? (2.5%)

Legal Basis:

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10175 : Cybercrime Prevention Act, Section 4. Cybercrime

Offenses. — The following acts constitute the offense of cybercrime punishable under
this Act:

(a) Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer

data and systems:

(1) Illegal Access. – The access to the whole or any part of a computer
system without right.

XV

During the presentation of the prosecution's evidence, Reichter was called to the
witness stand with the stated purpose that he would testify that his wife Rima had shot him
in the stomach with a .38 caliber pistol, resulting in near fatal injuries. Upon objection of the
defense on the ground of the marital disqualification rule, the presiding judge (Judge
Rossano) disallowed Reichter from testifying in the case. Its motion for reconsideration
having been denied, the People of the Philippines went up on certiorari to the Court of
Appeals (CA) questioning Judge Rossano's ruling.

After due proceedings, the CA rendered judgment declaring Judge Rossano's ruling
void ab initio for having been made with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction, and directing Judge Rossano to allow Reichter to testify in the criminal
case for the stated purpose. This is based on the fact that the marital privilege rule does not
apply where a spouse committed the crime against the other.
 12

As the CA decision became final and executory, the criminal case before the RTC was
calendared for trial. At the scheduled trial, the prosecution called Reichter to the witness
stand in order to testify on the same matter it earlier announced. The defense objected on
the ground that the CA erred in its disposition of the certiorari case. Judge Rossano
sustained the objection and again disallowed Reichter from testifying in the criminal case.
Repeated pleas from the prosecution for Judge Rossano to reconsider his ruling and to allow
Reichter to testify fell on deaf ears.

May Judge Rossano be convicted of a crime? If yes, what crime did he commit? (5%)

Legal Basis: People vs. Reyes GR. No. 177105-06 Aug. 12, 2010

( Note : I think the above case suggested by Judge Campanilla is not applicable. The
applicable provision is Art. 206 of the Revised Penal Code. )

Deriliction of Duty : Art. 206. Unjust interlocutory order. — Any judge who
shall knowingly render an unjust interlocutory order or decree shall suffer the penalty
of arresto mayor in its minimum period and suspension; but if he shall have acted by
reason of inexcusable negligence or ignorance and the interlocutory order or decree
be manifestly unjust, the penalty shall be suspension.

XVI

For the past five years, Ruben and Rorie had been living together as husband and
wife without the benefit of marriage. Initially, they had a happy relationship which was
blessed with a daughter, Rona, who was born on March 1, 2014. However, the partners'
relationship became sour when Ruben began indulging in vices, such as women and alcohol,
causing frequent arguments between them. Their relationship got worse when, even for
slight mistakes, Ruben would lay his hands on Rorie. One day, a tipsy Ruben barged into
their house and, for no reason, repeatedly punched Rorie in the stomach. To avoid further
harm, Rorie ran out of the house. But Ruben pursued her and stripped her naked in full view
of their neighbors; and then he vanished.

Ten days later, Ruben came back to Rorie and pleaded for forgiveness. However,
Rorie expressed her wish to live separately from Ruben and asked him to continue providing
financial support for their daughter Rona. At that time, Ruben was earning enough to
support a family. He threatened to withdraw the support he was giving to Rona unless Rorie
would agree to live with him again. But Rorie was steadfast in refusing to live with Ruben
again, and insisted on her demand for support for Rona. As the ex-lovers could not reach an
agreement, no further support was given by Ruben.

What crimes did Ruben commit:

(a) For beating and humiliating Rorie? (2.5%)

Legal Basis: Dinamling vs. People GR. No. 199522 June 22, 2015

Section 5. Acts of Violence Against Women and Their Children.- The crime of
violence against women and their children is committed through any of the following
acts:

xxxx

(i) Causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the woman
or her child, including, but not limited to, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, and
denial of financial support or custody of minor children or access to the woman's
child/children.

From the aforequoted Section 5(i), in relation to other sections of RA No.

9262, the elements of the crime are derived as follows:

(1) The offended party is a woman and/or her child or children;23

(2) The woman is either the wife or former wife of the offender, or is a woman with
whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or is a woman with
whom such offender has a common child. As for the woman's child or children, they
may be legitimate or illegitimate, or living within or without the family abode;24
 13

(3) The offender causes on the woman and/or child mental or emotional anguish; and

(4) The anguish is caused through acts of public ridicule or humiliation, repeated
verbal and emotional abuse, denial of financial support or custody of minor children
or access to the children or similar such acts or omissions.25

"Psychological violence" refers to acts or omissions causing or likely to cause

mental or emotional suffering of the victim such as but not limited to intimidation,
harassment, stalking, damage to property, public ridicule or humiliation, repeated
verbal abuse and mental infidelity. It includes causing or allowing the victim to
witness the physical, sexual or psychological abuse of a member of the family to
which the victim belongs, or to witness pornography in any form or to witness
abusive injury to pets or to unlawful or unwanted deprivation of the right to custody
and/or visitation of common children.

Psychological violence is an element of violation of Section 5(i) just like the mental or
emotional anguish caused on the victim.”

(b) For withdrawing support for Rona? (2.5%)

Legal Basis: Economic Violence

SECTION 3. Definition of Terms.-

D. "Economic abuse" refers to acts that make or attempt to make a woman

financially dependent which includes, but is not limited to the following:

1. withdrawal of financial support or preventing the victim from engaging in any

legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity, except in cases wherein the
other spouse/partner objects on valid, serious and moral grounds as defined in Article
73 of the Family Code;

2. deprivation or threat of deprivation of financial resources and the right to the use
and enjoyment of the conjugal, community or property owned in common;

3. destroying household property;

4. controlling the victims' own money or properties or solely controlling the conjugal
money or properties.

XVII

Robina bought from Ramsey a seaside property located in Romblon. At that time, she
was in the process of returning to the Philippines as a returning resident, after retiring from
her work in Russia, and was planning to set up a diving school in the area. In a non-notarized
"Kasunduan ng Pagbibili," Ramsey represented the property as alienable and disposable,
and that he had a valid title to the property. When the sale was completed, and as she was
applying for permits and licenses for her school, she found out that the property was a
public non-alienable and non-disposable land which Ramsey had bought from someone who
only had a foreshore lease over the same. As she was bent on setting up the diving school in
the area, having made all the preparations and having already bought all the equipment,
she filed a Miscellaneous Lease Application (MLA) with the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR) at the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office in
Romblon. In her application, she stated that she was a Filipino citizen, although she was still
a naturalized Russian citizen at that time. It was only six months after she filed the MLA that
she filed her petition for dual citizenship under R.A. No. 9225. When DENR discovered that,
at the time of filing the MLA, she was still a Russian citizen, her application was denied and
she was charged with falsification of a public document for misrepresenting herself as a
Filipino citizen. Infuriated, Robina also filed charges against Ramsey for falsification of a
private document for stating in their "Kasunduan" that the property was alienable and
disposable.

In the case for falsification of a public document, Robina's defense was that, at the
time she filed the MLA, she had every intention to reacquire Philippine citizenship, as in fact
she filed for dual citizenship six months thereafter, and that she had no intent to gain or to
 14

injure the Philippine government since she expected that her application for dual citizenship
would be approved before the MLA could be approved. On the other hand, she claimed in
the action against Ramsey that intent to gain was present since he received the purchase
price as a result of his misrepresentation. Ramsey's defense was that he had a valid Transfer
Certificate of Title in his name, and he had a right to rely on his title.

(a) Will the case for falsification of public document filed against Robina prosper?
(2.5%)

Legal Basis: Intent to cause damage not an element in falsification of public

document; Goma vs. CA

(b) Will the case for falsification of private document filed against Ramsey prosper?
(2.5%)

Legal Basis: Intent to cause damage an element of falsification of private document;

Article 172. Falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents. - The
penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not
more than P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon:

1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications enumerated in the
next preceding article in any public or official document or letter of exchange or any
other kind of commercial document; and

2. Any person who, to the damage of a third party, or with the intent to cause such
damage, shall in any private document commit any of the acts of falsification
enumerated in the next preceding article.

Any person who shall knowingly introduce in evidence in any judicial proceeding or to
the damage of another or who, with the intent to cause such damage, shall use any
of the false documents embraced in the next preceding article, or in any of the
foregoing subdivisions of this article, shall be punished by the penalty next lower in
degree.

XVIII

Mrs. Robinson is a teacher at an elementary school. In one of her classes, she found,
to her consternation, that an 8-year old Richard was always the cause of distraction, as he
was fond of bullying classmates smaller in size than him.

One morning, Reymart, a 7-year old pupil, cried loudly and complained to Mrs.
Robinson that Richard had boxed him on the ear. Confronted by Mrs. Robinson about
Reymart's accusation, Richard sheepishly admitted the same. Because of this, Mrs. Robinson
ordered Richard to lie face down on a desk during class. After Richard obliged, Mrs. Robinson
hit him ten (10) times on the legs with a ruler and pinched his ears. Richard ran home and
reported to his mother what he had suffered at the hands of Mrs. Robinson. When Richard's
parents went to Mrs. Robinson to complain, she interposed the defense that she merely
performed her duty as a teacher to discipline erring pupils.

Richard's parents ask your advice on what actions can be instituted against Mrs.
Robinson for acts committed on their minor child.

(a) May Mrs. Robinson be charged with child abuse OR slight physical injuries? (2.5%)

Legal Basis : Child Abuse, corporal punishment is not a defense; Rosaldes vs. People
GR. No. 173988 Oct. 8, 2014

Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610 ( An Act Providing For Stronger Deterrence
And Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation And Discrimination), viz:

Section 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and Other
Conditions Prejudicial to the Child's Development. –
 15

(a) Any person who shall commit any other acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation
or to be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the child's development
including those covered by Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603, as
amended, but not covered by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall suffer
the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period.
XXXX

The jurisprudence applicable to this hypothetical case is the case of George

Bongalon v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 169533, March 20, 2013, where it
was ruled that “[n]ot every instance of the laying of hands on a child constitutes
the crime of child abuse under Section 10 (a) of RA 7610. Only when the laying of
hands is shown beyond reasonable doubt to be intended by the accused to
debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a
human being should it be punished as child abuse. Otherwise, it is punished
under the RPC.”

Art. 265. Less serious physical injuries. — Any person who shall inflict upon
another physical injuries not described in the preceding articles, but which shall
incapacitate the offended party for labor for ten days or more, or shall require
medical assistance for the same period, shall be guilty of less serious physical
injuries and shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor.

(b) May Mrs. Robinson be charged with child abuse AND slight physical injuries?
(2.5%)

Legal Basis: Applying by analogy the case of People vs. Abay, G.R. No. 177752,
February 24, 2009

XIX

Ricky was driving his car when he was flagged down by a traffic enforcer for
overspeeding. Realizing his undoing, but in a hurry for a meeting, Ricky shoved a PhP500 bill
in the traffic enforcer's pocket and whispered to the latter to refrain from issuing him a
traffic violation receipt. The traffic enforcer still issued him a ticket, and returned his money.

What crime, if any, was committed by Ricky? (5%)

Legal Basis: Attempted Corruption of Public Officer, Pozar vs. CA L-62439 Oct. 23,
1984, People vs. Ng Pek GR. No. L-1895 Oct. 2, 1948

Section Two. — Bribery

Art. 210. Direct bribery. — Any public officer who shall agree to perform an act constituting a crime,
in connection with the performance of this official duties, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or
present received by such officer, personally or through the mediation of another, shall suffer the penalty of
prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods and a fine [of not less than the value of the gift and]
not less than three times the value of the gift in addition to the penalty corresponding to the crime agreed
upon, if the same shall have been committed.

If the gift was accepted by the officer in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute
a crime, and the officer executed said act, he shall suffer the same penalty provided in the preceding
paragraph; and if said act shall not have been accomplished, the officer shall suffer the penalties of prision
correccional, in its medium period and a fine of not less than twice the value of such gift.

If the object for which the gift was received or promised was to make the public officer refrain from doing
something which it was his official duty to do, he shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its
maximum period and a fine [of not less than the value of the gift and] not less than three times the value
of such gift.

In addition to the penalties provided in the preceding paragraphs, the culprit shall suffer the penalty of
special temporary disqualification.

The provisions contained in the preceding paragraphs shall be made applicable to assessors, arbitrators,
appraisal and claim commissioners, experts or any other persons performing public duties. (As amended
by Batas Pambansa Blg. 872, June 10, 1985).
 16

Art. 211. Indirect bribery. — The penalties of prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods, and public censure shall be imposed upon any public officer who shall accept gifts offered to him
by reason of his office. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 872, June 10, 1985).

Art. 212. Corruption of public officials. — The same penalties imposed upon the
officer corrupted, except those of disqualification and suspension, shall be imposed
upon any person who shall have made the offers or promises or given the gifts or
presents as described in the preceding articles.

-NOTHING FOLLOWS-

By: Maita Chavez-

Cabanes