UST Faculty of Civil Law Academic Year 2019 to 2020 Criminal Law II

Instructions/Notes:

a. Read and carefully analyze each problem.

b. For the problems, answer each question in not more than four sentences. If the question requires you
to discuss two separate concepts or the criminal liabilities (or lack thereof) of multiple parties, each
discussion may be supported by not more than four sentences.

Answer as if you’re answering a written examination in school where you don’t normally write legal
principles or provisions of the law in verbatim. Avoid long-winded sentences. The purpose of these
exercises is to improve your legal writing. The best kind of legal writing is that which is brief, concise,
straight to the point but is complete.

c. Your answer should demonstrate your ability to analyze the facts, apply the pertinent laws and
jurisprudence, and arrive at a sound or logical conclusion. Always support your answer with the
pertinent laws, rules, and/or jurisprudence. A mere "yes" or "no" answer without any corresponding
explanation or discussion will not be given full credit. Thus, always briefly but fully explain your answers
although the question does not expressly ask for an explanation.

d. Good luck!
Questions:

1. Axel wanted to borrow Php 500,000.00 from Roxas. Axel assured Roxas that he had the capacity to
repay the debt. However, when the debt fell due, Axel could not pay Roxas despite repeated demands.
What crime, if any, was committed by Axel?

ANS:

Axel did not commit any crime since there is a simple loan between the two of them, and in simple loans
(mutuum), as contrasted to commodatum, the borrower acquires ownership of the money, goods or
personal property borrowed.

Being the owner, the borrower can dispose of the thing borrowed (Article 248, Civil Code) and his act
will not be considered misappropriation thereof.

For the crime of Estafa to arise, what has been misappropriated or failed to be returned must be the
exact same thing which has been promised to be returned or delivered, and the loaned money in the
instant case does not fall under this definition. In the case of CheeKiong Yam vs. Malik, the Court held
the debtor in simple loans cannot be held liable for the crime of estafa, by merely refusing to pay or by
denying the indebtedness.

2. Mick wanted to borrow Php 80,000.00 from Rocky. Rocky was apprehensive, given Mick’s history of
not honoring debts. To convince Rocky into lending him the money, Mick issued a Promissory Note as
evidence of the loan. Rocky agreed and lent Mick the amount. After giving the money, Rocky further
required Mick to issue a postdated check as added security. When Rocky presented Mick’s check for
payment on the maturity date, the same was dishonored due to insufficient funds. A Notice of
Dishonor was served but Mick merely ignored the same. Rocky came to you for legal advice. What
crime/s would you recommend charging Mick with, if any?

ANS:
Mick is liable for the crime of Estafa by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or
simultaneous to the commission of the fraud since he postdated or issued a check in payment of an
obligation and the funds deposited in his bank account were not sufficient to cover the amount of the
check. Further, Mick issued the said check in order to defraud Rocky, that is, to induce the latter to agree
to borrow him money, and there is prima facie evidence of deceit since he did not make good of the
check by depositing the necessary amount to cover its despite being served a notice of dishonor.

Likewise, Mick is liable for a violation of BP 22 since such violation arises whenever a check has been
issued and the said check was dishonored upon presentment to the drawee bank. A prima facie
evidence of knowledge of insufficiency of funds arises when the offender fails to make good of the check
within 5 banking days after receiving a notice of dishonor from the bank or the payee/holder. As to
liability, both crimes will lie and charging Mick with both will not constitute double jeopardy since the
essence of the crime of estafa is deceit while the essence of violation of BP 22 is the issuance of a
worthless check.
3. Can a person be convicted of (a) Estafa by Postdating a Check; and (2) Violation of BP 22 without
being served with a Notice of Dishonor? Explain and qualify (if necessary) your answer.

ANS:

As to Estafa by postdating a check, the law through RA 4885 states that the failure of the drawer of the
check to deposit the amount necessary to cover his check within three (3) days from receipt of notice
from the bank and/or the payee or holder that said check has been dishonored for lack or insufficiency
of funds shall be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act. Thus,
receipt of notice is still a must in order to give rise to a prima facie evidence of knowledge of
insufficiency of funds on the drawer’s part, and he cannot be convicted of Estafa without being served a
notice of dishonor.

As to BP 22, no, since lack of written notice of dishonor is fatal because no disputable presumption of
knowledge of insufficiency of funds when there is no receipt of notice of dishonor. The absence of proof
that drawer received any notice informing her of the fact that her checks were dishonored and giving
her five working days within which to make arrangements of payment of the said checks prevents the
application of the disputable presumption that she had knowledge of the insufficiency of her funds.
Absent such presumption, the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove that the drawer had knowledge
of the insufficiency of funds when the drawer issued the checks; otherwise, the drawer cannot be held
liable under the law.

4. Seifer stole the car of Vivi and brought it home. Later, Seifer regretted his actions and decided to
burn down the car, so that the carnapping cannot be traced to him. What crime was committed with
respect to the burning of the car—a personal property?

The crime committed by Siefer as regards the burning of the car is malicious mischief under Article 327
of the Revised Penal Code since Siefer willfully damaged the car, a personal property, for the sake of
causing damage due to hate, revenge, or other evil motive, which in this case was to conceal the
commission of another crime. Further, the act of burning did not fall under preceding articles
contemplating simple or destructive arson.
5. Blaze plotted to burn down the house of Chico. Thus, Blaze gathered several plastic bottles of
gasoline, and matches and lighters, which he placed inside his backpack. At around midnight, Blaze
drove to the house of Chico. He parked nearby and as he approached the house, he was apprehended
by police officers. Apparently, Chico got wind of Blaze’s plot and decided to entrap him. Blaze was
charged with Attempted Arson. Do you agree with the charge?

ANS:

No. He was caught during the prepatory stage of his scheme. At the time he was caught, he was only
approaching the house and he did not yet commence the commission of a felony through an overt act
that would make him liable for the crime of attempted arson. In order for the crime to be at an
attempted stage, the act done pursuant thereto must not be equivocal but indicates a clear intention to
commit a particular and specific felony. The mere act of approaching the house does not constitute an
overt act that would make Blaze liable for the crime of attempted felony.

6. Mikey and Pip were having a brawl inside Mikey’s house. Mikey collapsed and died instantaneously
due to the severity of his injuries. As Pip was about to leave, he saw Mikey’s wallet protruding in his
back pocket. Pip took the wallet and left. Pip also decided to burn down the house to conceal the
death of Mikey. What crime/s, if any, was/were committed by Pip?

ANS:

Pip is liable for the crime of homicide since a person, Mikey, was killed by the accused Pip without any
justifying circumstance, there being presumed intent to kill on the latter’s part and the killing not being
attended by the circumstance of murder.

As for the taking of the wallet, Pip is liable for the crime of theft since he took the personal property of
another without the latter’s consent, the taking not being done through violence against or intimidation
of a person or without using force upon things. No crime of robbery is committed since there was no
original intent to take the wallet on Pip’s part, the taking being an afterthought after the killing of Mike.

As regards the burning of Mikey’s house, Pip is liable for destructive arson since he burned down any
building for the purpose of concealing or destroying the evidence for another violation of law, in this
case, to conceal the killing of Mikey
7. Shawn is engaged in the business of selling laptops, phones and other gadgets through online.
Shawn has his own messenger, Hunter, who deliver orders to customers. One day, a customer ordered
five units of MacBook Air from Shawn. So Shawn gave the MacBooks to Hunter with the instruction to
deliver it to the customer. However, Hunter never returned. What crime, if any, was committed by
Hunter?

ANS:

Hunter is liable for the crime of qualified theft under Article 310 of the RPC since he, with intent to gain
but without violence against or intimidation of persons, took personal property namely, Shawn’s laptops
which were to be sold to Shawn’s customer, without Shawn’s or the customer’s consent. The taking is
done with grave abuse of confidence given that Shawn can reasonably trust Hunter to deliver goods on
his behalf. The crime is not Estafa since although Hunter was charged with the obligation to deliver the
laptops to the customer on Shawn’s behalf, such possession of the property on Hunter’s part is not
juridical possession and merely material possession. For the crime of Estafa through misappropriation to
arise, there must be juridical possession on the part of the offender over the property he or she
appropriated in the sense that he or she has a better right even than that of the owner of the property.
Such was not availing in the case of Hunter,

8. Jhemerlyn usually keeps her cellphone on a table near her home’s window. One time, Bruno
noticed the cellphone. He broke the window and reached for the cellphone and grabbed it. What
crime, if any, was committed by Bruno?

ANS:

Bruno committed theft since, with intent to gain, he unlawfully took Jehmerlyn’s phone, a personal
property, without Jhemerlyn’s consent. The breaking of the window only counts as an aggravating
circumstance to the theft. In the instant case, in order for the crime of robbery with use of force upon
things to arise, it must be necessary that the breaking of the window be accompanied by entry of the
entire offender’s body into the dwelling since under the first act of robbery with use of force upon
things, the essence of the crime is the act of trespassing and taking of the property of another. The act
contemplated in the given problem cannot be said to be Robbery with the use of force upon things since
although Bruno broke a window, his entire body did not enter Jhemerlyn’s dwelling and the taking was
done by merely reaching out to take the phone.
9. A van carrying food supplies was hijacked along EDSA by ten men, two of whom were armed. They
used force, violence and intimidation against the employees who were occupants of the van, resulting
in the taking of the contents of the van. What crime, if any, was committed by the ten men?

ANS:

The ten men are liable for the crime of Brigandage under PD 532, the Anti-Highway Robbery Law since
they took away the contents of the van, property belonging to another, by means of violence against or
intimidation of the employees inside the van, and such act was done on EDSA, a Philippine Highway.
Brigandage under the Anti-Highway Robbery Law can be done by any number of persons, regardless of
whether they are armed or not, and the actual commission of the robbery in a Philippine Highway gives
rise to the crime.

10. Dale and Bill broke into home of Hank to steal the latter’s rare Funko Pop collection. Hank woke up
from the noise, he came out of his room and was fatally shot by Bill. After the Funko Pop collection
were taken, Dale went to the kitchen to start a fire by boiling a pan filled with cooking oil, while Bill
raped Hank’s wife. The fire eventually spread and burned the whole house down. What crime/s
was/were committed by Dale and Bill?

ANS:

Dale and Bill committed the crime of Robbery with Homicide under Article 294.

Even though it was bill who shot Hank, it is established in People v. Suyu that as far as special complex
crimes are concerned, once conspiracy is established between several accused in the commission of the
crime of robbery, they would all be equally culpable for the rape committed by any of them on the
occasion of the robbery, unless any of them proves that he endeavored to prevent the other from
committing rape. Applying this to the present case, Dale should also be held liable for robbery with
homicide since it is a special complex crime and there was no showing that he endeavored to prevent
Bill from killing hank.

Thusly, since they are both liable for Robbery with Homicide, the hierarchy in Article 294 must be
followed and the acts of rape and arson are all absorbed in one single indivisible offense of Robbery with
Homicide, it being the highest and first in the hierarchy.