Samplexes used include:
● 2012 Midterms Q: May an alien residing in the Philippines commit misprision
● 2013 Finals
● 2015 Finals
● 2015 Supplemental Exam
● 2016 Finals
● 2018 Finals
Samplexes with questionable answers and those without are
not included.
Thank you for your patience.
____________________________________________
Title 1 Crimes against national security and the law of
the nations
Q: Foreign Country X is planning to invade the Philippines one
year from now. A group of Filipinos, in sympathy with that
country, has been sending financial support to Foreign
Country X. In addition, those Filipinos, together with others,
actually assembled and gathered together for the purpose of
overthrowing the Philippine Government, thereby to pave the
way for Foreign Country X in the event of the planned
invasion. Could such Filipinos be prosecuted for treason?
A: No, because actually assembling and gathering together
for the purpose of overthrowing the Philippine Government
must take place in the context of war in order to constitute
treason
Q: X and Y agreed and decided to commit treason. They,
thereafter, proposed the commission of the same crime to Z
and A, who was also determined to commit treason.
Thereafter, all of them committed treason. How many and
what crimes were committed by X and Y?
A: One, namely treason.
Q: Foreign Country X is planning to invade the Philippines one
year from now. A group of Filipinos, in sympathy with that
country, has been sending financial support to Foreign
Country X. Could such Filipinos be prosecuted for treason?
A: No, because there has not yet been a formal declaration of
war with Foreign Country X.
Q: A group of Filipinos and some South Koreans have been
residing in Japan for some time. Suppose that war breaks out
between the Philippines and North Korea and during the
existence of that war, those Filipino citizens and South
Koreans send financial contributions to North Korea from
Japan. Can all of them be punished for treason in the
Philippines if, after the war and with the cooperation of the
Japanese Government and the INTERPOL, working with our
NBI agents, said Filipinos and South Koreans were arrested
and later brought here for trial?
A: No, because South Koreans cannot be punished for treason
as they owe no allegiance to the Philippine Government.
ALS BLOCK F 2022
of treason?
A: No, unlike treason, misprision of treason cannot be
committed by resident aliens.
Q: May a non-resident Filipino commit the crime of misprision
of treason abroad and be punished in the Philippines for the
same?
A: No, because this crime can only be committed by Filipinos
who reside in the Philippines.
Q: Filipino citizen who, adhering to a foreign enemy in time of
war "involving Mile Philippines, sends such enemy letters
containing useful information on the deployment of Philippine
troops, intending thereby to aid the enemy,
A: Commits treason, punishable under Art. 114, RPC, by
reclusion perpetua to death
Q: A City Mayor who publicly burns a Singaporean flag, by
way of protest for what was widely perceived in the
Philippines as the unjust hanging of a Filipina domestic helper
in Singapore,
A: Commits inciting to war or giving motives for reprivals.
Q: It is but natural for a resident alien, with whose country
the Philippines is at war, to return to his home country when
war breaks out; therefore:
A: Such a resident alien commits the crime of flight to
enemy's country if, disregarding prohibitions issued by
competent authority, he attempts to go home
Q: Discuss the crime of piracy.
A: Answer on your own. Samplex did not get full points.
Q: A group of men X and Others), who appear to be
Vietnamese by nationality, riding on a speedboat, intercepted
a cargo vessel in the seacoast of Sumatra (and within the
territorial limits of the latter) and by means of violence and
intimidation, took valuable personal property from the vessel.
They then proceeded to the Philippines on the same
motorboat. The Philippine Coast Guard apprehended them
within Philippine territorial waters, along with several other
groups of Vietnamese boat people, violating Philippine
immigration laws. Can X and Others be prosecuted criminally
before the Philippine courts of piracy if identified by somebody
who happened to be among the victims of their act of
depredations committed on the aforesaid cargo vessel within
the territorial limits of Sumatra?
A: Yes, piracy on the high seas under the RPC includes those
committed within the territorial limits of foreign States.
Q: An act of robbery or forcible depredation committed in a
vessel while on the high seas is
A: Piracy but only if not committed by members' of the
complement or crew or passengers of the vessel; otherwise,
robbery

Q: Following the amendment of Art. 122 of the Rev. Pen.

Code by Rep Act No. 7659, a person committing piracy in
Philippine waters:

A: May now be prosecuted both under the Rev. Pen. Code and
Pres. Dec No. 532, in deference to the established rule that
prosecution under the Revised Penal Code does not bar
prosecution under a special law violated by the same act of
the offender

Q: Qualified piracy where physical injury, rape, murder or

homicide is committed, as a result or on the occasion of
piracy, is

A: A special complex crime

ALS BLOCK F 2022

Title 2 Crimes against the fundamental laws of the
State
Q: "A" is accused of robbery and is arrested by SPO2 B, a
member of the Philippine National Police (PNP), by virtue of a
warrant of arrest. “A” put up bail and was ordered released by
the court. Three days later SPO2 B saw "A" at a movie house
and immediately arrested him and took him to the nearest
police precinct and was kept there till the next morning when
SPO2 B took him to the court. All along "A" was telling SPO2
B that he was out on bail, but SPO2 B would not believe him;
neither did SPO2 B make effort to verify if “A” had really been
released on bail. Could SPO2 B be held liable for arbitrary
detention?
A: Yes, because he committed arbitrary detention under
Article 124, by imprudence
Q: X, a policeman, arrested a person without legal ground
and detained him in his house for revenge, not in the jail,
releasing him after eight hours. Would X be liable for arbitrary
detention?
A: Yes, because the place of detention is immaterial.
Q: A policeman, suspecting that X stole the missing jeep of M,
called X to the police precinct at about 8 o'clock in the
evening, and investigated the latter there and then. X was
told to stay in the precinct until the investigation was
terminated, but allowing him to go to the nearby store when
he wanted to drink and to eat and permitting him to go
around the premises of the police precinct. He did not go
home until the next morning, to his disgust and annoyance.
Was the policeman guilty of arbitrary detention?
A: No, there was neither confinement nor restraint on the
person of X.
Q: What is the liability of a private individual who induced a
policeman to detain a person without legal ground if the
policeman actually so detained that person?
A: Arbitrary detention, as principal by inducement
Q: The second element of the crime of delay in the delivery of
detained persons to the proper judicial authority is that the
person detained is so detained for some legal ground. What
would be the offense if that element is lacking?
A: Arbitrary detention
Q: A inflicted on B serious physical injuries resulting in the
latter's total blindness, punishable by prision mayor. The
policeman who saw the commission of the crime arrested and
detained A. For how long a time can the policeman legally
detain A without delivering him to the proper judicial
authority?
A: thirty-six hours
ALS BLOCK F 2022
Q: The commission of a crime, which includes an attempt at
the commission thereof, constitutes a legal ground for the
detention of persons
A: However, "legal ground" for detention contemplates not
only the instances when warrantless arrests may be made
Q: May the chief of police order the arrest of the offender,
who is preparing to leave the country allegedly for medical
treatment, after hearing the complainant and his witnesses
and becoming satisfied that the person complained against
committed murder?
A: No, the chief of police can only file a complaint with the
proper authority to institute criminal proceedings against the
offender.
Q: Would the filing of a complaint with the Office of the
Prosecutor constitute sufficient compliance with the
requirements of Article 125, Revised Penal Code, as regards
the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial
authorities?
A: No, because what is contemplated therein is the filing of a
complaint or information with the judicial authority
empowered to issue a warrant of arrest or of commitment for
temporary confinement of a person surrendered in order to
legalize the detention of the person arrested without warrant​.
Q: The crime of delay in the delivery of detained persons to
the proper judicial authorities presupposes the arrest of such
persons for some legal ground
A: By a public officer or employee whose duty it is to detain
or cause the detention of persons
Q: A policeman, becoming angry with the owner of a house,
forcibly entered the same against the owner's will and
attacked such owner inside his house. Is the policeman liable
for the crime of violation of domicile?
A: No, because his purpose in entering the dwelling was not
to violate the domicile.
Q: A police officer who, without a search warrant, shall
surreptitiously enter a dwelling for the purpose of search but,
after being required to leave the premises by the owner
thereof, shall promptly do so:
A: Incurs no criminal liability for violation of domicile under
Article 128 of the Revised Penal Code
Q: Criminal liability for prohibition, interruption, and
dissolution of peaceful meetings under Article 131 of the
Revised Penal Code, may be incurred by:
A: A public order or employee who is not a participant at such
meetings
Q: Interruption of a peaceful meeting is penalized under
Article 131, Rev. Pen. Code, when committed by a public
officer or employee, unless the peaceful meeting is a
manifestation or ceremony of any religion, in which case,
such offender incurs criminal liability under Art. 132 of the
same Code; consequently

A: Interruption of peaceful meetings - under Article 153, 1st

paragraph, of the Rev. Pen. Code contemplates private
persons as offenders but can be committed by public officers
or employees who are participants therein

Q: A policeman and a private individual threw stones at the

minister of the Iglesia ni Kristo, who was then preaching in
their chapel. What crime was committed by the policeman
and what crime was committed by the private individual?

A: Offending the religious feelings under Art. 133, RPC​.

Q: At a baptismal party, where all the guests were Catholics,

a priest who was there was slapped and gravely slandered by
a man belonging to another religion. Is that man liable for
offending the religious feeling?

A: No, because it does not appear that a religious ceremony

was going on nor was the place dedicated to religious
worship​.

Q: Whether an act is notoriously offensive to the feelings of

the faithful is to be determined on the basis of:

A: The subjective feelings of the faithful claiming to have

been offended

ALS BLOCK F 2022

Title 3 Crimes against public order
Q: One who takes up arms or is in open 'hostility against the
government and who, by means of speeches, incites others to
the execution of acts of rebellion:
A: Commits rebellion only
Q: Rebellion is an offense that is
A: Bailable as regards followers and, as regards leaders,
bailable only when the evidence of guilt is not strong.
Q: A public officer or employee who conspires with rebels and
accepts an appointment to office under them is guilty of:
A: Rebellion
Q: What would be the crime where rebellion is proved to have
been proposed or incited by the accused, if the crime of
rebellion is actually committed by the people to whom the
proposal was made or who are incited to commit it?
A: Rebellion.
Q: A group of persons rose publicly and took up arms against
the forces of the Government, resulting in the killing of
certain policemen. Some of those who rose publicly were
killed and those who were captured refused to give any
statement or make any admission. On those facts, are they
liable for rebellion?
A: No, the facts only indicate the objective element of
rebellion, but not its subjective element
Q: One of the purposes of the crime defined in Art. 134, RPC,
is to deprive the Chief Executive or Congress, wholly or
partially of any of their powers or prerogatives. What is the
crime committed if a movement that stages a public uprising
merely sought to effect some change of minor importance or
to prevent the exercise of governmental authority with
respect to particular matters or subjects?
A: That would be insurrection but, nevertheless, punishable
under Art, 134, RPC, since, in contrast, rebellion must involve
a movement to completely overthrow and supersede the
existing Government.
Q: May a group of non-resident aliens who, while in this
country, rose publicly and took up arms against the
Government, for the purpose of overthrowing the same, be
held liable for rebellion?
A: Yes, “any person” may commit rebellion and the matter of
allegiance, whether permanent, temporary or lacking is
immaterial.
Q: KD, who appears to be an area leader of the New People's
Army (NPA), Sparrow Unit, directed AM, CA, DR, and VB,
members of the NPA to go to Barrio Punti and kill one RA,
who was suspected by KD to be a Philippine Army (PA)
informer. All four of them went to the barrio of RA, AM
ALS BLOCK F 2022
carrying a Browning shotgun, DR a Thompson, CA a carbine
and VB, a homemade gun called Bulldog. They arrived at
Punti at 9:00 AM. and they saw RA at the river bank giving
his carabao a bath. DR went to RA and, after a while, shot
him with his gun. AM also shot him with his Browning followed
with another shot by CA, as a result of which RA fell down and
died. AM then placed on the dead body of RA a writing and
drawing made by their association warning the people and the
PA of their activities. Thereafter, the group returned and,
reported to KD that RA was already dead. After subsequent
apprehension, an information was filed by the provincial fiscal
charging AM, VB, and CA of the crime of murder. After
conviction for murder, AM appealed. Can it be contended, in
this appeal, that the crime committed is not murder but
rebellion only?
A: Yes, the crime is rebellion in view of the political motive
behind it, which absorbs murder committed in furtherance
thereof
Q: May a person who did not actually take up arms against
the Government but, entertaining the purpose of rebellion,
performs other overt acts in furtherance of rebellion, be held
liable for rebellion?
A: Yes, provided he is in conspiracy with those engaged in
actually taking up arms against the government, like a courier
or spy.
Q: The Solicitor General points to FS' affidavit, dated 25
February 2006, as basis for the finding of probable cause
against CB for rebellion, as FS provided details in his
statement regarding meetings CB and the Others attended in
2005 and 2006 in which plans to overthrow violently the
Arroyo government were allegedly, discussed, among others.
The Information in fact merely charges CB for "conspiring and
confederating with others in forming a “tactical alliance" to
commit rebellion. Should a charge for rebellion against CB be
sustained?
A: No, those statements in FS' affidavit merely allege a
conspiracy to commit rebellion and the Information does not
charge CB with the crime of Rebellion
Q: The Revised Penal Code treats of homicide or murder, or
other offenses that might conceivably be committed in the
course or in furtherance of rebellion
A: Either as integral elements of rebellion or as distinct
offenses from rebellion. Therefore, the prosecution has a
choice, depending on evidence on band, to prosecute such
acts as rebellion or as distinct offenses, subject to proof by
the defense as to political motive underlying the act.
Q: Two rival groups of jeepney drivers, all armed attacked
each other in Plaza Miranda, using their arms even against
the policemen who tried to stop them and restore order in the
place. The attack being tumultuous and the commotions
occurring in a public place, did the rival groups of jeepney
drivers commit sedition?
A: No, the crime of sedition was not committed by them
because, although there was public and tumultuous uprising,
its object was not to prevent the policemen from freely
exercising their functions, or to attain any other object of
sedition.
Q: “A” wanted to eliminate his political rival “B” before the
election, which was about to take place in their province. "A"
had an understanding with some members of the NPA
roaming the mountains of Quezon Province, whose
commander was his friend, to the effect that said NPA
members would attack the town where “B” was living and
serving as municipal mayor, with the particular end in view of
killing "B”. During the attack on the said town made by the
NPA members in which “A” also took part, “B” was seriously
injured and his house was burned. Considering that the
members of the NPA were engaged in continuing hostilities
against the Government and "A” was, as regards the subject
incident, in conspiracy with said NPA members
A: "A" is liable for sedition, on the one hand, and for all the
separate and individual crimes committed in the course
thereof namely, the serious physical injuries inflicted on “B”
and arson, for the burning of the house of "B"
Q: The crime of inciting to sedition is committed by:
A: Knowingly concealing the evil practice of publishing
scurrilous libels against the government which incite riots.
Q: A person who, without taking any direct part in a sedition,
proposes to another person in a Christmas greeting card
addressed to the latter, the commission of acts which
constitute sedition:
A: Incurs no criminal liability
Q: In a meeting, where many persons were invited to
consider ways and means of improving the community, X
volunteered to speak and, in the course of his speech, he
incited the audience to carry arms and use force or violence
against the mayor and councilors for neglecting their duties.
Is that meeting an illegal assembly?
A: No, because the purpose of the meeting, in the first place,
is lawful, that is to consider ways and means of improving the
community
Q: A group of about 20 persons, armed with bolos, daggers
and licensed pistols, were gathered together in a certain
place, holding a meeting. A group of Philippine Army (PA)
soldiers, who were suspecting them, investigated each and
every one of them on the spot, but not one of those persons
revealed the purpose of the meeting. It turned out that one of
those persons who attended the meeting carried an
unlicensed firearm. Is this an illegal assembly?
A: Yes but only as regards the person who carried an
unlicensed firearm, by legal presumption which is even
rebuttable, and not as to the rest.
ALS BLOCK F 2022
Q: Since Republic Act No. 1700 has been repealed,, knowing
membership in the Communist Party of the Philippines, an
organized conspiracy whose aim is decidedly to overthrow the
Government of the Philippines through protracted armed
struggle or other violent means, is:
A: Not punishable as subversion but constitutes the crime of
membership in an illegal association
Q: A harbor policeman and a policeman of the Manila Police
Department happened to investigate a complaint for theft
committed in the pier. The harbor policeman claimed that the
MPD policeman had no right or authority to investigate any
case within the harbor compound. The MPD Policeman
insisted in investigating the case. Consequently, they
quarreled and fought The MPD policeman seriously injured the
harbor policeman. Is the MPD policeman guilty of any crime?
A: Yes, but only for serious physical injuries, not direct
assault, because the act was not motivated by an intention to
defy the authority of the harbor policeman.
Q: A slapped a barangay captain, who was helping a
policeman in preserving order in a procession. Has the crime
of direct assault been committed in this case?
A: Yes, the force employed upon a person in authority need
not be serious and such laying of hands, without distinction,
even qualifies the crime.
Q: Is it always necessary in the crime of direct assault that
the person in authority or his agent be in the actual
performance of his official duty when he is attacked or
seriously intimidated by the offender?
A: No.
Q: A, the mayor of the town, and B, a private individual were
engaged in a conversation in front of the municipal building.
In the course of their conversation about town politics, B and
the mayor became engaged in an altercation regarding how
mayors should perform their duties, resulting in B's giving a
fist blow on the lips of the mayor. Is B liable for direct
assault?
A: No, although they quarreled about performance of duty,
the matter was still of a private nature not involving
performance of duty
Q: Where a policeman is attacked and killed by the offender
by means of fist blows, knowing the former to be a
policeman, while in the performance of duty, albeit none of
the circumstances enumerated in Art. 248, RPC, attended the
killing, the offender commits the crime of
A: Direct assault with homicide
Q: In the process of resisting his arrest by elements of the
Western Police District (WPD), “X” engaged in a gunfight with
them, killing one policeman, and seriously injuring two (2)
others. Under the circumstances, “X” may be prosecuted for:
A: Direct assault with homicide and serious physical injuries.
Q: The crime of direct assault is not qualified by:
A: evident premeditation
Q: A person who comes to the aid of a person in authority is
deemed an agent of a person in authority:
A: Therefore, the mere employment of serious resistance
against such person, when coming to the aid a person in
authority, constitutes direct assault under Art. 148, RPC
Q: When a person in authority is slightly slapped on the face,
while in the performance of duty, the offender knowing him to
be so, the crime committed is:
A: Direct assault, in one of its qualified forms.
Q: A, a lady professor, was giving an examination. She
noticed B, one of the students, cheating. She called the
student's attention and confiscated his examination booklet,
causing embarrassment to him. The following day, while the
class was going on, the student, B, approached A and,
without any warning, slapped her. B would have inflicted
further injuries on A had not C, another student, come to As
rescue and prevented B from continuing his attack. B turned
his ire on C and punched the latter. Under the circumstances,
“B” is liable for:
A: Two (2) separate crimes of direct assault and indirect
assault
Q: A private person who comes to the aid of a lawyer who is
being assaulted while in the performance of professional
duties and who is himself attacked as a consequence thereof,
thereby suffering slight physical injuries, is the victim of:
A: Indirect assault
Q: During a meeting in Manila of members of the Municipal
Mayors League, composed of municipal mayors of the
different municipalities in the Philippines, organized by "some
of them" in order to re-launch à failed bid to revise the
Constitution through people's initiative, "several of them”
created a disturbance, resulting in the interruption of the
meeting. The mayors who created the disturbance ("several
of them") which resulted in the interruption of the meeting
liable for:
A: The crime of public disturbance under Article 153, RPC
Q: What crime would be committed if the offenders who
dissolved or interrupted a peaceful meeting without legal
ground are private individuals who are not participants in the
meeting?
A: Disturbance of public order under Art. 153, RPC.
Q: The crime committed where "A", "B", and "C" rise publicly
to attain by force of intimidation the commission of an act of
ALS BLOCK F 2022
hate or revenge against "D", a private person, for some
political or social end:
A: Public disturbance.​
Q: The crime of evasion of service of sentence under Art. 157,
RPC, is committed by prisoners serving sentence by final
judgment who escape from jail, but persons aiding them in
such escape:
A: Are liable under Art. 156, RPC, for delivery of prisoners
from jail
Q: X is a detention prisoner awaiting trial of his case for
murder. Because of an attack of hypertension, X was brought
to a hospital for treatment and confinement. While X was in
the hospital, the wife of X (W), posing as a nurse and taking
advantage of the inattentiveness of the guard assigned to X,
brought X out of the hospital on a wheelchair, thus enabling X
to escape. In terms of their respective criminal liabilities:
A: “W" alone is liable, for the crime of delivery of prisoners
from jail.
Q: During the disorder in the Bilibid Prisons, resulting from
the killing of certain prisoners by other prisoners, and wherein
guards were even disarmed by certain prisoners, A, a prisoner
serving sentence by final judgment, escaped for fear that he
might be also killed. He never gave himself up to the
authorities even if the disorder had already ceased to exist. Is
he liable criminally?*
A: Yes, for evasion of service of sentence under Art. 157,
RPC.
Q: One who has been sentenced to destierro
A: Can commit jail-breaking or evasion of sentence because
such penalty involves deprivation of liberty.
Q: A, charged with parricide, was confined in the Bilibid
prisons in Muntinlupa pending his trial. There occurred a
disorder resulting from a strong earthquake. A was one of
those who left the prison, because of the earthquake. He
never returned to the prison nor gave himself up to the
authorities within 48 hours following the issuance of a
proclamation announcing the passing away of the calamity.
May A be prosecuted and punished for violation of Art. 158,
RPC?
A: No, his case is not covered by Art. 158 nor by any other
provision of the RPC.
Q: While X was serving sentence for homicide, he inflicted
serious physical injuries on another prisoner thereat. How
would you characterize X under those facts?
A: X is a quasi-recidivist because he committed serious
physical injuries while serving his sentence for homicide,
which satisfies the requirements of Art. 160, RPC
Title 4 Crimes against public interest
Q: In terms of penalty, Art. 161, RPC, regards the crime of
forging the Great Seal of the Government of the Philippines:
A: As a crime as serious as homicide, which is penalised with
reclusion temporal
Q: X made a dollar coin of the United States of America. Is he
liable for counterfeiting of coins?
A: Yes, counterfeiting of coins is punishable whether it
involves Philippine coins or foreign coins.
Q: In defining the crime of counterfeiting of coins under Art.
163, RPC, the law contemplates, may possible subject of
counterfeiting:
A: Even coins which have been withdrawn from circulation
Q: X was surprised by a policeman mutilating a 1-peso silver
coin, which was in circulation before World War II but has
been withdrawn from circulation after liberation. Would X be
liable for the crime of mutilation of coins?
A: No, mutilation of coins, unlike counterfeiting thereof,
applies only to coins that are in circulation.
Q: May X, who is in possession of a counterfeit or mutilated
coin, be punished under the law, even if he shows that he has
no intent to utter the same and he is not in connivance with
the counterfeiter or mutilator?
A: No such possession without intent to utter, nor connivance
with the counterfeiter or mutilator, is not a crime.
Q: To be punishable, the uttering of mutilated coins:
A: Need not be in connivance with mutilators or importers.
Q: X, who was buying merchandise, offered in payment of the
same, a bogus 100-peso bill, knowing it to be falsified. The
owner of the merchandise discovered that the 100-peso bill
was bogus and refused to accept it. Is X liable for attempted,
frustrated or consummated use of falsified money bill?
A: Consummated, acceptance of the bogus bill upon such
offer not being an element of its use.
Q: If the imitation of current coin is so imperfect that no one
may be deceived, would the counterfeiter be nonetheless
criminally liable?*
A: Yes, because the purpose of the law is also to prevent the
forger from practicing his trade and honing his skills.
Q: When is possession of counterfeit treasury or bank note a
crime?
A: When proof of knowledge of its falsity concurs with intent
to utter.
ALS BLOCK F 2022
Q: A was in charge of preparing the payroll in the Office of
the Governor of Cavite. When the payroll for the month of
March was presented to the governor for signature, he
noticed that the name of X was included as janitor in that
office when, in fact, X was not employed in that office.
Instead of signing it, the governor sent the payroll to the
provincial prosecutor for appropriate action. For making a
false statement in a narration of facts, the prosecutor accused
A of falsification. Is A liable for falsification?
A: Yes, but not under Art 171, RPC, because the payroll never
became official without the signature of the Governor
Q: Can the crime of falsification of private document be
committed through reckless imprudence if there is no actual
damage caused?
A: No, because in the absence of actual damage, falsification
of private document can only be committed with intent to
cause such damage.
Q: What crime is committed where the offender falsifies a
private document in order to get money or property from the
offended party?
A: Falsification of private document only, the deceitful
purpose motivating it serving merely as an element thereof
Q: SU, a field agent of the National Bureau of Investigation,
was charged with falsification of public document under
paragraph 4, Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, for
making false statements in his Personal Information Sheet. A
Personal Data Sheet (PDS) is a requirement under the Civil
Service Rules and Regulations in connection with employment
in the government. The filing of a PDS is also required in
connection with promotion to a higher position. What crime, if
any, was committed by SU if he indeed made those false
statements in his PDS?
A: Falsification of public document under Article 171, RPC, the
PDS being a public document who took advantage of official
position when he filled up with falsehood the said PDS
Q: A resolution was under consideration by a Sangguniang
Bayan. X took it from the table of the Sanggunian Secretary
and counterfeited or forged the signatures of the Sanggunian
Secretary and the Municipal Mayor thereon to make it appear
that it was passed and approved. Is this falsification of
legislative document?
A: Yes, but this one is of a type punishable under Art. 171 or
172, RPC, as the case may be
Q: The President of the Philippines left to his secretary a
signature in blank, with instructions to type above his
signature the usual form of appointment for Municipal Trial
Court judge in favor of X. M stole from the desk of the
secretary the paper with the signature of the President in
blank and wrote a document over it, making the President
liable to him for a sum of money. What crime was committed
by M?
A: Falsification under Art. 172, RPC, whether M is a public
officer or a private individual.
Q: Damage or intent to cause damage is immaterial in
incurring criminal liability for the introduction of falsified
documents:
A: In judicial proceedings
Q: In terms of stage of execution, falsification:
A: Only has a consummated stage.​
Q: What is the crime committed by a person who falsifies a
check drawn against the Philippine National Bank?
A: Falsification of commercial document under Art. 172(1),
RPC, a check being a commercial document, within the
meaning of that provision.
Q: XX was a disbursing officer of the Bureau of Lands. He was
a public official. XX’s functions as disbursing officer did not
include the duty to make, prepare or otherwise intervene in
the preparation of the falsified travel expense voucher. His
function was only to pay payees of treasury warrants and
other cash vouchers or payrolls. Nonetheless, he took the
liberty of intervening in the preparation of a falsified travel
expense voucher. How should the crime, if proved, be
punished?'
A: Under Article 172, RPC, because, although the travel
expense voucher falsified was a public document, XX could
not be said to have taken advantage of official position in
committing it
Q: "X", a clerk in the office of the municipal treasurer, whose
duty was to enter in the book the amounts paid on vouchers
presented to the treasurer for payment, received a voucher
from a private individual. The voucher was not yet audited or
acted upon by any public officer. The amount appearing in the
voucher was P25,000.00. “X” told the owner of the voucher to
return the next day for the cash. it Before giving it to the
corresponding officer for auditing and approval of payment,
"X" altered the figure "2" in the amount stated in the voucher,
by making it appear as figure "3" so that the amount would
read “P35,000.00", for the purpose of “X” being able to get
the difference from the owner of the voucher after receiving
payment. The treasurer promptly discovered the alteration
before actual payment. Under the circumstances, the crime
committed is:
A: Falsification of private document under Article 172, RPC,
committed without abuse of official position by a public officer
Q: Y submitted a Statement of Assets, Liabilities and
Networth (SALN) for Year XXXX, which appears to contain
statements contradicting those stated in his Income Tax
Return (ITR), also for Year XXXX. Both the SALN for Year
XXXX and the ITR for Year XXXX were sworn statements. Can
Y, if prosecuted for perjury, be convicted merely on his sworn
contradictory statements (SALN for Year XXXX vs. ITR for
Year XXXX)?
ALS BLOCK F 2022
A: No, it is imperative first to show which statement (the
SALN or the ITR) was false by other evidence than the
contradictory statements, in light of which they may be both
true, both false, one false and the other true, not to mention
partial truths and partial falsehoods, in one or the other.
Q: A lawyer who knowingly introduces in a judicial proceeding
a false medical certificate, to support a motion for
postponement of a hearing,
A: Should be prosecuted for use of a false certificate under
Art. 175, RPC
Q: RM, as Vice-President of the MHADC, signed and certified
under oath the General Information Sheet of MHADC. He was
rot, however, aware of the erroneous statements therein at
the time when he signed it. It was LDA as MHADC's corporate
accountant which had solely prepared the 1996 GIS of the
MHADC. He always relied on the accuracy of LDA. He hastily
signed it since, at that time, the LDA representative was in a
hurry to beat the deadline in submitting the same to the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). After being
informed of the erroneous statements, the LDA sent á letter
to the SEC informing the latter of the mistakes and supplying
the correct information therein. The erroneous statements
were due to the oversight of the LDA. RM admitted that he
was negligent in not carefully reading and analyzing the
statements therein. Subsequently, RM and Others relied on
the foregoing circumstances in executing their respective
counter-affidavits dated 11 June 1998, which led to their
prosecution for perjury. Can RM be held liable for perjury for
the statements he made in the GIS, which he later asserted
to be erroneous in a counter affidavit filed in connection with
the preliminary investigation of a case before the
Prosecutor's, Office?
A: No because perjury cannot be committed by negligence
Q: When is the appropriate time to file a criminal action for
false testimony against a defendant in a criminal case; why?
A: Answer on your own. Samplex did not get full points.
Q: X is the distributor/retailer of petroleum products imported
from a foreign country by Y. Taking advantage of the fall in
the supply of petroleum products arising from the mere
possibility of a blockade in the straits of Hormuz, Y and X
agreed to fix higher prices for said petroleum products which
X purchased from Y and X would, in turn, distribute/resell the
same petroleum products at higher prices, thereby increasing
the market price of such petroleum products. Are X and Y
liable for any crime under the Revised Penal Code?
A: Yes, both of them are liable under Art. 186(3) RPC, since
they combined and conspired to increase the market price of
a merchandise or object of commerce imported into the
Philippines
Q: X, a multi-billionaire, invited all cement manufacturers and
offered them a certain price plus a share in the profits if all of
them would sell their manufactured cement to him only. X's
purpose was to control the price of cement sold locally or
exported to foreign countries. The cement manufacturers
refused and rejected the offer of X. May X be held criminally
liable under the Revised Penal Code for his attempt to
monopolize the sale and exportation of cement?

A: No, since the proposal was rejected, there was no

agreement to monopolize and combine in restraint of trade
that violates Art. 186, RPC;

Q: X, Y and Z, board members of an LPG Dealers Association,

passed a Board Resolution, which resolved and embodied
their agreement to the effect that LPG would be sold at a
certain price per tank and that not one of them shall sell such
merchandise at lesser price without the previous consent of
the others, and was simultaneously signed by them. They
jointly announced the said decision of the association in a
press statement, citing the board resolution. The agreement
was not actually carried out by the members, because they
were promptly arrested. Can X, Y and Z be, nevertheless,
held liable under the Revised Penal Code on the basis of that
agreement/resolution?

A: Yes, the acts of X, Y and Z, constitute a combination to

prevent free competition in the market by fixing the selling
price of their merchandise, in violation of Art. 186(1), RPC.

Title 5 Crimes relative to opium and other prohibited

drugs

-None in samplex-

Title 6 Crimes against public morals

-None in samplex-

ALS BLOCK F 2022

Title 7 Crimes committed by public officers
Q: Where the Office of the Prosecutor miserably incurred
some delay in the filing of the information after the City
Prosecutor had approved the recommendation of the
investigating prosecutor to file the information, the
appropriate course of action to take for the offended party
being deprived of his right to vindicate a wrong purportedly
inflicted on him by the mere expediency of a prosecutor not
filing the proper information in due time would
A: To file an administrative disciplinary action against the
erring public officials.
Q: For an attorney's act of revealing secrets of a client
learned in professional capacity to constitute betrayal of trust,
A: It is enough that such secrets have been revealed
Q: There is indirect bribery where:
A: A public officer accepts gifts offered to him by reason of his
office
Q: Offenses punishable under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act prescribe in 15 years;
A: However, proceedings for forfeiture of unlawfully-acquired
wealth are imprescriptible.
Q: Whenever a public officer commits any of the crimes of
swindling and other deceits, defined and penalized under
Chapter 6, Title Ten of the Rev. Pen. Code, taking advantage
of his official position, then:
A: He will be prosecuted under the appropriate provisions on
swindling and other deceits, defined and penalized under
Chapter 6, Title Ten of the Rev. Pen. Code, subject to the
provisions of Article 214, Title Seven of the same Code
Q: AF issued the check to induce HS to execute a deed of sale
in his favor. The Deed of Absolute Sale was assigned after AF
have the checks to HS. AF did not dispute that at the time of
the issuance of PNB Check No. 395532-S, AF’s account
balance was only P1,026.53. AF closed his account on 27 May
1994, three months before the date indicated in PNB Check
No. 395532-S. Under the circumstances:
A: AF committed deceit because the payee would not have
parted with his property if he knew that the checks were not
funded.
Q: The prima facie presumption of malversation under the
last paragraph of Article 217, Revised Penal Code
A: Arises only if there was no issue as to the accuracy,
correctness and regularity of the audit findings and if the fact
that funds are missing is indubitably established before such
demand is made.
Q: The prima facie presumption of malversation under the
last paragraph of Article 217, Revised Penal Code,
ALS BLOCK F 2022
A: Arises only if there was no issue as to the accuracy,
correctness and regularity of the audit findings and if the fact
that funds are missing is indubitably established before such
demand is made.
Q: Can restitution, payment or reimbursement be asserted as
a defense against a prosecution for malversation of public
funds or property, why?
A: No, restitution, payment or reimbursement cannot be
asserted as a defense against a prosecution for malversation
of public funds as property. It has been held in People v.
Velasquez that the return of money by the accused only
amounts to a mitigating circumstance; it cannot be used to
exempt one from criminal liability. Restitution, payment or
reimbursement cannot be used to exonerate one from being
criminally liable for malversation but that can be used to
mitigate his liability. If restitution, payment, or
reimbursement is allowed to be used as a defense, it would
be easy for one to be absolved of malversation by simply
doing those things despite the fact that the accused had
already malversed public funds as property to the detriment
of public interest.​
Q: In illegal use of public funds or property, the existence of
damage or embarrassment to the public service is
A: Material in fixing the penalty for the said felony
Q: A public officer does not incur criminal liability for
revealing secrets of private individuals coming in his
knowledge by reason of his office when:
A: The secrets are contrary to public interest or the
administration of justice
Q: As regards private persons, the crime of infidelity is the
custody of prisoners may be committed with respect to:
A: All the foregoing cases: (a) prisoners serving sentence by
final judgment confided to their custody, who escape with
their connivance or consent or through their negligence; (b)
detention prisoners confided to their custody, who escape
with their connivance or consent or through their negligence;
(c) persons merely under arrest, who had been confided to
their custody and who escape with their connivance or
consent or through their negligence​.
Q: In the felony of maltreatment of prisoners, the lower
penalty prescribed in Art. 235, Rev. Pen. Code, is imposable:
A: If maltreatment arises from the imposition of punishment
not authorized by the regulations, or by inflicting such
punishment in a cruel and humiliating manner
Q: In the felony of maltreatment of prisoners, the lower
penalty prescribed in Art. 235, Rev. Pen. Code, is imposable:
A: if maltreatment arises from the imposition of punishment
not authorized by the regulations, or by inflicting such
punishment in a cruel and humiliating manner.
Q: During the May 11, 1998 elections, V ran for Municipal
Mayor of San Vicente, Palawan. T (now deceased), a relative
of V's wife, ran for Municipal Mayor of Kitcharao, Agusan del
Norte. V won while T lost. Thereafter, on July 1, 1993, V
designated T as Municipal Administrator of the Municipality of
San Vicente, Palawan. On February 4, 2000, V and T were
charged with violation of Article 244 of the Revised Penal
Code (unlawful appointment) before the Office of the Deputy
Ombudsman for Luzon. The complaint was resolved against V
and T. However, the prosecution did not allege in the
Information, much less prove, that Mayor V's appointee, T,
lacked any of the qualifications imposed by law on the
position of Municipal Administrator. Nevertheless, it is not
disputed that there is a one (1) year prohibition on
appointments as provided for in Sec. 6, Art. IX-B of the
Constitution and Sec. 94 (b) of the Local Government Code,
mandating that a candidate who lost in any election shall not,
within one year after such election, be appointed to any office
in the Government. Can the Prosecution rest its case for
unlawful appointment solely on the assertion that since T lost
in the May 11, 1998 election, he necessarily lacked the
required legal qualifications for the position of Municipal
Administrator?

A: No, the prosecution cannot rest its case for unlawful

appointment solely on the assertion that T lacked the required
legal qualification by reason of losing in the May 11 1998
election. Temporary prohibition is not synonymous with
absence or lack of legal qualification. Two scenarios are
possible: (1) a person has all the legal qualifications but is
temporarily disqualified because of the constitutional
prohibition in losing candidates; and (2) a person is not
temporarily prohibited but is lacking on the requirements
prescribed by law. Hence, the case for unlawful appointment
will not prosper on such contentions by the prosecution.

Q: For purposes of ascertaining whether or not the crime of

unlawful appointment was committed, in particular as regards
the element that the person appointed “lacked legal
qualification”:

A: The "temporary prohibition” against the appointment of

losing candidates to elective positions is not synonymous with
absence or lack of legal qualification.

ALS BLOCK F 2022

Title 8 Crimes against persons
Q: X, a stranger, poisoned Y, a pregnant woman, with intent
to kill her. As a consequence, Y died, along with the foetus in
her womb. Under the circumstances, X should be held liable
for:
A: Murder.
Q: Where the second mate of a vessel, cruising within
Philippine waters, with evident premeditation and cooperating
with all other members of the ship's complement or crew, kills
the captain of the vessel over a personal grudge, the crime is:
A: Murder, because the specific intent was to vindicate a
personal grudge and there is evident premeditation
Q: GA instituted a criminal complaint for the violation of the
Revised Penal Code, particularly Articles 262, in relation to
Republic Act No. 7610 against respondents PA, RO, Dr. RA,
Dr. RA and several John/Jane Does before the Office of the
City Prosecutor of Quezon City. She alleged that through
“charade and false pretenses invariably committed by all of
the respondents in conspiracy with each other, on 31 January
2002, [my] common law brother LA, although of legal age but
conspiratorially caused to be declared by” PARO, Dr. RA, Dr. R
and several John/Jane Does to be “mentally deficient” and
“incompetent to give consent to his BILATERAL VASECTOMY,
was then intentionally, unlawfully, maliciously, feloniously
and/or criminally placed thereafter under surgery for
MUTILATION VIA “BILATERAL VASECTOMY” x x x, EVEN
WITHOUT ANY AUTHORIZATION ORDER from the
GUARDIANSHIP COURT, nor personal consent” of LA himself.
Under the circumstances:
Q: Even where the circumstance of relationship between an
accused in a crime of rape and the victim had not been
properly alleged in the information, but was subsequently
proven during trial by virtue of the testimonies of accused's
sister and mother and his own admission, it still cannot be
appreciated as a qualifying circumstance.
A: However, such relationship can nonetheless be the basis of
a civil award of exemplary damages
Q: The information for Rape against XA reads: “That on or
about the 11th day of June 2002 or prior thereto, in the City
of Las Piñas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd
designs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously commits (sic) act(s) of sexual assault with one
(BBB), a seven (7) years (sic) old minor, by touching and
inserting his finger into her vagina against her will and
consent." Under the circumstances,
A: XA cannot ask that the charge filed against him be
amended to acts of lasciviousness instead of rape since
“fingering" is covered under Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of
Republic Act No. 8353 (RA 8353) because a "finger"
constitutes an object or instrument in the contemplation of RA
8353

A: It is not proper to charge Dr. RA, the urologist who

performed the procedure, much less the others, with the
crime of mutilation under Art. 262, RPC

Q: On 30 May 2000, at around 8 p.m., AAA was on her way

home from a friend's house. AT (1) approached AAA; (2)
forced AAA to go with him; (3) told AAA that the supposed
persons who wanted to kill her were at her house; (4)
dragged AAA towards the highway where a tricycle was
waiting; (5) brought AAA to Tagkawayan, Quezon, using the
tricycle; (6) forced AAA to board a bus going to Santa Elena,
Camarines Norte; and (7) brought AAA to a hut in the middle
of rice fields in Barangay San Lorenzo. AAA and AT spent the
night in the hut. On 1 June 2000, AT (1) poked a knife on
AAA's neck; (2) threatened to kill AAA; (3) undressed AAA;
(4) mounted AAM; and (5) inserted his penis in AAA's vagina.
Under the circumstance, AT should be convicted of the crime
of:

A: Rape only, the forcible abduction being absorbed in rape.

Q: Where rape is alleged and proven to have been committed

with a deadly weapon and by two persons:

A: it is considered to be qualified rape (due to the use of such

weapon) with the aggravating circumstance of superior
strength (there being two rapists acting in concert)

ALS BLOCK F 2022

Title 9 Crimes against personal liberty and security
Q: When prosecuted for kidnapping for ransom, XA claimed
that there was no deprivation of liberty in this case because
KN, a minor, voluntarily went with him to the mountainous
area of Mayamot, a deserted place admittedly unfamiliar to
the boy, to get the promised "Shaider” toy, and that during
the period that KN was with him, the boy was always left
alone at the hut where he could do anything he wished,
including escaping. Under the circumstances,
A: XA should be held liable for kidnapping as, indeed, there
was deprivation of liberty since the boy could not have gone
home, brought as he was to an unfamiliar and deserted place
at the mountain side.
Q: The Information for Attempted Rape reads; “That about
1:50 in the morning or sometime thereafter of 13 December
1991 in Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, by forcefully covering the
force of MA with a piece of cloth soaked in chemical with
dizzying effects, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously commenced the commission of rape by lying on
top of her with the intention to have carnal knowledge with
her but was unable to perform all the acts of execution by
reason of some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance, said acts being committed against
her will and consent to her damage and prejudice.” If the
accused is acquitted of attempted rape and convicted instead
of unjust vexation “by forcefully covering the face of MA with
a piece of cloth soaked in chemical with dizzying effects”,

Q: The municipal treasurer of a town, having found his A: He cannot assail his conviction for unjust vexation since
servant quarreling with his wife, seized him and detained him the Information for attempted rape contains averments
in the municipal jail. What crime was committed by the constituting and thus justifying his conviction for unjust
municipal treasurer? vexation

A: Unlawful arrest

Q: Trespass to dwelling is qualified whenever committed:

A: by means of violence or intimidation.

Q: The factor that distinguishes grave threat from robbery

with intimidation is:

A: The directness,, persistence and continuing nature of the

intimidation employed and the immediacy of gain obtained or
intended.

Q: What crime is committed by a private individual who

prevented or disturbed a religious ceremony or manifestation
of any religion, using violence or intimidation?

A: Grave coercion under Art. 286, RPC.

Q: The common element in various forms of grave coercion

is:

A: Use of violence or such display of force as controls the will

of the victim.

Q: In which case, among the following, would the act of

preventing another from doing something, by means of
violence or intimidation, constitute only grave coercion
instead of another crime:

A: Preventing another from performing a religious act.

Q: In view of the passage of Rep. Act No. 6235, the plain act
of plane hijacking, not attended by death, injury to persons or
damage to property:

A: May still be punished as grave coercion, as in People vs.

Ang Cho Kio, 95 Phil. 475, because prosecution for grave
coercion would not bar prosecution for hijacking

ALS BLOCK F 2022

Title 10 Crimes against property
Q: A domestic servant who, taking advantage of the absence
of the owner thereof, broke open a locked chest and took
money and jewelry therefrom and, thereafter, spent the
proceeds for her own benefit committed the crime of:
A: Robbery with force upon things.
Q: X, having lost to Winner Y in the game of poker, intended
to divest. Y of his winnings amounting to P20,000.00. In
pursuit of his plan to rob Y of his winnings, X shot and killed
him as well as his companion, z. PO W, who was behind Y and
Z, at that time, saw X and a companion running up a hill
when, suddenly, he heard gunshots and then saw Y and Z,
who were then walking ahead of the group, hit by the gunfire.
By instant, PO W dove into a canal to save himself from the
continuous gunfire of X. PO W ran towards VA and FA, who
were walking behind the group, and informed the two that Y
and 2 were ambushed by X and his companion. The three
sought help from the police authorities and returned to the
scene of the crime where they Z, who was still alive and who
narrated that it was X and his companion who ambushed
them and took the money, estimated at P12,000.00, of
Winner X which he won in the card game. If prosecuted for
this incident,
A: X should be convicted of robbery with homicide, for the
killing and robbery of Y and Z and for shots fired by X against
PO W.
Q: The following [are] is not a special complex crime[s]
defined in relation to robbery:
A: Robbery with frustrated homicide or murder
Q: Where X entered the house of Y a woman, took her money
and jewelry, raped her and then killed her, the crime
committed is:
A: Robbery with homicide, aggravated by rape
Q: Where there is no proof that the accused organized
themselves to commit highway robbery, the prosecution
having succeeded only in establishing a single act of robbery
on a particular person who, by the way, was also killed by
reason or on the occasion thereof:
A: The accused cannot be convicted of highway robbery with
homicide under Pres. Dec. No. 532, but only of the special
complex crime of robbery with homicide under Art. 294 of the
Revised Penal Code.
Q: May the “use of unlicensed firearm" be appreciated as a
special aggravating circumstance in the crime of robbery with
homicide when it is committed by a band; why?
A: No, the "use of unlicensed firearm" cannot be appreciated
as a special aggravating circumstance in the crime of robbery
with homicide when it is committed by a band. This is
because Art. 295 does not apply to subdivisions 1 and 2 of
ALS BLOCK F 2022
Art. 294 of the Revised Penal Code despite the fact that the
act is committed by a band
Q: Record shows that on October 12, 2001 at around 6:30
o'clock in the evening, about four men entered the office of
CDCI, located at No. 29 Evangelista St., Santolan, Pasig City,
and declared a hold up. At least two robbers remained outside
to serve as look-outs. At that time, five CDCI employees,
namely, CB, ET, NP, MA and BR, were inside the office
preparing the pay envelopes of the employees. CB was then
reviewing the vouchers and signing checks when one of the
hold-uppers, who was holding a gun and a grenade,
positioned himself beside her and ordered her: "labas mo ang
pera." That man, whom she identified in open Court, turned
out to be AS. The four men left after about five minutes,
taking with them their loot consisting of cash and personal
belongings. Shortly after they gathered and locked
themselves inside a room, the five employees heard gunshots
outside the Canscor office. One RM was hit by a bullet and
died. Is this robbery with homicide?
A: Yes, because in robbery with homicide it is immaterial that
death would supervene by mere accident or that the victim of
homicide is other than the victim of robbery.
Q: X, who picked the pocket of Y, succeeding to extract Y's
wallet therefrom, but threw it away, seconds afterwards, after
finding is empty, allowing Y, who was running after X, to
retrieve it, is:
A: Guilty of theft.
Q: A, who, while visiting the house of his married sister, B,
saw the latter's purse and took it, extracting therefrom. a P50
bill with which he bought himself some snacks, is
A: liable for theft
Q: What element of theft is lacking when a person takes
property belonging to another, believing in good faith that it
belongs to him and returns the same one day after realizing
that it was not so:
A: Intent to gain
Q: On 19 May 1994, at around 4:30 p.m., VA and CN were
sighted outside the Super Sale Club, a supermarket within the
ShoeMart (SM) complex along North EDSA, by LO, a security
guard who was then manning his post at the open parking
area of the supermarket. LO saw VA, who was wearing an
identification card with the mark "Receiving Dispatching Unit
(RDU),” hauling a push cart with cases of detergent of the
well-known “Tide" brand. VA unloaded these cases in an open
parking space, where CN was waiting. VA then returned inside
the supermarket, and after five (5) minutes, emerged with
more cartons of Tide Ultramatic and again unloaded these
boxes to the same area in the open parking space.
Thereafter, VA left the parking area and hailed a taxi. He
boarded the cab and directed it towards the parking space
where CN was waiting. CN loaded the cartons of Tide
Ultramatic inside the taxi, then boarded the vehicle. All these
acts were eyed by LO, who proceeded to stop the taxi as it
was leaving the open parking area. When LO asked VA for a
receipt of the merchandise, VA and CN reacted by fleeing on
foot, but LO fired a warning shot to alert his fellow security
guards of the incident. VA and CD were apprehended at the
scene, and the stolen merchandise recovered. Under the
circumstances,
A: VA and CN should be punished for consummated theft
because the taking of the stolen goods was complete once the
same were physically possessed by the culprits and loaded by
them in the pushcart
Q: In a meeting held on 30 October 1996, AF admitted having
received an amount of money collected from a client cf
Porta-Phone, where AF works as marketing manager. The
amount was a refundable deposit for the communication
items leased out by Porta-Phone to Hemisphere AF admitted
having kept it until his reimbursements from the company
would be released to him. Porta-Phone consistently sought
the return of the amount from AF in the meetings held for this
purpose and in the various letters issued by the company, but
AF refused to do so. Under the circumstances,
A: AF is guilty of qualified theft under Art. 308/309/310, RPC
A: Dependent upon the authority of the person making the
demand.
Q: Which of the following may serve as basis to differentiate
estafa with abuse of confidence from malversation:
A: The nature of the funds or property involved as public or
private.
Q: Which of the following is not an element of estafa with
unfaithfulness:
A: That such thing pertains to his art or business.
Q: PA was found guilty of destructive arson, then a capital
offense, under Article 320, A RPC, as attended by RA No.
7659. The properties burned by PA are specifically described
as houses. The descriptions as alleged if he second Amended
Information filed against PA particularly refer to the structures
as houses. It appears that he was acting more on impulse,
heat of anger or risen temper rather than real spite or hatred
that impelled him to give vent to his wounded ego. Under
those circumstances:
A: His conviction for Destructive Arson cannot be sustained
because he is guilty of Simple Arson penalized under Sec. 3.
par 2 PD 1613

Q: On April 30, 1998, Spouses AW and AH went to the house

of VC to borrow PhP100,000. The money was supposed to be
shown to the bank (“show money”) to make it appear that the
Spouses A were financially liquid. On May 6, 1998, AW went
back to VC’s house where she received the amount and
signed a Trust Undertaking, which stated: “For and in
consideration of the trust conveyed upon us, the undersigned
hereby acknowledged the receipt of the amount of one
hundred thousand (P100,000) pesos, Philippine currency,
from MRS. VC said amount being extended and received by
us not as loan or credit and without interest, nevertheless, we
hereby undertake and commit to return the same amount to
said MRS. VC on or before July 18, 1998, without need of
prior demand.” When the obligation became due, VC went to
the spouses to demand payment but VC failed to collect the
money. Under the circumstances, it may be concluded that:

A: The Spouses AW and AH committed estafa with abuse of

confidence under Article 315[1][b], RPC, because the amount
was received by Spouses AW and AH for the sole purpose of
using it as “show money” to the bank.

Q: In the context of the elements of estafa with abuse of

confidence under Article 315[1](b), Revised Penal Code

A: A formal or written demand is not necessary at all,

whether or not there is evidence of misappropriation of
conversion, and its absence is not fatal to the cause at the
prosecution

Q: The validity of the “demand”, for purposes of prosecution

for estafa under Article 315[1](b), Revised Penal Code, is:

ALS BLOCK F 2022

Title 11 Crimes against chastity

Q: A brother who, knowing his sister to be married, had

consented sexual intercourse with her committed:

A: adultery

Q: X, a policeman who pretended to arrest a 15-year old girl,

who is no longer physically a virgin but is of good reputation,
for vagrancy, and who took her to a certain house where he
had sexual intercourse with the girl with her consent, is liable
for qualified seduction because:

A: The policeman is a person in public authority and such

term includes any person exercising public authority, whether
directly or as an agent

Q: Where X and Others grabbed a 16-year old girl, dragged

her to a nearby forest and there brutally ravished her, the
crime is:

A: Forcible abduction with rape

Q: Acts of lasciviousness may be distinguished from

attempted rape in terms of:

A: The intent of the offender.

Q: Even if the accused had been charged with acts of

lasciviousness for having inserted his finger into the genital or
anal orifice of the victim,

A: He cannot be convicted of rape by sexual assault under

Art. 266-A, paragraph 2, because he cannot be punished for
an offense graver than that with which he was charged.

Title 12 Crimes against civil status of persons

Q: Distinguish bigamy from adultery.

A: Answer on your own. Samplex did not get full points.

ALS BLOCK F 2022

Title 13 Crimes against honor
Q: Intriguing against honor is similar to defamation in that
they both:
A: Aim to blemish the honor or reputation of another.
roadrollers, Sakai brand, subject of the criminal complaint
before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasig City by the
corporation through Mr. DC, Jr., and the information filed in
court, had been purchased by me in cash from the said
corporation and had already been paid on June 28, 1993”. On
the basis thereof':

Q: Which of the following is not a criterion in determining A: DC, Jr. cannot be held liable for the crime of incriminating
whether slander by deed is of a serious nature: an innocent person.

A: The intent of the offender. Q: How is incriminatory machination committed?

Q: To sustain a conviction of a publisher for libel under Article A: Answer on your own. Samplex did not get full points.
360 of thc Revised Penal Code:

A: It is not necessary that the publisher knowingly Title 14 Quasi-offenses

participated in or consented to the preparation and
publication of the libelous article, but he must be shown to -None in samplex-
have acted as "author, editor, or proprietor" despite his
designation as "printer/publisher".
Title 15 Final provisions
Q: In the law on libel, what is meant by “malice in law” and
the relevance of that concept in reaching a conviction for -None in samplex
libel?

A: Malice in law means that in cases of libel, malice is always
presumed unless shown that the communication is a
privileged one. Unless the accused shows that the
communication is not malicious or a privileged one, he will be
convicted of libel.
Q: In the context of the law on libel, (a) discuss the notion of
“privileged communication”, its types and the legal
consequences thereof; (b) when is “proof of truth” a defense.
Uncategorized Q&As
Q: XX filed an Affidavit-Complaint, charging warrantless
search and accusing YY and Others conducting a search on his
vehicle without being armed with a valid warrant. Does the
complaint for warrantless search charge a criminal offense?
A: No, warrantless searches of vehicles have not been defined
and penalized by law as crime

A: Answer on your own. Samplex did not get full points. Q: The widespread practice of unscrupulous police officers of
making, "invitations to persons being investigated in
Q: Discuss the rules on venue in the filing of libel cases, connection with an offense he is suspected to have
indicating in particular to whom they are meant to apply. committed:

A: Answer on your own. Samplex did not get full points. A: Is not per se punishable under Republic Act No. 7438,
which merely considers questioning pursuant to such
Q: B, Jr. admits having written a letter alleged to contain a "invitations" as a form of custodial investigation.
libelous imputation. The letter itself states that the same was
copy furnished to all concerned. Also, B. Jr. had dictated the
letter to his secretary. Finally, the letter, when found in the
mailbox, was open, not contained in an envelope. Under the
circumstances, is B, Jr. liable for libel; why?

A: Yes. B, Jr. is liable for libel. For the requisite of publicity to

be present, it is enough that if the letter is read to a third
person. Also the letter was not sealed in an envelope and was
open for everyone to read.

Q: The pertinent portion of X's complaint-affidavit for

incriminating an innocent person reads: “14. In light of this
newly discovered evidence, the complaint of Seishin
International Corporation[,] represented by Mr. DC, Jr.[,] and
the testimony of the latter in support of the complaint are
false, unfounded and malicious because they imputed to me a
crime of Estafa which in the first place I did not commit, as
evidenced by the fact that the subject two (2) units of

ALS BLOCK F 2022