CRIMINAL LAW EXAMINATIONS COMPILATION

PRE-LIMS (PERFECT)

1. What is Criminal Law?

Criminal law is that branch or division of law which defines crimes, treats of their nature and
provides for their punishment. [ 12 Cyc 129, cited in Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book One
2012]

2. Ciara was a well renowned thief and specializes in pickpocketing. One day, while scouting the area
for potential victims, she saw Francess walking and saw a beautifully crafted balisong (fan knife)
with gold trimmings. She followed her and was able to pull the balisong from Francess'
backpocket. When Francess noticed this, she tried to grapple for the possession of the knife from
Ciara. To finally get a final hold of the balisong, Ciara stabbed Francess at her pinky finger which
resulted the latter's immediate pain. Successful in her attempt, Ciara ran away from the scene.
When she finally got away, she got a good look at the balisong and noticed that it was the
balisong that she lost the other day. Francess, on the other hand, reported the incident to the
police and was able to apprehend Ciara and charged her with slight physical injuries. Ciara, during
trial, stated that she should be punished instead for the impossible crime of theft. Who is correct?
Discuss.

Ciara, a well renowned thief and a pickpocket, decided to rob Francess of said beautifully crafted
balisong with gold trimmings while walking by following her being able to pull the balisong from
Francess’ backpocket. Francess tried to take the possession of the balisong as she believed that it was
hers. To finally get hold od the balisong, Ciara stabbed Francess at her pinky finger which finished her
act, successfully and later found out that it was the balisong she has lost the other day. Francess asserts
to apprehend Ciara of slight physical injuries while Ciara affirms that it was an impossible crime since it
was her property. The issue raised is whether or not Ciara would be punished for the impossible crime
of theft rather than of slight physical injuries.

The 2nd paragraph of Art. 4 defines possible crimes with the following requisites:

1. That the act performed would be an offense against persons or property;

2. That the act was done with evil intent; and
 3. That its accomplishment was inherently impossible, or the means employed was either
inadequate or ineffectual. (Jacinto vs. People, G.R. No. 162540, July 13, 2009)
4. That the act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of the RPC.

The act performed would have been an impossible crime of theft since the act performed would be
an offense against persons or property; there is a legal impossibility of accomplishing it, because in theft,
the property taken must belong to another. In addition, an evil intent to gain on the part of Ciara when
she decided to take the acclaimed balisong of Francess is present. While the first three requisites of an
impossible crime are present, the act performed constituted a violation of another provision of the
Revised Penal Code – the reason why it is not an impossible crime. Therefore, Francess shall be
deemed correct. Note that in order for Ciara to finish the execution of her act, she stabbed Francess’
pinky finger resulting to immediate pain constituting Physical Injuries governed by Articles 262, 263, 264,
265, and specifically Article 266. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment of the Revised Penal Code.

3. Provide 4 instances wherein Motive can be used as evidence to convict the accused

Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code sheds light to motive. It is not an essential element of the
crime, and hence, need not to be proved for purposes of conviction. (People vs. Aposaga, No. L-
32477, Oct. 30, 1981, 108 SCRA, 595) hence, there are cases when motive is relevant and need to be
established to convict the accused in cases (1) where the identity of a person accused of having
committed a crime is in dispute, the motive that may have impelled its commission is very relevant
and essential only when there is doubt as to the identity of the assailant (People vs. Murray, 105
Phil. 591), (2) Motive is important in ascertaining the truth between two antagonistic theories or
versions of the killing (People vs. Caballero, No. L-23249), (3) Where there is no eyewitness to the
crime, and where suspicion is likely to fall upon a number of persons, motive is relevant and
significant ( People vs. Melgar, No. L-75268), and lastly (4) if the evidence is merely circumstantial
( People vs. Oquino, No. L-37482).

4. Discuss the different characteristics of criminal law.

Criminal law has three main characteristics: (1) general, (2) territorial and (3) prospective.
 According to Article 14, of the New Civil Code, General; in that criminal law is binding on all
persons who live or sojourn in the Philippine Territory. Hence, as a general rule the jurisdiction of
the civil courts is not affected by the military character of the accused. The Revised Penal Code or
other penal laws is not applicable when the military court takes cognizance of the case but there are
exceptions to the general application of Criminal Law. The opening sentence of Article 2 of the
Revised Penal Code says that the provisions of this code shall be enforced within the Philippine
archipelago, “except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application”. Article 14 of
the New Civil Code provides that penal laws and those of public security and safety shall obligatory
upon all who live or sojourn in Philippine Territory, subject to the principles of public international
laws and treaty stipulations. An example of treaty or treaty stipulations is the Bases Agreement
between Republic of the Philippines and United States of America in March 14, 1947. On the other
hand, Republic Act No. 75 may be considered as an example of a law of preferential application.

Moreover, Territorial, in that criminal laws undertake to punish crimes committed within the
Philippine territory. The principle of territoriality means that as a general rule, penal laws of the
Philippines are enforceable only within its territory. Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code provides that
the provisions of said code shall be enforced within the Philippine Archipelago, including its
atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone. Article I of the 1987 Constitution provides the
scope of the national territory.

The same Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code provides that its provisions shall be enforced
outside of the jurisdiction of the Philippines whose: Should commit an offense while on a Philippine
ship or airship.

a. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship.

b. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency of the Philippines or obligation and securities
issued by the government of the Philippines.
c. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into the country of the obligations and
securities aforementioned.
d. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their
functions or
e. Should commit any of the crimes against the national security and the law of nations, defined in
Title One of Book Two of the Revised Penal Code.
 Lastly, Prospective in that a penal law cannot make an act punishable in a manner in which it
was not punishable when committed. Article 33 of the Revised Penal Code, crimes are punished
under the laws in force at the time of their commission. Same as the other characteristics, it
possesses its exceptions. Whenever a new statute dealing with crime establishes conditions more
lenient or favorable to the accused, it can be given retroactive effect. But this exception has no
application: (1) Where new law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes
of action (Tavera vs. Valdez) and (2) where the offender is a habitual criminal under Rule 5, Article
62, of the Revised Penal Code. (Art. 22, RPC)
5. What is the complete definition of a felony and what are its elements?

Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code defines felonies (delitos) as acts and omissions punishable
by law (Revised Penal Code). Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by
means of fault (culpa). There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent; and there is
fault when wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.

The elements of felonies in general as provided by the same article are: (1) That there must be an
act or omission, (2) that the act or omission must be punishable by the Revised Penal Code and lastly
(3) That the act is performed or the omission incurred by means of dolo or culpa. (People vs.
Gonzales, G.R. No. 80762)

6. King and Marrian got into a heated argument. Due to his hot headedness, King tried to flick his
finger towards Marrian's eyebrow. However, since King tried to flick his finger while his eyes were
closed, he missed and instead hit Mark who was just passing by. Mark was hit at his eyelashes and
eye, and due to the force of the act, he hit his back in a nearby lampost. During trial, King stated
that he should not be liable since he did not intend to hit Mark and his actual victim was Marrian.
Is it a valid defense? If not, what principle of criminal law applies to the injuries sustained by
Mark?

King, the accused had a heated argument with Marrian and tried to flick his finger towards Marrian’s
eyebrows but since he did the act eyes closed, it was Mark’s whom he had hit causing his back to hit the
nearby lamppost. King stated that he should not be liable since he did not intend to hit Mark. The issue
was whether or not King’s defense was valid and what principle of criminal law should apply to the
injuries sustained by Mark.
 King’s reason that it was not his intention to hit Mark when her target was supposed to be Marrian
is not a valid defense as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 4. Of the Revised Penal Code, that criminal
liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act be different
from which he had intended. One who commits an intentional felony is responsible for all the
consequences which may naturally and logically result therefrom, whether foreseen, intended or not.
Having performed an act constituting a felony, he is responsible for all the consequences of said act,
regardless of his intention. (People vs. Mario Mariano, 75 O.G. 4802). Under paragraph 1, Art. 4 a person
committing a felony is still criminally liable even if there is a mistake in the blow, that is when the
offender intending to do an injury to one person actually inflicts it on another – aberratio ictus.

The principle “el que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado” (he who is the cause of the
casue of the cause is the cause of the evil caused) applies to the injuries sustained by Mark that can be
governed by Articles 262, 263, 264, 265, and specifically Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code.

7. On September 23, 2020 at about 10 in the evening, Ian and Jann were drinking with some friends
at Ian's house. When Ian's wife came out to hand them water, Jann offered her a drink but she
refused. Due to this, Jann threatened her that if she did not accept the drink, he will punch her in
the esophagus. Ian heard this and immediately approached Jann in order to protect his wife.
When Jann threw his punch, he missed, and mistakenly hit Jarrenn, who was an innocent
bystander walking to her house thereby suffering serious physical injuries. Should Jann be liable
for intentionally hitting Jarrenn? Discuss with basis.

Jann, the accused threatened Ian’s wife that he will punch her in the esophagus if she refuse Jann’s
offer of a drink at Ian and his wife’s household. Ian heard the threat and immediately protected his wife,
approaching Jann. Jann threw and miss a punch hitting an innocent passerby; Jarren. The issue is
whether or not Jann should be liable for intentionally hitting Jarren.

Jann should be liable for intentionally hitting Jarren on the grounds that as provide in Paragraph 1 of
Article 4. Of the Revised Penal Code, that that criminal liability shall be incurred by any person
committing a felony although the wrongful act be different from which he had intended. One who
commits an intentional felony is responsible for all the consequences which may naturally and logically
result therefrom, whether foreseen, intended or not. Having performed an act constituting a felony, he
is responsible for all the consequences of said act, regardless of his intention. (People vs. Mario
Mariano, 75 O.G. 4802). Under paragraph 1, Art. 4 a person committing a felony is still criminally liable
even if there is a mistake in the blow – aberratio ictus. In this case, a felony is committed when Jann
punched Jarren with the intent to hurt the other parties. The principle “el que es causa de la causa es
causa del mal causado” (he who is the cause of the casue of the cause is the cause of the evil caused)
should apply. Citing People vs. Mabugat, 51 Phil. 967 as an example.

The requisites of Paragraph 1 of Article 4, of the Revised Penal Code enumerates the requisites
to held a person criminally liable for a felony different from that which he intended to commit, the
following must be present: (a) That an intentional felony has been committed and (2) that the wrong
done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony committed by
the offender. (U.S. vs Brobst, 14 Phil. 310,319). In this case, both of the requisites are present. The
serious physical injuries caused by Jann’s felonious act shall be governed by Article 263 of the Revised
Penal Code. Moreover, take note of the fact that threatening to punch if Ian’s wife would refuse Jann’s
offer also constitutes the crime of grave threat is punishable under Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC). It is stated therein that any person who shall threaten another with the infliction upon the
person, honor, or property of the latter or of his family or any wrong amounting to a crime. The crime
shall likewise be grave threat even if the threat of infliction of harm upon a person, his honor or
property was not made subject to a condition.

8. Yuusuke is charged for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law for
having issued five(5) worthless checks on September 23, 2020. On September 30, 2020, congress
passed a new law modifying or amending the penalties for BP22. He then learned that you are
already taking up criminal law as a subject and asks you whether the new law amending the
penalties would apply to his case. Discuss the rules regarding the amendment of a penal law as
applied to the Yuusuke.

Philippine Criminal Law has a characteristic of being prospective. This implies that whenever a
new statute dealing with crime establishes conditions more lenient and favorable to the accused, it
can be given a retroactive effect. Penal laws are strictly construed against the government and
liberally in favor of the accused. In the case of Yuusuke, he committed an act of issuing of bouncing
checks punishable under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law on September 23,
2020, the same day that an an amendment was passed by the congress. The new statute dealing
with the crime is applicable unless the new law expressly made the inapplicable to pending
 actions or existing causes of action. Second, if Yuusuke himself is a habitual criminal under Rule 5,
Article 62, Revised Penal Code.

Effects of the amendment to the present case of Yuusuke will be as follows: (1) If the repeal makes
the penalty lighter in the new law, the new law shall be applied, except when the offender is a habitual
delinquent. (2) If the new law imposes heavier penalty, the law in force at the time of the commission of
the offense shall be applied, in the given case; Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 shall apply. Lastly, if the new
law repeals the existing law so that the act which was penalized under the old law, the crime is
obliterated.

MIDTERMS (PERFECT)

Question 1
 Enumerate the elements for a complete self defense under Art.11 of the Revised Penal
Code
Response: Paragraph 1, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code categorizes anyone who
acts in defense of his person or rights as a justifying circumstance with the following
requisites:
First. Unlawful aggression;
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
Score: 5 out of 5 Yes

Question 2
 Enumerate the elements of a defense of a relative under Art.11 of the Revised Penal
Code
Response: Paragraph 2, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code categorizes anyone who
acts in defense of the person or rights of his relatives as justifying circumstance with the
following requisites:

1.) Unlawful aggression

2.) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and
3.) In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one making the
defense had no part therein.
Score: 5 out of 5 Yes

Question 3
 While taking a stroll one afternoon, Jan saw someone getting beat up by four muscular
men holding pipes. As a concerned citizen, Jan drew her gun, pointed it at the four men,
and shot them one by one in the leg causing injuries. When the police came, they
arrested everyone including Jan. Upon arrival at the police station, Jan stated that she
was only protecting the person from getting beat up by the four muscular men and that
she should not be liable for any crime. Is Jan correct? Why or Why Not?
Response: [uploaded as attachment]
/files/6332947/BARIL_QUESTION_3.docx
Score: 10 out of 10 Yes

Question 4
 Jarren and King conspired to take the wallet of Kate since she is rich. However, they
did not attempted to commit the crime due to a change of heart. Kate, on the other
hand, learned of the conspiracy of the two and decided to file a case for conspiracy to
commit theft. Will the case prosper? Why or Why not?
Response: The case of conspiracy to commit theft is not punishable in the Philippines
and therefore, will not prosper as according to Art. 8 of the Revised Penal Code states
that conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable only in cases in which the
law specifically provides a penalty therefor. Only when they decide to carry out the plan,
their conspiracy will be held as a manner of incurring criminal liability for theft. It is not
an offense, not only because it is committed after the conspiracy but also because
conspiracy to commit theft is not punished under the Revised Penal Code.
Score: 10 out of 10 Yes

Question 5
 Enumerate the elements of a defense of a stranger under Art.11 of the Revised Penal
Code
Response: Paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code categorizes anyone who acts in
defense of a stranger as a justifying circumstance under the following requisites:
1.) unlawful aggression
2.) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and
3.) The person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
Score: 5 out of 5 Yes

Question 6
 Due to his frustration at the performance of the government, Atty. Dimaano proposed to
his legal management students taking up criminal law in the University of Batangas to
go to the streets and take over certain government facilities to take control of the
government. However, his students did not agree with the proposal. Atty. Dimaano was
then charged for the crime of proposal to commit rebellion. He then told the court that
he proposed the idea to his legal management students but they did not agree. The
prosecutor stated that his students should be equally charged for the crime. Is the
prosecutor's statement correct? Why or Why not?
Response: According to Article 11 & 12 of the Revised Penal Code respectively, on the
existence of a criminal; justifying circumstance imposes that there is no crime
committed hence, no criminal produced. On the other hand, exempting circumstances
produces a criminal as crime arises. Moreover, talking about existence of criminal
liability, both justifying and exempting circumstance imposes no criminal liability. Lastly,
justifying circumstance clears on both civil and criminal liability while exempting
circumstance imposes civil liability.
Score: 10 out of 10 Yes

Question 7
 What is the difference between a Justifying Circumstance and an Exempting
Circumstance with respect to: the existence of a criminal, the existence of criminal
liability and the existence of a civil liability
Response: [uploaded as attachment]
/files/6332947/BARIL_QUESTION_7.docx
Score: 5 out of 5 Yes

Question 8
 Define Consummated, Attempted and Frustrated Felony
Response: Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code defines consummated, frustrated, and
attempted felonies. A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its
execution and accomplishment are present. On the other hand, a felony is frustrated
when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as
a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes
independent of the will of the perpetrator. Lastly, attempted felony is defined when the
offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not
perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some
cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
Score: 10 out of 10 Yes

Question 9
 What is the difference between a conspiracy and a proposal to commit a felony?
Response: Article 8. of the Revised Penal Code defines conspiracy and proposal to
commit felony. While both of them are punishable only in the cases in which the law
specially provides therefor, the leading difference is that conspiracy exists only when
two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it while proposal on the other hand does not need an agreement,
hence proposal exists on the sole existence of the execution of a proposal to some
other person. In the case of conspiracy, meeting of the minds is the distinguishing factor
in order to be punishable under Articles 115, 136 while in the case of proposal, it is not
necessary that the person to whom the proposal is made agrees to commit crimes
punishable for proposal (for example proposal to commit treason, rebellion and
sedition). It must be noted that what constitutes the felony of proposal to commit treason
or rebellion is the making of proposal.
Score: 10 out of 10 

SEMIFINALS

Question 1
 Who is a recidivist?
Response: The accused being a recidivist, is an aggravating circumstance under
Paragraph 9, Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code. A recidivist as defined in this case
of People vs. Lagarto, is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime shall have been
previously convicted by final judgement of another crime embraced in the same title of
the Revised Penal Code. The following are the requisites of a recidivist: First, that the
offender is on trial for an offense. Second, that he was previously convicted by final
judgement of another crime; that both the first and the second offense are embraced in
the same title of the Code, and lastly, that the offender is convicted of the new offense.
Score: not graded yet

Question 2
 Saitama and Genos attacked and injured Gao using plywood. When Gao went to the
prosecutor's office to file a complaint, he indicated that the aggravating circumstance of
"with the aid of armed men" should be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
However, upon the drafting of the information, the prosecutor indicated that the
commission of the crime of physical injuries should be attended with the aggravating
circumstance of "by a band". Who is correct? Answer with legal basis
Response: Gao is correct and that the aggression done should be ruled by Paragraph 8
and not by Paragraph 6, Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code. There must be a
distinction between " with the aid of armed men" (Par. 8 ) and "by a band (Par. 6) as by
a band requires that more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the
commission of an offense. Aid of armed men is present even if one of the offenders
merely relied on their aid, for actual aid is not necessary. Since Gao was attacked only
by two (2) malefactors; Saitama and Genos, acting together to injure Gao, the
aggression shall be deemed acted "with the aid of armed men".
Score: not graded yet

Question 3
 What is the principle behind an uninhabited place as an aggravating circumstance and
how is it different from the aggravating circumstance of dwelling?
Response: Uninhabited place as an aggravating circumstance is in Par. 6, Article 14 of
the Revised Penal Code. The principle lies on the absence of the possibility of asking
and receiving help as there are no houses at all, a place whre houses are in a great
distance from each other. On the other hand, the basis of an aggravating circumstance
when it comes to dwelling is based on the greater perversity of the offender, as ashown
by the place of the commission of an offense. Dwelling is considered as an aggravating
circumstance based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the place of
the commission of an offense. Dwelling is considered as an aggravating circumstance
primarily because the sanctity of privacy the law accords to human abode. According to
one commentator, one's dwelling place is a sanctuary worthy of respect and that one
who slanders another in the latter's house is more guilty that he who offends elsewhere
as stated in the case of People vs. Balansi.
Score: not graded yet

Question 4
 Syaoran and Sakura are husband and wife for more than 10 years. However, Syaoran
suspects that Sakura is having an illicit relationship. One day, Syaoran decided to follow
Sakura and confirmed that Sakura was indeed having an illicit affair with another named
Yukito. Syaoran decided to follow them until they reached SOGO in Recto Ave., Manila.
Syaoran then decided to follow them into their room where he saw Sakura and Yukito
making out. He then grabbed from his pocket a balisong and stabbed Yukito in the neck
thereby causing the latter's death. He fled after the incident. After contemplating the
action that he made, he went to his friend Mailing, who is a barangay tanod in their area
and decided to surrender. Upon arraignment, Syaoran manifested that he should be
meted out a lighter penalty due to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Is
he correct? why or why not
Response: Syaoran is correct, he should be meted out a lighter penalty due to the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender under Par. 7 of Article 13 of the Revised
Penal Code; that the offender who had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in
authority of his agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court
prior to the presentation of the evidence of the prosecution. Since he had not be actually
arrested and voluntarily surrendered in a person of authority, Mailing; a barangay tanod,
Paragraph 7 of the RPC shall apply. It shall also be noted that in applying the provisions
of the code, any person who, by direct provsion of law or by election or by appointment
by competent authority, is charged with the maintenance of public order and the
protection and security of life and property, such as barrio councilman, barrio
policeman, and barangay leader and any person who comes to the aid of persons in
authority shall be deemed as an agent of person in authority according to Art. 152 of the
RPC, as amended by P.D. No. 299.
Score: not graded yet

Question 5
 What are the requisites of evident premeditation as an aggravating circumstance?
Response: Evident premeditation as an aggravating circumstance is encapsulated in
Par. 13, Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code. Requisites of evident premeditation are
the following: (1) That the time when the offender determined to commit crime, (2) an
act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination; and lastly, (3) a
sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution, to allow him to reflect
upon the consequences of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome the
resolution of his will.
Score: not graded yet

Question 6
 Gon and Killua planned to steal from a sari sari store on November 30, 2020 since it is
a holiday and because a solar eclipse was about to happen that day. Upon arrival of the
said date and while the solar eclipse is at its peak, Gon and killua managed to steal
from a nearby sari sari store and was able to take 10 chochnut, 1 large chippy and 1
1.5L coke. They were eventually caught. When the prosecutor drafted the information
for theft, the prosecutor included night time as an aggravating circumstance since the
crime was committed in darkness. During arraignment, Gon and Killua's pleaded guilty
to the crime with reservation that the aggravating circumstance of night time should not
be appreciated since they can still see everything during the solar eclipse. Who is
correct? Answer with legal basis
Response: The prosecutor is correct as crimes commited during night time is an
aggravating circumstance under Par. 6, Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code; that the
crime be committed in the night time or in an uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever
such circumstances may facilitate the commission of an offense. The assertation that
the aggravating circumstance of night time should not be appreciated since they can still
see everything during solar eclipse, has no bearing in this case since it is especially
sought by the offender, or taken advantage of, by him to facilitate the commission of the
crime to insure his immunity from capture.
Score: not graded yet

Question 7
 What is the difference between recidivism and habitual delinquency?
Response: Par. 9, Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code constitutes recidivism. A
recidivist is defined as one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been
previously convicted by final judgement of another crime embraced in the same title of
the Revised Penal Code. On the other hand, habitual delinquency as an aggravating
circumstance is encapsulated in Par. 10, Art. 14 of the RPC. There is habitual
delinquency when a person, within a period of 10 years from the date of his release or
last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, roberry, theft,
estafa, or falsification, is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener.

In terms of nature of crime, inrecidivism, the first crime, and the aggravated second
crime are embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code. In habitual
delinquency, the first, the second and third crimes must be a habitual-delinquency crime
and that is, serious or less physical injuries, theft, robbery, estafa or falsification of
document. Moreover, in terms of time element, in recidivism, the accused was convicted
for the first crime by final judgement at the time of trial for the second crime. In habitual
delinquency, the accused was convicted for the first habitual-delinquency crime; within
ten (10) years after conviction or release, he was found guilty of habitual-delinquency
crime for the second time; within 10 years after conviction or release he was found
guilty of habitual-delinquency crime for the third time or oftener. Lastly, in terms f
numbers of crimes, in recidivism, there must be at least two (2) crimes committed; while
in habitual delinquency, there must be atleast thee (3) crimes committed.
Score: not graded yet