SPL Bar Exam Questions With Answers: BP 22 Memorandum Check (1994)

SPL BAR EXAM QUESTIONS WITH ANSWERS
B.P. 22
BP 22; Memorandum Check (1994)

1 What is a memorandum check?
2 Is the "bouncing" thereof within the purview of BP Blg. 22?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1 A "Memorandum Check" is an ordinary check, with the word "Memorandum", "Memo"
or "Mem" written across its face, signifying that the maker or drawer engages to pay its
holder absolutely thus partaking the nature of a promissory note. It is drawn on a bank
and is a bill of exchange within the purview of Section 185 of the Negotiable Instruments
Law (People vs. Judge David Nitafan, G.R. No. 75954, October 22, 1992).
2 Yes, a memorandum check is covered by Batas Pambansa No. 22 because the law
covers any check whether it is an evidence of Indebtedness, or in payment of a pre-
existing obligation or as a deposit or guarantee (People versus Nita-fan).
BP 22; Memorandum Check (1995)

1 What is a memorandum check ?
2 Is a person who issues a memorandum check without sufficient funds necessarily guilty
of violating B.P. Blg. 22? Explain.
3 Jane is a money lender. Edmund is a businessman who has been borrowing money
from Jane by rediscounting his personal checks to pay his loans. In March 1989, he
borrowed P100,000 from Jane and issued to her a check for the same amount. The check
was dishonored by the drawee bank for having been drawn against a closed account.
When Edmund was notified of the dishonor of his check he promised to raise the amount
within five days. He failed. Consequently, Jane sued Edmund for violation of the Bouncing
Checks Law (BP. Blg. 22). The defense of Edmund was that he gave the check to Jane
to serve as a memorandum of his indebtedness to her and was not supposed to be
encashed. Is the defense of Edmund valid? Discuss fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. A memorandum check is an ordinary check with the word "Memorandum", "Memo", or
"Mem" written across the face, signifying that the maker or drawer engages to pay its
holder absolutely thus partaking the nature of a promissory note. It is drawn on a bank
and is a bill of exchange within the purview of Section 185 of the Negotiable Instruments
Law. (People vs. Nitafan, 215 SCRA 79)
2. Yes, a person who issued a memorandum check without sufficient funds is guilty of
violating B.P. Blg. 22 as said law covers all checks whether it is an evidence of
indebtedness, or in payment of a preexisting obligation, or as deposit or guarantee.
(People vs. Nitafan)
3. The defense of Edmund is NOT valid. A memorandum check upon presentment is
generally accepted by the bank. It does not matter whether the check is in the nature of
a memorandum as evidence of indebtedness. What the law punishes is the mere
issuance of a bouncing check and not the purpose for which it was issued nor the
terms and conditions relating thereto. The mere act of issuing a worthless check is a
malum prohibitum. The understanding that the check will not be presented at the bank
but will be redeemed by the maker when the loan falls due is a mere private arrangement
which may not prevail to exempt it from the penal sanction of B.P. Blg. 22. (People vs.
Nitafan)
BP 22; Presumption of Knowledge (2002)

A a businessman, borrowed P500,000.00 from B, a friend. To pay the loan, A issued a
postdated check to be presented for payment 30 days after the transaction. Two days
before the maturity date of the check, A called up B and told him not to deposit the check
on the date stated on the face thereof, as A had not deposited in the drawee bank the
amount needed to cover the check. Nevertheless, B deposited the check in question and
the same was dishonored of insufficiency of funds. A failed to settle the amount with B in
spite of the latter's demands. Is A guilty of violating B.P. Blg. 22, otherwise known as the
Bouncing Checks Law? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, A Is liable for violation of BP. Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law), Although knowledge
by the drawer of insufficiency or lack of funds at the time of the issuance of the check is
an essential element of the violation, the law presumes prima facie such knowledge,
unless within five (5) banking days of notice of dishonor or nonpayment, the drawer pays
the holder thereof the amount due thereon or makes arrangements for payment in full by
the drawee of such checks. A mere notice by the drawer A to the payee B before the
maturity date of the check will not defeat the presumption of knowledge created by the
law; otherwise, the purpose and spirit of B.P. 22 will be rendered useless.
Estafa vs. BP 22 (1996)
The accused was convicted under B.P, Blg. 22 for having issued several checks which
were dishonored by the drawee bank on their due date because the accused closed her
account after the issuance of checks. On appeal, she argued that she could not be
convicted under Blg. 22 by reason of the closing of her account because said law applies
solely to checks dishonored by reason of insufficiency of funds and that at the time she
issued the checks concerned, she had adequate funds in the bank. While she admits that
she may be held liable for estafa under Article 215 of the Revised Penal Code, she cannot
however be found guilty of having violated Blg. 22. Is her contention correct? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the contention of the accused is not correct. As long as the
checks issued were issued to apply on account or for value, and was dishonored upon
presentation for payment to the drawee bank for lack of insufficient funds on their due
date, such act falls within the ambit of B.P. Blg. 22. Said law expressly punishes any
person who may have sufficient funds in the drawee bank when he issues the check, but
fails to keep sufficient funds to cover the full amount of the check when presented to the
drawee bank within ninety (90) days from the date appearing thereon.
Estafa vs. BP 22 (2003)
A and B agreed to meet at the latter's house to discuss B's financial problems. On his
way, one of A's car tires blew up. Before A left following the meeting, he asked B to lend
him (A) money to buy a new spare tire. B had temporarily exhausted his bank deposits,
leaving a zero balance. Anticipating, however, a replenishment of his account soon, B
issued A a postdated check with which A negotiated for a new tire. When presented, the
check bounced for lack of funds. The tire company filed a criminal case against A and B.
What would be the criminal liability, if any, of each of the two accused? Explain. 8%
SUGGESTED ANSWER: A who negotiated the unfunded check of B in buying a new tire
for his car may only be prosecuted for estafa if he was aware at the time of such
negotiation that the check has no sufficient funds in the drawee bank; otherwise, he is not
criminally liable. B who accommodated A with his check may nevertheless be prosecuted
under BP 22 for having issued the check, knowing at the time of issuance that it has no
funds in the bank and that A will negotiate it to buy a new tire, i.e., for value. B may not
be prosecuted for estafa because the facts indicate that he is not actuated by intent to
defraud in issuing the check which A negotiated. Obviously, B issued the postdated check
only to help A: criminal intent or dolo is absent.
NOTE: DAMAGE CAPABLE OF PECUNIARY ESTIMATION AN IMPORTANT

ELEMENT OF ESTAFA
BP 22 (2013)
No. X. Frank borrowed P1,000,000 from his brother Eric. To pay the loan, Frank issued
a post-dated check to be presented for payment a month after the transaction. Two days
before maturity, Frank called Eric telling him he had insufficient funds and requested that
the deposit of the check be deferred. Nevertheless, Eric deposited the check and it was
dishonored. When Frank failed to pay despite demand, Eric filed a complaint against him
for violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22 (The Bouncing Checks Law)
Was the charge brought against Frank correct? (7%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, the charges brought against Frank is correct. Violation of
BP 22 is malum prohibitum which is committed by mere issuance of a check. Good faith
is not a defense. As long as the check was issued on account or for value, the purpose
for which the check was issued, the terms and conditions relating to the issuance are
irrelevant to the prosecution of the offender. For this reason, the request of Frankto defer
the deposit of the check as it ahs insufficient funds will not militate against his prosecution
for BP 22. Despite notice, Frank can still be charged. Moreover, if what is charged is
Estafa, Frank, being a brother of the offended party, cannot be held criminally liable under
Article 332, RPC.
BP 22 (2010)
No. VIII. A asked financial support from her showbiz friend B who accommodated her by
issuing in her favor a postdated check in the sum of P90,000.00. Both of them knew that
the check would not be honored because B’s account had just been closed.
The two then approached trader C whom they asked to change the check with cash, even
agreeing that the exchange be discounted at P85,000.00 with the assurance that the
check shall be funded upon maturity. Upon C’s presentment of the check for payment on
due date, it was dishonored because the account had already been closed. What action/s
may C commence against A and B to hold them to account for the loss of her P85,000.00?
Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: A criminal action for violation of BP 22 may be filed against B
who drew the postdated check against a closed bank account, for value paid by C, and
with knowledge at the time he issued the check that the account thereof is already closed.
A cannot be held liable under BP 22 because he was a mere endorser of B‟s check to C
who exchanged the check in cash. BP 22 does not apply to endorser of checks. Hence
only a civil action may be filed by C against A to recover the P85,000.00. Although a
simultaneous action for estafa is authorized by law for the issuance of a worthless check,
under the given facts, the check was discounted and thus issued in a credit transaction
for a pre-existing indebtedness. Criminal liability for estafa does not arise when a check
has been issued in payment for a pre-existing debt.
Estafa and B.P. 22 (2009)
No. XIII. b. Angelo devised a Ponzi Scheme in which 500 persons were deceived into
investing their money upon a promise of a capital return of 25%, computed monthly, and
guaranteed by post-dated checks. During the first two months following the investment,
the investors received their profits, but thereafter, Angelo vanished. Angelo was charged
with 500 counts of estafa and 2,000 counts of violation of Batas Pambansa (BP) 22. In
his motion to quash, Angelo contends that he committed a continued crime, or delito
continuado, hence, he committed only one count of estafa and one count of violation of
BP 22. Is Angelo’s contention tenable? Explain. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, his contention is not tenable. He committed as many count
of estafa against the 500 victims and 2000 count of violation of BP 22, since each
swindling is achieved through distinct fraudulent machinations contrived at different time
or dates, and in different amounts. Moreover, his drawing of separate checks payable to
each payee is a separate criminal resolution, as they must be of different amounts and of
different dates. He acted with separate fraudulent intent against each swindling and
issuing each check. It cannot be maintained that hi acts are the product of one criminal
resolution only. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Yes, Angelo committed only one count of
estafa and one count of violation of BP 22 because his acts were propelled by one and
the same intent to defraud (Santiago v. Garchitorena, 228 SCRA 214[1993]).
Art 315; BP 22 1980 No. XX

A check for P20,000.00 was drawn by the Federal Financing Corporation in favor of "CC",
duly signed by "DD", the corporate President, and "EE", the corporate Treasurer. On the
date of the presentation of the said check with the drawee bank, the check was
dishonored but the aforesaid corporate officials were no longer connected with the
corporation. Charged with violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the "Act Penalizing the
Making or Drawing of Check without Sufficient Funds and for Other Purposes", "DD" and
"EE" contend that they can no longer be held liable for the offense charged because they
are no longer officials of the said corporation. Decide the case.
Answer
DD, the Corporate President and EE, the Corporate Treasurer, who signed the check for
the Federal Financing Corporation as drawer, are liable under Batas Pambansa No. 22 if
the check, when presented to the drawee bank, was dishonored for insufficiency of funds,
even though when the check was presented for payment and was dishonored, the said
corporate officials were no longer connected with the corporation. Batas Pambansa No.
22 is explicit about the liability of the officers of a corporation who signed the bouncing
check for the corporation altho they had ceased to be officers of the corporation when the
check was dishonored. As a matter of fact, an amendment introduced, during the
deliberations of the bill in the Batasang Pambansa, to exempt from liability the officers of
a corporation or association who were no longer officers when the check was dishonored
was not approved by the body.
Art 315; BP 22 1986 No. 14:

On January 1, 1986, Bonifacio sold to Antonio a wrist-watch for P1 ,000.00. Antonio took
the watch and drew a check forPl,000 payable to Bonifacio or order. Per agreement, the
check was postdated to January 25, 1986. On January 25, 1986, Antonio called up
Bonifacio and requested him not to present the check until January 30, 1986 by which
time the check would be fully funded, Bonifacio agreed but on the condition that Antonio
issue to him another check for P200 to cover the interest. Antonio agreed and issued the
second check to Bonifacio. On January 25, 1986, Bonifacio discounted the first check to
Carlos for P900. Carlos paid Bonifacio P900.00 and Bonifacio endorsed the check to
Carlos, Bonifacio assured Carlos that the check was good and may be encashed on the
date indicated thereon. Carlos presented the check on January 30, 1986. The check was
dishonored by the bank for lack of funds. Carlos immediately notified Antonio and
Bonifacio of the dishonor of the check. Both failed to make good the check. May Antonio
and Bonifacio, both be held liable under B.P No. 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law? Explain
your answer.
Answer:
Only Antonio will be liable under Batas 22 because he issued the check without sufficient
funds. Under the law, said check although postdated, was issued in payment of the price
of a watch for P1,000 and was therefore issued for value. The check was presented for
payment within 90 days from the date of issue. Of course, if Antonio, within 5 banking
days from notice of dishonor, paid Carlos the value of the check or made a credit
arrangement with the bank for its liquidation, then there will be no more liability under the
law. Bonifacio will not be liable under Batas 22 because he endorsed the check. Under
this law, the one liable is "any person who makes or draws or issues" any check which is
not funded.
Art 315; BP 22 1991 No. 16:

As security for a loan of P50,000.00 he obtained from his friend, Joseph David, payable
not later than 17 April 1990, Roger Vasquez drew and delivered to Joseph a check for
P50,000 dated 17 April 1990. Upon its presentment on due date, the check was
dishonored on the ground of insufficiency of funds. On the basis of the complaint of
Joseph, and after appropriate preliminary investigation, the City Prosecutor filed against
Roger an Information for violation of B.P. Big. No. 22 alleging therein, inter alia, that Roger
"with intent to defraud, by means of deceit, knowing fully well that he had no funds and/or
sufficient funds in the bank, for value received, did then and there, willfully and feloniously,
issue the aforesaid check" but "when the said check was presented for encashment, said
check was dishonored and returned" on the ground of insufficiency of funds. In a decision
rendered thereafter, the trial judge ruled that Roger cannot be convicted of the offense
charged because the information failed to allege that he knew, when he issued the check,
that he would have sufficient- funds for its payment in full upon its presentment to the
drawee bank. Is the Judge correct?
Answer: The Judge is not correct in dismissing the case. The allegation satisfies the legal
definition of the offense. The maker's knowledge of insufficiency of his funds is legally
presumed from the dishonor of the check for lack of funds. (People vs. Laggui 171 SCRA
305).
Art 315; Estafa 1977 No XI-b

0n June 2, 1976, L drew a check in favor of M for P200 in the payment of goods that he
purchased from him on May 25, 1976. The check, when presented for payment, was
dishonored for insufficient funds, hence, M notified L of the fact. But notwithstanding the
lapse of three days from receipt of said notice, L failed to pay or deposit the necessary
amount to cover said check. Did L commit estafa? Reason fully.
Answer
L is not liable for estafa. The bouncing check was issued in payment of a pre-existing
obligation. The drawer did not obtain anything by the issuance of said check (People v.
Canlas, CA 38 O.G. 1032). To constitute estafa even under the law as amended, the
check dishonored for lack of sufficient funds must be issued at the time of contracting the
obligation in payment thereof. (People v Teodorico, CA 69 O.G. 4928).
Art 315; Estafa & BP 22 1983 No. 16

A issued to B a P30,000 check in payment of the jewelry the former simultaneously
received from the latter. The check bounced. For what offense or offenses may A be
indicted? If accused for violation of two separate laws, could A be held liable under both?
Reasons.
Answer
A can be indicted for estafa under Act 315, par. 2 (d) of the Revised Penal Code as
amended by Rep. Act 4885 and under Batas 22 for the offense of issuing a bouncing
check. Under the Revised Penal Code the bouncing check was issued in payment of the
jewelry received, which is, therefore a simultaneous obligation. Under Batas 22 the check
is issued for value. The accused can be held liable for both. Sections 5 of Batas 22
provides that liability under the law is without prejudice to any liability under the Revised
Penal Code. There is no double jeopardy because the two offenses are not the same. In
estafa, damage is an element. The offense punished in Batas 22 does not require
damage. Besides Batas 22 as a special law punishes an offense which is Malum
Prohibitum. Criminal intent is not an element. In estafa, intent to defraud is an element.
Art 315; Estafa & BP 22 1988 No. 14:

(b) Raul Doria gave in trust two acrylic paintings to Amar Solo to be sold on commission
basis for P20,000. Failing to sell them to George Ty, Amar consigned the paintings to
Alcanto Gallery. In the same month, Amar retrieved one painting and tried to return in to
Raul who refused to receive it without the other painting. The other painting was bought
by Mr. Lomot whose check, which Amar gave to Raul, bounced, so that Amar paid Raul
his own check of P6,500.00 promising in writing to pay the P3,500-00 balance less his
commission. Is Amar liable for estafa? Why? How about Mr. Lomot, what crime, if any did
he commit?
ANSWER:
(b) Amar is not liable for estafa but is liable for violation of BP 22, There is only civil liability
because as long as no case has been filed in court, an obligation can still be novated. In
this case there was novation. Mr. Lomot is liable for violation of BP 22.
Art 315; Estafa & BP 22 1990 No. 10:

Exidor issued a check in payment of goods delivered to him by Virginia. Unfortunately the
check bounced for lack of sufficient funds.
a) What Is the criminal liability of Exidor? Explain your answer.
b) Suppose the bouncing check was postdated, will your answer be the same? State your
reasons.
Answer;
a) Exidor is liable under the Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. 22) and for estafa under Article
315, par. 2[d), Revised Penal Code
b) Yes.
The act of exidor in postdating a check as payment for the delivery of goods (a
simultaneous obligation) constitutes Estafa.
Art 315; Estafa & BP22 1984 No 12
A issued and delivered a check to his friend B. Both A and B knew that the check was not
funded. In payment of some goods, B indorsed the check to C, who immediately
deposited it with his bank. When presented for payment to the drawee bank, the check
was dishonored. Notices for dishonor were sent to A and B. One month thereafter, C went
to the City Fiscal's Office to file a criminal complaint. Against whom should the complaint
be filed and for what crime or crimes, if any? Explain.
Answer
A is liable for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 or the Bouncing Check Law, which
punishes the mere act of issuing a check not sufficiently funded.
B is liable for estafa for negotiating in bad faith the check to C that the same was not
funded.
Comments and Suggested Answer
Under the Revised Penal Code, A, the drawer is not liable for estafa, as he delivered the
check to B, a friend, who knew that the check was not funded. Deceit was not employed
by A in the issuance of the check.
B, however, who endorsed the check as payee to C in payment of some goods, with
knowledge that the check was not funded, acted in bad faith or with deceit, and with intent
to defraud C, the endorsee, is liable for estafa. (People vs. Isleta et al 61 Phil. 332).
Under Batas No. 22, A is liable for the offense of issuing a check without sufficient funds.
The presumption is the check was issued for a consideration or for value and A made,
drew or issued said check knowing at the time of issue that he did not have sufficient
funds to pay the check in full when presented for payment B, the endorser, is not liable
under Batas 22 as he is not the maker, drawer or issuer of said bouncing check.
Art 315; Estafa & BP22 1987 No. VIII;
Jose purchased roofing materials worth P20,000.00 from PY & Sons Construction
Company owned by Pedro, and paid the latter a check in the said amount. The following
day, Pedro deposited the check, but it was returned dishonored because it was drawn
against a closed account. Notwithstanding written demands, Jose failed to make good
said check. Atty. Saavedra, counsel for Pedro, filed two complaints against Jose with the
Office of the Provincial Fiscal, one for estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code
and another for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg, 22. Atty. San Pascual, counsel for Jose,
claimed that if his client was at all liable, he could only be liable for violation of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22 and not for estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code
because one precludes the other and because Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is more favorable
to the accused as it carries a lighter penalty.-The investigating fiscal, on his resolution,
stated that only one crime was committed, namely, the complex crime of estafa under
Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 because
the single act of issuing the bouncing check constitutes two offenses, one under Article
315 of the Revised Penal Code and another under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. If you were
the Provincial Fiscal asked to review the matter, how would you resolve it?
Answer:
The resolution of the investigating fiscal is erroneous.
There is no complex crime of estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code and the
violation of BP 22. A complex crime refers only to felonies which are punished in the
Revised Penal Code. Batas 22 which punishes the offense of issuing a worthless check
is a special law.
The contention of Atty. San Pascual, counsel of Jose that his client should be liable only
for Batas 22 and for estafa under the Revised Penal Code because one precludes the
other and because Batas 22 is more favorable to the accused as it carries a lighter penalty
cannot also be sustained. Batas 22 specifically provides that liability under said act is
without prejudice to any liability for estafa under the Revised Penal Code.
The check issued by Jose in payment of roofing materials from PY and Sons was
worthless. Said bouncing check having been issued in payment of a simultaneous
obligation constitutes estafa under the Revised Penal Code and also the offense
punished under Batas 22. There is no identity of offenses. Damage is not an element of
the offense punished in Batas 22 whereas in estafa damage is an element. Estafa is an
act mala in se in which requires intent as an element while the offense punished in Batas
22 is an act mala prohibita where intent is not an element
P.D. No. 1612 – Anti-Fencing

No. VI. Roberto bought a Toyota Fortuner from Iñigo for P500,000. While driving his
newly-bought car, Roberto met a minor accident that made the examination of his
vehicle's Registration Certificate necessary. When the policeman checked the
plate, chassis and motor numbers of the vehicle against those reflected in the
Registration Certificate, he found the chassis and motor numbers to be different
from what the Registration Certificate stated. The Deed of Sale covering the sale of
the Fortuner, signed by Iñigo, also bore the same chassis and motor numbers as
Roberto's Registration Certificate. The chassis and motor numbers on the Fortuner
were found, upon verification with the Land Transportation Office, to correspond
to a vehicle previously reported as carnapped. Roberto claimed that he was in good
faith; Iñigo sold him a carnapped vehicle and he did not know that he was buying
a carnapped vehicle.
If you were the prosecutor, would you or would you not charge Roberto with a
crime? (7%) (Bar 2013)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I will charge Roberto with violation of Anti-Fencing Law. The elements of “fencing” are: 1)
a robbery or theft has been committed; 2) the accused, who took no part in the robbery
or theft, “buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys
and sells, or in any manner deals in any article or object taken” during that robbery or
theft; 3) the accused knows or should have known of that the thing was derived form that
crime; and 4) by the deal he makes he intends to gain for himself or for another. Here,
someone carnapped the vehicle, sold it to Roberto who did not take part in the crime.
Roberto should have known also that the car was stolen because it was not properly
documented as the deed of sale and registration certificate did not reflect the correct
numbers of the vehicle's engine and chassis. Apparently, he made no effort to check the
papers covering his purchase. Lastly, Roberto's defense of good faith is flawed because
Presidential Decree 1612 is a special law and, therefore, its violation in regarded as
malum prohibitum, requiring no proof of criminal intent (Dimat v. People, GR No. 181184,
January 25, 2012).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The facts given show that Roberto “bought” the car form Inigo; that a “deed of sale”
covering the subject vehicle was executed by Inigo; that there is also a copy of the
“Registration Certificate”; that Roberto aver, too, of being a buyer in good faith and lacking
of any knowledge that the subject car is a carnapped vehicle.
As against the foregoing, there is only a certificate from the Land Transportation Office
showing that the vehicle had been previously reported as carnapped.
Consequently, in light of the satisfactory explanation of Roberto of his possession of the

vehicle, the presumption of authorship of the theft upon a person found in possession of
the stolen personal property finds no application in the instant case. There is, thus, no
probable cause or evidence to warrant the prosecution of Roberto for any wrongdoing.
No. V. Arlene is engaged in the buy and sell of used garments, more popularly
known as "ukay-ukay." Among the items found by the police in a raid of her store
in Baguio City were brand-new Louie Feraud blazers.
Arlene was charged with "fencing." Will the charge prosper? Why or why not?
(5%) (Bar 2010)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the charge of “fencing” will not prosper. “Fencing” is committed when a person, with
intent to gain foe himself or for another, deals in any manner with an article of value which
he knows or should be known to him to have been derived from the proceeds of theft or
robbery (Sec. 2, PD 1612). Thus, for a charge of fencing to prosper, it must first be
established that a theft or robbery of the article subject of the alleged “fencing” has been
committed – fact which is wanting in this case. It should be noted that the suspect is
engaged in the buy and sell of used garments, which are in the nature of movable property
carries with it a prima facie presumption of ownership. The presumption of “fencing” arises
only when the article or item involved is the subject of a robbery or thievery (Sec. 5, PD
1612).
No. XI. c. In a prosecution for fencing under P.D. 1612, it is a complete defense for
the accused to prove that he had no knowledge that the goods or articles found in
his possession had been the subject of robbery. (Bar 2009)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
False, fencing is committed if the accused “should have known” that the goods or articles
had been the subject of theft or robbery (P.D. No. 1612[a]). Mere possession of the stolen
goods gives rise to the prima facie presumption of fencing.
Anti-Fencing Law; Fencing (1996)
Flora, who was engaged in the purchase and sale of jewelry, was prosecuted for the violation of P.D.
1612, otherwise known as the Anti-Fencing Law, for having been found to be in possession of recently
stolen Jewelry valued at P100,000.00 at her jewelry shop at Zapote Road, Las Pinas, Metro Manila. She
testified during the trial that she merely bought the same from one named Cecilino and even produced
a receipt covering the sale. Cecilino, in the past, used to deliver to her jewelries for sale but is presently
nowhere to be found. Convicted by the trial court for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law, she argued (or
her acquittal on appeal, contending that the prosecution failed to prove that she knew or should have
known that the Jewelries recovered from her were the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Flora's defense is not well-taken because mere possession of any article of
value which has been the subject of theft or robbery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing (P.D.No.
1612). The burden is upon the accused to prove that she acquired the jewelry legitimately. Her defense
of having bought the Jewelry from someone whose whereabouts is unknown, does not overcome the
presumption of fencing against her (Pamintuan vs People, G.R 111426, 11 July 1994). Buying personal
property puts the buyer on caveat because of the phrases that he should have known or ought to know
that it is the proceed from robbery or theft. Besides, she should have followed the administrative
procedure under the decree that of getting a clearance from the authorities in case the dealer is
unlicensed in order to escape liability.
Anti-Fencing Law; Fencing vs. Theft or Robbery (1995)
What is the difference between a fence and an accessory to theft or robbery? Explain. Is there any
similarity between them?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: One difference between a fence and an accessory to theft or robbery is the penalty
involved; a fence is punished as a principal under P.D. No. 1612 and the penalty is higher, whereas an
accessory to robbery or theft under the Revised Penal Code is punished two degrees lower than the
principal, unless he bought or profited from the proceeds of theft or robbery arising from robbery in
Philippine highways under P.D. No. 532 where he is punished as an accomplice, hence the penalty is one
degree lower.
Also, fencing is a malum prohibitum and therefore there is no need to prove criminal intent of the accused;
this is not so in violations of Revised Penal Code.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, there is a similarity in the sense that all the acts of one who is an accessory
to the crimes of robbery or theft are included in the acts defined as fencing. In fact, the accessory in the
crimes of robbery or theft could be prosecuted as such under the Revised Penal Code or as a fence under
P.D. No. 1612. (Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People, 234 SCRA 63]
Anti-Fencing Law; Fencing; Elements (1995)
What are the elements of fencing?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The elements of fencing are: a. a crime of robbery or theft has been committed;
accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the crime, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires,
conceals, or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any article, item , object or anything of
value, which has been derived from the proceeds of said crime; the accused knows or should have known
that said article, item, object or anything of value has been derived from the from the proceeds of the
crime of robbery or theft; and there is on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or for
another.
Criminal Liability; Accessories & Fence (1998)
King went to the house of Laura who was alone. Laura offered him a drink and after consuming three
bottles of beer. King made advances to her and with force and violence, ravished her. Then King killed
Laura and took her jewelry.
Doming, King's adopted brother, learned about the incident. He went to Laura's house, hid her body,
cleaned everything and washed the bloodstains inside the room.
Later, King gave Jose, his legitimate brother, one piece of jewelry belonging to Laura. Jose knew that
the jewelry was taken from Laura but nonetheless he sold it for P2,000.
What crime or crimes did King, Doming and Jose commit? Discuss their criminal liabilities. [10%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER: King committed the composite crime of Rape with homicide as a single indivisible
offense, not a complex crime, and Theft. ...
Doming's acts, having been done with knowledge of the commission of the crime and obviously to conceal
the body of the crime to prevent its discovery, makes him an accessory to the crime of rape with homicide
under Art. 19, par. 2 of the Rev. Penal Code, but he is exempt from criminal liability therefor under Article
20 of the Code, being an adopted brother of the principal.
Jose incurs criminal liability either as an accessory to the crime of theft committed by King, or as fence.
Although he is a legitimate brother of King, the exemption under Article 20 does not include the
participation he did, because he profited from the effects of such theft by selling the jewelry knowing that
the same was taken from Laura. Or Jose may be prosecuted for fencing under the Anti-Fencing Law of
1979 (PD No. 1612) since the jewelry was the proceeds of theft and with intent to gain, he received it from
King and sold it.
Anti-Fencing Law; Fencing (1996)

Flora, who was engaged in the purchase and sale of jewelry, was prosecuted for the
violation of P.D. 1612, otherwise known as the Anti-Fencing Law, for having been found
to be in possession of recently stolen Jewelry valued at P100,000.00 at her jewelry shop
at Zapote Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006) Road, Las Pinas, Metro
Manila. She testified during the trial that she merely bought the same from one named
Cecilino and even produced a receipt covering the sale. Cecilino, in the past, used to
deliver to her jewelries for sale but is presently nowhere to be found. Convicted by the
trial court for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law, she argued (or her acquittal on appeal,
contending that the prosecution failed to prove that she knew or should have known that
the Jewelries recovered from her were the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Flora's defense is not well-taken because mere possession
of any article of value which has been the subject of theft or robbery shall be prima facie
evidence of fencing (P.D.No. 1612). The burden is upon the accused to prove that she
acquired the jewelry legitimately. Her defense of having bought the Jewelry from
someone whose whereabouts is unknown, does not overcome the presumption of fencing
against her (Pamintuan vs People, G.R 111426, 11 July 1994). Buying personal property
puts the buyer on caveat because of the phrases that he should have known or ought to
know that it is the proceed from robbery or theft. Besides, she should have followed the
administrative procedure under the decree that of getting a clearance from the authorities
in case the dealer is unlicensed in order to escape liability.
Anti-Fencing Law; Fencing vs. Theft or Robbery (1995)
What is the difference between a fence and an accessory to theft or robbery? Explain. Is there any
similarity between them?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: One difference between a fence and an accessory to theft or robbery is the penalty
involved; a fence is punished as a principal under P.D. No. 1612 and the penalty is higher, whereas an
accessory to robbery or theft under the Revised Penal Code is punished two degrees lower than the
principal, unless he bought or profited from the proceeds of theft or robbery arising from robbery in
Philippine highways under P.D. No. 532 where he is punished as an accomplice, hence the penalty is one
degree lower. Also, fencing is a malum prohibitum and therefore there is no need to prove criminal intent
of the accused; this is not so in violations of Revised Penal Code. SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, there is a
similarity in the sense that all the acts of one who is an accessory to the crimes of robbery or theft are
included in the acts defined as fencing. In fact, the accessory in the crimes of robbery or theft could be
prosecuted as such under the Revised Penal Code or as a fence under P.D. No. 1612. (Dizon-Pamintuan
vs. People, 234 SCRA 63]
Anti-Fencing Law; Fencing; Elements (1995)

What are the elements of fencing?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The elements of fencing are:
a. a crime of robbery or theft has been committed;
b. accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the crime, buys, receives, possesses,
keeps, acquires, conceals, or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any
article, item , object or anything of value, which has been derived from the proceeds of
said crime;
c. the accused knows or should have known that said article, item, object or anything of
value has been derived from the from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; and
d. there is on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or for another.
Criminal Liability; Accessories & Fence (1998)

King went to the house of Laura who was alone. Laura offered him a drink and after
consuming three bottles of beer. King made advances to her and with force and violence,
ravished her. Then King killed Laura and took her jewelry. Doming, King's adopted
brother, learned about the incident. He went to Laura's house, hid her body, cleaned
everything and washed the bloodstains inside the room. Later, King gave Jose, his
legitimate brother, one piece of jewelry belonging to Laura. Jose knew that the jewelry
was taken from Laura but nonetheless he sold it for P2,000. What crime or crimes did
King, Doming and Jose commit? Discuss their criminal liabilities. [10%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER: King committed the composite crime of Rape with homicide as
a single indivisible offense, not a complex crime, and Theft. ... Doming's acts, having been
done with knowledge of the commission of the crime and obviously to conceal the body
of the crime to prevent its discovery, makes him an accessory to the crime of rape with
homicide under Art. 19, par. 2 of the Rev. Penal Code, but he is exempt from criminal
liability therefor under Article 20 of the Code, being an adopted brother of the principal.
Jose incurs criminal liability either as an accessory to the crime of theft committed by
King, or as fence. Although he is a legitimate brother of King, the exemption under Article
20 does not include the participation he did, because he profited from the effects of such
theft by selling the jewelry knowing that the same was taken from Laura. Or Jose may be
prosecuted for fencing under the Anti-Fencing Law of 1979 (PD No. 1612) since the
jewelry was the proceeds of theft and with intent to gain, he received it from King and sold
it.
Anti-Fencing Law; Fencing (2013) No. VI.

Roberto bought a Toyota Fortuner from Iñigo for P500,000. While driving his newly-
bought car, Roberto met a minor accident that made the examination of his vehicle's
Registration Certificate necessary. When the policeman checked the plate, chassis and
motor numbers of the vehicle against those reflected in the Registration Certificate, he
found the chassis and motor numbers to be different from what the Registration Certificate
stated. The Deed of Sale covering the sale of the Fortuner, signed by Iñigo, also bore the
same chassis and motor numbers as Roberto's Registration Certificate. The chassis and
motor numbers on the Fortuner were found, upon verification with the Land
Transportation Office, to correspond to a vehicle previously reported as carnapped.
Roberto claimed that he was in good faith; Iñigo sold him a carnapped vehicle and he did
not know that he was buying a carnapped vehicle. If you were the prosecutor, would you
or would you not charge Roberto with a crime? (7%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I will charge Roberto with violation of Anti-Fencing Law. The elements of “fencing” are: 1)
a robbery or theft has been committed; 2) the accused, who took no part in the robbery
or theft, “buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys
and sells, or in any manner deals in any article or object taken” during that robbery or
theft; 3) the accused knows or should have known of that the thing was derived form that
crime; and 4) by the deal he makes he intends to gain for himself or for another. Here,
someone carnapped the vehicle, old it to Roberto who did not take part in the crime.
Roberto should have known also that the car was stolen because it was not properly
documented as the deed of sale and registration certificate did not reflect the correct
numbers of the vehicle‟s engine and chassis. Apparently, he made no effort to check the
papers covering his purchase. Lastly, Roberto‟s defense of good faith is flawed because
Presidential Decree 1612 is a special law and, therefore, its violation in regarded as
malum prohibitum, requiring no proof of criminal intent (Dimat v. People, GR No. 181184,
January 25, 2012).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER; The facts given show that Roberto “bought” the car form Inigo;
that a “deed of sale” covering the subject vehicle was executed by Inigo; that there is also
a copy of the “Registration Certificate”; that Roberto aver, too, of being a buyer in good
faith and lacking of any knowledge that the subject car is a carnapped vehicle. As against
the foregoing, there is only a certificate from the Land Transportation Office showing that
the vehicle had been previously reported as carnapped. Consequently, in light of the
satisfactory explanation of Roberto of his possession of the vehicle, the presumption of
authorship of the theft upon a person found in possession of the stolen personal property
finds no application in the instant case. There is, thus, no probable cause or evidence to
warrant the prosecution of Riberto for any wrongdoing.
Anti-Fencing Law; Fencing (2009) No. XI. c.

In a prosecution for fencing under P.D. 1612, it is a complete defense for the accused to
prove that he had no knowledge that the goods or articles found in his possession had
been the subject of robbery.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: False, fencing is committed if the accused “should have known”
that the goods or articles had been the subject of theft or robbery (P.D. No. 1612[a]). Mere
possession of the stolen goods gives rise to the prima facie presumption of fencing.
Art 19; Anti-fencing law 1987 No. X:

Pedro, a municipal treasurer, received from the Provincial Treasurer of the Province five
(5) brand new typewriters for use in the municipal treasurer's office. Each typewriter is
valued at P10,000.00. Since Pedro needed money for the hospitalization of his sick son,
he sold four (4) of the typewriters to his friend, Rodolfo, a general merchant in San Isidro
for P2,000.00 each or a total of P8,000.00. Rodolfo as a general merchant knew that one
typewriter could easily be between P6,000.00 to P10,000.00, and for this reason he
readily agreed to buy the four typewriters, Rodolfo then resold the typewriters at
P6,000.00 thus, making a profit of P16,000. Two months after the transaction, Pedro was
audited and the investigation as to his accountabilities led to the discovery that Rodolfo
bought the four (4) typewriters from Pedro, (a) What crime did Pedro commit? (b) Is
Rodolfo liable as an accessory or for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law?
Answer:
b) Rodolfo is not liable for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law as this law refers only to the
buy and sell of articles of value which are the proceeds of robbery and theft, Rodolfo is
liable as an accessory to the crime of malversation as he purchased the typewriter for
P2,000. each only although he knew it could easily be sold for P6,000, to P10,000,
Therefore he profited or assisted the principal to profit from the effects or proceeds of the
commission of the crime.
Art 19; Anti-fencing law 1992 No. 4:
At the height of the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo at around midnight, Aniceto joined some
neighbors in evacuating his family, a few possessions and two horses to higher ground.
Miguel, taking advantage of the darkness and the confusion, got one of the horses and
asked his friend Doro to accompany him to Angeles City where he sold the same to an
acquaintance Peping. Searching for his horse, Aniceto found it, with identifying brand
intact, in the possession of Peping who refused to surrender the same saying that he had
paid good money for it. Whereupon, Aniceto reported the matter to the police who
promised to accompany him to the Prosecutor's office. c) May Peping be indicted under
the Anti-Fencing Law? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
c) Peping should be held liable for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law, P.D, No. 1612. He
brought the horse which he should have known to have been derived from robbery or
theft. The horse was duly branded; this should have forewarned Peping. Besides, he
should have demanded a certificate of ownership from Miguel.
Art 19; Anti-fencing law 1981 No. 17
Without asking for any document of ownership, "A" bought from "B", a person who
claimed to be a "balik-bayan" from Saudi Arabia, a 1980 model National TV set for
P500.00. Two days later, a policeman visited "A" and informed him that the TV set he had
bought from "B", who already confessed to the robbery, was stolen from the house of "C".
Claiming that he bought the TV set in good faith, "A" refused to surrender it to "C", So "A"
was charged under the Anti-Fencing Act of 1979 (Presidential Decree No. 1612). Is "A"
criminally liable under this Act? Why?
Answer
"A" is criminally liable under the Anti-Fencing Act of 1979. Under this law, mere
possession of any goods, article, item, object or anything of value which has been the
object of robbery of theft shall be prime facie evidence of fencing. Fencing is committed
if a person who with intent to gain for himself or another shall buy, receive, possess, keep,
acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell or in any manner deal in any
article, item, object or anything of value, which he knows or should be known to him, to
have been derived from the proceeds of robbery or theft. The law involves second hand
articles. A purchased the 1980 model National TV set as a second hand item. His failure
to ask any document of ownership and if "B" was indeed a "balikbayan" whether he
brought the TV set with him when he returned to the Philippines as evidenced by a carrier
manifest since the TV set certainly cannot be hand carried, and since the price was
considerably cheap, are circumstances which show that he should have known that the
TV set was a proceed of robbery or theft.
Art 19; Anti-fencing law 1985 No. 12
While waiting for his car, AB was approached by CD, who offered him a new set of auto
mechanic tools coating P3,000.00 for only P500. AB paid CD Page 99 of 374 P500 and
thereafter gave the brand new set of tools as a birthday gift to his godson, an auto
mechanic. It turned out later that CD is the object of a police manhunt upon complaint of
his employer for the theft of more than 100 sets of similar tools. Threatened with criminal
prosecution for violation of the AntiFencing Law, he consulted you as to his probable
criminal liability for the said transaction. Put down in writing your advice and explanation
on his query.
Answer:
Fencing is the act of any person, who with intent to gain for himself, or for another shall
buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of or shall buy and sell or
in any other manner deal in any article, item or object or anything of value, which he
knows or should be known to him to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of
robbery or theft (P.D. No. 1612), Considering that CD was a total stranger to AB, that the
former was the one who approached the latter to sell auto mechanic tools costing P3.000
for only P500, that CD was not in the business of selling auto mechanic tools nor was he
representing any store engaged in such business, AB should have been placed on guard
that the object purchased by him was the proceed of the crime of robbery or theft. AB
should be liable for fencing. I would advice him to show his good faith in purchasing the
auto mechanic tools—that he requested from CD, the seller, a receipt, with a warranty to
defend his ownership from a claim of any person whatsoever.
Brothers Aber and Bobot, 16 and 17 years old, respectively, have had no food for the past
two days. Suffering from severe hunger, they hatched a plan to break into a store to steal
some food. Five days later, at 12 midnight, they were able to enter the store by breaking
the hinges of the door. Aber took ten cans of sardines worth P50.00. Bobot wandered into
a nearby room where the store owner, Cosme, was sleeping Cosme, awakened by
Bobot's footsteps, attacked Bobot with a club. Bobot avoided the blow and hit Cosme in
the chest with his fist. Aber, upon hearing the commotion, entered the room and tried to
pull Bobot away from Cosme. Cosme, however, continued to attack Bobot forcing the
latter to box Cosme in the face. Cosme collapsed on the floor. Bobot and Aber fled. The
following day, Aber sold six of the sardine cans taken from the store to Dimas who lives
a block from the store. Earlier that day Dimas heard rumors that the nearby store had
been robbed and that his friend Cosme was found dead. Dimas thought of asking Aber
and Bobot where they got the sardines to clear away this doubt, but on second thought
did not. He bought the cans for P20.00 and sold them for P30.00. The fiscal charged Aber
and Bobot with the complex crime of robbery with homicide aggravated by nighttime,
evident premeditation and dwelling. The fiscal charged Dimas as an accessory of Aber
and Bobot and for violation of the AntiFencing Law (PD No. J612). (1) If you were the
counsel of Aber, what defenses would you raise? Explain. (2) If you were the counsel of
Bobot, what defenses would you raise? Explain. Page 100 of 374 (3) If you were the
counsel of Dimas, what defenses would you raise? Explain, (4) If you were the judge,
how would you decide the case? Explain,
Answer:
(4) Dimas will be liable for fencing as he bought the tins of sardines without inquiring from
Aber where he got the sardines and under the circumstances he could have known that
those were the proceeds of the crime of theft. He bought them with intent to gain as in
fact he sold them for a profit.
Oscar owns and operates a gift and jewelry shop. Pilar sold to him for P1,000.00 a five
[5] carat diamond ring which she stole. a) May Oscar be held criminally liable under the
Anti-Fencing Law (P.D. No. 1612)? Explain your answer. b) How can Oscar acquire
immunity from criminal prosecution for purchasing the diamond ring from Pilar and thus
enable him to sell the same to the general public for a profit? Explain your answer.
Answer:
a) Yes, he is liable for fencing. The price is unconscionable. This shows that he would
have known of the fact that the ring was stolen. Section 2 of P.D. 1612., the Anti-Fencing
Law of 1979, provides that: a. "Fencing" is the act of any person who, with intent to gain
for himself or for another, shall buy, receive x x x, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell,
or in any other manner deal in any article x x x of value which he knows, or should be
known to him, to have been derived from proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft". b)
Oscar should secure a clearance/permit to sell the second-hand ring from the proper INP
station commander pursuant to Section 6, P.D. 1612. The said section states that any
person who fails to secure the clearance or permit, upon conviction, shall be punished as
a fence.
1. What are the elements of fencing? 2. a) What is the difference between a fence and
an accessory to theft or robbery? Explain. (b) Is there any similarity between them?
Answer:
1. The elements of fencing are: (a) a crime of robbery or theft has be en committed; (b)
accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the crime, buys, receives, possesses,
said crime; (c) the accused knows or should have known that said article, item, object or
anything of value has been derived from the from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or
theft; and Page 101 of 374 (d) there is. on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself
or for another. 2.a) One difference between a fence and an accessory to theft or robbery
is the penalty involved; a fence is punished as a principal under P.D. No. 1612 and the
penalty is higher, whereas an accessory to robbery or theft under the Revised Penal Code
is punished two degrees lower than the principal, unless he bought or profited from the
proceeds of theft or robbery arising from robbery in Philippine highways under P.D. No.
532 where he is punished as an accomplice, hence the penalty is one degree lower. Also,
fencing is a malum prohibition and therefore there Is no need to prove criminal intent of
the accused; this is not so in violations of Revised Penal Code. (b) Yes, there is a similarity
in the sense that all the acts of one who is an accessory to the crimes of robbery or theft
are included in the acts defined as fencing. In fact, the accessory in the crimes of robbery
or theft could be prosecuted as such under the Revised Penal Code or as a fence under
P.D. No. 1612. (Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People, 234 SCRA 63]
2) Flora, who was engaged in the purchase and sale of jewelry, was prosecuted for the
at Zapote Road, Las Pinas, Metro Manila. She testified during the trial that she merely
bought the same from one named Cecilino and even produced a receipt covering the
sale. Cecilino, in the past, used to deliver to her jewelries for sale but is presently nowhere
to be found. Convicted by the trial court for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law, she argued
(or her acquittal on appeal, contending that the prosecution failed to prove that she knew
or should have known that the Jewelries recovered from her were the proceeds of the
crime of robbery or theft.
Answer:
2) No, Flora's defense is not well-taken because mere possession of any article of value
which has been the subject of theft or robbery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing
(P.D.No. 1612). The burden is upon the accused to prove that she acquired the jewelry
legitimately. Her defense of having bought the Jewelry from someone whose
whereabouts is unknown, does not overcome the presumption of fencing against her
(Pamintuan us People, G.R 111426, 11 July 1994). Buying personal property puts the
buyer on caveat because of the phrases that he should have known or ought to know that
it is the proceed from robbery or theft. Besides, she should have followed the
in case the dealer is unlicensed. in order to escape liability.
Art 19; Degrees of participation; accessories & fence 1998

No VII. King went to the house of Laura who was alone. Laura offered him a drink and
after consuming three bottles of beer. King made advances to her and with force and
violence, ravished her. Then King killed Laura and took her jewelry. Doming, King's
adopted brother, learned about the incident. He went to Laura's house, hid her body,
cleaned everything and washed the bloodstains inside the room. Later, King gave Jose,
his legitimate brother, one piece of jewelry belonging to Laura. Jose knew that the jewelry
was taken from Laura but nonetheless he sold it for P2,000. What crime or crimes did
King, Doming and Jose commit? Discuss their criminal liabilities. [10%]
Answer;
King committed the composite crime of Rape with homicide as a single indivisible offense,
not a complex crime, and Theft. ... Doming's acts, having been done with knowledge of
the commission of the crime and obviously to conceal the body of the crime to prevent its
discovery, makes him an accessory to the crime of rape with homicide under Art. 19, par.
2 of the Rev. Penal Code, but he is exempt from criminal liability therefor under Article 20
of the Code, being an adopted brother of the principal. Jose incurs criminal liability either
as an accessory to the crime of theft committed by King, or as fence. Although he is a
legitimate brother of King, the exemption under Article 20 does not include the
participation he did, because he profited from the effects of such theft by selling the
jewelry knowing that the same was taken from Laura. Or Jose may be prosecuted for
fencing under the Anti-Fencing Law of 1979 (PD No. 1612) since the jewelry was the
proceeds of theft and with intent to gain, he received it from King and sold it.

Brothers Aber and Bobot, 16 and 17 years old, respectively, have had no food for the
past two days. Suffering from severe hunger, they hatched a plan to break into a store to
steal some food. Five days later, at 12 midnight, they were able to enter the store by
breaking the hinges of the door. Aber took ten cans of sardines worth P50.00. Bobot
wandered into a nearby room where the store owner, Cosme, was sleeping Cosme,
awakened by Bobot's footsteps, attacked Bobot with a club. Bobot avoided the blow and
hit Cosme in the chest with his fist. Aber, upon hearing the commotion, entered the room
and tried to pull Bobot away from Cosme. Cosme, however, continued to attack Bobot
forcing the latter to box Cosme in the face. Cosme collapsed on the floor. Bobot and Aber
fled. The following day, Aber sold six of the sardine cans taken from the store to Dimas
who lives a block from the store. Earlier that day Dimas heard rumors that the nearby
store had been robbed and that his friend Cosme was found dead. Dimas thought of
asking Aber and Bobot where they got the sardines to clear away this doubt, but on
second thought did not. He bought the cans for P20.00 and sold them for P30.00. The
fiscal charged Aber and Bobot with the complex crime of robbery with homicide
aggravated by nighttime, evident premeditation and dwelling. The fiscal charged Dimas
as an accessory of Aber and Bobot and for violation of the AntiFencing Law (PD No.
J612). (1) If you were the counsel of Aber, what defenses would you raise? Explain. (2)
If you were the counsel of Bobot, what defenses would you raise? Explain. Page 100 of
374 (3) If you were the counsel of Dimas, what defenses would you raise? Explain, (4) If
you were the judge, how would you decide the case? Explain,
Answer:
(4) Dimas will be liable for fencing as he bought the tins of sardines without inquiring from
Aber where he got the sardines and under the circumstances he could have known that
those were the proceeds of the crime of theft. He bought them with intent to gain as in
fact he sold them for a profit.
Oscar owns and operates a gift and jewelry shop. Pilar sold to him for P1,000.00 a five
[5] carat diamond ring which she stole. a) May Oscar be held criminally liable under the
Anti-Fencing Law (P.D. No. 1612)? Explain your answer. b) How can Oscar acquire
immunity from criminal prosecution for purchasing the diamond ring from Pilar and thus
enable him to sell the same to the general public for a profit? Explain your answer.
Answer:
a) Yes, he is liable for fencing. The price is unconscionable. This shows that he would
have known of the fact that the ring was stolen. Section 2 of P.D. 1612., the Anti-Fencing
Law of 1979, provides that: a. "Fencing" is the act of any person who, with intent to gain
for himself or for another, shall buy, receive x x x, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell,
or in any other manner deal in any article x x x of value which he knows, or should be
known to him, to have been derived from proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft". b)
Oscar should secure a clearance/permit to sell the second-hand ring from the proper INP
station commander pursuant to Section 6, P.D. 1612. The said section states that any
person who fails to secure the clearance or permit, upon conviction, shall be punished as
a fence.
Art 19; Anti-fencing law 1995 No. 5: 1.
What are the elements of fencing? 2. a) What is the difference between a fence and an
accessory to theft or robbery? Explain. (b) Is there any similarity between them?
Answer:
1. The elements of fencing are: (a) a crime of robbery or theft has be en committed; (b)
accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the crime, buys, receives, possesses,
said crime; (c) the accused knows or should have known that said article, item, object or
anything of value has been derived from the from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or
theft; and Page 101 of 374 (d) there is. on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself
or for another.
2.a) One difference between a fence and an accessory to theft or robbery is the penalty
involved; a fence is punished as a principal under P.D. No. 1612 and the penalty is higher,
whereas an accessory to robbery or theft under the Revised Penal Code is punished two
degrees lower than the principal, unless he bought or profited from the proceeds of theft
or robbery arising from robbery in Philippine highways under P.D. No. 532 where he is
punished as an accomplice, hence the penalty is one degree lower. Also, fencing is a
malum prohibition and therefore there Is no need to prove criminal intent of the accused;
this is not so in violations of Revised Penal Code.
(b) Yes, there is a similarity in the sense that all the acts of one who is an accessory to
the crimes of robbery or theft are included in the acts defined as fencing. In fact, the
accessory in the crimes of robbery or theft could be prosecuted as such under the Revised
Penal Code or as a fence under P.D. No. 1612. (Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People, 234 SCRA
63]
2) Flora, who was engaged in the purchase and sale of jewelry, was prosecuted for the
at Zapote Road, Las Pinas, Metro Manila. She testified during the trial that she merely
bought the same from one named Cecilino and even produced a receipt covering the
sale. Cecilino, in the past, used to deliver to her jewelries for sale but is presently nowhere
to be found. Convicted by the trial court for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law, she argued
(or her acquittal on appeal, contending that the prosecution failed to prove that she knew
or should have known that the Jewelries recovered from her were the proceeds of the
crime of robbery or theft.
Answer:
2) No, Flora's defense is not well-taken because mere possession of any article of value
which has been the subject of theft or robbery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing
(P.D.No. 1612). The burden is upon the accused to prove that she acquired the jewelry
legitimately. Her defense of having bought the Jewelry from someone whose
whereabouts is unknown, does not overcome the presumption of fencing against her
(Pamintuan us People, G.R 111426, 11 July 1994). Buying personal property puts the
buyer on caveat because of the phrases that he should have known or ought to know that
it is the proceed from robbery or theft. Besides, she should have followed the
in case the dealer is unlicensed. in order to escape liability.
R.A. No. 10833 – Anti-Carnapping

Anti-Carnapping Act; Carnapping w/ Homicide (1998)
Samuel, a tricycle driver, plied his usual route using a Honda motorcycle with a sidecar.
One evening, Raul rode on the sidecar, poked a knife at Samuel and instructed him to go
near the bridge. Upon reaching the bridge, Raul alighted from the motorcycle and
suddenly stabbed Samuel several times until he was dead. Raul fled from the scene
taking the motorcycle with him. What crime or crimes did Raul commit? |5%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Raul committed the composite crime of Carnapping with homicide under Sec. 14 of Rep.
Act No. 6539, as amended, considering that the killing "in the course or "on the occasion
of a carnapping (People vs. De la Cruz, et al. 183 SCRA 763). A motorcycle is included
in the definition of a "motor vehicle" in said Rep. Act, also known as the 'Anti-Carnapping
Act of 1972'. There is no apparent motive for the killing of the tricycle driver but for Raul
to be able to take the motorcycle. The fact that the tricycle driver was killed brings about
the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The crime
committed by Raul is carnapping, punished by Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 6539. The
killing of Samuel is not a separate crime but only an aggravating circumstance.
Anti-Carnapping Act (2008) No. II.
b. While Carlos was approaching his car, he saw it being driven away by Paolo, a thief.
Carlos tried to stop Paolo by shouting at him, but Paolo ignored him. To prevent his car
from being carnapped, Carlos drew his gun, aimed at the rear wheel of the car and fired.
The shot blew the tire which caused the car to veer out of control and collide with an
oncoming tricycle, killing the tricycle driver. What is the criminal liability of Paolo, if any?
Explain. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Paolo who acted with intent to gain, unlawfully took the
personal property of another with force upon things, is liable for carnapping under R.A.
6539, as amended by R.A. 7659, not qualified theft (Peo vs. Bustinna).
Anti-Carnapping Act (2012) No. IV.
a. A postal van containing mail matters, including checks and treasury warrants, was
hijacked along a national highway by ten (1 0) men, two (2) of whom were armed. They
used force, violence and intimidation against three (3) postal employees who were
occupants of the van, resulting in the unlawful taking and transportation of the entire van
and its contents. If you were the public prosecutor, would you charge the ten (10) men
who hijacked the postal van with violation of Presidential Decree No. 532, otherwise
known as the Anti-Piracy and Anti -Highway Robbery Law of 1974? Explain your answer.
(5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, I would not charge the 10 men with the crime of highway robbery. The mere fact that
the offense was committed on a highway would not be the determinant for the application
of PD No. 532. If a motor vehicle, either stationary or moving on a highway, is forcibly
taken at gun point by the accused who happened to take a fancy thereto, the location of
the vehicle at the time of the unlawful taking would not be necessarily put the offense
within the ambit of PD No. 532. In this case, the crime committed is violation of the Anti-
Carnapping Act. Of 1972 (People v. Puno, G.R. No. 97471, February 17, 1993).
Moreover, there is no showing that the 10 men were a band of outlaws organized for the
purpose of depredation upon the persons and properties of innocent and defenseless
inhabitants who travel from one place to another. What was shown I one isolated hijacking
of a postal van. It was not stated in the facts given that the 10 men previously attempted
at similar robberies by them to establish the “indiscriminate” commission thereof (Filoteo,
Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 79543, October 16, 1996).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
As a public prosecutor, I would charge the 10 men who hijacked the postal van with
violation of PD 532. As oppose to brigandage under Article 306 of the RPC, highway
robbery under PD 532 does not require that there be at least four armed persons forming
a band of robbers. In this case, while there are ten (10) men who hijacked the postal van,
only two (2) were armed. Hence, they may be charged with highway robbery under PD
532.
Carnapping 1993 No. 19:
Dodoy, possessing only a student driver's permit, found a parked car with the key left in
the ignition, he proceeded to drive it away, intending to sell it. Just then Ting, the owner
of the car, arrived. Failing to make Dodoy stop. Ting boarded a taxi and pursued Dodoy,
who In his haste to escape, and because of his inexperience, violently collided with a
jeepney full of passengers. The jeepney overturned and was wrecked. One passenger
was killed; the leg of the other passenger was crushed and had to be amputated. The car
of Ting was damaged to the tune of P20,000.00. What offense or offenses may Dodoy be
charged with? Discuss.
Answer:
Homicide, Serious Physical Injuries and Damage to Property resulting from reckless
imprudence. Please take note that with respect to Espiritu Case, taking hold of the object
is enough to consummate the crime; although in the Dirio case, it is still frustrated because
there is inability to dispose freely the object.
P.D. No. 1613 – Arson

Arson; Destructive Arson (1994)
Tata owns a three-storey building located at No. 3 Herran Street. Paco, Manila. She
wanted to construct a new building but had no money to finance the construction. So, she
insured the building for P3,000,000.00. She then urged Yoboy and Yongsi, for monetary
consideration, to bum her building so she could collect the insurance proceeds. Yoboy
and Yongsi burned the said building resulting to its total loss. What crime did Tata, Yoboy
and Yongsi commit?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Tata, Yoboy and Yongsi committed the crime of destructive arson because they
collectively caused the destruction of property by means of fire under the circumstances
which exposed to danger the life or property of others (Art, 320, par. 5, RPC. as amended
by RA No. 7659)
Arson; Destructive Arson (2000)
One early evening, there was a fight between Eddie Gutierrez and Mario Cortez. Later
that evening, at about 11 o'clock, Eddie passed by the house of Mario carrying a plastic
bag containing gasoline, threw the bag at the house of Mario who was inside the house
watching television, and then lit it. The front wall of the house started blazing and some
neighbors yelled and shouted. Forthwith, Mario poured water on the burning portion of
the house. Neighbors also rushed in to help put the fire under control before any great
damage could be inflicted and before the flames have extensively spread. Only a portion
of the house was burned. Discuss Eddie's liability, (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Eddie is liable for destructive arson in the consummated stage. It is destructive arson
because fire was resorted to in destroying the house of Mario which is an inhabited house
or dwelling. The arson is consummated because the house was in fact already burned
although not totally. In arson, it is not required that the premises be totally burned for the
crime to be consummated. It is enough that the premises suffer destruction by burning.
Arson; New Arson Law (2004)
CD is the stepfather of FEL. One day, CD got very mad at FEL for failing in his college
courses. In his fury, CD got the leather suitcase of FEL and burned it together with all its
contents. 1. What crime was committed by CD? 2. Is CD criminally liable? Explain briefly.
(5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime committed by CD is arson under Pres. Decree No. 1613 (the new Arson Law)
which punishes any person who burns or sets fire to the property of another (Section 1 of
Pres. Decree No. 1613). CD is criminally liable although he is the stepfather of FEL whose
property he burnt, because such relationship is not exempting from criminal liability in the
crime of arson but only in crimes of theft, swindling or estafa, and malicious mischief
(Article 332, Revised Penal Code). T
he provision (Art. 323) of the Code to the effect that burning property of small value should
be punished as malicious mischief has long been repealed by Pres. Decree 1613; hence,
there is no more legal basis to consider burning property of small value as malicious
mischief.
With intent to kill, GGG burned the house where F and D were staying. F and D died
as a consequence. What is the proper charge against GGG?
a. GGG should be charged with two (2) counts of murder. b. GGG should be
charged with arson.
c. GGG should be charged with complex crime of arson with double murder.
d. GGG should be charged with complex crime of double murder.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
D. If the main objective of the offender is to kill a particular person who may be in a
building or edifice, when fore is resorted to as the means to accomplish such goal the
crime committed is murder only. When the Code declare that killing committed by means
of fire is murder, it intends that fire should be purposely adopted as a means to that end.
There can be no murder without a design to take life. Murder qualified by means of fire
absorbs the crime of arson since the latter is an inherent means to commit the former
(People v. Baluntong, GR No. 182061, March 15, 2010; People v. Cedenio, GR No.
93485, June 27, 1994). A single act of burning the house of victims with the main objective
of killing resulting in their deaths resulted in the complex crime of double murder
committed by means of fire (People v. Gaffud, GR No. 168050, September, 19, 2008).
74. With intent to cause damage, AAA deliberately set fire upon the two-storey
residential house of his employer, mostly made of wooden materials. The blaze
spread and gutted down seven neighboring houses. On the occasion of the fire,
six (6) persons sustained burn injuries which were the direct cause of their death.
What crime was committed by AAA?
a. AAA committed the complex crime of arson with multiple homicide.
b. AAA committed arson and multiple homicide.
c. AAA committed simple arson.
d. AAA committed arson and multiple murder.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
C. If the main objective of the offender is the burning of the building or office, but death
results by reason or on the occasion of arson, the crime is simply arson, and the resulting
homicide is absorbed (People v. Baluntog, GR No. 182061, March 15, 2010; People v.
Cedenio, GR No. 93485, June 27, 1994).
(37) Dagami concealed Bugna’s body and the fact that he killed him by setting
Bugna’s house on fire. What crime or crimes did Dagami commit?
(A) Murder, the arson being absorbed already
(B) Separate crimes of murder and arson
(C) Arson, the homicide being absorbed already
(D) Arson with murder as a compound crime
Art 320; Arson 1980 No. XIV

At about 11:30 A.M., "W" noticed that the nipa roof of their house was on fire. He got up
to get water with which to extinguish the fire. While putting out the fire "W" noticed "X"
near the house carrying a pole to the end of which was attached a rug soaked with
gasoline. "W", shouted "fire! tire" and started to put out the fire. With the help of some
neighbors, "W" succeeded in put-ting out the fire but only after a small portion of the roof
had been burned. Is "X" liable for frustrated or consummated arson?
Answer
X will be liable for consummated arson. The mere burning of a portion of the house, which
in the problem is the nipa roof, is consummated arson. All the elements of the acts of
execution and accomplishment are present (People vs. Hernandez, 54 Phil. 122). It
cannot be frustrated arson because in frustrated arson the offender sets on fire gasoline
soaked rags to burn a building but the fire is put out by a cause independent of the will of
the offender before any portion of the building is burned. (U.S. vs. Valdez, 39 Phil. 240).
Art 320; Arson 1987 No. IV:
Ricardo secured the services of Atty. Juanito to defend him in an arson case pending in
court. Juanito asked his client what actually happened. Ricardo informed his lawyer that
Sing Hua, owner of a department store, hired him to burn the store because Sing Hua
was losing heavily and wanted to get the insurance on the store. Ricardo said that Sing
Hua paid him P5,000.00, and promised an additional 10% of the proceeds of the
P10,000,000.00 fire insurance once this was collected from the insurance company. He
further said that Sing Hua's claim for payment of the tire insurance was still pending and
its approval depended on the outcome of the arson case. This meant that the ABC
Insurance Company would pay the claim should Ricardo be acquitted in the arson case.
Then he would also get the 10% share of the fire insurance proceeds. He told lawyer
Juanito that by depending him in the arson case, the latter would be helping collect the
10% which would amount of P1,000,000.00. After hearing Ricardo's story, Atty. Juanito
told him he could not further give him professional advice or services and so Ricardo left.
That same day, Juanito went to the NBI and told the NBI what Ricardo narrated him. The
NBI alerted ABC Insurance Company which immediately denied the claim for payment of
insurance and filed a complaint for attempted estafa through arson against Sing Hua and
Ricardo.
(a) Did Juanito commit any crime?
(b) Would the situation be different if at the time Ricardo secured the professional services
of Juanito, ABC Insurance Company had already paid Sing Hua the insurance and the
latter had in turn paid Ricardo 10% "thereof?
Answer:
a) Juanito did not commit any crime. By telling Ricardo that he could not give him
professional advice or services, after being informed that the owner of the department
store hired him to burn the store because it was losing heavily and wanted to get the
insurance on the store, and that he was paid already P5,000 with a promise of an
additional 10% of the proceeds of the P10,000,000 fire insurance once collected from the
insurance company, Atty. Juanito complied with his obligation as a lawyer to report to the
authorities whatever knowledge he has regarding the commission of a crime.
b) Juanito will be liable as an accessory because by accepting 10% of the insurance
proceeds even in payment of the professional services, he profited or assisted the
principal, Ricardo, to profit from the proceeds of the commission of the crime,
Art 320; Arson & Murder 1985 No, 17
B set the house of A on fire by way of revenge against the latter. B did not know that A
was inside. A died because of the fire,
(A) What crime or crimes did B commit?
(B) Suppose B knew that A was inside, what crime or crimes did B commit?
(C) Suppose before setting it on fire, B entered the house and killed A. Then B set the
house on fire to hide the body of A. What crime or crimes did B commit? Explain your
answers.
Answer:
(A) B will be liable for the special complex crime of arson with homicide as provided in
Presidential Decree No. 1613, because the death resulted from the arson. The case of
People v. Paterno (L-2665, March 6, 1960)—that the arson absorbed the death, is no
longer controlling.
(B) If B knew that A was in the house when it was set on fire, the crime will be murder.
The fire is the qualifying circumstance.
(C) If B killed A before the house was set on fire, two crimes are committed, murder and
arson. The arson was committed to conceal the crime of murder.
Art 320; Arson & Murder (through use of fire) & Homicide 1989 No. 14:
Diego and Pablo were both farmers residing in Barangay Damayan. On one occasion,
Diego called Pablo to come down from his house in order to ask Page 316 of 374 him
why he got his (Diego's) plow without permission. One word led to another. Diego, in a fit
of anger, unsheathed his bolo and hacked Pablo to death. Pablo's 9-year old son, Mario,
who was inside the house, saw the killing of his father. Afraid that he might also be killed
by Diego, Mario covered himself with a blanket and hid in a corner of the house. To
conceal the killing of Pablo, Diego brought Pablo's body inside the house and burned it,
Mario was also burned to death. What crime or crimes did Diego commit?
Answer:
Diego committed two crimes
(1) homicide for the death of Pablo and
(2) the special complex crime of arson with homicide as provided in PD 1613 for the
burning of the house and the death of Mario. The hacking of Pablo to death is homicide,
the killing not being attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder. It was
killing in the course of a quarrel. The burning of the house to conceal the killing of Pablo
is a separate crime. Were it not for the death of Mario, this separate offense would have
been arson. But inside the house was unknown to Diego, the resulting crime is under PD
No. 1613, because the death resulted from the arson. If by reason or on the occasion of
the arson, death results, the offense is the special complex or arson with homicide (Sec.
5, PD 1613, which expressly repealed Art. 320 and consequently the ruling case therein,
People v. Paterno (L-2665, March 6, 1950). If Diego knew that Mario was inside the house
when he set it on fire, the crime committed, instead of arson, would be MURDER, with
fire as the qualifying circumstance.
Art 320; Arson; Robbery; homicide 1995 No. 12:
Harry, an overseas contract worker, arrived from Saudi Arabia with considerable savings.
Knowing him to be "loaded", his friends Jason, Manuel and Dave invited him to poker
session at a rented beach cottage. When he was losing almost all his money which to
him was his savings of a lifetime, he discovered that he was being cheated by his friends.
Angered by the betrayal he decided to take revenge on the three cheats. Harry ordered
several bottles of Tanduay Rhum and gave them to his companions to drink, as they did,
until they all fell asleep. When Harry saw his companions already sound asleep he hacked
all of them to death. Then he remembered his losses. He rifled through the pockets of his
victims and got back all the money he lost. He then ran away but not before burning the
cottage to hide his misdeed. The following day police investigators found among the
debris the charred bodies of Jason, Manuel, Dave and the caretaker of the resort. After
preliminary investigation, the Provincial Prosecutor charged Harry with the complex crime
of arson with quadruple homicide and robbery. Was Harry properly charged? Discuss
fully.
Answer:
No, Harry was net properly charged. Harry should have been charged with three (3)
separate crimes, namely: murder, theft and arson.
Harry killed Jason, Manuel and Dave with evident premeditation, as there was
considerable lapse of time before he decided to commit the crime and the actual
commission of the crime. In addition, Harry employed means which weakened the
defense of Jason, Manuel and Dave. Harry gave them the liquor to drink until they were
drunk and fell asleep. This gave Harry the opportunity to carry out his plan of murder with
impunity. The taking of the money from the victims was a mere afterthought of the killings.
Hence, Harry committed the separate crime of theft and not the complex crime of robbery
with homicide. Although theft was committed against dead persons, it is still legally
possible as the offended party are the estates of the victims. In burning the cottage to
hide his misdeed. Harry became liable for another separate crime, arson. This act of
burning was not necessary for the consummation of the two (2) previous offenses he
committed. The fact that the caretaker died from the blaze did not qualify Harry's crime
into a complex crime of arson with homicide for there is no such crime. Hence, Harry was
improperly charged with the complex crime of arson with quadruple homicide and
robbery. Harry should have been charged with three (3) separate crimes, murder, theft
and arson.
P.D. No. 1689 – Syndicated Estafa

Syndicated Estafa (2010) No. XVI.
The president, treasurer, and secretary of ABC Corporation were charged with syndicated
estafa under the following Information:
That on or about the 1st week of January 2010 or subsequent thereto in Cebu City and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and
confederating together and all of them mutually helping and aiding one another in a
syndicated manner, through a corporation registered with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC), with intention of carrying out the unlawful or illegal act, transaction,
enterprise or scheme, with intent to gain and by means of fraud and deceit, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously defraud Virna, Lana, Deborah and several other
persons by falsely or fraudulently pretending or representing in a transaction or series of
transactions, which they made with complainants and the public in general, to the effect
that they were in a legitimate business of foreign exchange trading successively or
simultaneously operating under the name and style of ABC Corporation and DEF
Management Philippines, Incorporated, induced and succeeded in inducing complainants
and several other persons to give and deliver to said accused the amount of at least
P20,000,000.00 on the strength of said manifestations and representations, the accused
knowing fully well that the above named corporations registered with the SEC are not
licensed nor authorized to engage in foreign exchange trading and that such
manifestations and representations to transact in foreign exchange were false and
fraudulent, that these resulted to the damage and prejudice of the complainants and other
persons, and that the defraudation pertains to funds solicited from the public in general
by such corporations/associations. Will the case for syndicated estafa prosper? Explain.
(5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, a case for syndicated estafa will not prosper because a syndicate for such crime
under Pres. Decree 1689 must be comprised of five (5) or more persons committing the
estafa or other forms of swindling defined in Arts. 315 and 316 of the Revised Penal Code;
whereas the case given involved only three (3) accused who are alleged to have
conspired in the commission of the swindling. But because the amount defrauded
exceeds P100,000.00, the case is still under the same P.D. 1689 with a lower penalty
than syndicated estafa.
R.A. No. 10022 – Overseas Filipinos

AA misrepresented to the complainant that he had the power, influence, authority and
business to obtain overseas employment upon payment of placement fee. AA duly
collected the placement fee from complainant. As per certification of the Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration, AA did not possess any authority or license for
overseas employment. Is it proper to file two (2) separate Informations for illegal
recruitment under the Labor Code and for estafa by means of deceit?
a. No. The filing of two (2) separate Informations for illegal recruitment under the Labor
Code and for estafa by means of deceit for the same act is violative of the principle against
double jeopardy.
b. No. One Information for a complex crime of illegal recruitment with estafa by means of
deceit should be filed, instead of two (2) separate Informations.
c. No. A person convicted of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code may not, for the
same act, be separately convicted of estafa by means of deceit.
d. Yes. A person convicted of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code may, for the same
act, be separately convicted of estafa by means of deceit.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
D. it is well-settled that a person who has committed illegal recruitment may be charged
and convicted separately of the crime of illegal recruitment under RA No. 8042 and estafa.
The reason for the rule is that the crime of illegal recruitment I malum prohibitum where
the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction, while the crime of estafa
Is malum in se where the criminal intent of the accused is necessary for conviction. In
other words, a person convicted under RA No. 8042 may also be convicted of offenses
punishable by other laws (People v. Logan, G.R. No. 135030-33, July 20, 2001).
Moreover, although the two crimes may arise form the same facts, they are not the same.
Not all acts, which constitute astafa, necessarily establish illegal recruitment, for estafa is
wider in scope and rovers deceits whether or not related to recruitment actvivties. More
importantly, the element of damage, which is essential in estafa case, is immaterial in
illegal recruitment (People v. Turda, G.R. No. 97044, July 6, 1994). Moreover, under
Section 6 of RA No. 8042 as amended by RA No. 10022, the filing of an offebse
punishable under this Act shall be without prejudice to the filing of cases punishable under
existing laws, rules or regulations. If the recruitment is undertaken to defraud another, the
recruiter may be held liable for estafa under paragraph 2(a) of Article 315 of the Revised
Penal Code and illegal recruitment. [Note: RA No. 8042 amended pertinent provisions of
the Labor Code and gave a new definition of the crime of illegal recruitment and provided
for a higher penalty – Nasi-Villar v. People, G.R. No. 176169, November 14, 2008]
R.A. No. 9208 – Anti-Human Trafficking

When the adoption of a child is effected under the Inter-Country Adoption Act for the
purpose of prostitution, what is the proper charge against the offender who is a public
officer in relation to the exploitative purpose?
a. acts that promote trafficking in persons;
b. trafficking in persons;
c. qualified trafficking in persons;
d. use of trafficked person.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
C. Adoption or facilitating the adoption of child for the purpose of prostitution constitutes
trafficking in person (Section 4 [f] of RA No. 9208). The means to commit trafficking in
person such as taking advantage of the vulnerability of the victim, fraud etc. can be
dispensed with since the trafficking is qualified when trafficked person is a child or when
the adoption is effected through InterCountry Adoption Act of and said adoption is for the
purpose of prostitution (Section 6 [a] and [b]).
R.A. No. 9262 – Violence Against Women And Their Children

R.A. 9262; Violence Against Women and Children Act; Battered Woman Syndrome
(2010) No. XIX. a.
Jack and Jill have been married for seven years. One night, Jack came home drunk.
Finding no food on the table, Jack started hitting Jill only to apologize the following day.
A week later, the same episode occurred – Jack came home drunk and started hitting Jill
Fearing for her life, Jill left and stayed with her sister. To woo Jill back, Jack sent her floral
arrangements of spotted lilies and confectioneries. Two days later, Jill returned home and
decided to give Jack another chance. After several days, however, Jack again came
home drunk. The following day, he was found dead. Jill was charged with parricide but
raised the defense of "battered woman syndrome."
Define "Battered Woman Syndrome." (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: “Battered Woman Syndrome” refers to a scientifically defined
pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering
relationships as a result of cumulative abuse (Section 3(d), Rep. Act No 9262).
What are the three phases of the "Battered Woman Syndrome"? (3 %)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The three (3) phases of the “Battered Woman Syndrome” are: (1) the tensionbuilding
phase; (2) the acute battering incident; and (3) the tranquil, loving, or non-violent phase
(People v. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004)
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES; BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME (2010)
Jack and Jill have been married for seven years. One night, Jack came home drunk.
Finding no food on the table, Jack started hitting Jill only to apologize the following day.
A week later, the same episode occurred – Jack came home drunk and started hitting Jill.
Fearing for her life, Jill left and stayed with her sister. To woo Jill back, Jack sent her oral
arrangements of spotted lilies and confectioneries. Two days later, Jill returned home and
decided to give Jack another chance. After several days, however, Jack again came
home drunk. The following day, he was found dead. Jill was charged with parricide but
raised the defense of "battered woman syndrome." Would the defense prosper despite
the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the
Revised Penal Code? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Section 26 of Rep. Act No. 9262 provides that victim-survivors who are found by the
courts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil
liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances
of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code.
XIX Romeo and Julia have been married for twelve (12) years and had two (2)
children. The (rst few years of their marriage went along smoothly. However, on the
(fth year onwards, they would often quarrel when Romeo comes home drunk. The
quarrels became increasingly violent, marked by quiet periods when Julia would
leave the conjugal dwelling. During these times of quiet, Romeo would "court" Julia
with Lowers and chocolate and convince her to return home, telling her that he
could not live without her; or Romeo would ask Julia to forgive him, which she did,
believing that if she humbled herself, Romeo would change. After a month of
marital bliss, Romeo would return to his drinking habit and the quarrel would start
again, verbally at (rst, until it would escalate to physical violence. One night, Romeo
came home drunk and went straight to bed. Fearing the onset of another violent
(ght, Julia stabbed Romeo while he was asleep. A week later, their neighbors
discovered Romeo's rotting corpse on the marital bed. Julia and the children were
nowhere to be found. Julia was charged with parricide. She asserted "battered
woman's syndrome" as her defense.
[a] Explain the "cycle of violence." (2.5%)
[b] Is Julia's "battered woman's syndrome" defense meritorious? Explain. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. The cycle of violence characterizes the Battered Woman Syndrome. It has three
phases:
1. tension building phase – this is when the minor battering occurs. It could be verbal or
slight physical abuse or another form of hostile behavior. The woman usually tries to
pacify the batterer through a show of kind, nurturing behavior, or by simply staying out of
the way.
2. acute battering incident – characterized by brutality, destructiveness, and sometimes,
death. The battered woman deems this incident as unpredictable, yet also inevitable.
During this phase, she has no control; only the batterer may put an end to the violence.
3. tranquil phase – the couple experience profound relief. On the one hand, the batterer
may show a tender and nurturing behavior towards his partner. He knows that he has
been viciously cruel and tries to make up for it, begging for her forgiveness and promising
to never beat her again. To be classifed as a battered woman, the couple must go through
the battering cycle at least twice.
B. Yes, the defense of Julia is meritorious. Under the Anti-Violence Against Women and
Children, victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be su4ering from battered
woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence
of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised
Penal Code. In this case, the facts show that Julia is a battered woman, having gone
through the cycle of violence at least twice: with the presence of the tension building
phase, acute battering incident and tranquil phase.
1. What is VAWC?
Violence Against Women and their Children (VAWC) is defined as:
- Any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife,
former wife.
- Against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or
with whom he has common child,
- Against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate,
- within or without the family abode,
- which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering,
or economic abuseincluding threats of such acts battering, assault, coercion, harassment
or arbitrary deprivation of liberty
2. Who are considered CHILDREN?
Anyone below 18 years of age, or older but incapable of taking care themselves, including
the biological children of the victim and other children under her care.
3. What are the FOUR (4) ACTS that constitute VAWC ?
A.) Physical violence – bodily harm or physical harm.
B.) Sexual violence is an act, which is sexual in nature such as rape, sexual harassment.
C.) Psychological violence is an act that causes mental or emotional suffering to the victim
such as intimidation stalking, marital infidelity.
D.) Economic violence is acts that make the woman financially dependent, such as withdrawal
on financial support, destroying household property.
4. What are the rights of Victim – Survivor?

 To be treated with respect and dignity
 To confidentiality
 To avail of legal assistance from the PAO or any public legal assistance
 To be entitled to support services from the DSWD and LGUs
 To be entitled to all legal remedies and support provided by the Family Code; T
 To avail up to 10 days of leave of absence in addition to other paid leaves
 To be informed of their rights and the services available to them, including their right to
apply for a protection order.
Violation of confidentiality shall have a penalty of one-year imprisonment and a fine of
not more than 500,000 pesos
5. What are the 3 types of Protection Orders?
Barangay Protection Order (BPO) is issued by Punong Barangay / Kagawad; effective for
15 days
Temporary Protection Order (TPO) refers to the protection order issued by the Court on
the date of filing afterexparte determination that such order should be issued; effective for
30 days and renewable / extendable.
Permanent Protection Order (PPO) refers to protection order issued by court after notice
and proper hearing.
5. What is the purpose of Protection Orders ?
 to prevent further acts of violence against a woman or her child
 safeguards the victim from further harm
 minimizes any disruption in the victims daily life
 facilitates the opportunity and ability of control over her life
6. What are the Mandatory Services for victims-survivors?
 temporary shelter
 counseling
 psycho-social services and or recovery and rehabilitation programs
 livelihood assistance;
 ü medical assistance
Rehabilitative counseling and treatment to perpetrators for them to learn constructive ways
of coping with anger and emotional outburst and reform their ways (Secs. 40 & 41)
7. What are the PENALTIES for VAWC?
 Imprisonment based on the provisions of the Revised Penal Code
 Fine ranging from 100,000.00 to 300,000.00
 Mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment for perpetrators
9. Immunity from Suit
Any person, whether a private individual, a public officer, or a government official /worker,
who, in accordance with law, intervenes without using violence or restraint greater
than necessary to ensure the safety of the victim, is not liable for any criminal, civil or
administrative accountability (Secs. 43 & 43)
10. What is BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME?
It is defined as pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women living
in battering relationships as a result of cumulative abuse (Sec. 3 & 5)
- Used as a justifying circumstances
- No criminal or civil liability
- Should be determined through the assistance of psychiatrists / psychologists (Secs. 26
& 32)
10. OTHER FEATURES
 Provides for a prescriptive period from 10-20 years (Secs. 24 & 9)
 Defines VAWC as public crime (Sec. 25)
 Custody of minor children should be given to the woman even if she is suffering from
Battered Woman Syndrome (Secs. 28 & 6)
R.A. No. 7877 – Sexual Harassment
Nena worked as an Executive Assistant for Nesting, CEO of Now Corporation. One
day, Nesting called Nena into his office and showed her lewd pictures of women in
seductive poses which Nena found offensive. Nena complained before the General
Manager who, in turn, investigated the matter and recommended the dismissal of
Nesting to the Board of Directors. Before the Board of Directors, Nesting argued,
that-since the Anti-Sexual Harassment Law requires the existence of “sexual
favors,” he should not be dismissed from the service since he did not ask for any-
sexual favor from Nena. Is Nesting correct? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Nesting is not correct.
The law penalizing sexual harassment in our jurisdiction is RA 7877. Section 3 thereof
defines work-related sexual harassment in this wise:
Sec. 3. Work, Education or Training-related Sexual Harassment Defined.—Work,
education or training-related sexual harassment is committed by an employer, manager,
supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher, instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or any
other person who, having authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another in a work
or training or education environment, demands, requests or otherwise requires any sexual
favor from the other, regardless of whether the demand, request or requirement for
submission is accepted by the object of said Act.
(a) In a work-related or employment environment, sexual harassment is committed when:
xxx (3) The above acts would result in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment
for the employee.
Contrary to Nesting’s claim, it is enough that his acts result in creating an intimidating,
hostile or offensive environment for the employee.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 696 of the book entitled Principles
and Cases Labor Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018. Questions
involving the same subject matter were given during the 2011, 2009, 2006, 2005, 2004,
2003 and 2000 Bar Examinations.
R.A. No. 7610 – Child Abuse
CHILD ABUSE; RA 7610 (2004)
Mrs. MNA was charged of child abuse. It appears from the evidence that she failed to
give immediately the required medical attention to her adopted child, BPO, when he was
accidentally bumped by her car, resulting in his head injuries and impaired vision that
could lead to night blindness. The accused, according to the social worker on the case,
used to whip him when he failed to come home on time from school. Also, to punish him
for carelessness in washing dishes, she sometimes sent him to bed without supper. She
moved to quash the charge on the ground that there is no evidence she maltreated her
adopted child habitually. She added that the accident was caused by her driver's
negligence. She did punish her ward for naughtiness or carelessness, but only mildly. Is
her motion meritorious? Reason briefly. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the motion to quash is not meritorious. It is not necessary that movant's maltreatment
of a child be "habitual" to constitute child abuse. The wrongful acts penalized as "Child
Abuse" under Rep. Act No. 7610 refers to the maltreatment of the child, "whether habitual
or not": this is expressly stated in Sec. 2(b) of the said Law. Mrs. MNA should be liable
for child abuse.
Child Abuse; RA 7610 (2006)
Eduardo Quintos, a widower for the past 10 years, felt that his retirement at the age of 70
gave him the opportunity to engage in his favorite pastime — voyeurism. If not using his
high-powered binoculars to peep at his neighbor's homes and domestic activities, his
second choice was to follow sweet young girls. One day, he trailed a teenage girl up to
the LRT station at EDSA-Buendia. While ascending the stairs, he stayed one step behind
her and in a moment of bravado, placed his hand on her left hip and gently massaged it.
She screamed and shouted for help. Eduardo was arrested and charged with acts of
lasciviousness. Is the designation of the crime correct? (5%)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The crime should be Other Acts of Child Abuse under Section 10 of RA. 7610, par. b of
Section 3 that refers to child abuse committed by any act, deeds or words which debases,
degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being. In
relation thereto, Section 10 provides criminal liability for other acts of child abuse, cruelty
or exploitation, or for other conditions prejudicial to the child's development. The reaction
of the victim, screaming for help upon the occurrence of the touching indicates that she
perceived her dignity was being debased or violated.
A with lewd designs, took a 13-year old girl to a nipa hut in his farm and there had
sexual intercourse with her. The girl did not offer any resistance because she was
infatuated with the man, who was good-looking and belonged to a rich and
prominent family in the town. What crime, if any, was committed by A? Why? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A committed the crime of consented abduction under Article 343 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended. The said Article punishes the abduction of a virgin over 12 and under
18 years of age, carried out with her consent and with lewd designs. Although the problem
did not indicate the victim to be virgin, virginity should not be understood in its material
sense, as to exclude a virtuous woman of good reputation, since Page 255 of 374 the
essence of the crime is not the injury to the woman but the outrage and alarm to her family
(Valdepenas vs. People,16 SCRA 871 [1966]).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
A committed "Child Abuse" under Rep. Act No. 7610. As defined in said law, "child abuse"
includes sexual abuse or any act which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth
and dignity of a child as a human being, whose age is below eighteen (18) years.
Art 336; Acts of lasciviousness 1993 No. 15
Mick, a gay foreigner, fondled and played with the private part of Egay, an 11 year-
old boy, who enjoyed it and gladly received the P100.00 given him by the foreigner.
1) What crime, if any, was committed by the foreigner? Explain. 2) If the act was
committed on Citry, an 11 year-old girl; would your answer be the same? Discuss.
Answer:
1} Acts of Lasciviousness under the circumstance of rape (Art. 336, RPC and RA. 7610)
2) Yes, acts of lasciviousness is committed irrespective of sex. (Art. 336, RPC)
Art 347; Simulation of birth & Child trafficking under RA 7619 2002 No XI
A childless couple, A and B, wanted to have a child they could call their own. C, an
unwed mother, sold her newborn baby to them. Thereafter, A and B caused their
names to be stated in the birth certificate of the child as his parents. This was done
in connivance with the doctor who assisted in the delivery of C. What are the
criminal liabilities, if any, of the couple A and B, C and the doctor?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The couple A and B, and the doctor shall be liable for the crime of simulation of birth,
penalized under Article 347 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The act of making
it appear in the birth certificate of a child that the persons named therein are the parents
of the child when they are not really the biological parents of said child constitutes the
crime of simulation of birth. C, the unwed mother is criminally liable for "child trafficking",
a violation of Article IV, Sec. 7 of Rep. Act No. 7610. The law punishes inter alia the act
of buying and selling of a child.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The couple A and B, the unwed mother C, and the doctor being all involved in the
simulation of birth of the newborn child, violate Rep. Act No. 7610. Their acts constitute
child trafficking which are penalized under Article IV of said law.
Child abuse; RA 7610 1993 No. 5:
Sometime in December, 1992, retired Lt. Col. Agaton, celebrating the first year of
his compulsory retirement from the Armed Forces of the Philippines, had in his
company a fourteen (14) year-old girl whose parents were killed by the Mt. Pinatubo
eruption and being totally orphaned has been living or fending for herself in the
streets in Manila, They were alone in one room in a beach resort and stayed there
for two (2) nights. No sexual intercourse took place between them. Before they
parted, retired Lt. Col. Agaton gave the girl P1,000.00 for her services. She gladly
accepted it.
1) What crime may the retired colonel be charged with, if any? Discuss.
2) What possible defenses can he interpose? Explain.
Answer:
1) The retired colonel may be charged with child abuse, in violation of Rep. Act 7610, a
law providing special protection against child abuse, exploitation, and discrimination. One
of the acts of child abuse or exploitation penalized under Article VI of RA 7610 is that of
keeping company of a minor who is ten (10) years or more younger than the offender in
a hotel, motel, beer house, disco joint, pension house, cabaret, sauna or massage parlor,
beach resort, and similar places. Considering that Lt. Col. Agaton is a retiree pursuant to
a compulsory retirement, while the child he kept company within a private room in the
beach resort, is only 14 years old, there must be an age difference of more than 10 years
between them. This fact plus the circumstance that Lt. Col. Agaton stayed with the child,
a girl, in one room at such beach resort for two nights, and thereafter he gave her
P1,000.00 "for her services", constitutes the very evil punished, among other acts, in said
law. Page 355 of 374
2) The possible defenses Lt. Col. Agaton may Interpose are that the child is related to
him by affinity, or by consanguinity within the fourth degree, or by a bond recognized in
law, or local customs and traditions, or that he was only acting in pursuance of a moral,
social, or legal duty (Sec. 10(b), Art. VI, RA 7610).
XVII
Braulio invited Lulu, his 11-year old stepdaughter, inside the master bedroom. He
pulled out a knife and threatened her with harm unless she submitted to his
desires. He was touching her chest and sex organ when his wife caught him in the
act. The prosecutor is unsure whether to charge Braulio for acts of lasciviousness
under Art. 336 of the RPC; for lascivious conduct under RA 7610 (Special
Protection against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act); or for rape
under Art. 266-A of the RPC. What is the crime committed? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Braulio committed acts of lasciviousness under the Revised Penal Code. Under Article
336 of the Revised Penal Code on acts of lasciviousness, the following elements must be
present:
(1) that the o4ender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; and
(2) that it is done under any of the following circumstances:
(a) by using force or intimidation;
(b) when the offended woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or
(c) when the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age. In the case of Amployo v.
People,[13] the Court expounded on the definition of the term lewd, thus The term lewd
is commonly deRned as something indecent or obscene; it is characterized by or intended
to excite crude sexual desire. That an accused is entertaining a lewd or unchaste design
is necessarily a mental process the existence of which can be inferred by overt acts
carrying out such intention, i.e., by conduct that can only be interpreted as lewd or
lascivious. The presence or absence of lewd designs is inferred from the nature of the
acts themselves and the environmental circumstances. What is or what is not lewd
conduct, by its very nature, cannot be pigeonholed into a precise deRnition. As early as
U.S. v. Gomez we had already lamented that “It would be somewhat difficult to lay down
any rule specially establishing just what conduct makes one amenable to the provisions
of article 439 of the Penal Code. What constitutes lewd or lascivious conduct must be
determined from the circumstances of each case. It may be quite easy to determine in a
particular case that certain acts are lewd and lascivious, and it may be extremely diPcult
in another case to say just where the line of demarcation lies between such conduct and
the amorous advances of an ardent lover.”
Section 5(b) of Republic Act 7610 states that: “Those who commit the act of sexual
intercourse of lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other
sexual abuse; Provided, That when the victims is under twelve (12) years of age, the
perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336
of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct,
as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is
under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period.” Thus,
the accused in this case should be prosecuted under the Revised Penal Code.
The elements of rape under Art. 266-A are not present in this case: :
(1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim; and
(2) that said act was accomplished
a) through the use of force or intimidation, or
(b) when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or
(c) when the victim is under 12 years of age or is demented. Based on the given facts,
there was no carnal knowledge.
RA 7610 – Child Exploitation (2006)
Aling Maria received an urgent telephone call from Junior, her eldest son, asking
for P2,000.00 to complete his semestral tuition fees preparatory to his final exams
in Commerce. Distressed and disturbed, she borrowed money from her compadre
Mang Juan with the assurance to pay him within 2 months. Two months lapsed
but Aling Maria failed to settle her obligation. Mang Juan told Aling Maria that she
does not have to pay the loan if she will allow her youngest 10-year old daughter
Annie to work as a housemaid in his house for 2 months at Pl,000.00 a month.
Despite Aling Maria's objection, Mang Juan insisted and brought Annie to his
house to work as a maid.
1. Was a crime committed by Mang Juan when he brought Annie to his house as maid
for the purpose of repaying her mother's loan? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. Mang Juan committed the crime of exploitation of child labor which is committed by
any persons who under the pretext of reimbursing himself of a debt incurred by an
ascendant, guardian or person entrusted with the custody of a minor, shall, against the
latter's will, retainh im in his service (Art. 273, Revised Penal Code). He can also be
liable as an employer for the employment of a minor below 15 yrs. old, under Sec. 12,
Art. 8 of RA. 7610.
2. If Aling Maria herself was made to work as a housemaid in Mang Juan's household to
pay her loan, did he commit a crime? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. Mang Juan committed the crime of involuntary servitude for rendering services
under compulsion and payment of debts. This is committed by any person who, in order
to require or enforce the payment of a debt, shall compel the debtor to work for him,
against his will, as household servant or farm laborer (Art. 274, Revised Penal Code)

SPL Bar Exam Questions With Answers: BP 22 Memorandum Check (1994)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPL Bar Exam Questions With Answers: BP 22 Memorandum Check (1994)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPL BAR EXAM QUESTIONS WITH ANSWERS

BP 22; Memorandum Check (1994)

BP 22; Memorandum Check (1995)

BP 22; Presumption of Knowledge (2002)

NOTE: DAMAGE CAPABLE OF PECUNIARY ESTIMATION AN IMPORTANT

Art 315; BP 22 1980 No. XX

Art 315; BP 22 1986 No. 14:

Art 315; BP 22 1991 No. 16:

Art 315; Estafa 1977 No XI-b

Art 315; Estafa & BP 22 1983 No. 16

Art 315; Estafa & BP 22 1988 No. 14:

Art 315; Estafa & BP 22 1990 No. 10:

P.D. No. 1612 – Anti-Fencing

Consequently, in light of the satisfactory explanation of Roberto of his possession of the

Anti-Fencing Law; Fencing (1996)

Anti-Fencing Law; Fencing vs. Theft or Robbery (1995)

Anti-Fencing Law; Fencing; Elements (1995)

What are the elements of fencing?

Criminal Liability; Accessories & Fence (1998)

Anti-Fencing Law; Fencing (1996)

Anti-Fencing Law; Fencing; Elements (1995)

Criminal Liability; Accessories & Fence (1998)

Anti-Fencing Law; Fencing (2013) No. VI.

Anti-Fencing Law; Fencing (2009) No. XI. c.

Art 19; Anti-fencing law 1987 No. X:

Art 19; Degrees of participation; accessories & fence 1998

Art 19; Anti-fencing law 1986 No. 16:

R.A. No. 10833 – Anti-Carnapping

P.D. No. 1613 – Arson

Art 320; Arson 1980 No. XIV

P.D. No. 1689 – Syndicated Estafa

R.A. No. 10022 – Overseas Filipinos

R.A. No. 9208 – Anti-Human Trafficking

R.A. No. 9262 – Violence Against Women And Their Children

4. What are the rights of Victim – Survivor?

You might also like