Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1
CRIMINAL LAW
A: No. Abe may not be prosecuted for bigamy since the scene of their confrontation and seeing that nobody
bigamous marriage was contracted or solemnized in was there, went home to sleep. The next day, B’s wife
Singapore, hence, such violation is not one of those where reported to the police station that her husband had not
the Revised Penal Code, under Art. 2 thereof, may be yet come home. A search was conducted by the
applied extraterritoriality. The general rule on territoriality residents of the barangay but after almost two days, B
of criminal law governs the situation. or his body could not be located and his disappearance
continued for the next few days. Based on the testimony
Q: After drinking one (1) case of San Miguel Beer and of C and other guests, who had seen A and B on top of
taking two plates of “pulutan”, Binoy, a Filipino seaman, the cliff, A was arrested and charged with Murder. In
stabbed to death Sio My, a Singaporean seaman, aboard his defense, he claimed that since B’s body has not been
M/V “Princess of the Pacific”, an overseas vessel which found, there was no evidence of corpus delicti and
was sailing in the South China Sea. The vessel, although therefore, he should be acquitted.
Panamanian registered, is owned by Lucio Sy, a rich
Filipino businessman. When M/V “Princess of the Is the defense of A tenable or not? State the reason(s)
Pacific” reached a Philippine Port at Cebu City, the for your answer? (2001 Bar)
Captain of the vessel turned over the assailant Binoy to
the Philippine authorities. An Information for homicide A: The defense of A is not tenable. “Corpus delicti” does not
was filed against Binoy in the Regional Trial Court of refer to the body of the purported victim which had not
Cebu City. He moved to quash the Information for lack been found. Even without the body of the purported victim
of jurisdiction. If you were the judge, will you grant the being found, the offender can be convicted when the facts
motion? Why? (2000 Bar) and circumstances of a crime, the body of the crime or
“corpus delicti” is established.
A: Yes. The motion to quash the information should be
granted. The Philippine court has no jurisdiction over the In other words, the non-recovery of the body of the victim
crime committed since it was committed on the high seas or is not a bar to the prosecution of A for Murder, but the fact
outside of Philippine territory and on board a vessel not of death and identity of the victim must be established
registered or licensed in the Philippines (US v. Fowler, 1 Phil beyond reasonable doubt.
614)
Motive and Intent
It is the registration of the vessel in accordance with the
laws of the Philippines, not the citizenship of her owner, Q: May a crime be committed without criminal intent?
which makes it a Philippine ship. The vessel being (1988 Bar)
registered in Panama, the laws of Panama govern while it is
in the high seas. A: A crime may be committed without criminal intent in two
cases:
B. FELONIES 1. In offense punishable as mala prohibita; and
2. Felonies committed by means of culpa.
Corpus delicti
Q: Distinguish intent from motive in Criminal Law.
Q: (1996, 2004 Bar)
(a) Define “Corpus delicti”. A: Motive is the moving power which impels one to action
(b) What are the elements of “Corpus delicti”? (2000 for a definite result; whereas intent is the purpose to use a
Bar) particular means to effect such results. Motive is not an
essential element of a felony and need not be proved for
A: purpose of conviction, while intent is an essential element
of felonies by dolo.
(a) Corpus Delicti literally means “the body or substance of
the crime” or the fact that a crime has been committed, Q: When is motive relevant to prove a case? When is it
but does not include the identity of the person who not necessary to be established? Explain. (1999, 2006
committed it. (People v. Pascal, 44 OG 2789) Bar)
(b) Elements of corpus delicti: The actual commission by A: Motive is relevant to prove a case when there is doubt as
someone of the particular crime charged. It is a to the identity of the offender or when the act committed
compound fact made up of two things: gives rise to variant crimes and there is the need to
determine the proper crime to be imputed to the offender.
(1) The existence of a certain act or result forming the
basis of the criminal charge; and It is not necessary to prove motive when the offender is
(2) The existence of a criminal agency as the cause of positively identified or the criminal act did not give rise to
the act or result. variant crimes.
The identity of the offender is not a necessary element IMPOSSIBLE CRIME (1994, 1998, 2000, 2004, 2009,
of corpus delicti. 2014)
Q: At a birthday party in Cebu, A got intoxicated and Q: JP, Aries and Randal planned to kill Elsa, a resident
started quarreling with B and C. At the height of their of Barangay Pula, Laurel, Batangas. They asked the
arguments, A left and took a bolo from his house, after assistance of Ella, who is familiar with the place.
which he returned to the party and threatened to stab
everybody. B got scared and ran towards the seashore, On April 3, 1992, at about 10:00 in the evening, JP, Aries
with A chasing him. B ran up a steep incline along the and Randal, all armed with automatic weapons, went to
shore and was cornered on top of a cliff. Out of fear, B Barangay Pula. Ella, being the guide, directed her
jumped from the cliff into the sea. A returned to the companions to the room in the house of Elsa.
3
CRIMINAL LAW
without consummating the felony. The said felonies, invited him to poker session at a rented beach cottage.
therefore, do not admit of the frustrated stage. When he was losing almost all his money which to him
was his savings of a lifetime, he discovered that he was
COMPLEX AND COMPOSITE CRIMES being cheated by his friends. Angered by the betrayal,
he decided to take revenge on the three cheats.
Complex crime (1987, 1989, 1991, 1994, 1995, 1996,
1999, 2000, 2003, 2007) Harry ordered several bottles of Tanduay Rhum and
gave them to his companions to drink, as they did, until
Q: Jose purchased roofing materials worth P20, 000 they all fell asleep. When Harry saw his companions
from PY & Sons Construction Company owned by Pedro already sound asleep, he hacked them all to death.
and paid the latter a check in the said amount. The Then he remembered his losses, he rifled through the
following day, Pedro deposited the check but it was pockets of his victims and got back all the money he
returned dishonored because it was drawn against a lost. He then ran away but not before burning the
closed account. Jose failed to make good the said check cottage to hide his misdeed. The following day, police
despite written demands. Atty. Saavedra, counsel for investigators found among the debris the charred
Pedro, filed two complaints against Jose with the Office bodies of Jason, Manuel, Dave and the caretaker of the
of the Provincial Fiscal, one for estafa under Article 315 resort.
of the Revised Penal Code and another for violation of
BP Blg. 22. Atty. San Pascual, counsel for Jose, claimed The Provincial Prosecutor charged Harry with the
that if his client was at all liable, he could only be liable complex crime of arson with quadruple homicide and
for violation of BP 22 and not for estafa under Art. 315 robbery. Was Harry properly charged? Discuss. (1995
of the RPC because one precludes the other and Bar)
because BP 22 is more favorable to the accused as it
carries a lighter penalty. A: No. Harry was not properly charged. Harry should have
been charged with three (3) separate crimes, namely:
The investigating fiscal, on his resolution, stated that murder, theft, and arson.
only one crime was committed, namely, the complex
crime of estafa under Art. 315 of the RPC and another Harry killed Jason, Manuel and Dave with evident
under BP 22. premeditation, as there was considerable lapse of time
before he decided to commit the crime and the actual
Is the investigating fiscal correct? (Question reframed) commission of the crime. In addition, Harry employed
(1987 Bar) means which weakened the defense of Jason, Manuel, and
Dave. Harry gave them the liquor to drink until they were
A: The resolution of the investigating fiscal is erroneous. drunk and fell asleep.
There is no complex crime of estafa under Art. 315 of the
Revised Penal Code and the violation of BP 22. A complex The taking of the money was a mere afterthought of the
crime refers only to felonies which are punished in the killings. Hence, Harry committed the separate crime of
Revised Penal Code. theft and not the complex crime of robbery with homicide.
Although theft was committed against dead persons, it is
Q: Rodolfo, a policeman, was cleaning his service pistol still legally possible as the offended party are the estates of
inside his house when it fell from his hand and fired. the victims.
The bullet hit a neighbor on the stomach and a second
neighbor on the leg. The injuries sustained by the two In burning the cottage, it is another separate crime of arson.
neighbors required thirty-five (35) days and nine (9) The act of burning was not necessary for the consummation
days of medical attendance, respectively. The of the two previous offenses he committed. The fact that the
investigating fiscal later filed an information for caretaker died from the blaze did not qualify Harry’s crime
frustrated homicide and slight physical injuries into a complex crime of arson with homicide for there is no
through reckless imprudence against Rodolfo. Is the such crime.
charge correct? Explain. (1989 Bar)
Hence, Harry was improperly charged with the complex
A: The charge is not correct. One single act of accidental crime of arson with quadruple homicide and robbery. Harry
shooting cannot give rise to two felonies. One of which is should have been charged with three separate crimes,
intentional and the other negligent. Frustrated homicide murder, theft and arson.
presupposes intent to kill. The facts do not show any intent
to kill on the part of Rodolfo. At most, he was careless, and Q: A, actuated by malice and with the use of a fully
therefore only negligent. automatic M-14 sub-machine gun, shot a group of
persons who were seated in a cockpit with one burst of
Two separate crimes of serious physical injuries (against successive, continuous, automatic fire. Four (4)
the first neighbor whose injuries requires 35 days of persons were killed thereby, each having hit by
medical attendance), and slight physical injuries (against different bullets coming from the sub-machine gun of A.
the second neighbor), both through reckless imprudence, Four (4) cases of murder were filed against A.
were committed by Rodolfo. Although both of these
offenses were the result of one single act, a complex crime The trial court ruled that there was only one crime
is not committed because it is only when a single act committed by A for the reason that, since A performed
constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies that a only one act, he having pressed the trigger of his gun
complex crime may be committed under the first clause of only once, the crime committed was murder.
Article 48, RPC. Slight physical injuries is not a grave or less Consequently, the trial judge sentenced A to just one
grave felony. penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Q: Harry, an overseas contract worker, arrived from (A) Was the decision of the trial judge correct? Explain.
Saudi Arabia with considerable savings. Knowing him
to be “loaded”, his friends Jason, Manuel and Dave
5
CRIMINAL LAW
however, was sexually aroused when he saw the lady so fast that Pat Negre fired warning shots into the
owner of the house, and so raped her. air shouting for Filemon to stop. In as much as
Filemon continued running Pat. Negre fired at him
The lady victim testified that B did not in any way hitting and killing him. Is the plea of self-defense
participate in the rape but he watched the happening sustainable? Why would you then hold Pat. Negre
from a window and did nothing to stop the rape. Is B as criminally liable? Discuss. (1993 Bar)
criminally liable as A for robbery with rape? Explain.
(1999 Bar) A:
A: Yes. B is as criminally liable for the composite crime of (a) Yes. Self-defense can be claimed as there is an
robbery with rape under Art. 294 (1). Although the imminent and great peril on the life of Negre.
conspiracy of A and B was only to rob, B was present when (b) No. Self-defense is no longer sustainable as there is no
the rape was being committed which gave rise to a more peril on his life.
composite crime, a single indivisible offense of robbery
with rape. B would not have been liable had he endeavored Q: Osang, a married woman in her early twenties, was
to prevent the commission of the rape. But since he did not sleeping on a banig on the floor of their nipa hut beside
when he could have done so, he in effect acquiesced with the seashore when she was awakened by the act of a
the rape as a component of the robbery and so he is also man mounting her. Thinking that it was her husband,
liable for robbery with rape. Gardo, who had returned from fishing in the sea, Osang
continued her sleep but allowed the man, who was
CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY actually their neighbor, Julio, to have sexual
intercourse with her. After Julio satisfied himself, he
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES (1993, 1998, 2000, 2002, said “Salamat Osang" as he turned to leave. Only then
2003, 2004, 1996, 2008, 2016 BAR) did Osang realize that the man was not her husband.
Enraged, Osang grabbed a balisong from the wall and
Q: Distinguish clearly but briefly: Between justifying stabbed Julio to death. When tried for homicide, Osang
and exempting circumstances in criminal law. (2004, claimed defense of honor. Should the claim be
1998 Bar) sustained? Why? (2000, 1998 Bar)
A: Justifying circumstance affects the act, not the actor; A: No. Osang's claim of defense of honor should not be
while exempting circumstance affects the actor, not the act. sustained because the aggression on her honor had ceased
In justifying circumstance, no criminal and, generally, no when she stabbed the aggressor.
civil liability is incurred; while in exempting circumstance,
civil liability is generally incurred although there is no In defense of rights under Art. 11(1) of the RPC, it is
criminal liability required inter alia that there be (1) unlawful aggression,
and (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to
Self-Defense (Defense of Person, Rights, Property and prevent or repel it. The unlawful aggression must be
Honor) continuing when the aggressor was injured or disabled by
the person making a defense. Otherwise, the attack made is
Q: BB and CC, both armed with knives, attacked FT. The a retaliation and not a defense. Hence, Osang's act of
victim's son, ST, upon seeing the attack, drew his gun stabbing Julio to death after the sexual intercourse was
but was prevented from shooting the attackers by AA, finished, is not defense of honor but an immediate
who grappled with him for possession of the gun. FT vindication of a grave offense committed against her, which
died from knife wounds. AA, BB and CC were charged is only mitigating.
with murder. In his defense, AA invoked the justifying
circumstance of avoidance of greater evil or injury, Defense of Relatives
contending that by preventing ST from shooting BB and
CC, he merely avoided a greater evil. Will AA's defense Q: When A arrived home, he found B raping his
prosper? Reason briefly. (2004 Bar) daughter. Upon seeing A, B ran away. A took his gun and
shot B, killing him. Charged with homicide, A claimed
A: No, AA's defense will not prosper. The act of the victim's he acted in defense of his daughter's honor. Is A
son, ST, appears to be a legitimate defense of relatives; correct? If not, can A claim the benefit of any mitigating
hence, justified as a defense of his father against the circumstance or circumstances? (2002, 2000, 1998
unlawful aggression by BB and CC. ST’s act to defend his Bar)
father's life and to stop BB and CC achieve their criminal
objective cannot be regarded as an evil inasmuch as it is, in A: No. A cannot validly invoke defense of his daughter's
the eyes of the law, a lawful act. What AA did was a lawful honor in having killed B since the rape was already
defense, not greater evil. Likewise, AA’s defense will not consummated; moreover, B already ran away, hence, there
prosper because in this case there was a conspiracy among was no aggression to defend against and no defense to
the three of them, hence, the act of one is the act of all. speak of. Defense of honor as included in self-defense, must
have been done to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression.
Q: Pat. Negre saw Filemon, an inmate, escaping from jail There is no defense to speak of where the unlawful
and ordered the latter to surrender. Instead of doing so, aggression no longer exists.
Filemon attacked Pat. Negre with a bamboo spear.
Filemon missed in his first attempt to hit Pat. Negre, A may, however, invoke the benefit of the mitigating
and before he could strike again, Pat. Negre shot and circumstance of having acted in immediate vindication of a
killed him. grave offense to a descendant, his daughter, under par. 5,
Art. 13 of the RPC.
(a) Can Pat. Negre claim self defense? Explain.
(b) Suppose Pat Negre missed in his shot, and Filemon Q: Pedro is married to Tessie. Juan is the first cousin of
ran away without parting with his weapon. Pat Tessie. While in the market, Pedro saw a man stabbing
Negre pursued Filemon but the latter was running Juan. Seeing the attack on Juan, Pedro picked up a spade
7
CRIMINAL LAW
9
CRIMINAL LAW
153 SCRA 735). Although the killing happened one hour (a) PRINCIPALS, ACCOMPLICES, AND ACCESSORIES
after having surprised the spouse, that would still be within (1987, 1989, 2013 BAR)
the context of “immediately thereafter”.
Principal (1994, 2000, 2002, 1994, 2014, 2015 Bar)
With respect to the wounding of the stranger, the defense
of lawful exercise of a right is a justifying circumstance. Q: Tata owns a three-storey building. She wanted to
Under Art. 11, par. 5 could be invoked. At the time the construct a new building but had no money to finance
accused shot Raul, he was not committing a felonious act the construction. So, she insured the building for P3,
and therefore could not have been criminally liable under 000, 000.00. She then urged Yoboy and Yongsi, for
Art. 4, RPC. monetary consideration, to burn her building so she
could collect the insurance proceeds. Yoboy and Yongsi
Q: Macky, a security guard, arrived home late one night burned the said building resulting to its total loss. What
after rendering overtime. He was shocked to see Joy, his is their respective criminal liability? (1994 Bar)
wife and Ken, his best friend, in the act of having sexual
intercourse. Macky pulled out his service gun and shot A: Tata is a principal by inducement for the crime of
and killed Ken. Macky was charged with murder for the destructive arson because she directly induced Yoboy and
death of Ken. Yongsi for a price or monetary consideration, to commit
arson which the latter would not have committed were it
The court found that Ken died under exceptional not for such reason. Yoboy and Yongsi are principals by
circumstances and exonerated Macky of murder but direct participation (Art. 17, pars. 21 and 3, RPC).
sentenced him to destierro. The court also ordered
Macky to pay indemnity to the heirs of the victim in the Q: Jonas convinced Jaja to lend him his .45 caliber pistol
amount of P50, 000.00. Did the court correctly order so that he could use it to knock down Jepoy and end his
Macky to pay indemnity? (2007 Bar) arrogance. When Jepoy came out, Jonas immediately
shot him with Jaja’s .45 caliber gun but missed his
A: No. Since the killing of Ken was committed under the target. Instead, the bullet hit Jepoy’s five year old son
exceptional circumstances in Article 247, RPC, it is the who was following behind him, killing the boy
consensus that no crime was committed in the light of the instantaneously. What is the criminal liability of Jonas
pronouncement in People v. Cosicor (79 Phil 672) that and Jepoy? (Question reframed) (2000 Bar)
banishment (destierro) is intended more for the protection
of the offender rather than as a penalty. Since the civil A: Jonas shall be convicted as principal by direct
liability under the RPC is the consequence of the criminal participation and Jaja as co-principal by indispensable
liability, there would be no legal basis for the award of cooperation for the complex crime of murder with
indemnity when there is no criminal liability. homicide. Jaja should be liable as co-principal and not only
as an accomplice because he knew of Jonas’ criminal design
Q: Jojo and Felipa are husband and wife. Believing that even before he lent his firearm to Jonas and still he
his work as a lawyer is sufficient to provide for the concurred in that criminal design by providing the firearm.
needs of their family, Jojo convinced Felipa to be a stay-
at-home mom and care for their children. One day, Jojo Q: A asked B to kill C because of a grave injustice done
arrived home earlier than usual and caught Felipa in to A by C. A promised B a reward. B was willing to kill C,
the act of having sexual intercourse with their female not so much because of the reward promised to him but
nanny, Alma, in their matrimonial bed. In a fit of rage, because he also had his own long-standing grudge
Jojo retrieved his revolver from inside the bedroom against C, who had wronged him in the past. If C killed
cabinet and shot Alma, immediately killing her. by B, would A be liable as a principal by inducement?
(2002 Bar)
Is Art. 247 (Death or physical injuries inflicted under
exceptional circumstances) of the RPC applicable in A: No. A would not be liable as principal by inducement
this case given that the paramour was of the same because the reward he promised B is not the sole impelling
gender as the erring spouse? (2015, 2016 Bar) reason which made B kill C. To bring about the criminal
liability of a co-principal, the inducement made by the
A: The crime committed is parricide qualified by the inducer must be the sole consideration which caused the
circumstance of relationship. person induced to commit the crime and without which the
crime would not have been committed. The facts of the case
Killing a spouse after having been surprised in the act of would indicate that B, the killer supposedly induced by A
committing sexual intercourse with another woman is had his own reason to kill C out of a long standing grudge.
death under exceptional circumstance under Article 247 of
the Revised Penal Code. Q: Mr. Red was drinking with his buddies, Mr. White
and Mr. Blue when he saw Mr. Green with his former
However, in this case this is not death under exceptional girlfriend, Ms. Yellow. Already drunk, Mr. Red declared
circumstance because Felipa was having homosexual in a loud voice that if he could not have Ms. Yellow, no
intercourse with another woman and not sexual one can. He then proceeded to the men’s room but told
intercourse with a man. “Homosexual intercourse “is not Mr. White and Mr. Blue to take care of Mr. Green. Mr.
within the contemplation of the term “sexual intercourse” Blue and Mr. White asked Mr. Red what he meant but
in Article 247. However, the crime of parricide is attended Mr. Red simply said, "You already know what I want,"
by the circumstance of passion arising from a lawful and then left. Mr. Blue and Mr. White proceeded to kill
sentiment as a result of having caught his wife in the act of Mr. Green and hurt Ms. Yellow.
infidelity with another woman (People v. Belarmino, G.R. No.
L-4429, April 18, 1952, En Banc). (a) What, if any, are the respective liabilities of Mr.
Red, Mr. White and Mr. Blue for the death of Mr.
PERSONS LIABLE AND DEGREE OF PARTICIPATION Green?
11
CRIMINAL LAW
of crime carried out its execution. Where the offenders interacts with the hub rather than with another spoke. In
acted in concert in the commission of the crime, meaning the event that the spoke shares a common purpose to
that their acts are coordinated or synchronized in a way succeed, there is a single conspiracy. However, in the
indicative that they are pursuing a common criminal instances when each spoke is unconcerned with the success
objective, they shall be deemed to be acting in conspiracy of the other spokes, there are multiple conspiracies.
and their criminal liability shall be collective, not individual.
A “chain conspiracy”, on the other hand, exists when there
The legal effects of an implied conspiracy are: is successive communication and cooperation in much the
same way as with legitimate business operations between
(1) Not all those who are present at the scene of the crime manufacturer and wholesaler, then wholesaler and retailer,
will be considered as co-conspirators; and then retailer and consumer. (Estrada v. Sandiganbayan,
(2) Only those who participated by criminal acts in the G.R. No. 148965, February 26, 2002)
commission of the crime will be considered as co-
conspirators; and PENALTIES (1988, 1994, 1995, 1997, 2001, 2004,
(3) Mere acquiescence to or approval of the commission of 2005, 2007 Bar)
the crime, without any act of criminal participation,
shall not render one criminally liable as co-conspirator. Q:
Q: During a town fiesta, a free-for-all fight erupted in (a) State the two classes of penalties under the Revised
the public plaza. As a result of the tumultuous affray, A Penal Code. Define each.
sustained one fatal and three superficial stab wounds. (b) May censure be included in a sentence of acquittal?
He died a day after. B, C, D and E were proven to be (1988 Bar)
participants in the “rumble”, each using a knife against
A, but it could not be ascertained who, among them, A:
inflicted the mortal injury. Who shall be held criminally
liable for the death of A and for what? (1997 Bar) (a) The two classes of penalties under Article 25 of the RPC
are as follows:
A: B, C, D and E being participants in the tumultuous affray
and having been proven to have inflicted serious physical 1. Principal – A principal penalty is defined as that
injuries, or at least, employed violence upon A, are provided for a felony and which is imposed by court
criminally liable for the latter’s death. And because it cannot expressly upon conviction.
be ascertained who among them inflicted the mortal injury 2. Accessory – An accessory penalty is defined as that
on A, there being a free-for-all fight or tumultuous affray, B, deemed included in the imposition of the principal
C, D and E are all liable for the crime of death caused in a penalty.
tumultuous affray under Art. 251 of the Revised Penal Code.
Q: Together XA, YB and ZC planned to rob Miss OD. They (b) Censure may not be included in a sentence of acquittal
entered her house by breaking one of the windows in because a censure is a penalty. Censure is repugnant
her house. After taking her personal properties and as and is essentially inconsistent and contrary to an
they were about to leave, XA decided on impulse to rape acquittal (People v. Abellera, 69 Phil 623).
OD. As XA was molesting her, YB and ZC stood outside
the door of her bedroom and did nothing to prevent XA Q: Imagine that you are a Judge trying a case, and based
from raping OD. on the evidence presented and the applicable law, you
have decided on the guilt of two (2) accused. Indicate
What crime/s did XA, YB and ZC commit and what is the the five (5) steps you would follow to determine the
criminal liability of each? Explain briefly. (2004 Bar) exact penalty to be imposed. Stated differently, what
are the factors you must consider to arrive at the
A: The crime committed by XA, YB and ZC is the composite correct penalty? (1991 Bar)
crime of Robbery with Rape, a single, indivisible offense
under Art. 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code. A:
Although the conspiracy among the offenders was only to 1. Determine the crime committed;
commit robbery and only XA raped CD, the other robbers, 2. Stage of execution and degree of participation;
YB and ZC, were present and aware of the rape being 3. Determine the penalty
committed by their co-conspirator. Having done nothing to 4. Consider the modifying circumstances;
stop XA from committing the rape, YB and ZC thereby 5. Determine whether Indeterminate Sentence Law is
concurred in the commission of the rape by their co- applicable or not.
conspirator XA.
Q: After trial, Judge Juan Laya of the Manila RTC found
The criminal liability of all, XA, YZ, and ZC, shall be the same, Benjamin Garcia guilty of Murder, the victim having
as principals in the special complex crime of robbery with sustained several bullet wounds in his body so that he
rape which is a single, indivisible offense where the rape died despite medical assistance given in the Ospital ng
accompanying the robbery is just a component. Manila. Because the weapon used by Benjamin was
unlicensed and the qualifying circumstance of
Q: Differentiate wheel conspiracy and chain treachery was found to be present. Judge Laya
conspiracy. (2016 Bar) rendered his decision convicting Benjamin and
sentencing him to "reclusion perpetua or life
A: There are two structures of multiple conspiracies, imprisonment". Are "reclusion perpetua" and life
namely: wheel or circle conspiracy and chain conspiracy. imprisonment the same and can be imposed
interchangeably as in the foregoing sentence? Or are
A “wheel conspiracy” occurs when there is a single person they totally different? State your reasons. (1994, 2001,
or group (the hub) dealing individually with two or more 2005 Bar)
other persons or groups (the spokes). The spoke typically
13
CRIMINAL LAW
7. Marriage of the offended woman as provided in playmate, Ara. When he peeped inside, he saw Mina,
Article 344. Ara’s stepmother, very angry and strangling the 5-year
old Ara to death. Albert saw Mina carry the dead body
(b) Article 94 of the Revised Penal Code provides for the of Ara, place it inside the trunk of her car and drive
following causes of the partial extinction of criminal away. The dead body of Ara was never found. Mina
liability: spread the news in the neighborhood that Ara went to
live with her grandparents in Ormoc. For fear of his life,
1. Conditional pardon Albert did not tell anyone, even his parents and
2. Commutation of sentence relatives. 20 and ½ years after the incident, and right
3. Good conduct allowance during confinement after his graduation in Criminology, Albert reported
4. Parole the crime to NBI authorities. The crime of homicide
5. Probation prescribes in 20 years. Can the State still prosecute
Mina for the death of Ara despite the lapse of 20 and ½
(c) If an accused is acquitted, it does not necessarily follow years? Explain. (2000 Bar)
that no civil liability arising from the acts complained
of may be awarded in the same judgment except: If A: Yes. The State can still prosecute Mina for the death of
there is an express waiver of the liability; and if there is Ara despite the lapse of 20 & ½ years. Under Article 91, RPC,
a reservation to file a separate civil action (Rule 107; the period of prescription commences to run from the day
Padilla v. CA, People v. Jalandoni). on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the
authorities or their agents.
Q: AX was convicted of reckless imprudence resulting
in homicide. The trial court sentenced him to a prison In the case at bar, the commission of the crime was known
term as well as to pay P150, 000 as civil indemnity and only to Albert, who was not the offended party nor an
damages. While his appeal was pending, AX met a fatal authority or an agent of an authority. It was discovered by
accident. He left a young widow, 2 children, and a the NBI Authorities only when Albert revealed to them the
million-peso estate. What is the effect, if any, of his commission of the crime. Hence, the period of prescription
death on his criminal as well as civil liability? Explain of 20 years for homicide commenced to run only from the
briefly. (2004 Bar) time Albert revealed the same to the NBI Authorities.
A: The death of AX while his appeal from the judgment of Q: On June 1, 1988, a complaint for concubinage
the trial court is pending, extinguishes his criminal liability. committed in February 1987 was filed against Roberto
The civil liability insofar as it arises from the crime and in the Municipal Trial Court of Tanza, Cavite for
recoverable under the RPC is also extinguished; but purposes of preliminary investigation. For various
indemnity and damages may be recovered in a civil action reasons, it was only on July 3, 1998 when the judge of
if predicated on a source of obligation under Art. 1157, NCC, said court decided the case by dismissing it for lack of
such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts and quasi-delicts, jurisdiction since the crime was committed in Manila.
but not on the basis of delicts (People v. Balagtas, 236 SCRA The case was subsequently filed with the City Fiscal of
239). Manila but it was dismissed on the ground that the
crime had already prescribed. The law provides that
Prescription of crimes (1987, 1990, 1993, 1994, 1997, the crime of concubinage prescribes in ten (10) years.
2000, 2001, 2004, 2009, 2010, 2015 Bar) Was the dismissal by the fiscal correct? Explain. (2001
Bar)
Q: B imitated the signature of A, registered owner of a
lot, in a special power of attorney naming him (B) as his A: No. The fiscal’s dismissal of the case on alleged
attorney-in-fact of A. On February 13, 1964, B prescription is not correct. The filing of the complaint with
mortgaged the lot to a bank using the special power of the Municipal Trial Court, although only for preliminary
attorney to obtain a loan. On the same day, both the investigation, interrupted and suspended the period of
special power of attorney and the mortgage contract prescription inasmuch as the jurisdiction of a court in a
were duly registered in the Registry of Deeds. Because criminal case is determined by the allegations in the
of B’s failure to pay, the bank foreclosed the mortgage complaint or information, not by the result of proof (People
and the lot was sold to X in whose name a new title was v. Galano, 75 SCRA 193).
issued. In March, 1974, A discovered that the property Q: A killed his wife and buried her in their backyard. He
was already registered in the name of X because of an immediately went into hiding in the mountains. Three
ejectment case filed against him by X. years later, the bones of A’s wife were discovered by X,
the gardener. Since X had a standing warrant of arrest,
If you were the counsel of B, what would be your he hid the bones in an old clay jar and kept quiet about
defense? Discuss. (1993 Bar) it. After two years, Z, the caretaker, found the bones and
reported the matter to the police. After 15 years of
A: My defense will be prescription because the crime was hiding, A left the country but returned three years later
committed in 1964 and almost twenty-nine years had to take care of his ailing sibling. Six years thereafter, he
already elapsed since then. Even if we take Falsification and was charged with parricide but raised the defense of
Estafa individually, they have already prescribed. prescription.
It is to be noted that when it comes to discovery, the fact
that the crime was discovered in 1964 will be of no moment (a) Under the Revised Penal Code, when does the
because the offended party is considered to have period of prescription of a crime commence to run?
constructive notice on the forgery after the Deed of Sale (b) When is it interrupted?
where his signature had been falsified was registered in the (c) Is A’s defense tenable? Explain. (2000, 2004, 2009,
office of the Register of Deeds (Cabral v. Puno, 70 SCRA 606). 2010 Bar)
Q: On January 1990, while 5-year old Albert was A:
urinating at the back of their house, he heard a strange
noise coming from the kitchen of their neighbor and
15
CRIMINAL LAW
Piracy and mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine directed against a vessel and/or its cargoes. The taking
waters (2006, 2008 Bar) of the several heavy crates of electrical equipment from
a vessel at sea, was effected by force and undoubtedly
Q: The inter-island vessel M/V Viva Lines I, while with intent to gain. It is of no moment that the vessel
cruising off Batanes, was forced to seek shelter at the was anchored when deprecated so long as it was at sea.
harbor of Kaoshiung, Taiwan because of a strong (2) The crime was qualified piracy under Art. 123 of the
typhoon. While anchored in said harbor, Max, Baldo RPC because it was attended by a killing committed by
and Bogart arrived in a speedboat, fired a bazooka at the same culprits against a member of the crew of the
the bow of the vessel, boarded it and divested the vessel.
passengers of their money and jewelry. A passenger of
M/V Viva Lines I, Dodong took advantage of the
confusion to settle an old grudge with another
passenger, and killed him. After their apprehension, all B. CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF
four were charged with qualified piracy before a THE STATE
Philippine court.
Arbitrary Detention or Expulsion, Violation of
(a) Was the charge of qualified piracy against the three Dwelling, Prohibition, Interruption, and Dissolution of
person (Max, Badong and Bogart) who boarded the Peaceful Meeting and Crimes Against Religious
inter-island vessel correct? Explain. Worship
(b) Was Dodong correctly charged before the
Philippine court for qualified piracy? Explain. ARBITRARY DETENTION AND EXPULSION (2006, 2008,
(2008 Bar) 1992 BAR)
A: Q: Major Menor, while patrolling Bago-Bago
community in a police car with SP03 Caloy Itliong blew
(a) No. Dodong was not correctly charged with qualified his whistle to stop a Nissan Sentra car which wrongly
piracy because committing piracy was never in his entered a one-way street. After demanding from Linda
mind nor did he have any involvement in the piracy Lo Hua, the driver, her driver’s license, Menor asked
committed. He merely took advantage of the situation her to follow them to the police precinct. Upon arriving
in killing the passenger. He should be charged with there, he gave instructions to Itliong to guard Lo Hua in
murder since there was evident premeditation and one of the rooms and not to let her out of sight until he
intent to kill. returns; then got the car key from Lo Hua. In the
(b) The charge is correct. Qualified Piracy was committed meantime, the latter was not allowed to make any
when the offenders seized the vessels by firing on or phone calls but was given food and access to a
boarding the same. In the problem, they even went bathroom.
further by divesting the passengers of their money and
jewelry. The vessel was anchored in the harbour of When Menor showed up after two days, he brought Lo
Kaoshioung, Taiwan and it is submitted that the crime Hua to a private house and told her that he would only
was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of release her and return the car if she made
another country. The Supreme Court has ruled that the arrangements for the delivery of P500, 000.00 in a
high seas contemplated under Art. 122 of the RPC doctor’s bag at a certain place within the next twenty-
include the three-mile limit of any state (People v. Lol- four hours. When Menor went to the designated spot to
lo, G.R. No. 17958, February 27, 1922). Moreover, piracy pick up the bag of money, he suddenly found himself
is an offense that can be tried anywhere because it is a surrounded by several armed civilians who introduced
crime against the Law of Nations. themselves as NBI agents. What criminal offense has
Menor committed? Explain. (1992 Bar)
Q: While SS Nagoya Maru was negotiating the sea route
from Hongkong towards Manila, and while still 300 A: Menor is liable under Art. 124, RPC (Arbitrary Detention)
miles from Aparri, Cagayan, its engine malfunctioned. he being a public officer who detained, a person without
The Captain ordered the ship to stop for emergency legal grounds. Violation of a traffic ordinance by entering a
repairs lasting for almost 15 hours. Due to exhaustion, one-way street is not a valid reason to arrest and detain the
the officers and crew fell asleep. While the ship was driver. Such only merits the issuance of a traffic violation
anchored, a motorboat manned by renegade Ybanags ticket. Hence, when Lo Hua was ordered to follow the police
from Claveria, Cagayan, passed by and took advantage officers to the precinct (confiscating her license to compel
of the situation. They cut the ship’s engines and took her to do so), and confining her in a room for two days and
away several heavy crates of electrical equipment and prohibiting her to make phone calls, is a clear case of
loaded them in their motorboat. Then they left deprivation of personal liberty. Giving her food and access
hurriedly towards Aparri. At daybreak, the crew found to the bathroom will not extinguish or mitigate the criminal
that a robbery took place. They radioed the Aparri Port liability.
Authorites resulting in the apprehension of the
culprits. Menor is further liable for robbery, because money or
personal properly was taken, with intent to gain, and with
(1) What crime was committed? Explain. intimidation. The peculiar situation of Lo Hua practically
(2) Supposing that while the robbery was taking place, forced her to submit to the monetary demands of the major.
the culprits stabbed a member of the crew while
sleeping. What crime was committed? Explain. Q: What are the 3 ways of committing arbitrary
(2006 Bar) detention? Explain each. What are the legal grounds for
detention? (2006 Bar)
A:
A: The three (3) ways of committing arbitrary detention
(1) The crime committed was piracy under Art. 122, are:
Revised Penal Code, the essence of which is robbery
17
CRIMINAL LAW
Q: A, B, C, D, and E were former soldiers who deserted ASSAULT UPON, AND RESISTANCE AND DISOBEDIENCE
their command in Mindanao. Jose and Pedro, two big TO PERSONS IN AUTHORITY AND THEIR AGENTS
landowners, called A, B, C, D, and E to a conference. Jose (1993, 1995, 2001, 2002, 2013 BAR)
and Pedro proposed to these former soldiers that they
recruit their comrades and organize a group of 100 for Q: A, a teacher at Mapa High School, having gotten mad
the purpose of challenging the government by force of at X, one of his pupils, because of the latter’s throwing
arms in order to prevent the enforcement or paper clips at his classmates, twisted his right ear. X
implementation of the Land Reform Law in Cotabato went out of the classroom crying and proceeded home
Province. Jose and Pedro promised to finance the group located at the back of the school. He reported to his
and to buy firearms for the purpose. The former parents, Y and Z, what A had done to him,
soldiers agreed. After Jose and Pedro left, A, the leader
of the former soldiers, said that in the meanwhile he Y and Z immediately proceeded to the school building
needed money to support his family. D suggested that and because they were running and talking in loud
they rob a bank and agreed to carry put the plan on the voices, they were seen by the barangay chairman, B,
15th day of the month. Unknown to all of them, as they who followed them as he suspected that an untoward
were conferring with Jose and Pedro and as they were incident might happen. Upon seeing A inside the
planning to rob the bank, Rosauro, a houseboy was classroom, X pointed him out to his father, Y, who
within hearing distance. On the pretext of buying administered a fist blow on A, causing him to fall down.
cigarettes, Rosauro instead went directly to the Police When Y was about to kick A, B rushed towards Y and
and told them what transpired. All the former soldiers, pinned both of the latter’s arms. Seeing his father being
as well as Jose and Pedro, were arrested. held by B, X went near and punched B on the face, which
caused him to lose his grip on Y. Throughout this
(a) What crime, if any, did the former soldiers commit? incident, Z shouted words of encouragement at Y, her
(b) What about Jose and Pedro? (1987 Bar) husband, and also threatened to slap A.
A: Security guards of the school arrived, intervened and
surrounded X, Y and Z so that they could be investigated
(a) The former soldiers committed the crime of conspiracy in the principal’s office. Before leaving, Z passed near A
to commit sedition. What Jose and Pedro proposed to and threw a small flower pot at him but it was deflected
the soldiers that they recruit their comrades and by B.
organize a group of 100 for the purpose of challenging
the government by force of arms in order to prevent the (a) What, if any, are the respective criminal liability of
implementation of the Land Reform Law in Cotabato X, Y and Z?
Province is to commit sedition. (b) Would your answer be the same if B were a
barangay tanod only? (2001 Bar)
Proposal to commit sedition is not punished. But since
the soldiers agreed, a conspiracy to commit sedition
resulted which is now punishable. Conspiracy arises on A:
the very moment the plotters agree (People v. Peralta,
25 SCRA 759). 1. X is liable for direct assault only, assuming the physical
injuries inflicted on B, the Barangay Chairman, to be
(b) Jose and Pedro will also be liable for conspiracy to only slight and hence, would be absorbed in the direct
commit sedition since they are members of the assault. A Barangay Chairman is a person in authority
conspiracy where the act of one is the act of all. If the (Art. 152, RPC) and in this case, was performing his duty
soldiers did not agree to their proposal, they would not of maintaining peace and order when attacked.
incur any criminal liability because there is no proposal
to commit sedition. Y is liable for the complex crimes of Direct Assault with
Less Serious Physical Injuries for the fist blow on A, the
Q: What are the different acts of inciting to sedition? teacher, which caused the latter to fall down. For
(2007 Bar) purposes of the crime in Arts. 148 and 151 of the RPC,
a teacher is considered a person in authority, and
A: The different acts which constitute the crime of inciting having been attacked by Y by reason of his performance
to sedition are: of official duty, direct assault is committed with the
resulting less serious physical injuries complexed.
1. Inciting others through speeches, writings, banners
and other media of representation to commit acts Z, the mother of X and wife of Y may only be liable as an
which constitute sedition; accomplice to the complex of crimes of direct assault
2. Uttering seditious words, speeches or circulating with less serious physical injuries committed by Y. Her
scurrilous libels against the Government of the participation should not be considered as that of a co-
Philippines or any of its duly constituted authorities, principal, since her reactions were only incited by her
which tend to disturb or obstruct the performance of relationship to X and Y, as the mother of X and the wife
official functions, or which tend to incite others to cabal of Y.
and meet for unlawful purposes;
3. Inciting through the same media of representation 2. If B were a Barangay Tanod only, the act of X of laying
rebellious conspiracies or riots; hand on him, being an agent of a person in authority
4. Stirring people to go against lawful authorities, or only, would constitute the crime of Resistance and
disturb the peace and public order of the community or Disobedience under Art. 151, RPC since X, a high school
of the Government; or pupil, could not be considered as having acted out of
5. Knowingly concealing any of the aforestated evil contempt for authority but more of helping his father
practices (Art. 142, RPC) get free from the grip of B. Laying hand on an agent of a
person in authority is not ipso facto direct assault,
while it would always be direct assault if done to a
19
CRIMINAL LAW
required by law. The sanctity of the public document, a A: If the “talaan” or ledger which Fe made to show a
residence certificate, cannot be taken lightly as being a falsehood was a private document, the only crime that Fe
“mere scrap of paper”. committed was estafa thru abuse of confidence or
Intent to cause damage or actual damage, is not an unfaithfulness.
indispensable requisite for falsification of public document.
Criminal liability for falsification of a private document
Q: A falsified official or public document was found in does not arise without damage or at least proof of intent to
the possession of the accused. No evidence was cause damage. It cannot co-exist with the crime of estafa
introduced to show that the accused was the author of which also essentially requires damage or at least proof of
the falsification. As a matter of fact, the trial court intent to cause damage.
convicted the accused of falsification of official or
public document mainly on the proposition that “the Since the “talaan” was falsified to cover up or conceal the
only person who could have made the erasures and the misappropriation of the amount involved, whatever
superimposition mentioned is the one who will be damage or intent to cause damage that will attend the
benefited by the alterations thus made” and that “he estafa.
alone could have the motive for making such
alterations”. If such “talaan” or ledger was a commercial document,
damage or proof of intent to cause damage is not necessary.
Was the conviction of the accused proper although the The falsification alone if done with intent to pervert the
conviction was premised merely on the aforesaid truth, would bring about criminal liability for falsification of
ratiocination? Explain your answer. (1999 Bar) a commercial document. Damage or intent to cause damage,
would sustain the estafa independently of the falsification
A: Yes. The conviction is proper because there is a of the commercial document. In this case, two (2) separate
presumption in law that the possessor and user of a falsified crimes are committed – estafa and falsification of the
document is the one who falsified the same. commercial document. The falsification should not be
complexed with estafa since it was not committed as a
Falsification of Private Document (1989, 1991, 2007 necessary means to commit the estafa but rather resorted
Bar) to, to conceal or hide the misappropriation of the amount
she pocketed.
Q: In a civil case for recovery of a sum of money filed
against him by A, B interposed the defense of payment. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The crime committed by Fe are
In support thereof, he identified and offered in theft and falsification of private document because Fe’s
evidence a receipt which appears to be signed by A. On possession of the proceeds of the rice mill was only
rebuttal, A denied having been paid by B and having physical, not juridical, possession, and having committed
signed the receipt. He presented a handwriting expert the crimes with grave abuse of confidence, it is qualified
who testified that the alleged signature of A on the theft.
receipt is a forgery and that a comparison thereof with
the specimen signatures of B clearly shows that B The falsification is a separate crime from the theft because
himself forged the signature of A. it was not committed as a necessary means to commit the
theft but resorted to only to hide or conceal the unlawful
(a) Is B liable for the crime of using a falsified taking.
document in a judicial proceeding (last paragraph
of Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code)? Simulation of birth
(b) If he is not, what offense of offenses may he be
charged with? (1991 Bar) Q: A childless couple, A and B, wanted to have a child
they could call their own. C, an unwed mother, sold her
A: newborn baby to them. Thereafter, A and B caused
their names to be stated in the birth certificate of the
(a) No. B should not be liable for the crime of using a child as his parents. This was done in connivance with
falsified document, under the last paragraph of Art. the doctor who assisted in the delivery of C. What are
172, RPC. He would be liable for forgery of a private the criminal liabilities, if any, of the couple A and B, C
document under the second mode of falsification under and the doctor? (2002 Bar)
Art. 172, RPC.
A: The couple, A and B, and the doctor shall be liable for the
Being the possessor and user of the falsified document crime of simulation of birth penalized under Article 347 of
he is presumed to be the forger or falsifier and the the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The act of making it
offense of introducing falsified document is already appear in the birth certificate of a child that the persons
absorbed in the main offense of forgery or falsification. named therein are the parents of the child when they are
not really the biological parents of the said child constitutes
(b) If he testified on the genuineness of the document, he the crime of simulation of birth.
should also be liable under Art. 182, which is false
testimony in civil cases. C, the unwed mother is criminally liable for “Child
Trafficking”, a violation of Article IV, Sec. 7 of RA 7610. The
Q: Fe is the manager of a rice mill in Bulacan. In order law punishes inter alia the act of buying and selling of a
to support a gambling debt, Fe made it appear that the child.
rice mill was earning less than it actually was by writing
in a “talaan” or ledger a figure lower than what was False testimony (1987, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1996, 1997,
collected and paid by their customers. Fe then pocketed 2005, 2008 Bar)
the difference. What crime/s did Fe commit, if any?
Explain your answer. (2007 Bar) Q: Explain and illustrate “subordination of perjury”.
(1993 Bar)
21
CRIMINAL LAW
provides that the penalty of prision mayor or a fine Commissioner Torres committed any impropriety or
from P6, 000to P12, 000, or both such imprisonment irregularity? What laws or decrees did she violate?
and fine shall be imposed upon those who shall sell, (2006 Bar)
give away or exhibit films, prints, engravings, sculpture
or literature which are offensive to morals. A: Yes. Commissioner Torres violated the following:
Is Juan guilty of the crime charged? Reasons. (1993 Bar) 1. Indirect bribery (Art. 211, RPC) for receiving gifts
offered by reason of office.
A: No. Juan is not guilty of the crime charged because the 2. RA 6713 or Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
law (Art. 201, RPC) covers only the protection of public Public Officials and Employees when he solicited and
moral and not only the moral of an individual. accept gifts (Sec. 7[d]).
3. PD 46 making it punishable for public officials and
F. CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS employees to receive, and for private persons to give
gifts on any occasion, including Christmas.
Bribery (1990, 1993, 1994, 1997, 2001, 2005, 2006,
2010, 2014 Bar) Q: A, who is the private complainant in a murder case
pending before a Regional Trial Court judge, gave a
Q: During a PNP buy-bust operation, Cao Shih was judge a Christmas gift, consisting of big basket of
arrested for selling 20 grams of methamphetamine assorted canned goods and bottles of expensive wines,
hydrochloride (shabu) to a poseur-buyer. Cao Shih, easily worth P10, 000.00. The judge accepted the gift
through an intermediary, paid Patrick, the Evidence knowing it came from A. What crime or crimes, if any,
Custodian of the PNP Forensic Chemistry Section, the were committed? (1997, 1993 Bar)
amount of P500, 000 in consideration for the
destruction by Patrick of the drug. Patrick managed to A: The judge committed the crime of indirect bribery under
destroy the drug. Art. 211 of the RPC. The gift was offered to the judge by
reason of his office. In addition, the judge will be liable for
State with reasons whether Patrick committed the the violation of P.D. 46 which punishes the receiving of gifts
following crimes: by public officials and employees on occasions like
Christmas.
(a) Direct bribery
(b) Indirect bribery Qualified bribery
(c) Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act) Q: What is the crime of qualified bribery? May a judge
(d) Obstruction of Justice under PD 1829 (2005 Bar) be charged and prosecuted for such felony? How about
a public prosecutor? A police officer? Explain. (2010
A: Patrick committed the crimes of direct bribery under Bar)
Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code, Violation of Section 3
(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA3019) A: Qualified bribery is a crime committed by a public officer
and Obstruction of Justice under Section 1 (b) of PD 1829. who is entrusted with law enforcement and who, in
consideration of any offer, promise, gift of offer, refrains
(a) Direct bribery was committed by Patrick when, for a from arresting or prosecuting an offender who has
consideration of P500, 000.00, he committed a committed a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua and/
violation of PD 1829 by destroying the drugs which or death (Art. 211-A, RPC).
were evidence entrusted to him in his official capacity.
(b) Indirect bribery is not committed because he received No, a judge may not be charged of this felony because his
the P500, 000.00 as consideration for destroying the official duty as a public officer is not law enforcement but
evidence against the offender, which was under his the determination of cases already filed in court.
official custody as a public officer. The money was not
delivered to him simply as a gift or present by reason of On the other hand, a public prosecutor may be prosecuted
his public office. for this crime in respect of the bribery committed, aside
(c) Patrick also violated Section 3 (e), R.A. 3019 causing from dereliction of duty committed in violation of Art. 208
undue injury to the government through evident bad of the Revised Penal Code, should he refrain from
faith, giving unwarranted benefit to the offender by prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime
destroying evidence of a crime. punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or death in
(d) Obstruction of justice under Section 1 (b) of P.D. 1829 consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present.
is committed by destroying evidence intended to be
used in official proceedings in criminal case. Meanwhile, a police officer who refrains from arresting
such offender for the same consideration above stated, may
Indirect bribery be prosecuted for this felony since he is a public officer
entrusted with law enforcement.
Q: Commissioner Marian Torres of the Bureau of
Internal Revenue (BIR) wrote solicitation letters Malversation of Public Funds (1987, 1988, 1990, 1994,
addressed to the Filipino-Chinese Chamber of 1996, 1999, 2001, 2005, 2006, 2008 Bar)
Commerce and Industry and to certain CEOs of various
multinational corporations requesting donations of Q: Dencio, who is the Municipal Treasurer of the town,
gifts for her office Christmas party. She used the was also the treasurer of a charity ball of the church.
Bureau's official stationery. The response was prompt Because he was short of payroll funds for the municipal
and overwhelming so much so that Commissioner employees, he used part of the church funds to
Torres' office was overcrowded with rice cookers, replenish the payroll funds with the intention of
radio sets, freezers, electric stoves and toasters. Her returning the same when the public funds came.
staff also received several envelopes containing cash
money for the employees' Christmas luncheon. Has
23
CRIMINAL LAW
even though the properties belong to a private individual 1. Ernani, the escaped prisoner himself is not criminally
(Art. 222, RPC). liable for any offense. The detention prisoner who
escapes from detention does not commit any crime. If
The failure of Reyes and Santos to give any satisfactory he were a convict by final judgment who is serving a
explanation why the vans were missing, is prima facie sentence which consists of deprivation of liberty and he
evidence that they had put the same to their personal use. escapes during term of his sentence, he would be liable
for Evasion of Service Sentence (Art. 157).
Q: Allan, the Municipal Treasurer of the Municipality of 2. Daniel, the policeman, committed the crime of Evasion
Gerona, was in a hurry to return to his office after a day- thru Negligence, one of the forms of Infidelity in the
long official conference. He alighted from the custody of Prisoner (Art. 224), the essential elements of
government car which was officially assigned to him, which offense are:
leaving the ignition key and the car unlocked, and
rushed to his office. Jules, a bystander, drove off with a. That the offender is a public officer
the car and later sold the same to his brother, Danny for b. That he has in his custody or charge a prisoner,
P20, 000.00, although the car was worth P800, 000.00. either detention prisoner/s by final judgment
c. That such prisoner escaped from his custody thru
(a) What are the respective crimes, if any, committed his negligence.
by Allan, Danny and Jules? Explain.
(b) What, if any, are their respective civil liabilities? All of these elements are present, Daniel, a policeman
Explain. (2005 Bar) detailed in the city jail, is a public officer. As the escort
for Ernani in the latter’s trial, he had custody of charge
A: of a detention prisoner. Ernani escape was thru his
negligence because after removing Ernani’s handcuffs
(a) Allan, the municipal treasurer is liable for malversation and allowing him to sit in one of the chairs inside the
committed through negligence or culpa. The courtroom, he should have taken the necessary
government car which was assigned to him is public precautions to prevent Ernani’s escape by keeping an
property under his accountability by reason of his eye on him. Instead, he provided the opportunity for
duties. By his act of negligence, he permitted the taking the escape by talking with a lawyer and not keeping
of the car by another person, resulting in malversation, watch over his prisoner.
consistent with the language of Art. 217 of RPC.
3. Meynardo, not being a public officer, is guilty of the
Danny committed the crime of fencing for having crime of Delivering Prisoners From Jails (Art. 156),
bought the car which was the proceeds of carnapping, which is committed by any person who either removes
a crime in the nature of theft or robbery of motor from any jail or penal establishment any person
vehicle. The presumption of fencing applies to him for confined therein, or who helps the escape of such
he paid a price so inadequate for the value of the car. person by means of violence, intimidation, bribery of
other means. The act of Meynardo in giving to Ernani
Jules committed the crime of carnapping for the his cigarette container is helping in the latter’s escape
unlawful taking, with intent to gain, of the by other means.
government’s motor vehicle. (Unlawful taking of a
motor vehicle is now governed by the Anti-Carnapping Q: Amy was apprehended and arrested by the
Act, R.A. 6539, not by the provisions of the RPC on theft Patrolman Bart for illegal parking. She was detained at
or robbery). the police precinct, underwent investigation, and
released only after 48 hours.
(b) Allan, Jules and Danny are all civilly liable for
restitution of the car to the government or if not (a) Is Patrolman Bart liable for any offense? Explain
possible, reparation of damages caused by payment of your answer.
the replacement cost of the car minus allowance for (b) Suppose Amy resisted the arrest and grappled with
depreciation, and to indemnify consequential damages. patrolman Bart, is she criminally liable thereby?
Infidelity of Public Officers State your reasons. (1990 Bar)
Custody of prisoners (1989, 1990, 1996, 1997, 2002, A:
2009, 2014 Bar)
(a) Patrolman Bart is liable for violation of Article 125 of
Q: Ernani was accused of estafa. Unable to post a bail the Revised Penal Code – Delay on the Delivery of
bond for his provisional liberty pending trial of his Detained Persons to the Proper Judicial Authorities.
case, he was detained in the city jail. On the date of the (b) She is criminally liable for slight disobedience under
hearing of the estafa case, Daniel, a policeman detailed Art. 151 of the RPC – Resistance and disobedience to a
in the city jail, escorted Ernani to the city hall for the person in authority or the agents of such person.
trial. Daniel removed the handcuffs of Ernani and
allowed him to sit on one of the chairs inside the Q: During a town fiesta, A, the chief of police, permitted
courtroom. As Daniel was talking to a lawyer inside the B, a detention prisoner and his compadre, to leave the
courtroom, Ernani, with the help of a cigarette vendor, municipal jail and entertain visitors in his house from
Meynardo, who used his cigarette container as cover, 10:00 am to 8:00 pm. B returned to the municipal jail at
surreptitiously moved out of the room and escaped. 8:30 pm.
Ernani and Meynardo went to the comfort room for a
while, then went down the stairs and lost themselves in Was there any crime committed by A? (1997 Bar)
the crowd. What crime/s were committed by Ernani,
Daniel and Meynardo? Give your reasons. (1989 Bar) A: Yes. A committed the crime of infidelity in the custody of
a prisoner. Since B is a detention prisoner, as Chief of Police,
A: A has custody over B. Even if B returned to the municipal
jail at 8:30pm. A, as custodian of the prisoner, has
25
CRIMINAL LAW
1. With treachery or taking advantage of superior For Nereo, Lino should be liable for serious physical
strength, or with the aid of armed men, or employing injuries as the wounding of Nereo was the natural and
means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to logical consequences of Lino’s felonious act.
insure or afford impunity;
2. In consideration of a price, reward or promise; (b) Tommy is exempted from criminal liability for the
3. By means or on the occasion of inundation, fire, poison, injury to Nereo as he was performing a lawful act with
explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment due care and the injury was caused by mere accident
or assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, or by means (Art. 12, par. 4), or that he was in lawful exercise of a
of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means right (Art. 11, par. 6), that is, defense of a stranger.
involving great waste and ruin;
4. On occasion of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, Q: In a free-for-all brawl that ensued after some
destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity; customers inside a nightclub became unruly, guns were
5. With evident premeditation; fired by a group, among them A and B, that finally put
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanely the customers back to their senses. Unfortunately, one
augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or customer died. Subsequent investigation revealed that
scoffing at his person or corpse. A’s gunshot had inflicted on the victim a slight wound
that did not cause the deceased’s death nor materially
Q: Candido stabbed an innocent bystander who contribute to it. It was B’s gunshot that inflicted a fatal
accidentally bumped him. The innocent bystander died wound on the deceased. A contended that his liability
as a result of the stabbing. Candido was arrested and should, if at all, be limited to slight physical injury.
was tested to be positive for the use of “shabu” at the Would you agree? Why? (2003 Bar)
time he committed the stabbing.
A: No. I beg to disagree with A’s contention that his liability
What should be the proper charge against Candido? should be limited to slight physical injury only. He should
Explain. (2005 Bar) be held liable for attempted homicide because he inflicted
said injury with the use of a firearm which is a lethal
A: Candido should be charged with murder qualified by weapon. Intent to kill is inherent in the use of a firearm
treachery because the suddenness of the stabbing caught (Araneta, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 187 SCRA 123).
the victim by surprise and was totally defenseless. Being
under the influence of dangerous drugs is a qualifying Q: Belle saw Gaston stealing the prized cock of a
aggravating circumstance in the commission of a crime neighbor and reported him to the police. Thereafter,
(Sec. 25, RA 9165, Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of Gaston, while driving a car, saw Belle crossing the
2002). Hence, the penalty for murder shall be imposed in street. Incensed that Belle had reported him, Gaston
the maximum. decided to scare her by trying to make it appear that he
was about to run her over. He revved the engine of his
Homicide (1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2003, car and drove towards her but he applied the brakes.
2005, 2014 Bar) Since the road was slippery at that time, the vehicle
skidded and hit Belle causing her death. What is the
Q: Tommy saw Lino and Okito engaged in a street fight. liability of Gaston? Why? (2005 Bar)
Lino then suddenly drew his balisong and lunged at
Okito. In an effort to break up the fight, Tommy tried to A: Gaston is criminally liable for homicide in doing the
snatch the balisong from Lino but not before the latter felonious act which caused Belle’s death, although the
had inflicted a wound on Okito. As Lino withdrew the penalty therefor shall be mitigated by lack of intention to
weapon and attempted to stab Okito a second time, commit so grave a wrong as that committed (Art. 13 [3],
Tommy tried to grab the weapon again. In so doing, his RPC). The act having been deliberately done with malice, is
left forearm was slashed. As he succeeded in snatching felonious and being the proximate cause of Belle’s death,
away the balisong with his right arm, it flew with such brings about criminal liability although the wrong done.
force, that it hit Nereo, a passerby who was seriously
injured. Rape (1992, 1993, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2009
Bar)
Explain your answers fully.
Q: The complainant, an eighteen-year old mental
(a) What is the criminal liability of Lino with respect to retardate with an intellectual capacity between the
Okito, Tommy and Nereo? ages of nine and twelve years, when asked during the
(b) In turn, is Tommy criminally liable to Nereo? (1992 trial how she felt when she was raped by the accused,
Bar) replied “Masarap, it gave me much pleasure.”
A: With the claim of the accused that the complainant
consented for a fee to the sexual intercourse, and with
(a) As far as Okito is concerned, Lino is liable for frustrated the foregoing answer of the complainant, would you
homicide, assuming that the wound suffered by Okito is convict the accused of rape if you were the judge trying
such that for reasons or causes independent of the will the case? Explain. (1996 Bar)
of Lino (such as timely medical attention) Okito would
have died. If the injury is not serious enough, the A: Yes, I would convict the accused of rape. Since the victim
liability is only attempted homicide. is a mental retardate with an intellectual capacity of a child
less than 12 years old, she is legally incapable of giving a
Intent to kill is manifest because of the use of a deadly valid consent to the sexual intercourse. The sexual
weapon. For the injury on the arm of Tommy, Lino is intercourse is tantamount to a statutory rape because the
liable only for physical injuries (serious, less serious or level of intelligence is that of a child less than 12 years of
slight, depending on the nature of the injury). age. Where the victim of rape is a mental retardate, violence
Apparently, there is no intent to kill. or intimidation is not essential to constitute rape (People v.
27
CRIMINAL LAW
The crime of qualified trespass to dwelling should not be draw such confession, the crime is grave coercion
complexed with frustrated homicide because when the because of the violence employed to compel such
trespass is committed as a means to commit a more serious confession without the offended party being confined
crime, trespass to dwelling is absorbed by the greater crime in jail. (US v. Cusi, 10 Phil 143)
and the former constitutes an aggravating circumstance of
dwelling (People v. Abedoza, 53 Phil 788). It is noted that the offended party was merely
“brought” to the police headquarters and is thus not a
Grave Threats and Coercion (1987, 1988, 1989, 1998, detention prisoner. Had he been validly arrested, the
1999) crime committed would be maltreatment of prisoners.
Grave Coercion I. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
Q: Isagani lost his gold necklace bearing his initials. He Robbery (1987, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2001, 2012
saw Roy wearing the said necklace. Isagani asked Roy Bar)
to return to him the necklace as it belongs to him, but
Roy refused. Isagani then drew his gun and told Roy, “If Q: Five robbers robbed one after the other five houses
you will not give back the necklace to me, I will kill occupied by different families located inside a
you!” Out of fear for his life and against his will, Roy compound enclosed by a six-foot high hollow block
gave the necklace to Isagani. What offense did Isagani fence. How many robberies did the five commit?
commit? (1998 Bar) Explain. (1996 Bar)
A: Isagani committed the crime of grave coercion (Art. 286, A: The offenders committed only one robbery in the eyes of
RPC) for compelling Roy, by means of serious threats or the law because when they entered the compound, they
intimidation, to do something against the latter’s will, were impelled only by a single indivisible criminal
whether it be right or wrong. Serious threats or resolution to commit a robbery as they were not aware that
intimidation approximating violence constitute grave there were five families inside said compound, considering
coercion, not grave threats. Such is the nature of the threat that the same was enclosed by a six-foot high hollow block
in this case because it was committed with a gun, is a deadly fence. The series of robbery committed in the same
weapon. compound at about the same time constitutes one
continued crime, motivated by one criminal impulse.
The crime cannot be robbery because intent to gain, which
is an essential element of robbery, is absent since the Q: A, brother of B, with the intention of having a night
necklace belongs to Isagani. out with his friends, took the coconut shell which is
being used by B as a bank for his coins from inside their
Q: locked cabinet using their common key. Forthwith, A
broke the coconut shell outside of their home in the
(a) Distinguish coercion from illegal detention. presence of his friends.
(b) Forcibly brought to the police headquarters, a
person was tortured and maltreated by agents of (a) What is the criminal liability of A, if any? Explain.
the law in order to compel him to confess a crime (b) Is A exempted from criminal liability under Article
imputed to him. The agents failed, however, to 332 of the Revised Penal Code for being a brother
draw from him a confession which was their of B? Explain. (2000 Bar)
intention to obtain through the employment of
such means. What crime was committed by the A:
agents of the law? (1999 Bar)
A: (a) A is criminally liable for Robbery with force upon
things, because the coconut shell with the coins inside,
(a) Coercion may be distinguished from illegal detention as was taken with intent to gain and broken outside of
follows: In coercion, the basis of criminal liability is the their home (Art. 299 [b], [2], RPC).
employment of violence or serious intimidation (b) No. A is not exempt from criminal liability under Art.
approximating violence, without authority of law, to 332 because said Article applies only to theft,
prevent a person from doing something not prohibited swindling, or malicious mischief. Here, the crime
by law or to compel him to do something against his committed is robbery.
will whether it be right or wrong; while in Illegal
Detention, the basis of liability is the actual restraint or Q: A entered the house of another without employing
locking up of a person thereby depriving him of his force or violence upon things. He was seen by a maid
liberty without authority of law. If there was no intent who wanted to scream but was prevented from doing
to lock up or detain the offended party unlawfully, the so because A threatened her with a gun. A then took
crime of illegal detention is not committed. money and other valuables and left. Is A guilty of theft
(b) Evidently, the person tortured and maltreated by the or robbery? Explain. (2002 Bar)
agents of the law is a suspect and may have been
detained by them. If so and he had already been booked A: A is liable for robbery because the intimidation he
and put in jail, the crime is maltreatment of prisoner employed on the maid before the taking of the money and
and the fact that the suspect was subjected to torture to other valuables. It is the intimidation of the person relative
extort a confession would bring about a higher penalty, to the taking that qualifies the crime as robbery, instead of
in addition to the offender’s liability for the physical simply theft. ‘
injuries inflicted.
The non-employment of force upon things is of no moment
But if the suspect was forcibly brought to the police because robbery is committed not only by employing force
headquarters to make him admit the crime and upon things but also by employing violence against or
tortured/maltreated to make him confess to such intimidation of persons.
crime, but later released because the agents failed to
29
CRIMINAL LAW
appropriated the fruits for themselves, and were not extensively spread. Only a portion of the house was
threatening to kill him should he try to eject them. burned. Discuss Eddie’s liability. (2000 Bar)
What crime should Jorge charge these 15 families? A: Eddie is liable for destructive arson in the consummated
Explain. (1988 Bar) stage. It is destructive arson because fire was resorted to in
destroying the house of Mario which is an inhabited house
A: Jorge can charge the 15 families of 2 separate crimes or dwelling. The arson is consummated because the house
namely: was in fact already burned although not totally. In arson, it
is not required that the premises be totally burned for the
(a) Violation of Article 282, Grave threats xxx crime to be consummated. It is enough that the premises
(b) Violation of Article 312 which provides that: suffer destruction by burning.
“Occupation of real property or usurpation of real
rights in property. – Any person who, by means of J. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY
violence against or intimidation of persons, shall take
possession of any real property or shall usurp any real Adultery & Concubinage (1991, 1994, 2002, 2005, 2010
rights in property belonging to another, in addition to Bar)
the penalty incurred for the acts of violence executed
by him, shall be punished by a fine...”. Q: A, a married woman, had sexual intercourse with a
man who was not her husband. The man did not know
Q: A and B, both farmers, entered the land owned by X she was married. What crime, if any, did each of them
and planted palay thereon. When X came to know about commit? Why? (2002 Bar)
it, he confronted A and B and inquired why the latter
occupied his land and planted palay thereon. A: A, the married woman, committed the crime of adultery
under Article 333 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
A, with a bolo in hand, replied that the land belongs to for having sexual intercourse with a man not her husband
the family of S, and not to X and at the same time said, while her marriage is still subsisting. But the man who had
“If you touch this land and my palay, blood will flow on carnal knowledge of her, not knowing her to be married,
this ground.” Because of the said remark, X went to the shall not be liable for adultery.
Chief of Police and complained. The Chief of Police filed
a complex crime of Usurpation of Real Property with Q: A is married. He has a paramour with whom he had
Grave Threats. sexual relations on a more or less regular basis. They
meet at least once a week in hotels, motels, and other
What crime/s were committed? (1989 Bar) places where they can be alone. Is A guilty of any crime?
Why?
A: The crime committed by A and B is squatting under PD
772 and not Usurpation of Real Property because in the A: A is guilty of the crime of concubinage by having sexual
latter crime, there must be violence against or intimidation intercourse under scandalous circumstances, with a
of persons employed in taking possession of any real woman who is not his wife.
property or in usurping any real rights in property
belonging to another (Art. 312, RPC). In this case, it appears Having sexual relations on a more or less regular basis in
that A and B entered X’s land without the owner’s consent hotels, motels, and other places may be considered
or against his will but without any violence against or scandalous circumstances that offends public conscience,
intimidation of persons. giving rise to criticism and general protest, such acts being
imprudent and wanton and setting a bad example (People v.
The crime of squatting is committed by any person, who, Santos, 86 SCRA 705).
with the use of force, intimidation or threat, or taking
advantage of the absence or tolerance of the landowner, K. CRIMES AGAINST HONOR
succeeds in occupying or possessing the property of the
latter against his will for residential, commercial or any Libel (2002, 2005, 2013, 2016 Bar)
other purposes.
Q: A was nominated Secretary of a Department in the
The threat uttered by A, not having been used in the taking Executive Branch of the government. His nomination
of possession of the land, it is not absorbed in the crime of was thereafter submitted to the Commission on
squatting. When A threatened X that blood will flow if X Appointments for confirmation. While the Commission
touches the land and his palay, he committed the crime of was considering the nomination, a group of concerned
grave threats by threatening another with the infliction of a citizens caused to be published in the newspapers a
wrong amounting to a crime. Only A is criminally liable for full-page statement objecting to A’s appointment. They
the crime of grave threats. alleged that A was a drug dependent, that he had
Arson (1994, 2000 Bar) several mistresses, and that he was corrupt, having
accepted bribes or favors from parties transacting
Q: One early evening, there was a fight between Eddie business in his previous office, and therefore he was
Gutierrez and Mario Cortez. Later that evening, at about unfit for the position to which he had been nominated.
11 o’clock, Eddie passed by the house of Mario carrying As a result of the publication, the nomination was not
a plastic bag containing gasoline, threw the bag at the confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. The
house of Mario who was inside the house watching official sued the concerned citizens and the
television, and then lit it. The front wall of the house newspapers for libel and damages on account of his
started blazing and some neighbors yelled and non-confirmation. How will you decide the case? (2002
shouted. Forthwith, Mario poured water on the burning Bar)
portion of the house. Neighbors also rushed in to help
put the fire under control before any great damage A: I will acquit the concerned citizens and the newspapers
could be inflicted and before the flames have involved, from the crime of libel, because obviously they
31
CRIMINAL LAW
33
CRIMINAL LAW
Q: Malo, a clerk of court of a trial court, promised the (Filoteo, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 79543, October 16,
accused in a drug case pending before the court, that he 1996).
would convince the judge to acquit him for a
consideration of P5 million. The accused agreed and (B) Under Section 2 of PD 532, highway robbery is defined
delivered the money through his lawyer to the clerk of as “the seizure of any person for ransom, extortion, or
court. other unlawful purposes, or the taking away of the
property of another by means of violence against or
The judge, not knowing of the deal, proceeded to rule intimidation of person or force upon things or other
on the evidence and convicted the accused. unlawful means, committed by any person on any
Philippines highway.” Hence, the elements of highway
Malo was charged with violation of Section 3 (b), RA robbery are:
3019 which prohibits a public officer from directly or
indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, (a) Intent to gain;
share percentage or benefit wherein the public officer, (b) Unlawful taking of property of another;
in his official capacity, has to intervene under the law. (c) Violence against or intimidation of any person;
He was later charged also with indirect bribery under (d) Committed on a Philippine highway.
the RPC. Malo claims he can no longer be charged under
the RPC for the same act under RA 3019. Is he correct? To obtain a conviction for highway robbery, the
(2014 Bar) prosecution must prove that the accused were
organized for the purpose of committing robbery
A: No. One may be charged with violation of RA No. 3019 in indiscriminately. If the purpose is only a particular
addition to a felony under the RPC for the same delictual act, robbery, the crime is only robbery, or robbery in band
either concurrently or subsequent to being charged with a if there are at least four armed participants (See People
felony under the RPC. This is very clear from Section 3 of RA v. Mendoza, GR No. 104461, February 23, 1996).
3019. Also, RA 3019 is a special law, the elements of the
crime is not the same as those punished under the RPC. Q: Distinguish Highway Robbery under PD No. 532 from
Robbery committed on a highway. (2000 Bar)
ANTI-PIRACY AND ANTI-HIGHWAY ROBBERY (P.D. NO.
532) (2000, 2001, 2006, 2008, 2012 Bar) A: Highway Robbery under PPD 532 differs from ordinary
Robbery committed on a highway in these respects:
Q: A postal van containing mail matter, including
checks and treasury warrants, was hijacked along a (1) In Highway Robbery under PD 532, the robbery is
national highway by ten (10) men, two of whom, were committed indiscriminately against persons who
armed. They used force, violence and intimidation commute in such highways, regardless of the
against the three postal employees who were potentiality they offer; while in ordinary Robbery
occupants of the van, resulting in the unlawful taking committed on a highway, the robbery is committed
and aspiration of the entire van and its contents. only against predetermined victims;
(A) If you were the public prosecutor, would you (2) It is Highway Robbery under PD 532, when the
charge the ten (10) men who hijacked the postal offender is a brigand or one who roams in public
van with violation of Presidential Decree No. 532, highways and carries out his robbery in public
otherwise known as the Anti-Piracy and Anti- highways as venue, whenever the opportunity to do so
Highway Robbery Law of 1974? Explain your arises. It is ordinary Robbery under the RPC when the
answer. commission thereof in a public highway is only
(B) If you were the defense counsel, what are the incidental and the offender is not a brigand; and
elements of the crime of highway robbery that the (3) In Highway Robbery under PD 532, there is frequency
prosecution should prove to sustain a conviction? in the commission of the robbery in public highways
(2012 Bar) and against persons traveling thereat; whereas
A: ordinary robbery in public highways is only occasional
against a predetermined victim, without frequency in
(A) No. I would not charge the 10 men with the crime of public highways.
highway robbery. The mere fact that the offense
charged was committed on a highway would not be the ANTI-PLUNDER ACT (R.A. NO. 7080, AS AMENDED)
determinant for the application of PD No. 532. If a (1993, 2014)
motor vehicle, either stationary or moving on a
highway is forcibly taken at a gunpoint by the accused Q: Through kickbacks, percentages or commissions
who happened to take a fancy thereto, the location of and other fraudulent schemes/conveyances and taking
the vehicle at the time of the unlawful taking would not advantage of his position, Andy, a former mayor of a
necessarily put the offense within the ambit of PD 532. suburban town, acquired assets amounting to P10
billion which is grossly disproportionate to his lawful
In this case, the crime committed is violation of the income. Due to his influence and connections and
Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 (People v. Punk, GR No. despite knowledge by the authorities of his ill-gotten
97471, February 17, 1993). Moreover, there is no wealth, he was charged with the crime of plunder only
showing that the 10 men were a band of outlaws after twenty (20) years from his defeat in the last
organized for the purpose of depredation upon the elections he participated in.
persons and properties of innocent and defenseless
inhabitants who travel from one place to another. What (1) May Andy still be held criminally liable? Why?
was shown is one isolated hijacking of a postal van. It (2) Can the State still recover the properties and assets
was not stated in the facts given that the 10 men that he illegally acquired, the bulk of which is in the
previously attempted at similar robberies by them to name of his wife and children? Reason out. (1993
establish the “indiscriminate” commission thereof Bar)
35
CRIMINAL LAW
involving the infliction of physical harm resulting to the A: No. As long as the checks issued were issued to apply on
physical and psychological or emotional distress. account or for value, and was dishonored upon
Cumulative means resulting from successive addition. presentation for payment to the drawee bank for lack of
In sum, there must be “at least two battering episodes” insufficient funds on their due date, such act falls within the
between the accused and her intimate partner and such ambit of B.P. Blg. 22. Said law expressly punishes any
final episode produced in the battered person’s mind person who may have insufficient funds in the drawee bank
an actual fear of an imminent harm from her batterer within ninety (90) days from the date appearing thereon.
and an honest belief that she needed to use force in
order to save her life. (People v. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, Estafa (1989, 1998, 1990, 1991, 2005, 2010, 2013, 2014
January 15, 2004) Bar)
In this case, because of the battering episodes, Julia Q: B imitated the signature of A, registered owner of a
feared the onset of another violent fight and honestly lot, in special power of attorney naming him (B) as the
believed the need to defend herself even if Romeo had attorney-in-fact of A. On February 13, 1964, B
not commenced an unlawful aggression. Even in the mortgaged the lot to a bank using the special power of
absence of unlawful aggression, however, Battered attorney to obtain a loan of P8, 500. On the same day,
Woman Syndrome is a defense. Under Section 27 of RA both the special power of attorney and the mortgage
No. 9262, Battered Woman Syndrome is a defense contract were duly registered in the Registry of Deeds.
notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for
justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Because of B’s failure to pay, the bank foreclosed the
Revised Penal Code such as unlawful aggression. mortgage and the lot was sold to X in whose name a new
(Section 26, RA No. 9262) title was issued. In March 1974, A discovered that the
property was already registered in the name of X
BOUNCING CHECKS LAW (B.P. 22) (1987, 1990, 1991, because an ejectment case filed against him by X.
1995, 1996, 2009, 2010, 2013 Bar)
(a) If you were the lawyer of A, with what crime or
Q: As security for a loan of P50, 000.00 he obtained crimes would you charge B? Explain.
from his friend, Joseph David, payable not later than 17 (b) If you were the counsel of B, what would be your
April 1990, Roger Vasquez drew and delivered to defense? Discuss. (1993 Bar)
Joseph a check on due date. The check was dishonored
on the ground of insufficiency of funds. After A:
appropriate preliminary investigation, the City
Prosecutor filed against Roger an Information for (a) The crime committed is estafa thru falsification of
violation of B.P. Blg. No. 22 alleging therein, inter alia, public document.
that Roger “with intent to defraud, by means of deceit, (b) My defense will be prescription because the crime was
knowing fully well that he had no funds and/or committed in 1964 and almost twenty nine years had
sufficient funds in the bank, for value received, did then already elapsed since then. xxx
and there, willfully and feloniously, issue the aforesaid
check” but “when the said check was presented for Q: On March 31, 1995, Orpheus Financing Corp.
encashment, said check was dishonored and returned” received from Maricar the sum of P500, 000 as money
on the ground of insufficiency of funds. market placement for sixty days at fifteen (15) percent
interest, and the President of said Corp. issued a check
In a decision rendered thereafter, the trial judge ruled covering the amount including the interest due
that Roger cannot be convicted of the offense charged thereon, postdated May 30, 1995. On the maturity date,
because the information failed to allege that he knew, however, Orpheus Financing Corp. failed to deliver
when he issued the check, that he would have back Maricar's money placement with the
insufficient funds for its payment in full upon its corresponding interest earned, notwithstanding
presentment to the drawee bank. repeated demands upon said Corporation to comply
with its commitment. Did the President of Orpheus
Is the judge correct? (1991 Bar) Financing Corporation incur any criminal liability for
estafa for reason of the non-payment of the money
A: No. The allegation satisfies the legal definition of the market placement? Explain. (1996 Bar)
offense. The maker’s knowledge of insufficiency of his funds
is legally presumed from the dishonor of the check for lack A: No. The President of the financing corporation does not
of funds (People v. Lagui, 171 SCRA 305). incur criminal liability for estafa because a money market
transaction partakes of the nature of a loan, such that non-
Q: The accused was convicted under BP Blg. 22 for payment thereof would not give rise to estafa through
having issued several checks which were dishonored misappropriation or conversion. In money market
by the drawee bank on their due date because the placement, there is transfer of ownership of the money to
accused closed her account after the issuance of checks. be invested and therefore the liability for its return is civil
On appeal, she argued that she could not be convicted in nature.
under B.P. Blg. 22 by reason of the closing of her Q: A sold a washing machine to B on credit with the
account because said law applies solely to checks understanding that B could return the appliance within
dishonored by reason of insufficiency of funds and that two weeks if after testing the same, B decided not to buy
at the time she issued the checks concerned, she had it. Two weeks lapsed without B returning the appliance.
adequate funds in the bank. While she admits that she A found out that B had sold the washing machine to a
may be held liable for estafa under Article 215 of the third party. Is B liable for estafa? Why? (2002 Bar)
Revised Penal Code, she cannot however be found
guilty of having violated B.P. Blg. 22. Is her contention A: No. B is not liable for estafa because he is not just an
correct? Explain. (1996 Bar) entrustee of the washing machine which he sold; he is the
owner thereof by virtue of the sale of the washing machine
to him. The sale being on credit, B as buyer is only liable for
37
CRIMINAL LAW
39
CRIMINAL LAW
6. Those who shall have escaped from confinement or A: No. Macky is not entitled to the benefit of the
evaded sentence Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act 4103, as amended) for
7. Those who having been granted conditional having evaded the sentence which banished or placed him
pardon by the Chief Executive shall have violated on destierro. Sec. 2 of the said law expressly provides that
the terms thereof the law shall not apply to those who shall have “evaded
8. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment sentence”.
does not exceed one year, not to those already
sentenced by final judgment at the time of approval Q: Bruno was charged with homicide for killing the 75
of this Act, except as provided in Sec. 5 hereof year old owner of his rooming house. The prosecution
proved that Bruno stabbed the owner causing his
Q: Itos was convicted of an offense penalized by a death; and that the killing happened at 10 in the
special law. The penalty prescribed is not less than six evening in the house where the victim and Bruno lived.
years but not more than twelve years. No modifying Bruno, on the other hand, successfully proved that he
circumstance attended the commission of the crime. If voluntarily surrendered to the authorities; that he
you were the judge, will you apply the Indeterminate pleaded guilty to the crime charged; that it was the
Sentence Law? If so, how will you apply it? (1994, 1999 victim who first attacked and did so without any
Bar) provocation on his (Bruno's) part, but he prevailed
because he managed to draw his knife with which he
A: If I were the judge, I will apply the provisions of the stabbed the victim. The penalty for homicide is
Indeterminate Sentence Law, as the last sentence of Section reclusion temporal. Assuming a judgment of conviction
1 Act 4103, specifically provides the application thereof for and after considering the attendant circumstances,
violations of special laws. Under the same provision, the what penalty should the judge impose? (2013 Bar)
minimum must not be less than the minimum provided
therein (six years and one day) and the maximum shall not A: Bruno should be sentenced to an indeterminate sentence
be more than the maximum provided therein, i.e. twelve penalty of arresto mayor in any of its period to prision
years. correccional in its medium period as maximum. Bruno was
entitled to two privileged mitigating circumstances of
Q: When would the Indeterminate Sentence Law incomplete self-defense and the presence of at least two
(ISLaw) be inapplicable? (1999, 2003 Bar) ordinary mitigating circumstances (voluntary surrender
and plea of guilt) without any aggravating circumstance
A: The ISLaw is not applicable to: under Art. 69 and 64(5) of the RPC respectively, which
lowers the prescribed penalty for homicide which is
1. Those persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion temporal to prision correccional.
death penalty or life-imprisonment or reclusion
perpetua; JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT (R.A. NO. 9344,
2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to AS AMENDED, R.A. NO. 10630 AND IN RELATION TO
commit treason; P.D. 603) (1995, 2003, 2006, 2009, 2013 Bar)
3. Those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion,
sedition or espionage; Q: Victor, Ricky, Rod and Ronnie went to the store of
4. Those convicted of piracy; Mang Pandoy, Victor and Ricky entered the store while
5. Those who are habitual delinquents; Rod and Ronnie posted themselves at the door. After
6. Those who shall have escaped from confinement or ordering beer, Ricky complained that he was
evaded sentence; shortchanged although Mang Pandoy vehemently
7. Those who having been granted conditional pardon by denied it. Suddenly, Ricky whipped out a knife as he
the Chief Executive shall have violated the terms announced “Hold-up ito!” and stabbed Mang Pandoy to
thereof; death. Rod boxed the store’s salesgirl Lucy to prevent
8. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not her from helping Mang Pandoy. When Lucy ran out of
exceed one year; the store to seek help from people next door, she was
9. Those already sentenced by final judgment at the time chased by Ronnie. As soon as Ricky had stabbed Mang
of the approval of this Act; and Pandoy, Victor scooped up the money from the cash
10. Those whose sentence imposes penalties which do not box. Then Victor and Ricky dashed to the street and
involve imprisonment, like destierro. shouted, “Tumakbo na kayo!” Rod was 14 and Ronnie
was 17. The money and other articles looted from the
Q: How are the maximum and the minimum terms of store of Mang Pandoy were later found in the houses of
the indeterminate sentence for offenses punishable Victor and Ricky.
under the Revised Penal Code determined? (2002 Bar)
Are the minors Rod and Ronnie entitled to suspended
A: For crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, the sentence under The Child and Youth Welfare Code?
maximum term of the indeterminate sentence shall be the Explain. (1995 Bar)
penalty properly imposable under the same Code after
considering the attending mitigating and/or aggravating A: No. Because the benefits of suspension of sentence is not
circumstances according to Art. 64 of said Code. The available where the youthful offender has been convicted of
minimum term of the same sentence shall be fixed within an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua to death under
the range of the penalty next lower in degree to that Art. 294 (1), RPC (People v. Galit, 230 SCRA 486).
prescribed for the crime under the said Code.
Q:
Q: While serving his sentence, Macky entered the
prohibited area and had a pot session with Ivy (Joy’s (a) A was 2 months below 18 years of age when he
sister). Is Macky entitled to an indeterminate sentence committed the crime. He was charged with the
in case he is found guilty of use of prohibited crime 3 months later. He was 23 when he was
substances? Explain your answer. (2007 Bar) finally convicted and sentenced. Instead of
preparing to serve a jail term, he sought a
41
CRIMINAL LAW